text:
Is respect a form of ego?
If a warrior chooses to leave the battlefield, he will be humiliated by his country men therefore losing his respect. Buddhist monks have attained great peace even by letting go humiliation. Is this respect or social status an ego? Is it a part of human emotions just like happiness & sadness.
Does social status or respect exists?

If you read Pali suttas, you will see how Buddha says times and again, that people's opinion about a person is in large degree a reflection of person's virtue.
Basically, human ethics and Buddha-Dharma both stem from the same Reality or Truth of how things work, so naturally there is a large overlap. Things that are considered shameful by society are, for the most part, considered unskilful in Buddhism and vice-versa.
In the example of respect, the quality that is respected in society - such as consistency in applying one's (ethical) principles despite all kinds of distractions and pressure to the contrary, map to the quality of perseverance which is one of the Six Paramitas in Mahayana.
At the same time, since the end-goal of Buddhism differs from the end-goal of lay life, there are instances when the two systems disagree. In one of the (SN or AN) suttas Buddha said, it's easy enough to act skilfully when one gets approved by society, but only a wise person can uphold it when met with misunderstanding and blame. So clearly, Buddha was aware of the occasional conflict and insisted that in such cases the ethics of Dhamma must prevail.
Then, in Mahayana this is further analyzed in terms of the Two Truths: relative vs. absolute. From the perspective of the Absolute Truth, we clearly understand that the values of the relative truth are inherently pointless and purely conventional. So, for example, such a despicable act as cursing in public - is understood to be inherently empty - neither impure, nor pure. The ethical value of sounds is assigned entirely based on social convention. The sounds themselves are just that, sounds - and what may be offensive in one country could be a greeting in another.
Then again, from the perspective of the Relative Truth, our actions have real, objective effects. If someone is actually offended at our cursing, it is kinda pointless to argue whether the sounds have inherent meaning or not. The truth of the matter is, if you know that your acts will have certain effects, should you heed that or not? The answer is yes, of course.
Finally, from the perspective of the Unity of Two Truths, which is said to be the perspective of the enlightened mind, the conventional valuations existing on the relative level are understood to have grown from, or to have roots in, the Absolute Ground of All, so in that sense they are like shadows or echos of the truth, they are like reflections of The Law in pieces of broken mirror, not entirely valid, but not completely false either.
So, for example, respect in general, however conditional and superficial it may be, and regardless of the individual judgements made in all fairness or not, is still a reflection of something real that has an intrinsic value - the consistency of virtue, which is a reflection of the fundamental steadfastness and orderliness of Dharma ("Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands".)
In Tibetan Buddhism, especially in its most ancient Nyingma tradition, there is this deep respect for the wandering yogis famous for their complete and openly demonstrated disrespect for the social norms. In East Tibetan folklore there are numerous anecdotes about such yogis e.g. pissing in public and performing many other regrettable acts. The traditional moral of the stories is, the enlightened mind does not worry about the social morals, what it cares about is helping others progress on the Path, which is considered the higher virtue overriding the social norms.
At the same time, the fully enlightened mind of the Buddha is expected to be so infinitely skilfull, that its every single act is supposed to look valid and admirable from every possible point of view! Think about it, how cool is that? There may be infinitely many perspective on things in the universe and somehow Buddha is supposed to look perfect from every one of them. It's up to you to decide for yourself, whether you take this literally or as a didactic figure of speech, but the moral of the story for me is, the wiser and the more skilful we get, the less disagreement we generate with our acts - which kinda makes sense.
As for the ego question, of course Pride (in the sense of Conceit) arising from respect, and Self-Beating arising from Loss of Respect, are not the most healthy qualities of mind, according to Buddhism. Technically, both come from an idea of Self being valued high or low in the others' eyes, therefore from the ego. Not surprisingly then, learning to let go of the deeply ingrained attachment to saving one's "face" and the panical fear of being disgraced has traditionally been a big part of Mahayana's teacher/student relationship. At the same time, on the lower levels of virtue, Pride and Self-Beating could be useful motivators stirring the sentient being towards a better path, so in this sense they can be useful to a certain degree. Check out "hiri and ottappa" for the traditional take on this.
So, to summarise this overly long answer, the social conventions such as Respect and Shame are inherently empty, partially valid and useful on the relative level, ultimately to be transcended for oneself on the path to liberation, can sometimes be overridden by the higher-level Dharmic concerns, but are nevertheless never neglected even by the fully enlightened Buddhas because of their effects on the unenlightened minds.

This is a truly wonderful answer. It gives the three views and brings them together and this no easy thing to do. Respect! I'd upvote it a few times if I could.

Paying respect or veneration is an act of acknowledging greatness in a person. It has nothing to do with ego. But it can lead to ego if the recipient isn't mindful. On the other hand, if one's actions are directed by one's craving towards the joy that arises when one receives respect, it is very likely that ego is involved.
if a warrior fights a battle to gain praise from countrymen or avoid being put to shame, it is unwholesome. If a warrior leaves a battlefield because of his cowardice, it is unwholesome. But if a warrior leaves a battlefield knowing that the act of killing is evil and immoral, it is wholesome regardless of what the countrymen would think of him.

Thank you for replying, what I have understood is the expectations behind all actions is ego. They say, doing actions for good purpose is not ego. If the warrior did not fight knowing the violence involved, however the purpose of war is salvation of many, is it wholesome or unwholesome.

Ego is not the expectation behind all actions. But ego can be involved when doing actions for good as well. Not necessarily though. When the intention come to the mind to save people, it is wholesome. When the intention comes to the mind to kill, it is unwholesome. You have to understand that wholesome or unwholesome is just a momentary mind state. Both wholesome and unwholesome mindstates can arise in rapid succession during war.

I think that conformism, e.g. ...

Behaving like other people
Behaving as other people want you to
Also reacting to other people's expectations

... is a existent phenomenon.
This can be beneficial, e.g. ...

Teamwork, playing together (games)
Learning with and from each other (studying)
Cooperating (mundane work and commerce)
Harmlessness and compassion (within a loving family or society)

You might find it easier to keep any sort of discipline (not just on the "battlefield", but e.g. any kind of scheduled activity) when you're with other people who do and expect the same (see also e.g. SN 45.2).
That might, I'm not sure, be an example of where external social cohesion (i.e. cooperating with and "mirroring" other people) helps to overcome inner restlessness, and so experience "peace".
I suppose that, conversely, though, a social pressure to conform is not beneficial (e.g. if pressure is to do something that you don't want to do or shouldn't do). And in that case the "peace" (mentioned in the) OP might come from recognising and abandoning the 'craving' -- closing the gap between what people want you to do and what you actually do, not by doing what they want but by deciding to not accept their disapproval (see also SN 7.2) and possibly follow some other guide instead e.g. an independent sense of what's right.
You used the word "humiliation" rather than "disapproval". I think that "humiliation" might be a word which implies social comparison, for example, "I have become a low-status person by running away from battle" -- or perhaps a personal comparison, "I fell short of my image of myself as a warrior". I think that maybe all forms of comparison are defined in Buddhism as being a form of "conceit" or "pride" (see e.g. the answers to this topic) -- to answer the question, perhaps that is what people mean when they say "ego".
AN 4.159 says that conceit can be an instrument ...

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

What a "fart" (just to call the story by it "low-light")... things do not "exist" but arise by causes and decay. When there are still cause, it arises, dependent on the quality of the cause it might be even looking as existing.
Giving and gaining, losing of honor, respect, is one of the eight loka-dhammas, "around which the world turns around" (gain/win, lose, happiness, pain, praise, blame, honor, dishonor). While all are used as means of the path, especially the giving and letting go of making it ones one, an Arahat is total beyond this wordly- Dhammas, is not touched, and the steady abounding is a training of a sekkha. As an attribut of all eight kinds of Noble ones stinginess (holding on) in regard of honor (vanna-macchariya) is no more a matter. To be able to even reach Jhana, not to speak about Path and Fruits, all 5 kinds of macchariya (dwelling, family, honor, gains, dhamma) need to be absence.
Possible a famours Zen story takes honor and respect as a "fart" if holding on it. Not that one should underestimate the merits by giving (up) not only (material) gain. The deed in making merits, Abhivadana, or Apacāyana works exactly agains this "adornment" of mind, jey seldom practiced by moder/western "yogies".
It's how ever worthy to bring up, that the Buddha, after awakening, saw that it is burdensome to live without any dedication toward anything and he appreciated the suggestion of Deva-king Sakka to dedicate like all Buddhas before, his rest of existance toward the Dhamma, sacca. So "one can not totally without it" but it's a matter is wisdom toward what one sacrifices the 5 holding-on-aggregates and for what the rest of fuel is used.

Extended article on Respect and Veneration
Topic on BSE: Teachings regarding Veneration/Respect (as one of the traditional 10 meritorious deeds)
Kammic cause of shyness (for doing proper and bad veneration)
The Buddhas teachings of what it takes to be of lowest Cast (social status): An Outcast.

As Nyom Chris once cited a teaching of a Bhikkhuni of what is the matter with "identification/food", it's used to overcome it by the proper use according the path to liberation. It would be not smart to abound a constructive part of the raft before having grossed the river and especially to develope very gross factors, paths, like Giving, Virtue, this use is very needed, a good health self-estimate (better in regard of ones skilful deeds).
At least Venerables gift Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta is a very helpful guid to understand the use og "egos and not-egos" toward beyond.
[This gift of Dhamma, not for commercial purpose, trade, stakes or exchange for gains of ordinary wordily gain, which should be deleted in the case the place and owner does not allow or give such dedication]


text:
How to deal with ADHD and OCD like symptoms causing issues during meditation?
I am only 2 months into meditating and I've been having some problems.
I am unsure whether I truly have the behavioral/thought patterns that are considered ADHD and/or OCD, but for a while I've been noticing symptoms for a while now.
The problem I am having during meditation is I overthink things to the extreme. I start thinking about whether I am doing it right. Then I overthink so much that I can't even focus on anything else anymore. I have this problem with reading as well. I start thinking about whether Im reading properly and then my mind starts going into overdrive trying to make sure I do every single detail perfectly but instead my brain just fries up and I can't do anything anymore. Then frustration and doubt sets in and it gets even worse.
I know that this is an overall problem that I need to work on and fix. I am working on it. But I would really appreciate any tips on this for now as I feel it is quite a barrier in my process.
EDIT: I came to the realization that I need to remember that those "symptoms" or behavioral patterns are just thoughts accompanied by strong emotions. As with any other thought, acknowledge and let go.

You might find answers in some of these previous topics which mention ADHD (and so this question might be a duplicate)?

If you think you got ADHD or OCD you should seek professional help. Even if it turns out you don't suffer from these disorders talking to an expert could help you with your problem.

Hello, I'm about to convert this answer to a comment since it does not address the question from the perspective of Buddhist teaching and practice.

Most professional help is a temporary bandage rather than fixing the root cause. I believe that most mental "disorders" come from past experiences, especially traumatic ones. I link my symptoms to the fact that I had mentally abusive parents who judged and screamed at me for every little thing. My brain constantly trying to seek perfection seems to me to be a coping method to avoid further fear.

Firstly, you have to understand that Thoughts, Emotions and Behaviours are interconnected, meaning: If you change one of it, the other will usually follow.
Secondly, I would like to introduce to you to the ABC, where A stands for Adversity (either internally or externally),  B stands for Beliefs, and C stands for Consequences (which are thinking, behaving and feeling consequences that are spawned from these underlying beliefs). Most people jump from A -> C and neglect their beliefs.
Without going too deep, if you have a belief about uncomfort you have to tell yourself that it's hard to tolerate, but you can tolerate it and it's in your best interest to do so.
It's always about tolerating discomfort as well as thinking and behaving in a helpful way.
If you want to reduce fear or uncomfort, one needs to rehearse helpful thoughts before, in the midst and after the adversity and act according to these thoughts. This ensures that you are in a rational  frame of mind. This can be called uncomfort by acting
On the other hand, uncomfort by abstaining is a little bit different, but you still have to tolerate discomfort since you want to abstain from something because  -again-it is in your best interest to do so.
Usually, OCD patients are provided with behavioral and acceptance methods. Debating with thoughts in a long-winded fashion will just re-activate unhelpful beliefs, and that's precisely the reason why once you have reharsed your helpful thoughts you should then switch to an acceptance based focus, where you don't try to get rid or engage in your thoughts. Behavioral methods can be precisely like mentioned above (uncomfort by abstaining if you ruminate a lot, for example, you ask yourself the question: Does my rumination really change anything? I'm here in my room right now and ruminating won't change a thing. If you rehearse such thinking and behave in line with these thoughts, with time your beliefs will change.

My suggestion is that you trained (meditation) under a competent teacher.
If you do it your own make sure you have a full understanding of meditation methods. In that case, start your practice slowly.
Seek professional help if you think that you are not well.
Is meditation bad for you?
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=33016&p=491012&hilit=

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
"The number of dust on the earth could be counted..."
In the video documentary Go Beyond Samsara - Part 2, it mentions that Buddha had said:

"The number of dust on the earth could be counted, but the number of
  beings that had been one's parents is in no case calculable"

I'd like to see this in its fuller context. Where in the pali canon or other scriptures did the buddha say this and can you point me to it?
I have researched and I can only find similar biblical references like here.
Note: The video link above will play at the very moment in question.

From the context -- i.e. the video being maybe from Taiwan, and the message being about compassion towards animals -- I guess this could be from e.g. a Mahayana scripture and not the Pali canon.

@Chris - That's fine. I've added a Mahayana tag to widen the scope as I'd still like to see it in its context if, at all, it exists.

@Chris - I figure that by adding the Mahayana tag it would reduce the scope somewhat, so I've removed it and modified the question slightly.

Theoretically or usually, a tag like pali-canon or mahayana or etc. means that you want to restrict the topic to a specific source or tradition (I think that use of tags is described here). I think it's likely to be Mahayana, anyway maybe (since you're not sure of the source) you could delete all the tags and just add the [tag:reference-request] tag instead.

Try it just in your room and you may get the answer, in the dust case. There is a simile by the Buddha that one could meassure the size/amout of water in the great ozeans to empathize the meaning of immeasureable, "endless". The statement of unlimited relatives is also not totally correct. How ever, both matters (that in regard of relatives and that of "imperceptible", inconstruable, note that in different context) are touched here: Mata
[This is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for commercial purpose, trade, stake or any exchange for wordily gain and should be totally deleted, and gifts like that rejected, if the place does not allow Dhamma-Dana but possible uses it for such. Otherwise one would cheat the site owner.]

THe puthujjanas who created Mahayana and vajrayana love to claim that people you see around you could have been your parents or loved ones in a previous life.
From this, they embarrass themselves even more by inferring that ''therefore you must be nice to them'', so that they build their humanist ethic and feel good about themselves. As usual they confuse the sila of the dhama with humanism.
Their confusion stems from their confusion of the dependent origination of the 5 aggregates with the dependent origination that they invented which they called ''inter-being'' which is just the eastern humanism where people depend on each others.
Those puthujjanas prefer to care more about the thousands little objects and humans they see each day and slap the words sunnata and dependent origination on it Whereas the claim of the buddha is precisely that instead of caring about those objects, what matters is to see how conditioned the 5 aggregates are.
Puthujjanas who do not cling to mental masturbation already know that objects and livelihood are conditioned, and this knowledge doe snot get them enlightened, but a few intellectuals pass this dull, bland, common knowledge as being awaken.
The philosophers are the textbook case of overthinking, they focus on a few words and they build a new system around it, a new semantics, a new doctrine.
Their story begins with the a famous claim that what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta. THen a natural question by Puthujjanas is ''why are things anatta'' and of course, the answer is that ''things are anatta because it is the way they are''. IT is a disappointing answer, because it is a stupid question in the first place.
But of course, for the Puthujjanas who are intellectuals, this answer is not intellectual enough. No, what matter to those Puthujjanas is to put another ''...because XYZ'' after ''because they are anatta'': They claim that things are anatta because they are sunyata. They picked the word sunyataand blew it out of proportion, by using it on their deep craving to find an essence in things.
When those Puthujjanas run out of ideas to intellectualize further their views, they stop and claim that the last bit of their sequence of ideas is in fact how reality is, so it goes

idea A because idea B, idea B because idea C, .... , idea X because
  idea Y, idea Y because idea Z, and idea Z because reality is Z
  (expressed by idea Z). Which means ''Y because Z because it is the way
  it is, end of the story''

Now it turns out that the story imagined by those Puthujjanas does indeed stop  at sunyata:  things are sunyata because things are sunyata, because that is what things are, because it is the way things are.
And of course, those people love to feel smart for applying their fantasy to the most attractive word there is:

Nibbana (the Unconditioned) is anatta because nibanna is sunyata. And
  Why is nibanna sunyata? Nibanna is sunyata because nibanna is sunyata.

With the crown of their speculations being the fantasy that:

sunyata itself is sunyata

THis jewel of theirs is precisely what neuters their speculations. It puts a stop to the chain of ''because XYZ'' and adds nothing to the story.
Thus,  It is easy for those puthujjanas to claim that ''

If dependent origination is true, then my attainment of enlightenment is mutually dependent on the attainment of all other beings.

So their craving for slapping sunyata eveyrwhere is utterly useless. They had an extra word and they stop here. It is already bad to intellectualize, but intellectualizing further by adding a useless word is embarrassing. But at least they obtain what they craved all along, fantasizing a true nature of ''the self'', as if things had a true nature and a not so true nature.
Later on, they cannot help themselves from claiming that their intellectualization is the dhamma and even more embarrassing, that it is a better dhama than the one from what they call the ''pali canon'' today,
But the intellectuals do not stop here. Those puthujjanas crave so much speculating and basing their life on their fantasies that they picked another word and blew it out of proportion by mixing it with their favorite topic: craving to attribute an essence or a true nature to things that they perceive.
Their new and equally  toxic fairy tale is about applying what they read about dependent origination to their craving for true nature of things like the external object.
THe dependent origination is and always will be about the conditions for the birth of an aggregate and the condition for the death of an aggregate. Dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of the objects that Puthujjanas love to cling to and which live ''in reality'' like they say.
On the contrary, if there is ONE thing that the buddha does NOT focus on is precisely those stuff of what Puthujjanas call ''objective reality''. It is utterly useless and never conductive to nirvana.
In fact, Puthujjanas know very well that the objects they crave are fabricated. Puthujjanas know that the meal they cook is sunyata.Puthujjanas know very well that their car is sunyata, that clouds are sunyata. THey know that when they change the summer tires on their car, to put a winter tires, the drive-ability of the car changes a lot, that the fuel consumption changes a lot, to the point of driving a totally different car. They know that when they change the gearbox or the engine, the car no longer behaves like the car before to the point of being a different car. And knowing that all those objects are sunyata does not get them to stop being Puthujjanas, does not stop the cravings they have for the objects nor the craving they have to find the ''real nature'' of things. Knowing that a carrot is fabricated is not reaching nibanna.
The dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of a carrot nor the about the condition of the death of a carrot.
THe buddha and the bikkhus used the analogy of the fabricated chariot and the scent of the flower, the sound of a lute https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.205.than.html
 to talk about the 5 aggregates precisely because Puthujjanas know those objects and that the all those objects are fabricated. The fabrication of the chariot is not new to Puthujjanas. What is new to Puthujjanas is that the 5 aggregates are fabricated, just like their car is fabricated. This is the claim which is amazing.
Claiming that a carrot is sunyata is the most bland, common, vulgar claim for the Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkya-ditthi.
On the contrary, for the toxic Puthujjanas who love to pat themselves on the back for intellectualizing even more the few bits they read about the dhamma, the claim that a carrot is sunyata  is amazing, is deep, is the most profound revelation that there is.
The intellectuals find amazing what the Puthujjanas who do not create much views beyond sakkya ditthi do not find amazing at all.
it's like living in a builidng with many floors. Puthujjanas who know that the objects they fabricate are fabricated live on the floor 0, and the one who cannot help themselves from intellectualizing live on floor 100.
Puthujjanas who love to live up their dreams high at the floor 100 have completely forgotten that floor 0 exist. Then they pat themselves on the back for constructing a whole fairy tale leading them to discover that floor 0 have always existed. THen , the buddha lives at floor -1  and tells the Puthujjanas at floor 0 that there is a floor below them.
But it gets worst for those Puthujjanas clinging to rationalize that they experience. Because they exhaust themselves by struggling to fight their  views, they run out of energy when it is time to kill the lusts for the various 5 senses.
In fact, the most toxic Puthujjanas are not even interested in restraining their actions and prefer to claim that they already are awaken, because they delude themselves even more by creating the view that all that matters to reach nibanna is to have good intentions, so they go on carrying on their actions of Puthujjanas while building the fantasy that they have good intention while they are doing them. In order to express this new  view, that they love to pass as deep and pragmatic, They create the most moronic claim ever uttered by a deluded Puthujjana :

''Samsara is only nirvana seen from a place of confusion'' or  "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"?
They really feel smart and deep when they say that.
On the contrary, the Puthujjanas who already know that carrots are sunyata have zero need to kill the speculations created by the toxic Puthujjanas. The Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkyaditthi struggle the least to reach nibbanna. Those Puthujjanas are easy to talk to and the easiest way to make them ''understand'' that the 5 aggregates are conditioned is to talk to them and create analogies from their daily life with all those objects that they work so hard to fabricate and service. Those non-philosopers  Puthujjanas do not confuse samsara with nirvana. Those Puthujjanas do not get awaken by seeing that cars are fabricated, they get awaken by seeing that the 5 aggregates are conditioned which leads to the death of the lusts for the aggregates which kills the aggregates at least at parinibbanna, if not at nibanna.
The goal is not to see that a carrot is sunyata, nor that to see that a car is sunyata , nor that a sound is sunyata . The goal is only to see that the aggregates are sunyata which leads to see that  in the ''sound there is only the sound'' (an no other stuff like lust), to cognize the earth element as only the earth element, contrary to puthujjanas who cognize the earth element as earth element+sakkaya ditthi and later on, speculate on this sakkayaditthi and turn that into their numerous mistaken:

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed
  run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
  of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
  perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives
  [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives
  [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he
  delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I
  tell you.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

Overall your answer is largely unmelodious, based around finger-pointing and divisive. However, I understand that this is your perception and that you've made some interesting points.

"Unmelodious" is an interesting comment -- perhaps it's meant to be a bit ugly, to undo a rosy, self-satisfied view or self-view. I think it may be divisive if you identify with it -- "that's criticising me, that's me who is being criticised". Perhaps it's kinder to see it as well-intentioned and partially true. I think the effort is admirable (it's long and coherent, maybe unorthodox and lucid), and maybe it's no more hostile than is necessary for its message. I think it's less than ideal in three ways: 1) it doesn't literally answer the OP's question (it's tangential to the topic);

it's one-sided in that it doesn't identify what's good or helpful about the Mahayana doctrines; 3) it's not very 'constructive' criticism (i.e. having said that "humanist ethic", "intellectualising", "feeling smart", and so on are at best insufficient, it's not explicitly 'prescriptive' -- I think the 'prescription' latent in it is that "the dhamma teaches dependent origination of aggregates, and isn't a doctrine about the obvious emptiness/fabrication of so-called 'objective reality'" and "it's about killing lusts, not about congratulating yourself for good intentions").

It's kind of hostile towards whole schools of Buddhism ("The puthujjanas who created Mahayana and vajrayana love to claim etc.") which is forbidden on this site -- so if anyone complains about that then I might have to edit it somehow. Perhaps though, I don't know, people won't complain and will just see it for what it is. I think that criticisms of schools is often probably a mistake or made in ignorance ... there's a "rule" on this site that if you want to talk about a school's doctrine (e.g. Mahayana) then you should do so from within the perspective of that school.

I suspect that, ironically, perhaps the sunyata doctrine might be intended for "philosophers" as something of an antidote to (even a condemnation of) "intellectualising".

I dislike this post but am uncertain who it is attacking. It appears to attack just about everyone. The tone of the essay does not reassure me as to the authority of the author. A perfectly good Zen saying is called 'moronic' so I presume this is an attack on Zen. Is that it? Or is it an attack on the 'muggles'. If so it's cheap shot. Or is it an attack on the Mahayana view. If so I'm up for some fisticuffs. Nagarjuna is my hero. I'd vote to delete just for the unpleasantness.and lack of coherent argument. .   .

@ChrisW - it's fine here. I have extracted what I found to be helpful from the post but I understand that the post may have different impacts on other people.

"Very well, then, great king, I will question you in return about this very same matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think great king: Do you have an accountant or actuary or mathematician who can count the grains of sand in the river Ganges as 'so many grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of grains of sand' or 'so many thousands of grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand'?"
"No, lady."
"Then do you have an accountant or calculator or mathematician who can count the water in the great ocean as 'so many buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of buckets of water' or 'so many thousands of buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of buckets of water'?"
"No, lady. Why is that? The great ocean is deep, boundless, hard to fathom."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.001.than.html

Thank you. I don't see the quote from my question nor a variation of the quote from my question in the sutra you provided.

The Boddhisattva vow, for example, includes a statement that the number of beings is unbounded (perhaps uncounted or immeasurable).
References to "parents" are easy to find, especially context of not hurting animals -- for example ...

"All male beings have been my father and all females
  have been my mother. There is not a single being who
  has not given birth to me during my previous lives,
  hence all beings of the Six Realms are my parents."

... but I don't know and haven't found one which says that the dust could be counted.

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


text:
Devas' Mortality
As I understand, there is an acknowledgement of the expected lifespan within the respective deva worlds, though this differs among traditions.
I'm curious if there's any textual reference to devas' mortality. That is to say, can a deva's lifespan be cut short? I suspect that an asura or human with supernormal power could kill a deva (I believe there is reference to this in the vinaya regarding possession by yakshas). Is there any scriptural evidence to back this up?
Many thanks.

This story tells of a deva's child being harmed by an axe -- does that count?

Harm suggests the potential for death, but it still doesn't seem so clear-cut.

Deva can die by own angry mind. See Dha.A.2 appamāda-cittavagga Sāmāvatīvatthu (ghosakadevaputta).

A yakkha is a type of deva, that is tree-dwelling. They live in the plane of the Devas of the Four Great Kings (catumaharajika deva).
Udana 4.4 tells the story of a yakkha, who despite being warned by his mate, gave Venerable Sariputta the Arahant, a strong blow to the head. The yakkha immediately fell into the Great Hell.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Rājagaha at the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. And on that
  occasion Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna were staying in
  Pigeon Cave. Then, on a moonlit night, Ven. Sāriputta — his head newly
  shaven — was sitting in the open air, having attained a certain level
  of concentration.
And on that occasion two yakkhas who were companions were flying from
  north to south on some business or other. They saw Ven. Sāriputta —
  his head newly shaven — sitting in the open air. Seeing him, the first
  yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to give this contemplative a
  blow on the head."
When this was said, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of
  that, my good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
  outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
A second time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
  give this contemplative a blow on the head."
A second time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that,
  my good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
  outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
A third time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
  give this contemplative a blow on the head."
A third time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that, my
  good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
  outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
Then the first yakkha, ignoring the second yakkha, gave Ven. Sāriputta
  a blow on the head. And with that blow he might have knocked over an
  elephant seven or eight cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But
  right there the yakkha — yelling, "I'm burning!" — fell into the Great
  Hell.
Now, Ven. Moggallāna — with his divine eye, pure and surpassing the
  human — saw the yakkha give Ven. Sāriputta a blow on the head. Seeing
  this, he went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, said to him, "I hope
  you are well, friend Sāriputta. I hope you are comfortable. I hope you
  are feeling no pain."
"I am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a
  slight headache."
"How amazing, friend Sāriputta! How astounding! How great your power &
  might! Just now a yakkha gave you a blow on the head. So great was
  that blow that he might have knocked over an elephant seven or eight
  cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But all you say is this: 'I
  am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a slight
  headache'!"
"How amazing, friend Moggallāna! How astounding! How great your power
  & might! Where you saw a yakkha just now, I didn't even see a dust
  devil!"
The Blessed One — with the divine ear-property, pure and surpassing
  the human — heard those two great beings conversing in this way. Then,
  on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:

Whose mind, standing like rock,
    doesn't shake, dispassionate for
    things that spark passion,
    unprovoked by things that spark provocation:
    When one's mind is developed like this,
    from where can there come to him
    suffering & stress?


text:
If consciousness arises from mental formations is it correct to say that consciousness has a specific tone or opinions with it?
Example:
I see something moving, there's contact.
Then there's an unpleasant feeling and perception recognize it as a spider.
Mental formations on how to deal with the "threat" of a spider arises.
A new consciousness is born. Does it contain the mental formation that caused it to arise?
Thank you

What is meant by "contain" and at which chain do the "mental formations" come into play in this thought-model, Nyom Haldri87 ?

You might want to use the pali word fair clarity. Do you mean vinnana?

Good question. The way it was explained to me, the twelve nidanas are all "made" from each other, they are all made from the same "stuff". It's like when there is water, the wave on the water and the foam on top of the wave - they all "grow" from one another. Similarly, consciousness is "made from" mental formations and feelings/perceptions "grow from" consciousness like foam on top of the wave.
So when the "new" consciousness is "born" - yes, it certainly "contains" (rides on top of, made of) the mental formations that led to it. Which is one of the ways karma perpetuates itself.
Mental formations (aka "tendencies") define the overall shape of the future action in broad brushstrokes, and then consciousness, feelings, perceptions, craving, etc. get more and more specific until the action itself, which leads to some results, that manifest as new experience on the next cycle and so on - this is how "tendencies" perpetuate themselves.
Tendencies (formations), consciousness, attraction/aversion, and karma grow from each other and carry the impulse of each other, so Samsara keeps rolling forward like this.

If consciousness arises from mental formation...

Actually consciousness doesn't arise from mental formation. Mental formation "conditions" the arising of consciousness, but that doesn't mean it gives birth to consciousness. Consciousness together with its mental factors (feeling, perception, volition) have been compared to a king and his retinue. They always appear together. From Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma:

The cetasikas are mental phenomena that occur in immediate conjunction with citta or consciousness, and assist citta by performing more specific tasks in the total act of cognition. The mental factors cannot arise without citta, nor can citta arise completely segregated from the mental factors. But thought the two are functionally interdependent, citta is regarded as primary because the mental factors assist int he cognition of the object depending upon citta, which is the principal cognitive element. The relationship between citta and the cetasikas is compared to that between a king and his retinue. Although one says "the king is coming" the king does not come alone, but he always comes accompanied by his attendants. Similarly, whenever a citta arises, it never arises alone but always accompanied by its retinue of cetasikas.

I think when OP said "mental formations" he meant "samskara", not "cetasika" - since he spoke in context of the five skandhas... Let's wait and see what he says though.

It was tagged 'pratityasamutpada' so I thought it was talking about what becomes or is born in the context of the 12 nidanas.

Eye contact is caused by the union on eye+light+eye consciousness. So the consciousness is already there to begin with. It's not something that arises later.
Consciousness is of six kinds:

Eye consciousness
Ear consciousness
Nose consciousness
Tongue consciousness
Body consciousness
Mind consciousness

Feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness arise together. Not one after the other. Think of it as drinking chocolate milk. What do you taste first? Is it the chocolate? Is it the milk? Is it the sugar? Or do you taste them altogether? In this analogy, think of the consciousness as the water in chocolate milk. Water has no taste unless there is something mixed in it. In the same way consciousness is neutral and simply the bare awareness of the experience.

Sir, what if there's no light? Still the eye contact can be happen? Can eye consciousness arise without light?

Then it would be just 'consciousness'. This is why you close the eyes when meditating, to shutoff a sense that can be very distracting.

@Sanka Kulathantille Sir, but still we can take the darkness as the object for eye consciousness. Am I correct?

That's an interesting question, because darkness is simply the lack of light. It's not a color. This would be similar to asking if there can be ear consciousness, when it's totally silent.

I would say, it's simply the mind being aware of the lack of sensory input and not actually seeing or hearing.

@Sanka Kulathantille Sir, If there is no light, there will be no Pañcadvārāvajjana citta arise for the eye door. Hence we see darkness through our mind. This is a really interesting matter to think about. Thank you for the answer!

You are welcome! But I'm not sure is there is no Pañcadvārāvajjana citta. Because even if it is pitch black, the darkness is perceived where the eyes are. You cannot perceive darkness at the feet or hands. So I'm guessing there is a difference between the experience of a person who has no eyes and the experience of a normal person when there is no light.


text:
What do Buddhists think in quick prayers (at graves, near altars etc.)?
When declared Buddhists and Eastern Asians in general quickly pray next to graves and altars in silence, what kinds of thoughts go on their minds? Of course, it's not possible to read people's minds, but how are they taught to pray  in such occasions and places?  I'm curious especially about non-practicing Buddhists who aren't very religious in general and may not know things like mantras by heart, but still do that.

Respect toward those having prepared ones ways, those having been there first as well as those more sublime, such mindsetting of respect and gratitude can only lead upwards, possible beyound. Sadhu and mudita.

May this encouragement be of use jere and everywhere  to be at least also grateful about ones past deeds having leaded to meet such ways of thinking: The Lessons of Gratitude.

I think nice thoughts about the departed and wish them well,(etc) and reflect on how I'll be joining them soon, impermanence and all that. You ask what Buddhists are taught to pray but they are not taught to pray in the Sunday school sense of the word. Prayer would be communion. Not a long-distance chat with God but more like the prayer of Evagrios the Solitary, a Christian monk who knew his onions.

I'm not Eastern Asian but I'd guess that the brahmaviharas would be appropriate -- including e.g. "may you be well", and mudita in the form of "recollection of virtue".

I've read that a common phrase is ...

Anicca vata sankhara — "Impermanent, alas, are all formations!" — is the phrase used in Theravada Buddhist lands to announce the death of a loved one [but I have not quoted this line here in order to begin an obituary].

You said you didn't want a mantra but here is a longer quote -- it's not very long.

Aniccā vatha sankhārā
    Uppāda vaya dhamminō
    Uuppajjitvā nirujjhanti
    Te san vūpa samō sukhō
(Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta)

This verse is actually not in the Dhammapada, but it is a very common verse. In Sri Lanka (and possibly in other Buddhist countries), it is displayed at funerals in order to emphasize the “fleeting nature” of life. It actually has a much deeper meaning, and explains why we face sorrow inevitably (because death is inevitable), and how it can be permanently removed to attain the Nibbānic bliss.
This verse is said to have been uttered by Sakka, the King of the Dēvas, just after the Parinibbāna (passing away) of the Buddha.
A common translation is:

All things are impermanent
    They arise and pass away
    Having arisen they come to an end
    Their coming to peace is bliss

I don't know whether there are "prayers" as a Western theist (e.g. "Abrahamic religion") might understand that word -- see e.g. Paccha-bhumika Sutta (SN 42.6) -- so I think it's a person's own virtue that's important, rather than intercessionary prayer -- though there are different schools of Buddhism, some of whom pray (e.g. here) though perhaps not for the same reason as a theist.
I think it is common too (in some cultures anyway) to make some offerings to ghosts -- there's a popular ghost festival. I'm not sure but I think that the Theravada teaches that the "ghost realm" is one of the states (of suffering) into which someone way be reborn, and that the only way they can eat there is if someone is kind enough to remember to share their food with them.


text:
Seventy Topics - 6*6 = 36 paramitas
In our local group we are working with Dön Dün Chu, the 70 points (from Abhisamayalankara) by Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsan .
In I.7 (putting on the armor) the 6 paramitas are mentioned. It is said that they interlock in a cross product, meaning there are actually 36 resulting traits to consider in your practise.

generosity, giving of oneself (sbyin-pa)
virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (tshul-khrims)
patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (bzod-pa)
energy, diligence, vigor, effort (brtson-’grus)
one-pointed concentration, contemplation (bsam-gtan)
wisdom, insight (shes-rab)

Now, I have my problems understanding two things: where is the difference between n*m and m*n? And what is n*n (reflexive)? I could not find any sources on that and my teacher had no time to answer this in detail.
The reflexive relations only make sense to me as in "generosity in general" for example but I heard there is more to it. Maybe I need starting help as in how to connect each point with the others.

where is the difference between n*m and m*n?
I don't know about this Buddhist doctrine, but relations like these are distinguished/distinct in the I ching for example -- e.g. heaven over mountain versus mountain over heaven.
The hexagrams include the reflexive too, e.g. heaven over heaven and mountain over mountain.
Perhaps (this is just my guess) the difference is that one is the basis for the other -- e.g. "because of virtue, you are generous" versus "because of generosity, you are virtuous" (or if not "because of" then "based on" or "conditioned by", or something like that).

At first glance, this looks like an algebraic expression for practicing the paramitas. If n * m and m * n were distinct, then there would be 72 resulting traits. If there are only 36, that implies that these equations are the same and interchangeable.
As for n * n, I can't say for certain, but if you look at it like a formula, n * n = n^2. If you "square" your own application of a quality, you are doubling its power and reinforcing it's imprint onto your own habits and routines. If you think you've gone deep enough, then you have to go deeper.

I think you misunderstood the question, what the OP meant by "the difference between n*m and m*n". How many ways are there of combining 6 things, how many possible pairs are there? The answer is 36: i.e. "any of 6" multiplied by "any of 6". However that answer (36 pairs) assumes that sequence is significant, e.g. that "A+B" and "B+A" are two different pairs, and it assumes that a self-pair like "A+A" or "B+B" is a valid pair -- and that's what the question is asking, i.e. "my teacher said 36" however "how is A+B different from B+A?" and "what's the meaning of a reflexive pair (a self-pair)"?


text:
Why does one suffer because of ignorance if ignorance is unintentional?
It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant of what causes them suffering, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway.
How is a person supposed to "freely/willingly choose" insight/knowledge if that choice is dependent upon already having some insight/knowledge? Are the persons choices before choosing insight/knowledge completely at random? Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?
I think this may be another unanswerable question.

Why does the hot iron burn your hand if you touch it not knowing that it is hot?

It's intentional though. So, your question is not correct. Just because one is unaware doesn't mean it's not intentional. Habitual ignorance is ignorance too.

No, when children reach for a hot iron on the stove they are ignorant of the hotness of the iron. They have absolutely no intention of getting burnt or suffering yet they do. The suffering arises dependent upon the ignorance of the hot iron

I don't know, I'm not sure what your background is -- I think the question would make sense, if you assume that "suffering" is a punishment imposed by God for sinning, i.e. for deliberately breaking (for "deliberately choosing" to break) one of God's commandments when you should have known better -- perhaps you're arguing that if you don't know then you are innocent and therefore shouldn't suffer.
I think a better analogy is something more like cancer, or any other apparent misfortune -- e.g. people suffer and die because they don't know how to cure it -- it isn't a question of whether it's fair (nor of divine punishment), it's a question of whether you've learned the insight and skill, maybe the habits, to undo the cause or to not do it in the first place.
Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?
I think they have a little. There's a sutta -- Chiggala Sutta: The Hole (SN 56.48) -- which suggests that we are fortunate to have been born human and in a time or place, where we can learn the Buddha's Dhamma.
Some people teach not only that the opportunity (to learn to practice) is rare, and nt only that we're fortunate to have access to the Dhamma, but also that it (i.e. the opportunity and the liberating effects) is a reason in itself for us to be happy.

Perhaps that's somewhat debatable though, a matter of perspective. Some people argue against the doctrine of "free will", saying that the physical world just does what it does and continues to do that, and that "people" are just conditioned i.e. that everything they do or think is just conditioned by one thing or another. I think that "free will" probably isn't a Buddhist doctrine -- but other people say (e.g. here) that an "exercise of free will" is "what makes Buddhist practice possible".

"Sometimes our ignorance is simply a matter of not pointing our attention in the right direction. Other times it’s more willful. There are certain things we don’t want to see, and so we erect firewalls in our minds. We put up stage sets to hide from ourselves. Part of us knows that we’re doing this, and yet part of the mind’s agreement is to pretend that we don’t. This way we block off unpleasant things, most of which are things we’ve done in the past that caused harm. Especially when they were things we knew would cause harm but we went ahead and did them anyway: That’s where we try to block things thoroughly. If this is a habit with us, those firewalls get thicker and thicker, and our willful ignorance becomes a bigger and bigger problem in our minds.

"We tend to think of ignorance, or avijja, in very abstract terms — not knowing the four noble truths, not knowing dependent co-arising, not knowing the Deathless — but you can’t chip away at those forms of ignorance until you’ve chipped away at the more blatant, immediate ones: the mind’s habit of disassociating, of leaving gaps in its inner conversation. Say you decide to do something unskillful. If you had a sense of the Buddha watching over your shoulder all the time, it would be harder to do it, so you erect a barrier in the mind as if there were no Buddha in the world, never had been a Buddha, no arahant disciples. Then all kinds of unskillful actions are possible in the world remaining in your mind. But those walls can’t stay forever. They have to come down. And then you expend a lot of energy into putting them back up again.

"We develop alertness in the meditation for the purpose of drilling through those walls, tearing them down, letting them collapse. Then, when they’re down and we can really see, we use equanimity to gauge for ourselves where we actually have been skillful and where we haven’t. That way we can learn from our mistakes. As the Buddha once said, “One of the signs of wisdom is in seeing your own foolishness.” At least that’s the beginning of your quest for knowledge, your quest to overcome ignorance. And the foolishness here is not that you don’t know a particular Buddhist teaching; it’s simply that you aren’t sensitive to what you’re doing or to the results of what you’re doing. We have the power to shape our experience and yet for the most part we use it in ways that cause unnecessary suffering. This, according to the Buddha, is the biggest danger in our lives: not what other people may do to us, but what we can do through our actions to ourselves.

"This is why he focuses the Four Noble Truths on the suffering that comes from craving and ignorance. There’s a natural stress in the fact that things change, but our real problem is that we create extra suffering through our craving and ignorance. As long as we have the habit of putting up walls in the mind, we’re in a position where we can’t even trust ourselves to do the right thing, not even for our own good. That’s scary.

"Decades ago an Alaskan shaman was interviewed by an anthropologist about his tribe’s religious beliefs. The shaman went along with the anthropologist’s questions for a while, but then finally noted, “It’s not what we believe that matters,” he said. “It’s what we fear. That’s what matters.” And a lot of the Buddha’s teachings come right down to this: What is there to fear? What should we fear? Our own misuse of our power to shape our lives, that’s what. His teachings are designed to help us learn and use that power more wisely. And that means breaking down those firewalls, those closed-off compartments in our mind that allow us to do unskillful things."

The Walls of Ignorance by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Hi. To make a post look neater, you can place the title of a quote into square brackets [ ] then next to the square brackets places the link into curved brackets ( ). Title.

Thank you for this. :)

I agree with ChrisW here. Your question implies that you take it personally, while in reality it is an impersonal process. What seems like "you" and "your suffering" (as well as all other sentient beings with their respective experiences) arises from an accumulation and "clumping" of tendencies.
In the beginning these tendencies don't have any awareness, but over time they develop into something that can reflect and think, and once there is thinking, it starts generating all these ideas about how things are, how things should be, with suffering arising when they don't match.
But of course, only when there's thinking, there begin some attempts to analyze the situation, and to solve the problem of things being wrong. So thinking is both the source of the problem as well as the way to finding solution. While the situation before thinking is both ignorance and bliss, the primordial Eden without the conflict between right and wrong.
In the early phases of this evolutionary process, the emerging intelligence does not have any capacity for deliberate action. Think about a young child, can it plan its own destiny and decide where it's going? Then, as the intelligence matures, it grows stable and learns to plan ahead and execute its plans step by step. Of course, before it gets wise it keeps making all kinds of bad judgements and suffers their consequences. Why is that a surprise to you?

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

It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway.

The arising of ignorance comes from that mysterious "neutral feeling".

There are three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling
  ...
  Anything felt physically or mentally as neither pleasurable nor painful.
  This is neutral feeling.”
  --MN44

In particular, we have:

The underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.

Consider what happens when we see someone who is neither pleasant or painful. When we see such a person, we have a neutral feeling. Having that neutral feeling, we might say to ourselves, ¨Meh. Don't know and don't care". In this way we choose ignorance.
However we can also see deeper, directly know the person, wish them well and even greet them with a warm-hearted "Hello!". In this way we choose metta and wisdom over ignorance.
If one finds that indifference is a habitual response to neutral feelings, one may consider inquiry with enthusiasm as part of one's practice.

Edited to add reference to immersion with enthusiasm.

I have asked a similar or almost exactly the same question previously on this platform albeit with some Buddism lingua (link).
Please see the excellent answer given by @Mishu 米殊 crowned with her excellent statement " Volition the ability to discern doesn't get hindered by ignorance, although ignorance prevented it from knowing the correct answer immediately.
As Plato said " we are all deprived of truth against our will" but we can seek it following the path directed by the Buddha or if we have a superior capacity following our own reasoning.

Isn't not knowing the correct answer immediately a hindrance.... Sure seems like it to me...

If that was true there won't be any discovery or progress at all, and if on the contrary, if we know everything immediately then we are all enlightened! Not knowing the truth immediately is to be overcome by insight/reason/ recollection whatever name we give our ability to discern.

Great minds think alike :). It is rare, in particular - this forum, that someone is with the capacity to think and discern independently, intelligently and philosophically, instead of copy & paste the Sutta or quoting their teachers. I wonder if you would enjoy this too

Thanks a mil @Mishu 米殊 for sharing your blog, I have read one of your posts and it's sure intriguing... I have decided to savor the rest slowly :).  I agree with your remark about the need to inquire and think critically, but to do so we need that burning confusion within which most of us are lacking or even if we had it when we're young it gets dimmer against the prevailing misology from all corners.

It is so, it is so. The interesting part is, we are the awaken looking at ourselves in the mirror, wondering who that is. Until we realize what we are looking at is a mirror, we know that in it that's us. That's called enlightenment, I think. This is how I go thus far. It's wonderful to have someone capable to exchange thoughts, I've long been deprived of that, my friend :)

If you look closely , having ignorance and doing things are not always random. And you have freedom or limited freedom depending upon the situation. Suppose I give you a choice of coffee or tea , then what will you choose? You may choose tea because you dislike coffee. You may choose coffee because your girlfriend or boyfriend loves coffee. You may reject both because you think it is not a proper etiquette for the situation. You may choose unpredictably (not randomly) coffee or tea because coffee has a double ff or tea sounds like T. You may roll a dice to choose tea or coffee( this is random in the scientific sense).
The same applies to day to day to life. Some decisions we make have various causes , few decisions are unpredictable and some are random.
Choice means volitional formations.
What happens when volitional formations arise ? It results in consciousness. What happens when consciousness arise ? Name and form arises. What happens when name and form arises? It results in combination of six senses. What happens when there is a combination of six senses ? Contact of six senses arise. What happens when contact of six senses arise ? Feelings dependent on six senses arise. What happens when feelings arise ? Craving arises. What happens when craving arises? Clinging arises. What happens when clinging arises ? Attachments arise. What happens when attachments arise ? Becoming arises. What happens when becoming arises ? Birth , Ageing and Death of sorrow , lamentation , pain, disgust ,sadness,anxiety etc , and the whole mass of suffering arises.
But what led to volitional formations in the first place? Ignorance.
What is ignorance? Ignorance means understanding Dhammas as self. Ignorance means understanding Sankhara are permanent. Ignorance means understanding Sankharas as Sukkha.
Whereas ,
Cessation of ignorance means cessation of volitional formations, cessation of volitional formations means cessation of consciousness, cessation of consciousness means cessation of name and form. Cessation of name and form means cessation of cessation of six senses. Cessation of six senses means cessation of contact. Cessation of contact means cessation of feelings . Cessation of feelings means cessation of cravings . Cessation of cravings means cessation of clinging. Cessation of clinging means cessation of attachments. Cessation of attachments means cessation of becoming. Cessation of becoming means cessation of birth , ageing and death of sorrow, pain ,disgust , lamentation, anxiety ,etc and the whole mass of suffering.

volitional formations arise ? It results from consciousness

@DhammaDhatu That can be disputed but I am doing research into this. Also how can ignorance arise if there is no consciousness. I  will post the link to the translation of dependent origination.

One suffers because of ignorance through the lack of seeing. The kind of seeing that is needed to traverse ignorance is obscured by an internal map of reality and that view is biased and distorted to suit your conditioned state. That reality is basically made of all of the inaccurate information that has come through your six senses (this part can get extremely detailed - Abhidharma casts some interesting light upon this). One small way I can describe this is to notice the illusion below.

What should have happened is the mind is initially fooled by the illusion but if one chooses to further inspect the image one will see the finer constituents that make up that illusion. However, imagine this illusion as being your view of reality but instead of choosing to inspect and examine it, you just accept its initial appearance (ignorance).
Reality is the same. The only difference with penetrating the illusion above and penetrating into reality is the degree of chronological time it takes.

How is a person supposed to "freely/willingly choose" insight/knowledge if that choice is dependent upon already having some insight/knowledge?

For me, the only dependant part is switching focus - that is the choice. That's all you need, the willingness to want to pick it all apart. The rest just shows itself and often in some quite peculiar ways. Like in the illusion above, the knowledge to see how it works is already there, one just has to apply focus to see it for what it is.

Are the persons choices before choosing insight/knowledge completely at random?

For the most part, I'd say yes. The motivating governors are stored in their alaya consciousness..

What kind of insane reality is this??

If you're referring to a reality beyond concept it's incomprehensible to the finite constructs of the conceptual mind.

Not to the conceptual mind but concept is useful if applied rightly.

It becomes quite tricky here because to understand true reality from a conceptual frame of reference one has to reduce true reality into words and abstractions thus the very essence has been removed.

You can only see this knowledge by watching how you interface with the world; how you suffer. You are the vehicle by which the insight takes place so I can only refer you back to yourself.

The short answer is that the path is not about choices, nor even sankaras [there is no sammāsaṅkhāra], it is about effort to reject ''thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness'' and to follow ''thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness '' [and avoiding the confusion by a few puthujjanas of the ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma'' with ''the kamma that is bright with bright result''] by ''Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.'' https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html  which leads to  ''right samadhi'' instead of wrong samadhi
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
But later on the training, those efforts become easier and the path is not even about wishing nor effort. Ideally, the path does not resort on ''exertion'' or wishes, or will, because the path is conditioned too, https://suttacentral.net/an11.2/en/sujato , and once a puthujjana only wants to stop dukkha, the observation that ''thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.''' kills the bad thoughts automatically.
And when the ''body was calm & unaroused'', the ''mind concentrated & single. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities,'' the jhanas occurs naturally, through the joy of being moral and having sama sankappas [or vitakka] : saṅkappas of nekkhamma, saṅkappas of abyāpāda, saṅkappas of avihiṃsā. http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn45-008.html
Puthujjanas fail completely to  see that joy springs from morality and renunciation. Puthujjanas also confuse the sama sankappas with compassion and love, because those puthujjanas are stuck between their moronic dichotomy of egotism-selflessness and they create the view that the negation of ''thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness'' is the sankara which leads to ''the kamma that is bright with bright result'' which the sankara of compassion and unconditional love and feeling sad that destitute puthujjanas do not have the means to enjoy themselves. These puthujjanas completely skip the ''intention, aspiration, thought, resolve, of sensual desire''... and thus fails to ''understand the reward of renunciation,'' https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html which is exactly what is needed to get into jhana.
once this is done, there is control over the citta:

**'Monks, endowed with seven things, a monk makes the mind turn according to his wish and turns not by the mind's wish.[1]
What seven?
Herein, monks, a monk is skilled in samadhi, skilled in attaining it,
  skilled in maintaining it, skilled in emerging from it, skilled in the
  well-being of it, skilled in the range of it, skilled in applying
  it.[2]
Verily, monks, endowed with these seven things a monk makes the mind
  turn according to his wish and turns not by the mind's wish.**

https://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/07_sevens/an07.038.olds.bd.htm#p1
A few puthujjanas are obsessed with the word agency and choices and what they call ''the doer'' when they speculate about atta and anatta, especially the puthujjanas who created their ''dry insight'' doctrine. THose people are obsessed with vibrations and ''lack of agency''.
They created 4 paths. Each path is an awakening by what they call ''a cessation'' and the path 4 is nibanna when the ''lack of agency'' becomes manifest.
As usual with anything imagined by puthujjanas, it has nothing to do with the dhamma. A sotapanna knows already perfectly this ''lack of agency''.
Words like "freely/willingly choose" and determinism are bad words created by puthujjanas who cling to philosophy, to vitakka+vicara+papanca, be it ''buddhist'' or not, then they create their moronic dichotomies, like ''free will''-determinism and then they mix their dichotomies with morality, only to be left stuck on one side of their dichotomy [they love to polarize their opposite ideas, like ''choosing'' is good and ''not choosing'' is turned into ''suffering''[meaning bearing something], into 'enduring'' something [that is not willed] which means it is bad].
Do not rely on ideas created by puthujjanas to understand the dhamma, until you manage to find a buddha who expresses the dhamma with their words...
Most of the ideas of the puhtuhjannas are bad and when the dhamma is expressed with their words, the buddha use their words against them. Like the fire worshipers that the buddha met, mentioned in ''the fire sermon''. THose puhtujjanas worshiped fire, reified fire, idealized it, they created a whole doctrine about the cosmos with the vocabulary of fire.  Then the buddha arrives and tell them that fire is bad and the holy life is to destroy this fire. hence nirvana has the putting out of fire.
There were puthujjanas in greece who said that ''everything was water''. If the buddha met them, he would have said ''yeah everything is water, and water is bad and the goal is to dry everything that is wet'' [typically, to dry the flow of asavas].

Your answer would have been quite skilled if there was less finger pointing. Your overuse of 'they', 'their' and 'those' diluted the answer somewhat, almost like you became lost in a crusade... or something.

Yes, ignorance is unintentional & ignorant people do not have any freedom or autonomy.
Insight knowledge is something developed from the intention to develop the Noble Eightfold Path.

This Noble Eightfold Path comes to fulfilment in him by development.
When he develops this Noble Eightfold Path, the four foundations of
mindfulness also come to fulfilment in him by development; the four
right kinds of striving also come to fulfilment in him by development;
the four bases for spiritual power also come to fulfilment in him by
development; the five faculties also come to fulfilment in him by
development; the five powers also come to fulfilment in him by
development; the seven enlightenment factors also come to fulfilment
in him by development. These two things—serenity and insight—occur in
him yoked evenly together. He fully understands by direct knowledge
those things that should be fully understood by direct knowledge.
MN 149

Why does one suffer because of ignorance if ignorance is unintentional?

Ignorant must arising with intention.
Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sabbāsavasaṃvarasuttaṃ:

when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.
It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant
of what causes them suffering, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance
anyway.

Ignorant is "no noble truth knowledge enough to detach from all clinging aggregates".  ignorant is not avoiding. It is foolish, blank of noble truth practicing. See Sutta. Saṃ. Ma.

How is a person supposed to "freely/willingly choose" insight/knowledge if that choice is dependent upon already having some insight/knowledge?

The ordinary people never have any insight/knowledge of anattā before they have chance to practice follow Buddhā.
And the knowledge/insight is just four noble truth, which was adapted to be the dependent origination, five aggregates, etc.

Are the persons choices before choosing insight/knowledge completely at random? Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?

It depend on their level, not random. All experience, past life, friends, job, etc., are effect the practitioner. See netti.

I think this may be another unanswerable question.

Everything can answer by pāli and abhidhamma.


text:
Did Lord Buddha teach any other meditation technique than the Anapana?
Meditation and cultivating awareness is the heart of Buddhism. You need meditation for attaining jhanas and also for doing Vipassana, metta bhavana...
So as far as I've discovered, the only meditation that Lord Buddha taught was sitting and watching the breath. But nowadays many masters and mystic have very different techniques for different kind of people. Because not all people has the same temperament and cannot go into trance by just one single method. And as tathagata also had so many different disciples, did anapana worked for all of them and all of them attained jhanas, stillness of mind, etc. by practicing anapana alone or there was other meditation techniques, if so what are these techniques?
P.s. I know about walking meditation, loving-kindness and other awareness meditations explained in satipatthana but they are not specifically techniques. What I'm looking for is the sitting meditation techniques when anapana does not work.

This is most surprising that anapana is not working for you. Without breath we die. Observing the breath is simply observing life. Please explain how anapana is not working for you.

it doesn't. even after a 2 hour sitting my mind does not calm done and I don't anything even near a jhana or even a concentrated mind and I'm not new to this.

Do you observe the five precepts?

yes, I kept my sila for a long time

Maybe these sources are useful for you: http://www.hillsidehermitage.org/notes-on-meditation/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJDQT3a880&list=PLUPMn2PfEqIwVSzQQ4sWzo-AsAfPgxcPs&index=8

You sit for two hours like a log and expect to reach samadhi? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but your expectation of meditation as "technique" is completely, utterly wrong. You can't achieve Nibbana, Enlightenment, Liberation, or however you call it, by sitting and mechanically doing something pointless - this is not how it works.
Meditation is cultivation. Buddhist meditation is cultivation of cessation of dukkha. This cultivation is gradual, step by step - from coarse to fine.
In your meditation you should cultivate cessation of dukkha by cultivating:

non-arising [anuppādāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
abandonment [pahānāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
arising [uppādāya] of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
maintenance [ṭhitiyā], non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen.

How exactly you do this? By following anapanasati sutta:

Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.
  Breathing in, I calm my whole body. Breathing out, I calm my whole body.
  Breathing in, I make it joyful. Breathing out, I make it joyful.
  Breathing in, I make it happy. Breathing out, I make it happy.
  Breathing in, I make my mind happy. Breathing out, I make my mind happy.
  Breathing in, I concentrate my mind. Breathing out, I concentrate my mind.
  Breathing in, I liberate my mind. Breathing out, I liberate my mind.

In other words, as you sit there and breath, you should deliberately focus and apply effort to step by step abandon the evil unskilful qualities:

Craving for physical pleasures
Craving for emotional pleasures
Craving for mental pleasures
Craving for praise and approval
Craving for your body to be different
Craving for your mind to be different
Craving for your life situation to be different
Craving for the world to be different
Negativity
Self-beating
Worry that what you are doing is not perfect enough.

and you should specifically focus and deliberately apply effort to generate skillful qualities:

Faith or Motivation to continue this practice
Energy or Good Mood
Mindfulness or Remembering these instructions
Concentration or Stable Mind
Wisdom or Understanding How Mind Works
Confidence
Tranquility

You can do all this through:

Talking to yourself
Thinking about certain things
Remembering certain things
Imagination and visualization
Reviewing and re-evaluating your past experience
Reviewing your attachments and letting go
Reviewing your preconceptions and letting go
Looking at your breathing and letting go
Looking at your psychosomatic feelings in the body and working directly with them
Looking at your mind and working directly with it.

You do it starting with coarse, big, most obvious issues. Then you do smaller and smaller stuff. Then at the end, you look at your "mind of practice" itself - how and why you are doing it, and apply the same exact process to that.
That's it.

Comparing this to the suttas, the five "skilful qualities" which you listed initially were a canonical list, i.e. five "strengths" or "spiritual faculties". Then you added 2 -- of which "tranquility" is from a different (possibly even more relevant) list, i.e. of the 7 "factors of enlightenment" (but from that list of factors you don't mention "joy" or "investigation", though you certainly imply investigation in your next list).

Yes, I wrote this from memory and "common sense" for the most part, so it may not match the traditional lists exactly. In my mind, joy is included in energy and good mood, while investigation is included in wisdom.

@AndreiVolkov would it be better to ask this by contacting you personally?

What do you mean by Craving for your mind/body and the world to be different? Does it mean to not have any preferences? To accept everything that happens?

@avatarKorra you can ask me offline, but I think historically I'm more responsive here than on email, for whatever reason :) Although it really depends on whether it's personal or not. For common questions, it may be better to share with others, for personal not.

@Val no, you may have preference/opinion, just not craving. It's like the difference between hiking up the mountain while being happy, vs. hiking while being frustrated and hating that you're still not there. In case of craving you keep imagining yourself up there, comparing with the actuality, and interpreting this difference as "bad". In case of preference/opinion/goal you don't obsessively imagine, don't repeatedly compare, and don't think what you have now is "bad", you just keep going and enjoying the landscape. Makes sense?

The Dalai Lama comments that the spiritual path is easy for those with no preferences. I always found this a humorous remark, like saying Everest is easy for those who can fly. Well, of course....  .

@AndreiVolkov - to put it bluntly, my question was if you're able to consistently reach the jhanas with breath meditation. My reason for asking is, I have been aspiring to since 2 years ago, and talking to an actual person that can attain the jhanas could help strengthen my faith that it's possible.

@avatarKorra - yes I can, but my interpretation of jhanas and the practice leading to each is very different from simply sitting, watching the breath and suddenly getting happy. I use applied thinking, letting go, immediacy, and suchness quite extensively.

@AndreiVolkov will read your answer on suchness

@ Andrei What do you mean by "Craving for .."? This is exactly where Buddhism confuses me. Does it deny human preferences? There is a (mental!) difference between wanting things -even quite strongly!-, but realising that one DOESN'T NEED it, and craving (dogmatic musts), as in "I absolutely need this and if I don't get it it's the end of the world and utterly horrible". Is it the former you're referring to? What about the latter? Isn't it preferable to be loved and cared by others? To feel nice feelings? I deliberately said 'preferable' because it here implies a non-dogmatic preference.

Well yes you have 4 main methods to get the citta into samadhi [the normal question is : 4 methods give 4 different samadhi or is it the same samadhi?]
THe most famous is the jhana which is ''abiding in the here and now'' or ''in this very life''
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
(puthujjanas today love to slap ''present moment'' on any pleasing attempt at their mediation, but for the buddha ''present moment'' means the jhanas. It turns out that the ''pleasant abiding here and now'' for the buddha means being secluded from the senses, so tracking the objects of the senses like puhtujjana claim is the opposite of ''enjoying the present moment''.)
Anapanasati is the typical way to go form puhtujjana to non-puthujjana, first you get to know something, like the body, piti, then get to be sensitive to various sankharas, then as usual you calm all the sankharas that you find, once they are calmed, you try to find out the condition of the pile of garbage that is each aggregate, this quest is what the buddha called yonisomanasikara.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.006.than.html
In the night of his awakening, the buddha got 3 vijjās, last one after he directed his citta in samadhi  to '' the ending of the mental fermentations''  which means the sankharas. and the citta in samadhi directed to this is the
yonisomanikara or ''the destruction of the āsavas''
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/asavak.html#color
but before that he directed his citta into samadhi towards how karma, shankaras and jati are linked, and he says that this is the result of doing the āloka·saññaṃ manasi karoti, so perhaps he did that.
[the normal question is whether the perception of light is the natural light or the light he mentions as in

"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the
  night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was
  destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, &
  resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not
  invade my mind or remain.
  ]

Before that, the citta in samadhi from the jhanas was directed towards the countless rebirths.
Before that he get the citta into samadhi with the jhanas.
before that he said he discriminated between sensual thoughts and renunciation thoughts
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
before that, he did the wrong samadhi that all puthujjanas do: striving to grasp at some objects, not '' imbued with renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with sensuality'' like he phrases it, which springs various aches...
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

it doesn't. even after a 2 hour sitting my mind does not calm done and I don't anything even near a jhana or even a concentrated mind and I'm not new to this...
Thank you for clarifying.
From AN4.41 Ways of Developing Immersion Further (Sujato), we have:

Four ways of developing immersion further.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful meditation in the present life.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining knowledge and vision.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to mindfulness and awareness.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to the ending of defilements.

If you are besieged by thoughts, develop your immersion further by simple observation:

A mendicant knows feelings as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away.
They know perceptions as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away.
They know thoughts as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away.
This is the way of developing immersion further that leads to mindfulness and awareness.

By simply observing rise and fall, you become disentangled. Once disentangled, simply observe whether the breath is coming in or out. Hopefully this may be of some help.
If AN4.41 does not suffice, please consult DN33, which is a massive summary of the teachings, but a bit difficult to wade through.

On a side note, chanting is itself a wonderful way to marshal your thoughts and "herd the stray cats in your head."  Without access to a monastery or such, you can also simply listen to a sutta. Click the Play button for AN41 or if you prefer, click on the links to a human recording of a relevant sutta. Listening to and memorizing suttas will at least make sure that your stray thoughts are about the Dhamma.

Yes, the Buddha taught 40 meditation subjects.

Earth Kasina
Water Kasina
Wind/Air Kasina
Fire Kasina
White Kasina
Red Kasina
Yellow Kasina
Blue/Black/Brown Kasina
Light Kasina
Space Kasina
Recollection of the Buddha
Recollection of the Dhamma
Recollection of the Sangha
Recollection of Sila(virtue)
Recollection of Dana(Generosity)
Recollection of Devas
Recollection of Death
Mindfulness occupied with the Body
Mindfulness of Breath
Recollection of peace(qualities of Nibanna)
Perception of a skeleton
Perception of the bloated
Perception of a livid corpse
Perception of the festering corpse
Perception of the cut up corpse
Perception of the scattered corpse
Perception of the hacked and scattered corpse
Perception of the Bleeding corpse
Perception of the worm-infested corpse
Metta(commonly translated as loving-kindness)
Karuna(commonly translated as compassion)
Mudita(commonly translated as sympathetic joy or gladness)
Upekkha(commonly translated as equanimity)
Perception of Repulsiveness in nutriment
Four elements(MN 62, MN 28 and AN 4.177). This meditation subject is mentioned in detail in the visudimagga. If it is hard for you to understand, I recommend reading this book. http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/know-see.pdf
The four elements meditation is mentioned there in a simplified way.
Boundless space
Boundless consciousness
Nothingness
Neither perception nor non perception

https://suttacentral.net/an10.29/en/bodhi You can find info about kasinas here.
Note:The consciousness kasina mentioned in the sutta is light kasina.
The visudimagga explains in detail on how to practice all of the meditation subjects/objects.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf


text:
Who was Ming Peu?

This print was my father’s. He wrote on the back ‘Ming-Peu 13th century priest’. Who was Ming Peu?
I don’t think ‘Peu’ is either pinyin or Wade-Giles.
He appears to be wearing Japanese dress. The kimono is open to the waist.
His head is not shaven. Monastic rules for shaving may not yet have been set down in the 13th century.
What is the difference between a monk and a priest?
13th century would make him potentially contemporaneous with Dogen-zenji.

I'm a bit late to this question, not sure if Johanna has already found what they were looking for.
This style of monochromatic painting similar to the black ink brush painting of China (水墨畫) started to flourish in Japan during the Muromachi period (14th-15th century). Japanese paintings were much more vibrant in colour before the period. Portraits were rare and thus only done for either a person of high social status, or a revered Zen master. The latter is what I guess, which would make this painting a Chinsō. The Zen Buddhist depicted is Zhong-Feng Ming-Ben (中峰明本), in Jap.: Chūhō Myōhon and in Viet.: Trung Phong Minh Bản.
Ming-Ben was definitely a monk, I don't know why he had hair in this particular artwork. Though it isn't uncommon for Zen figures to be depicted with a bit of fuzz on their head in Japanese Zen paintings.

Thank you so much! I am very grateful to you for identifying this portrait, and for so much additional information. Thank you!

This may be a long shot, but In Vietnamese Pho is pronounced closer to "Pheu" than it is to "Po". So the depiction may be of a Vietnamese monk. There is a Pho Minh Pagoda from the 13th century in Vietnam.


text:
Managing sloth and torpor in meditation?
Recently sloth and torpor has been a huge hindrance in meditation; my biggest hindrance as it happens. I've managed to reduce the bulk of it but I find that it's still hanging around in some sessions. For the most part, I can see sloth and torpor trying to engulf me and thus am able to take evasive action by refocusing my meditative state. Sometimes though, it gets me even to the point of falling asleep. It's been with me now for months on and off. 18 months previous to this it hasn't really effected me like it has now.
Here are some descriptions of the hindrance in question:
Heaviness of mind, like wading through oil. Tiredness when I don't appear to be tired outside of meditation. Falling asleep. Dullness of mind. Sinking into a gloop.
The Buddha compared it to (I'm paraphrasing here) being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside.
The largely recommended antidote by my sangha is to rouse energy by exerting myself outside of meditation. This has not been helpful or perhaps I'm not receiving the message correctly. It seems to be more of a mind thing and that is the route I'd like to take to address it so I've been sitting and watching and trying to evade it. I just can't seem to eliminate it completely. I have some sessions where I am free of it and some sessions that start out with meditative potential only to be confronted some-way through the session with the dealings of sloth and torpor.
Things I've tried: bright light from a light box and also from daylight, light exercise before meditation, opening my eyes in mid-session, water on my face before a session.

Mumonkan Case 16: When the Bell Sounds
Unmon said, "The world is vast and wide.  Why do you put on your
  seven-piece robe at the sound of the bell?"
Mumon's Comment
In studying Zen, you should not be swayed by sounds and forms.  Even
  though you attain insight when hearing a voice or seeing a form, this
  is simply the ordinary way of things. Don't you know that the real Zen
  student commands sounds, controls forms, is clear-sighted at every
  event and free on every occasion?
Granted you are free, just tell me: Does the sound come to the ear or
  does the ear go to the sound? If both sound and silence die away, at
  such a juncture how could you talk of Zen?  While listening with you
  ear, you cannot tell. When hearing with your eye, you are truly
  intimate.
Mumon's Verse
With realization, things make one family;  Without realization,
  things are separated in a thousand ways. Without realization,
  things make one family; With realization, things are separated in
  a thousand ways.

Medhini gives a good gloss of the traditional techniques for overcoming sloth/torpor.  Honestly, I'd try those first before moving into what I'm about to say.
One thing I've noticed in my own practice is that my own sloth and torpor is inversely proportional to my clarity of intention.  What I mean by that is sometimes we take up an object of meditation but don't fully commit to it.  We might focus on the tip of our nose, for instance, but never quite arouse a sense of clear intention.  Our vitaka - our applied thought - is more like someone lazily flopping on a bed.  We just sort of hang out there in a haze of comfortable, quasi-concentration.  And then we promptly fall asleep.
Instead, imagine the intention of a monk putting on his seven piece robe before sitting down for meditation.  Or take a look at this bloke doing some iado:
https://youtu.be/byAgl-b2xFs
That is how you want to approach your concentration object.  Command sound,
 control form!  Your breath is like a razor sharp sword.  Don't let it escape your attention for even a moment.  Handle it as if your life depended on it!

So... Assuming you're still accepting answers... The traditional methods for overcoming the "sloth and torpor" all involve applying some kind of antidotes opposite to the problem: walking, washing face with cold water, exercise, visualizations of light etc.
In my own experience I've discovered something else. It looks like this type of sleepiness is different from the normal one that happens when one is tired or bored. Indeed, you yourself said that the drowsiness does not exist outside of meditation.
As I observed this phenomenon I got convinced that it has nothing to do with regular "sloth and torpor" and has an entirely different nature. So I watched it carefully. Here is what happens in my case. My mind gets super heavy to the point of blacking out and I just can't maintain it awake however much forceful effort I apply. Then, I can either keep trying to fight it, or give in to it. So I tried giving in - but without stopping my meditation session. What I found is that there was another region of mind - another chunk of my subjective mental space - that was actually fully awake that I could enter! All I had to do is stop boxing myself and holding my attention to the limited region of mind-space - and allow myself to experience mind-space outside of the box.
Based on this experience, my theory is, this phenomenon has to do with the way our attention is managed. It looks like when meditation is actually effective it leads to calming down of thoughts in our habitual region of attention, but we still keep our "manas" attached to the same region it was on during the day, so now with the "lights out" this region is experienced as this heavy sleepy condition.
This is indirectly confirmed by the Tibetan texts on meditation, which say that this sleepy state is actually a stage that indicates that meditation is going well, and that the task of the meditator is to learn to break through.
For me, this break through involves no longer holding to that same region of mind-space that's gone dark, but by relaxing and opening to the other regions of mind. I can't say I've mastered this reliably 100% but I can do it more or less well, so at this point I'm pretty sure this is a real thing and not just my imagination.
You are free to take this with a grain of salt, though you are welcome to try it and see if it works for you. I'd be interested to know if anyone gets the same experience, so we could confirm or deny this.

Yes, different from normal sleepiness as sometimes I have hypnotic thoughts more recently of eating. I’m not hungry. I think mind is struggling because body is calm, mind is largely free from deliberate cognition – basically, all the senses are calmed but tongue consciousness is actually quite powerful due to the desire to sustain the physical form. On noticing this, I’ve become more attentive when eating actual food. There are some other interesting aspects that directly relate to your answer especially about other mind spaces but too much to add here.

Also recently experiencing the challenge of sloth and torpor. All hinderances are actually a great opportunity for our growth, our spiritual evolution and our inner/overstanding of what is in the way, is the way.
In addition to the traditional suggestions, perhaps checking out if any of the following lines of inquiry concerning sloth and torpor are helpful, wholesome, wise, and skillful:
What is the relationship to the hinderance? How is the hinderance approached and handled? Is conflict with the hinderance present?
What happens when expanding awareness or switching to a more open awareness practice?
Does rapidly recalling dharma knowledge and teachings aid in dispelling lethargy?
What if it wasn’t sloth and torpor? What if powerful metta is being sent (to what is experienced as (our) consciousness, energy, mental activity and body)? [Recall the behavior of the charging drunken war elephant when encountering metta from the historical Buddha.] What happens when what is perceived as sloth and torpor gives way to allowing and receiving metta, or loving-kindness?
Can sloth and torpor allow for a closer examination of the largely unknown processes and thresholds of hypnagogic and liminal states?
Can employment of the iddhis of engagement, enthusiasm, energy and investigation strengthen vitakka (the continual attending/(re)aiming/(re)applying of attention on/to the meditation object)?
Or can simply changing the (originally chosen) meditation object help?

The Buddha gave some suggestion on how to deal with sleepiness.
Like:

pulling your earlobes (don't ask me why);
do walking meditation and
if all fails, go to sleep.

I don't remember the other suggestions he gave, there were more.
Other suggestions:

imagine light in the mind;
think of something that makes you happy as happiness dispels clouds;
reorganise your daily life, make it simpler, do less, do one thing at a time... stuff like that.

Also, don't forget the most important thing: understand the sleepiness! Everything needs to be understood.
Good luck.