text:
Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under?
Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under?

The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any part)

This seems to get around the first two reasons, as well as being a reasonable description of my perceptual life; and, arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed (there is always another part to lose), given it lacks substance and cannot be annihilated.
It seems to be completely coherent, so I can't imagine for a moment that no-one a Buddhist has ever argued with has conceived of the self this way. So, why is it wrong: and has any Buddhist claimed the conventional self is like this?

Not just that every part has a part, but that every part is one part only.

I don't know how to phrase it any clearer than I have, and it seems to capture an intuition of what the self may be, that it always one thing with many parts...

the thing about it having no end may seem like a crap version of zeno's paradox. but yeah, I don't think lines essentially have parts. all "lines" have parts, but 'line' is a conceptual designation, and has no essence. I was asking why there is no conventional self that has the essence of the emptiness of dharmas. there's a subtle difference

Identification with consciousness of an infinity of parts and non-parts is incomplete:

MN1:16.1: They perceive the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness.
MN1:16.2: But then they identify with the dimension of infinite consciousness …
MN1:16.3: Why is that?
MN1:16.4: Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Also consult DN1, which describes 62 grounds for getting caught up in theories of self and cosmos.

DN1:3.70.1: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact.
...
DN1:3.72.2: All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

Rather than look at all the parts or not-parts, perhaps we should best examine the first four words of the seven reasons.

The self is not ...

Without self, what reason would there be to look for parts or not parts?

What does it mean when a username is not clickable?

https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15341/why-are-some-usernames-not-clickable

@Max It means the user account doesn't exist -- that it was never created on this site (because of a migration, as in answer OyaMist linked to), or that it was deleted. In this case, the account was self-deleted (deleted by the user/owner of the account)  two days ago -- perhaps you can see some of the  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/20628 page. Then the question was edited 7 hours ago by an anonymous user -- probably the same user, the original author -- and ruben2020 approved the edit, which is attributed to the Community user.

Thanks, @ChrisW.

I get what you mean in your conclusion, which is good. but I was talking about a non ultimate self. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "there is always another part": which I don't think is the same as being infinite.

It's probably useful to take a few steps back first, since this text is from Chandrakirti, an author which views differ significantly from some of the core principles of other schools in his branch of Buddhism.
The linked text originates in the Madhyamaka school of Nagarjuna, which means that as a basic principle, author will view all phenomena as ultimately empty of intrinsic nature or self-existence (svabhāva). Furthermore, all things (bhāva) have two natures, the conventional and the ultimate
As such, the conventional truth (saṁvṛti satya) implies that, as a matter of human convention, phenomena have a nature or existence (bhāva), for example ice has the property of being cold. The world-view of conventional truth is the building block of human communication that allows us to build societies.
As for ultimate truth, well, this is where Madhyamaka branches off in different schools of thought, like Sautrāntika, Kamalaśīla, Yogācāra and Prāsaṅgika (Chandrakirti belongs to the latter). It would take way too long to detail the differences here. If you're interested, The Theory of Two Truths in India is an excellent read.
In essence, Candrakīrti rejects the theories of the two truths in both Brahmanical and the Buddhist schools of Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācāra and Svātantrika Madhyamaka. At the core of the Prāsaṅgika's theory of the two truths are these two fundamental theses:

Only what is conventionally non-intrinsic is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the conventional nature of which is non-intrinsically real, are subject to conditioned or dependent arising. Conventional reality (or dependently arisen phenomenon), given it is causally effective, is therefore always intrinsically unreal. Hence that which is conventionally (or dependently) coarisen is always conventionally (or dependently) arisen.

Only what is ultimately non-intrinsic is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the ultimate nature of which is non-intrinsically real, are subject to conditioned arising. Ultimate truth (or emptiness), given it is causally effective, is therefore intrinsically unreal. Hence ultimate truth is ultimately unreal (or emptiness is always empty)

Madhyamaka schools generally state that all phenomena are merely conceptual constructs (prajñaptimatra) which do not exist in themselves but are mentally constructed dependent designations (prajñāptirupādāya). However, Chandraktiri views even conventional truth (which is not a phenomenon, but a mental state or construct) as empty of intrinsic natures. As such, he defines ultimate truth as:

"the nature of things found by particular exalted cognitive processes
(yeshes) of those who perceive reality."

Now with this in consideration, let's take a look at your statement:

The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed
only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any
part)...this arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed

Candrakīrti attributes three senses to the term convention:

confusion (avidyā) for it obstructs the mundane cognitive processes of the ordinary beings from seeing the reality as it is by way of concealing (saṃvṛti) its nature;

codependent (paraparasaṃbhavana) for it is an interdependent phenomenon

Signifier (saṁket) or worldly convention (lokavyavahāra) in the sense of dependently designated by means of expression and expressed, consciousness and object of consciousness

All 3 senses can be applied to your statement, giving very different renditions pointing to the same underlying conventional truth. For example:

the conventional self, like all phenomena, is subject to constant change. Its acclaimed parts are therefore also subject to change. Since there is no "constant" conventional self, there is no "constant" that cannot be destroyed.

if the conventional self arises dependent on its parts, then essentially there is no intrinsic self that cannot be destroyed.

as a worldly convention, we interact with our and other "selves" as mental constructs for convenience of communication. Nothing in this convention however points to these "selves" being indestructible.

Remember that all these constructs are built upon conventional reality, which Chandraktiri views as empty of intrinsic natures.

I didn't mean to imply that the self was "constant" (as then it would be an ultimate self with substance). can you edit your answer to reflect that please?

If you take the position the conventional self cannot be destroyed then by definition this implies a constant, immutable component. Otherwise, if the conventional self and its parts are constantly changing, then that change is constantly destroying and reconstituting the self from changing parts in codependent arising.

no it doesn't! dependent on whether you think the conventional self has a substance, or not. I don't think the conventional self, that useful fiction, disappears every-time we take a shower or clip our fingernails. but it may help us work out that we smell. 'that was me then, that is me now': does that mean that I haven't changed?

I didn't say I took that position. I explained the consequences of taking that position.

hm, well I think that if you think the conventional self cannot be destroyed means that it exists constantly, then you are thinking substantially. but whatever

Again, I do not think that. I get the impression you are not framing this conversation on Candrakīrti , so why did you reference his text in your question in the first place?


text:
Questions Regarding Venerable Ānanda's Overview of Meditation
I SUGGEST & REQUEST THAT YOU READ DN 10 (LINKED) BEFORE READING AND/OR ANSWERING THIS POST.
After contemplating DN 10, several questions have arisen in me pertaining to the clarification of the sutta and the meditation practice. They are the following:

When Venerable Ānanda talks about guarding the sense doors and not getting "caught up in the features and details" of sensual experience (the quote below), how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

...
“And how, student, does a mendicant guard the sense doors? When a mendicant sees a sight with their eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of sight were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of sight, and achieving its restraint. When they hear a sound with their ears … When they smell an odor with their nose … When they taste a flavor with their tongue … When they feel a touch with their body … When they know a thought with their mind, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of mind, and achieving its restraint. When they have this noble sense restraint, they experience an unsullied bliss inside themselves. That’s how a mendicant guards the sense doors."
...
(DN 10)

When reading the Satipatthana Sutta, I understand it says to "focus" or "discern" specific phrases and teachings and so too here in a way when Venerable Ānanda talks about having mindfulness and situational awareness (the quote below), but how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

...
"And how does a mendicant have mindfulness and situational awareness? It’s when a mendicant acts with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent. That’s how a mendicant has mindfulness and situational awareness."
...
(DN 10)

Would guarding the sense doors and being mindful and situationally aware lead to the hindrances being given up as well as entering the jhanas per DN 10?

When Venerable Ānanda speaks in DN 10 about extending and projecting the mind toward knowledge and vision, the creation of a mind-made body, psychic power, clairaudience, comprehending the minds of others, recollection of past lives, knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings, and knowledge of the ending of defilements, are these supposed to be standard experiences and potential powers that one should only be aware of in meditation when Venerable Ānanda says to extend and project the mind towards them, or is one supposed to do something other than only being aware of them?

Would the "spectrum of immersion" per DN 10 refer to the meditative methods to achieve samatha (tranquility), would the "spectrum of wisdom" per DN 10 refer to the meditative methods to achieve vipassana (wisdom), and in that, does DN 10 express that both methods are suppose to be used in partnership to attain freedom from suffering (for reference of samatha and vipassana: AN 2.30)?

PLEASE REFERENCE THE TIPITAKA OR SOURCES STRICTLY USING THE TIPITAKA IN YOUR ANSWERS.
-Apannaka

it would be helpful if you gave your own answers to those questions, so people have an idea how you think about it and we could confirm you got the right answer, don't got it, or have an idea of how we can help fill in gaps.

When Venerable Ānanda talks about guarding the sense doors and not getting "caught up in the features and details" of sensual experience (the quote below), how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

There is an additional explaination

This is Nanda’s guarding of the doors of his senses: If he should look to the east, he looks focusing his entire awareness, (thinking,) ‘As I am looking thus to the east, greed & distress, evil unskillful qualities, will not flow out.’ That’s how he is alert there. If he should look to the west… the north… the south… above… below… to the intermediate directions, he looks focusing his entire awareness, (thinking,) ‘As I am looking thus to the intermediate directions, greed & distress, evil unskillful qualities, will not flow out.’ That’s how he is alert there. This is Nanda’s guarding of the doors of his senses.

When reading the Satipatthana Sutta, I understand it says to "focus" or "discern" specific phrases and teachings and so too here in a way when Venerable Ānanda talks about having mindfulness and situational awareness (the quote below), but how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

In course of the training sometimes one would think about, take note & discern different aspects & elements of the training.
In example if one dwells with senses guarded and is assailed by sloth & torpor, one would take note and contemplate the sloth & torpor based on what has been heard & done concerning release and direct the mind to the development of some factors of enlightenment.
In the course of this process one will have established mindfulness on the body, the dhamma, the hindrances and the factors of enlightenment.

Would guarding the sense doors and being mindful and situationally aware lead to the hindrances being given up as well as entering the jhanas per DN 10?

Not necessarily. There are three main pillars for the attainment of extinguishment in a qualified or definitive sense, namely, moderation in eating, the guarding of the senses and a devotion to wakefulness.

Bhikkhus, possessing three qualities, a bhikkhu is practicing the unmistaken way and has laid the groundwork for the destruction of the taints. What three? Here, a bhikkhu guards the doors of the sense faculties, observes moderation in eating, and is intent on wakefulness.

Guarding of the senses is like taking a reactive dog away from other dogs to retrain it in a calm environment and basically using foresight to avoid perceptions that are likely to challenge one's impulse control.
The stilling & prevention of unarisen bad states is something other that avoidance of triggering stimuli. And they are connected because removing the triggering sense impression is a necessary step in the process of rehabilitation.
Eg, In regards to the opposite sex, one ought practise not-seeing, if one has to see then not-talking and if one has to talk then one has to be very mindful.
However the prevention & removal of arisen hindrances is more like knowing how to calm the dog down after it got excited at the dogpark and how to train him so that he doesn't get excited next time you go to the park.
Eg, when sloth is present one generally ought to somehow overcome it by directing the mind to a countering theme or activity as to develope factors of enlightenment that can rouse a sluggish mind.

"At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor[1] of tranquillity, the enlightenment-factor of concentration, the enlightenment-factor of equanimity. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by these factors.
"But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors.

When Venerable Ānanda speaks in DN 10 about extending and projecting the mind toward knowledge and vision, the creation of a mind-made body, psychic power, clairaudience, comprehending the minds of others, recollection of past lives, knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings, and knowledge of the ending of defilements, are these supposed to be standard experiences and potential powers that one should only be aware of in meditation when Venerable Ānanda says to extend and project the mind towards them, or is one supposed to do something other than only being aware of them?

As i understand it, these are actual magical powers and not something one should envision oneself doing much. Some people have an inclination to their development and when they have sufficient power of concentration & judgement they will be able to access those abilities naturally.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the meaning of atammayata and where is it used?
What is the meaning of the word atammayata? Is it Pali or Sanskrit? I couldn't find it in any Pali-English dictionary.
Where is it used and in what context? Please provide references from suttas and/or commentaries.
From a Google search, I found various translations like "unconcoctability" or "non-identification" and one person suggested that it's a synonym for "not-self". Is that the case? How is atammayata different from not-self?
In this question, it was translated as "renunciation equanimity".
Why is atammayata important?
I discovered it in this answer.

This is from the book "Tranquillity's Secret" being published by me on Medium.com:
I have only run across this idea, framed from the perspective of one’s comportment towards the events of the world, in a fairly recent revival of the doctrine of “Unconcoctability” (in Pali: Atammayatā) today found in Theravada Buddhism. Part of the reason why it is absent from the more general spiritual conversation may be because of the conversational/teaching focus on the intellectual realizations, rather than the comportment changes that arise as a result of a prolonged and consistent meditation practice. But even in this revival of the doctrine, there remains only a vague understanding of what it actually consists in:

Regarding atammayatā, Santikaro Bhikkhu points out that even the
classical commentarial tradition, while recognizing the importance of
the term, interprets it quite vaguely, essentially connecting it with
the three basic constituents of mental proliferation, papañca.[1]
Atammayatā appears in a number of Pali suttas and each context
suggests that the term has important meaning. The traditional
commentators, however, never caught on. They glossed atammayatā in a
way that suggested the term was out of their depths: they rendered it
as an absence of taṇhā (craving), absence of diṭṭhi (wrong views), and
an absence of māna (conceit).[2]

In the Atammayasutta:

In seeing six rewards, it’s enough motivation for a monk to establish
the perception of not-self with regard to all phenomena without
exception. Which six? “I won’t be fashioned in connection with any
world. My I-making will be stopped. My my-making will be stopped. I’ll
be endowed with uncommon knowledge. I’ll become one who rightly sees
cause, along with causally-originated phenomena.” In seeing these six
rewards, it’s enough motivation for a monk to establish the perception
of not-self with regard to all phenomena without exception.[3]

And completing the depiction:

In the commentary on the Atammayasutta Buddhaghosa states once more
that: the practitioner is not “made of that,” namely that he is devoid
of thirst, and—this time adds—wrong opinions: tammayā vuccanti
taṇhādiṭṭhiyo, tāhi rahito: “‘Made of this’ are said to be thirst and
[wrong] opinions. He is devoid of both.”

>
> The reference to the erroneous opinions explicitly occurs also in
verse 853ab of the Suttanipāta. It appears in the Aṭṭhakavagga, the
oldest section of the text and one of the oldest of the Canon, towards
the end of the ninth chapter, where we find the teachings that the
Buddha had given to Māgaṇḍiya. The topic of the chapter can be
summarized as follows: there is no need to embrace or reject a system
of thought. The one who compares himself with others embraces a system
and likes the discussions. The wise one does not compare himself with
others, because he gives up conceit (māna).[4]

Does this Pali word, Atammayatā, truly mean what I wrote above in this dialog about realizations, insights, and enlightenment? Here is how Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu has explained it:

The word atammayatā is quite difficult to translate. We’ve spent a lot
of time thinking how to translate it into Thai, and then into English.
So far, the word that we feel is most correct as an English
translation is “unconcoctability,” or the inability to be concocted,
where there’s nothing that can concoct the mind. This is how we would
like to explain or translate atammayatā. If we take the word
atammayatā and break it up: a means ‘not’ or ‘un’; tam means ‘that’;
maya means ‘to fabricate, to make, or to concoct’; and then ta means
‘the state’. So it’s the state of not being concocted by that, meaning
not being concocted by anything. Atammayatā is when the mind is free.
The essence of atammayatā is the mind is completely free, so there’s
nothing that can concoct it, that can condition it. By the way, this
word ‘concoct’, if you’re not used to it, comes from the Latin word
‘to cook’. It means ‘to cook together’, and we use the word concoct to
mean the way the mind is brewed up, cooked up, conditioned, concocted
by things. When the mind is so free that nothing can touch it—nothing
can concoct it—we call that state, that realization, that
understanding atammayatā or ‘unconcoctability’. The essence of which,
the mind that is free of, has transcended everything, and so nothing
can affect it, nothing can concoct it.[5]
The third and highest use of atammayatā is to signify the state of
mind that is totally free, independent, liberated. Tan Ajahn
Buddhadasa prefers to describe this state as being "above and beyond
positive or negative." Human beings instinctually feel and perceive
all experience as either positive or negative. This leads to
evaluating and judging those experiences, which turns into liking and
disliking those experiences, which in turn fosters craving,
attachment, and selfishness. Thus arises dukkha (misery, pain,
dissatisfaction). The mind that has gone beyond positive and negative
cannot be pulled into the conditioned arising (paticca-samuppada) of
dukkha. Thus, atammayatā in this, its most proper sense, describes the
state of the Arahant, the perfected, liberated human being.[6]

However:

The term atammayatā cannot be found in the Pali Text Society
Dictionary. Readers will find it difficult to discover references to
it in scholarly works, whether they come from West or East. The
meditation masters of Tibet, Burma, or Zen do not seem to be
interested in it. Mention it to most Buddhists and they will not know
what you are talking about. Yet there is clear evidence in the Pali
Canon that the Buddha gave this word significant meaning.[7]
You are to know that this knowledge of atammayatā is very ancient but
it’s been forgotten. This knowledge used to exist, but then has been
overlooked.[8]

Footnotes:￼
[1] “Papañca is a pregnant and complex term that indicates the mental and emotional proliferation as a whole (conceptualizations, volitions, opinions, judgments, etc.) and that possesses three essential ingredients: 1) taṇhā, thirst or self-centered desire, 2) diṭṭhi, opinion or, more precisely in this context, uncritical belief or mental acceptance of something without verification, and thus erroneous opinion; 3) māna, conceit, which traditionally has nine aspects, which depend on whether the comparison is done with people who are believed to be inferior, equal or superior to oneself.”
-taken from: Atammayatā in the Pāli Nikāyas, by Francesco Sferra, Annali, Volume 67, Università Degli Studi Di Napoli “L’orientale”
[2] Francesco Sferra, Ibid.
[3] Aṅguttara Nikāya, Book of the Sixes, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 1998
(retrieved from: https://suttacentral.net/an6.104/en/thanissaro on 18-May-2020)
[4] Francesco Sferra, Ibid.
[5] Atammayatā by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu,
Interpreted into English by Santikaro Bhikkhu,
A Dhamma lecture (1/5) given at Suan Mokkh on 5 February 1989
[6] Atammayata:The Rebirth of a Lost Word
By Santikaro Bhikku, Evolution/Liberation #4 (1993)
[7] Santikaro Bhikku, Ibid.
[8] Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu, Ibid.

I never knew about this word - thank you for bringing this to my attention and well written passage.

Atammayata refers to the negation (i.e., "a-") of tammaya, which is identification. It therefore means "non-identification" as used here:

MN113:21.7: ‘paṭhamajjhānasamāpattiyāpi kho atammayatā vuttā bhagavatā.
MN113:21.7: ‘The Buddha has spoken of not identifying even with the attainment of the first absorption.

Identification is commonplace, unskillful and misguided. Identification is discussed thoroughly in MN1. For example, simply thinking "my property" creates problems:

MN1:3.1: “Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons.
MN1:3.2: They perceive earth as earth.
MN1:3.3: But then they identify with earth, they identify regarding earth, they identify as earth, they identify that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth.

The Buddha recommends non-identification as a primary practice:

MN62:3.1: Then the Buddha looked back at Rāhula and said,
MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”
MN62:3.3: “Only form, Blessed One? Only form, Holy One?”
MN62:3.4: “Form, Rāhula, as well as feeling and perception and choices and consciousness.”

It is 'tammaya' with a negative prefix and ending -ta as in a-sankha-ta, idk the terminology.

tammaya; adjective; absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that https://suttacentral.net/define/tammaya

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


text:
What are the sutta references for the Buddha unsuccessfully attempting to stop wars/battles?
I remember hearing that on one, two, or maybe more occasions the Buddha attempted pretty much unsuccessfully to intervene in war or battle. Maybe one had to do with fighting over water rights. I also remember arrows being transmuted into flowers, but unsure if this is related.

Related: How to stop a war according to Gouthama Buddha?

In that topic ruben2020 commented that one source or reference is, "Sutta Nipāta Aṭṭhakathā 2.362, Sammāparibbājanīyasuttavaṇṇanā -- the traditional commentary to Sutta Nipata (presumably for Snp 4.11, Snp 4.12 or Snp 4.13) and not from the canon itself".

One war he tried unsuccessfully to stop was one in which his own clan was destroyed -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya#Annexation_by_Kosala -- but I don't know a canonical reference for that.

(ah, politics, the great emotional con game)

The story of the Buddha stopping his relatives, the Sakyans and Koliyans, from getting into a war over water rights of the Rohini river, comes from the traditional commentary to Dhammapada 197 - 199.

The Buddha uttered Verse (197) to (199) of this book, in the Sakyan
country, with reference to his relatives who were quarrelling over the
use of the water from the Rohini river.
Kapilavatthu the town of the Sakyans and Koliya the town of the
Kolyans were situated on either side of the Rohini river. The
cultivators of both towns worked the fields watered by the Rohini
river. One year, they did not have enough rain and finding that the
paddy and other crops were beginning to shrivel up, cultivators on
both sides wanted to divert the water from the Rohini river to their
own fields. Those living in Koliya said that there was not enough
water in the river for both sides, and that if only they could channel
the water just once more to their fields that would be enough for the
paddy to mature and ripen. On the other hand, people from Kapilavatthu
argued that, in that case, they would be denied the use of the water
and their crops would surely fail, and they would be compelled to buy
from other people. They said that they were not prepared to go
carrying their money and valuables to the opposite bank of the river
in exchange for food.
Both sides wanted the water for their own use only and there was much
ill will between them due to abusive language and accusations on both
sides. The quarrel that started between the cultivators came to the
ears of the ministers concerned, and they reported the matter to their
respective rulers, and both sides prepared to go to war.
The Buddha, surveying the world with his supernormal powers, saw his
relatives on both sides of the river coming out to meet in battle and
he decided to stop them. All alone, he went to them by going through
the sky, and stopped immediately above the middle of the river. His
relatives seeing him, powerfully and yet peacefully sitting above them
in the sky, hid aside all their weapons and paid obeisance to the
Buddha. Then, the Buddha said to them, "For the sake of some water,
which is of little value, you should not destroy your lives which are
of so much value and priceless. Why have you taken this stupid action?
If I had not stopped you today, your blood would have been flowing
like a river by now. You live hating your enemies, but I have none to
hate; you are ailing with moral defilements, but I am free from them;
you are striving to have sensual pleasures, but I do not strive for
them."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 197: Indeed we live very happily, not hating anyone among those
who hate; among men who hate we live without hating anyone.
Verse 198: Indeed we live very happily, in good health among the
ailing; among men who are ailing we live in good health.
Verse 199: Indeed we live very happily, not striving (for sensual
pleasures) among these who strive (for them); among those who strive
(for them) we live without striving.

At the end of the discourse many people attained Sotapatti Fruition.
Dhammapada 197 - 199


text:
Where does the Buddha talk about investigation of energy (offering him some relief while in physical pain)?
If remembering correctly I once heard a Dhamma talk about the Buddha finding solace in/with the investigation of energy while (at least once) experiencing physical pain. What's the sutta reference(s) for this please?

[Note: also, how do folks usually find specific, detailed, and often highly unique content in the suttas? SuttaCentral.net is quite lovely but the search function on the main page currently falls short of the the level of usefulness I'd like]

Access to Insight have a reasonably good search directory. Once you have performed your search, click the 'sutta' tab.

Access to Insight's search seems to be implemented using Google -- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=cat&sa=Search returns the same results as https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2F+cat

I believe this might be the sutta in question. There may be other similar suttas.

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha in the Bamboo
Grove, the Squirrel Sanctuary. Now on that occasion the Blessed One
was sick, afflicted, gravely ill. Then the Venerable Mahacunda
approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one
side. The Blessed One then said to the Venerable Mahacunda:
“Recite the factors of enlightenment, Cunda.”
“These seven factors of enlightenment, venerable sir, have been
rightly expounded by the Blessed One; when developed and cultivated,
they lead to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. What
seven? The enlightenment factor of mindfulness has been rightly
expounded by the Blessed One; when developed and cultivated, it leads
to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna…. The enlightenment
factor of equanimity has been rightly expounded by the Blessed One;
when developed and cultivated, it leads to direct knowledge, to
enlightenment, to Nibbāna. These seven factors of enlightenment,
venerable sir, have been rightly expounded by the Blessed One; when
developed and cultivated, they lead to direct knowledge, to
enlightenment, to Nibbāna.”
“Surely, Cunda, they are factors of enlightenment! Surely, Cunda, they
are factors of enlightenment!”
This is what the Venerable Mahacunda said. The Teacher approved. And
the Blessed One recovered from that illness. In such a way the Blessed
One was cured of his illness.
SN 46.16 - Ill

That's two, isn't it. I think the quoted translation skipped some, indicated by the "..." ellipsis.

Yes, @ChrisW. Five of the enlightenment factors have been omitted with the implication that one might already be aware of them.

Maybe this is it. Wonder what kind of grave, sickly, and ill affliction this was, and if there are other translations shedding more light on this. . . And I don't get these omissions (as in omitting 5 of the enlightenment factor here). The full completion would be helpful especially for newcomers. There's really no need to omit unless one tires of redundancy. Even then seems there should be options to read a complete version

@vimutti - I guess it was a terrible illness for him to ask another for a teaching. I don't believe these ommisions are helpful either.

@vimutti - please see this translation, which was inspired by frankk's answer, and includes the energy factor.

Thanks @Max. I may have heard the Buddha mentioning being in pain in other instances before parinibbāna so wondering if those suttas may hold other keys for this question

Also, 10 perceptions helpful to some who are ill:
-inconstancy
-not-self
-unattractiveness
-drawbacks
-abandoning
-dispassion
-cessation
-distaste for every world
-undesirability of all fabrications
-mindfulness of in-&-out breathing via https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_60.html

@vimutti - I can attest to contemplating unattractiveness of the body. It has given me great freedom. In the story of Mae Chee Kaew, she thoroughly tore this practice into shreds, destroyed sensuality with form, then continued further into arahantship. If you'd like me to link you to some autopsy videos, just ask. ;-)

This part of life and existence is so distorted and inverted in the USA. We live in a death culture yet there are hurtles to seeing an actual corpse. In funeral homes bodies are embalmed with added cosmetic alterations. Death in the media is a spectacle often co-opted for various agendas.

Wondering if a compromise for the two translations mentioned/linked to here -- "Then the Blessed One suppressed that illness by means of energy and lived on, having resolved upon the life formation" and "Why don’t I forcefully suppress this illness, stabilize the life force, and live on?” -- could mention something along the lines of addressing this illness on an energetic and/or not entirely physical level (or levels)?

It's not investigation of energy, it's animitta samadhi that can relieve severe physical pain. SN 47.9:
Etarahi kho panāhaṃ, ānanda, jiṇṇo vuddho mahallako addhagato vayoanuppatto.
I’m now old, elderly and senior. I’m advanced in years and have reached the final stage of life.
Āsītiko me vayo vattati.
I’m currently eighty years old.
Seyyathāpi, ānanda, jajjarasakaṭaṃ veḷamissakena yāpeti;
Just as a decrepit cart keeps going by relying on straps,
evameva kho, ānanda, veḷamissakena maññe tathāgatassa kāyo yāpeti.
in the same way, the Realized One’s body keeps going by relying on straps, or so you’d think.
Yasmiṃ, ānanda, samaye tathāgato sabbanimittānaṃ amanasikārā ekaccānaṃ vedanānaṃ nirodhā animittaṃ cetosamādhiṃ upasampajja viharati, phāsutaro, ānanda, tasmiṃ samaye tathāgatassa kāyo hoti.
Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless undistractible-lucidity of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become more comfortable.
Tasmātihānanda, attadīpā viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.
So Ānanda, be your own island, your own refuge, with no other refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other refuge.
link to full SN 47.9 sutta
https://lucid24.org/sn/sn47/sn47-v01/index.html#s9
==========================================
Bojjhanga "parittas", as they are usually presented, or implied, do not work as advertised. There's no way you can magically say 7 words and expect to be cured of fatal illnesses or debilitating physical pain.

This would be a behind-the-scenes look at what happens with a mind directed towards the signless. Great find! Can you put a link to this, because the sutta central translation includes the arousing/investigation of energy as a means to circumvent the illness, and that is what was asked by the OP?

not sure what you're asking @max. The sutta excerpt I quoted from is SN 47.9.

I'm simply asking if you could link to the translation in your answer, so that other readers can appreciate the entire sutta.

link to SN 47.9 added


text:
Hard breath (intentional breath) in Pali
When your mind is wandering during Anapana, you may use "Hard Breath" (intentional breath).
What is the Pali word for this technique?
What is the Pali text explaining this "hard breath" technique?
This is a major technique we are taught in a 10-day Vipassana course taught by S.N.Goenka. There are several rules to use this intentional breath but we are advised to minimize the number of intentional breaths if it's not necessary.

Can you say some more things about Hard Breath? This is not a technique that I have heard of. Which school of Buddhism teaches this, and what is involved in the practice? Many thanks.

Hi, Max! thank you for your comment.

This is a major technique we are taught in a 10-day Vipassana course taught by S.N.Goenka. There are several rules to use this intentional breath but we are advised to minimize the number of intentional breaths if it's not necessary.

The suttas talk about recognising long and short breaths, but I can't recall any suttas which refer to hard breath or intentional breath.
Though I can see this technique might be useful for refocusing attention.

Thank you willywanka!

In the beginning, beset by wandering mind, it may be expedient to struggle with the mind, body and breath.

MN20:7.2: Tena, bhikkhave, bhikkhunā dantebhidantamādhāya jivhāya tāluṁ āhacca cetasā cittaṁ abhiniggaṇhitabbaṁ abhinippīḷetabbaṁ abhisantāpetabbaṁ.
MN20:7.2: With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind.

Yet although such practice may serve in the beginning, such practice disturbs the body.

MN100:17.7: My energy was roused up and unflagging, and my mindfulness was established and lucid, but my body was disturbed, not tranquil, because I’d pushed too hard with that painful striving.

One might even try to go further on this painful and dangerous path.

MN100:18.2: ‘Why don’t I practice the breathless absorption?’
MN100:18.3: So kho ahaṁ, bhāradvāja, mukhato ca nāsato ca assāsapassāse uparundhiṁ.
MN100:18.3: So I cut off my breathing through my mouth and nose.

But it is truly dangerous.

MN100:23.4: ‘He’s not dead, but he’s dying.’

This extreme practice is fruitless.

MN100:27.5: But I have not achieved any superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones by this severe, grueling work.
MN100:27.6: Could there be another path to awakening?’

Right immersion is not stressful.

MN100:28.2: ‘I recall sitting in the cool shade of the rose-apple tree while my father the Sakyan was off working. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

@jinn - it looks like this is the nearest they could get to answering your question. And from the research I've done, I came down roughly the same avenue. Nothing there about Hard Breath.

Yeah, same conclusion as mine. Thank you for your research, Max!

There is no such technique found in Pali texts. The Patisambhidamagga has some detailed instructions but nothing like the technique you mentioned.

Yeah, maybe it is not in a Pali text. Thank you for your research Paul!


text:
Searching for this Jataka where a monk is brought to the heaven and hell by The Buddha
I'm searching for this Jataka where a monk is brought by The Buddha to heaven, and then to hell, where the monk sees a vacant place(?) in hell and asks a hell officer about it. The hell officer answered that he was waiting for a heaven inhabitants who will reborn in hell. Hearing that, he monk was shocked and trained harder to be free from the samsara.
Maybe anyone here knows about that Jataka? Thank you

According to this entry from the The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism by Buswell & Lopez, that monk is probably Sundarananda, often referred to as Nanda (not to be confused with Ananda):

After going to heaven, the Buddha takes Nanda on a journey to hell,
where he shows him the empty cauldron that awaits him after his
lifetime in heaven. After his enlightenment, Nanda came to the Buddha
to inform him of his achievement and to release the Buddha from his
promise of celestial maidens. It was because of his great will to
control his passions that Nanda was deemed foremost in self-control.

Unfortunately, the entry doesn't cite any source, only contains a brief mention of the poem Saundarananda by Aśvaghoṣa, where Sundarananda is the protagonist. I've skimmed through the poem - it dedicates one lengthy chapter to describe Nanda's journey to heaven, but nowhere does it depict him going to hell with the Buddha.
I found other mentions of him in chapter 5 of the Śūraṅgama Sutra, but only in the version with commentary by Master Hsuan Hua (宣化). Here is that piece:

After they finished touring the place the Buddha took his cousin down to the
hells. There they saw two ghosts heating a cauldron of oil. One of the
ghosts was sound asleep and although the other one was awake, he
didn’t have his eyes open. Nanda sized up the situation and thought to
himself, “These ghosts are suppose to be tending the fire under that
cauldron, but they’re not doing their job at all. Boy, are ghosts
lazy!” Then he meddled a bit and nudged one, saying, “What are you
doing this for?”
The little one’s droopy eyes popped open and glared at him. “What’s it
to you?” he snapped.
”I just wondered,” said Sundarananda.
”You gotta know, huh? Okay, I’ll tell you. The Buddha’s got a cousin
who’s cultivating the blessings of people and gods. He’s going to get
born in the heavens and enjoy 500 years of heavenly blessings before
he falls. Once he topples, however, he’ll come all the way down to
hell and when he gets here, we’re supposed to have this pot hot. He’s
to be deep-fried alive.”
Sundarananda was horrified and his hair stood on end. He suddenly
understood the whole picture and thought, “Those heavenly maidens are
ravishing, but 500 years of bliss with them isn’t worth it if I’m
eventually going to end up in a pot of boiling oil. I’d better follow
the Buddha, leave home, and be a monk.” So he forgot about Sundari and
left home.

One thing's for sure: this story is not a Jataka.

Thank you for your answer!

Such does not exist, at least not as a Jataka delivered by the Buddha's own disciple Sangha, good householder. And furthermore, Jataka-stories are stories about the Buddha's life before his last birth where he gained awakening. So they are merely fairy tales of the "Dhamma-trader" (Ud 6.2). There are many 'fake' tales around and it's good to seek within the tradition, not outwardly and on common market and entertainment places, good householder.
As for falling to hell or heaven, here related: Avannaraha Sutta: Dispraise. So one should take care, especially in relation with the Gems. Ignorance of wrong actions do not prevent consequences from arising.

Thank you for your answer!


text:
What is difference between nimitta and vitaka and their relation to manasikara?
I learned many meaning of vitaka.. Like initial thought, or thought seed or  directing mind toward object..
Whereas vicara is continuity of thinking about that object.
Similarly nimitta is arising of some mental sign/clue etc. Like I remember today's event, or I heard something etc.
There is sanna also in conjunction with nimitta...
I want to know whether vitaka and nimitta  same or different? If different  I want to know  practical understanding of the difference between them ?

Our thoughts follow a chain of associations, one after another after another. Assuming you're not a robot you can insert a particular idea into the chain, at will. It's as if you say to yourself: "let's consider the sun" - and as you say it you make an effort to remember/imagine the sun's characteristic signs (nimitta). As you keep your attention circling on those signs, your mind assembles them together into an idea of sun. This idea of "sun" is not much more than a label your mind gives to the combination of the characteristic signs, plus a little bit of samsara magic. The act of mentally assembling the signs into an object is called manasikara. Then, as you keep performing manasikara, in other words as you keep fabricating your idea of sun, the memory starts coming up with associations - various relevant ideas about the sun. You remember that it's a source of light and warmth for our planet, or maybe you remember the solar flares and the shape of the heliosphere.
The initial act of inserting the sun into your chain of thoughts (or turning your mind to it) is the vitakka, and the entire sequence of primary and secondary associations that follow a vitakka is what's called the vicara.
Nimitta are the characteristic signs (of the sun, e.g. the roundness, the yellowness, the hotness, the hugeness, etc) that your mind uses to assemble an object. For example as you try to visualize the sun you may imagine the feeling of warmth or burning on your skin. That imaginary feeling is one of your nimittas for the sun. Everyone uses slightly different nimittas for the same concepts, because everyone's memories and experiences of things are different.
Manasikara is making those signs into an object. For example a male's eye catches a sign of lady's curves. His mind grasps onto this sign, plus a couple more signs like the long hair moving rhythmically as she walks, the thinness of ankle bone emphasized by her sandals, pitch of her voice, - and assembles those into a particular cohesive image of a lively, bright, optimistic, and sexually attractive woman. That's manasikara. In regular life it happens subconsciously and automatically, whether you want it or not, at least until you learn to control it.
Once manasikara has happened there's always a chain of associations that follow the object, whether they're wholesome or not. Vitakka is when this process is kicked off artificially and deliberately.
If you keep the mind going down the chain of associations it will eventually follow some tertiary association and venture off the sun and onto all kinds of other topics, like ecology and politics. At that point you may have to do another vitakka by turning your mind to whatever nimittas of sun that you can think of. This restarts the process with a new vicara which may end up going in a different direction than the first one.
This is what you do in (basic) meditation, you pick an object (a focal point, a theme, technically a sign or set of signs) and repeatedly "strike the bell" by doing a vitakka, then "let the bell ring" by allowing a vicara to unfold. You repeat this cycle as many times as you need to achieve the objective of your meditation - generating disgust, or joy, or whatever it is you are after at this stage.

Thanks. I used the term wondering and pondering on nimitta  as vitaka and vicara. Because its too subtle I am not able to catch it. How the hack even first thought come? Even the first thought must have come by wondering on precursor and pondering on it.

In the absolute sense there's continuity of dharmas. Nothing appears from nowhere nor completely disappears.

MN 20 is a good sutta where both terms nimitta and vitakka are used, and you can see where they overlap.
https://lucid24.org/mn/mn020/index.html
nimitta is more general purpose, lower on the raw sensory food chain, than vitakka.
Vitakka is verbal thinking, for example, mentally saying to yourself, "am I happy or angry." (not speaking that verbal thought out loud).
But one doesn't have to mentally talk to themselves to know if they're angry or happy. The subverbal knowledge of that, in sutta terminology, would be paying attention (manasi karoti) to perceptions (sañña).
A Nimitta could be a subverbal perception, or as in the case of MN 20, it's referring to either subverbal perceptions or the verbal thought chain that follows the subverbal impulse.

Can I say vitaka is always of this nature : quest/query/inquiry /wonder ? ..(Because I feel so.) its like putting something on google textbox. and then clicking enter. just like that vitaka is the google query and vicara are the googel result ?

yes, kind of. The basic sutta example used everywhere, is sati ("mindfulness") recalls something from memory, a Dhamma teaching memorized in form of mental talk, then sati tends to hand it off to vitakka to mentally recite or vocally recite that Dhamma, then Dhamma-vicaya awakening factor could verbally use vicara to examine/explore that dhamma Vitakka, or subverbally just use pañña, or vimamsa, or sampajano to explore that vitakka.

As you said, I think of vitakka as "directing the mind" (towards vicara). I suppose there's an element of "intention".
Conversely I think of "nimitta" as being the "sign" -- a superficial characteristic -- by which something is recognised. If I try to remember what my Dad looked like, for example, I might remember a beard, the kind of clothes he wears, the way he stands -- and if I saw that (beard, clothes, posture) in the street then I might recognise, "that's my dad!" ... and I think that's what the "signs" means.
One of the "nimitta" in a human being might be secondary sex characteristics -- long hair or a beard, breasts or wide shoulders, a skirt or trousers.
I think the suttas might encourage people not to get caught up in (not to grasp or attach to) "signs", for example AN 4.37

When a mendicant sees a sight with their eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṁ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī.


text:
Question about akusala garuka kamma
Is it called akusala garuka kamma only if the action is completed? For example,  Angulimala once tried to harm The Buddha (but did not succeed), and Nandopananda once tried to harm Moggallana Thera (also did not succeed). Their actions are not considered akusala garuka kamma because they did not succeed?

Duplicate of The five incurable actions

Thank you. So from what I read in that question's answer, attempting to do something (there is an action) with the wrong intention is what caused karmic consequences?

If that's so, what about the case of Nandopananda? He attempted to harm an Arahant, no?

I'm not familiar with Nandopananda. It sounds like the story of a duel, where Moggallana challenged and defeated Nandopananda, who was blocking their path.

I see, thank you for your answer! In addition, here is the link of the story in case you want to take a look at it https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/maha-prajnaparamita-sastra/d/doc225694.html

@ruben2020 This question is not just "related" but is a duplicate, isn't it?

@ChrisW Yes, you're right. It looks duplicate.


text:
Why did Sakka steal the Visuddhimagga three times?
Why did Sakka steal the Visuddhimagga three times according to the legend -- was it because Visuddhimagga erroneously stated that it couldn't be done by a sotapanna??
Quoting from the Introduction to the English translation:

The reply
was: 'I have come to translate the Buddha's Dispensation into Magadhan'. The senior
elder told him, 'If so, then construe the Three Pitakas upon the text beginning "When a
wise man, established well in virtue ..."'. He began the work that day, the stars being
favourable, and wrote very quickly. When finished, he put it aside and went to sleep.
Meanwhile Sakka Ruler of Gods abstracted the book. The elder awoke, and missing it,
he wrote another copy very fast by lamplight; then he put it aside and slept. Sakka
abstracted that too. The elder awoke, and not seeing his book, he wrote a third copy very
fast by lamplight and wrapped it in his robe. Then he slept again. While he was asleep
Sakka put the other two books beside him, and when he awoke he found all three copies.
He took them to the senior elder and told him what had happened. When they were read
over there was no difference even in a single letter. Thereupon the senior elder gave
permission for the translating of the Buddha's Dispensation. From then on the elder was
known to the people of Ceylon by the name of Buddhaghosa.

the reference is probably in the intro  of vism. somewhere.  The obvious reason is the fabricated legendary origin is to show how supposedly awesome Buddhaghosa was.

To be sure of something, we often double-check. And to be extra sure we triple-check. For example, consider solving a math problem. If we only solve the problem once, we are not quite sure we did it correctly. There are many steps in a math problem and they ALL have to be correct. What should we do?
Well, if we start with a clean slate and solve the problem again in its entirety and arrive at the same answer, then our confidence increases. Double checking improves confidence. And triple-checking from a clean slate provides us even more assurance of correctness, especially if all three answers agree exactly.
Note that for thorough checking we don't merely glance at our first answer. Instead, we start from a clean slate and do the entire problem once again. Such care and caution is commonly exercised when we, for example, build rockets that should not blow up. When a single O-ring fails, a rocket can destroy lives. We have to be mindful of every single part of our answer.
So it can be understood that Sakka here is simply helping out by "stealing" the thrice-written book to give Buddhaghosa a "clean slate". And by writing the exactly same thing three times over from a blank slate, Sakka has helped prove Buddhaghosa's deep and clear knowledge. In fact, the books are returned for that very same verification. By "stealing" the books, Sakka proved that Buddhaghosa was relying on mindful memory instead of simply copying what he had already written.

FYI it's not clear to me that the objects were stolen (i.e. that the act was "stealing"):

It might be arguable that the items didn't "belong to" Buddhaghosa -- not that I want to argue that, but there have been previous discussions on this site about whether the Buddha-Dhamma "belongs to" anyone in particular.

According to the Vinaya (quoting from here),

The act of taking what is not given, even when one perceives it as not given, counts as theft only if one’s intention is to steal it. Thus, as the non-offense clauses say, a bhikkhu incurs no offense if he takes an object temporarily or on trust.

According to the quote in the OP this wasn't exactly "on trust" but it was, clearly, only "temporarily".

According to Mahavamsa, It it because the god wanted to show others that the venerable Buddhaghosa was competent enough to translate the ancient Sinhala commentary.
Ven. Buddhaghosa was said to had re-written it again three times without even a spelling mistake, so that the Sangha in Mahavihara could be able to conclude that he was competent enough.


text:
Does Shikantaza lead towards attaining Jhana, if not, is there any progression?
I have been practicing two different meditations over the years, one is Anapanasati, i.e. mindfulness of breath as I learned from S.N.Goenka, and the other is Zazen or Shikantaza i.e. just sitting, doing nothing, as I learned at a Zen school.
My trouble is, when I set to do breath awareness, then the mind gets triggered and I easily get lost in thoughts. It's difficult for me to be 'here and now' with the breath.
On the other hand, with Shikantaza, my practice is really good. I can sit for longer periods without any thought in silence.
But the problem is I did not read anywhere if we can attain to Jhanas or any other state, doing Shikantaza. As against this, I have read about gradual progression towards Jhana doing the Anapanasati.
So, I want to know, if Jhana is possible through Shikantaza and if not, is there any other type of progression?

"Just sitting" is not the same as "doing nothing". Thinking of progression is counterproductive as this would not be "just sitting" but "thinking of progression while sitting". The whole point of Zen is that it does away with progression stages - this is why it is called the "Sudden Teaching" or categorized as "Subitism"

Why do you wish to attain the jhanas? It could be your path doesn't lead through them.

Of course you can.  Think of the etymology - zen -> chan -> dhyana -> jhana.  It's the same word bastardized and modified over the course of four languages.  Zen is absorption practice.  It's what the Buddha taught although to be fair the methodologies are slightly different.
But get off the idea of jhana.  It's not important.  Whether you are in the second, the fourth, the realm of infinite space, etc. the phenomenology of these states is irrelevant.  What is important is what these states prepare the mind for - namely insight.  As practitioners of Zen, we go into emptiness to purify our body, mind, and heart.  We then take that supple openess and bring it back to the world of form and investigates our own personal hang-ups, obstacles, and general bullshit.  This can be done in a number of different ways - regular vipassana practice of really any stripe, koans, or simply washing our bowl.  It's the intersection of form and emptiness that is the catalyst for liberation.  The means for setting up that intersection are limitless, but it all starts with quieting the mind through zazen.
Zen doesn't "teach" the jhanas because so as long as insight is happening, the nature of the state we're able to reach isn't important.  We just sit and open up.  If the first jhana arises, great.  If we are antsy, great.  It doesn't matter.  Just keep sitting and see what happens.  Train to be, not to become.

Certainly the right answer. I hope OP agrees.

Yup. I just wanted to answer: "stop craving attainment" but this does a better job explaining the point, +1

Regarding the etymology, Ill just correct 1 thing:
Its Dhayana --> Chan --> Zen. Not the other way around.

The arrows indicate devolution.  ;-)

Ven. Ajahn Brahm is widely recognized as an expert of samatha meditation leading to jhana from mindfulness of breathing, with his book, "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond".
I quote a part of this book below.
Here, he explains the transition from focusing and watching the breath, to the entry point into jhana.
There's a point where the mind simply lets go of everything and simply stays with the peace and bliss of the breath, and finally drops the focus on the breath, and stays with the peace and bliss, which is at the "center of the experience of breath", like the stillness at the center of the eye of a cyclone.
To get there, ironically, the mind has to let go, and not grasp anything. It must simply be, and not try to become.
In other words, you start with mindfulness of breathing, and then reach the stage of "just sitting" (sounds familiar?) and then from there, could progress into jhana (a deeper "just sitting").
And the terms jhana, dhyana, ch'an and zen all mean the same thing in different languages.
So, Shikantaza ("just sitting") is not really a totally different and unrelated meditation, in my opinion, based on what I have heard of it.

You experience every part of each in-breath and out-breath
continuously for many hundred breaths in a row. That is why this stage
is called full sustained attention on the breath. You cannot reach this
stage through force, through holding or gripping. You can attain this
degree of stillness only by letting go of everything in the entire
universe except for this momentary experience of the breath happening
silently. Actually “you” do not reach this stage, the mind does. The
mind does the work itself. The mind recognizes this stage to be a very
peaceful and pleasant place to abide, just being alone with the
breath. This is where the doer, the major part of one’s ego, starts to
disappear.
One finds that progress happens effortlessly at this stage of
meditation. We just have to get out of the way, let go, and watch it
all happen. The mind will automatically incline, if we only let it,
toward this very simple, peaceful, and delicious unity of being alone
with one thing, just being with the breath in each and every moment.
This is the unity of mind, the unity in the moment, the unity in
stillness.
The fourth stage is what I call the “springboard” of meditation,
because from it one may dive into the blissful states. When we simply
maintain this unity of consciousness by not interfering, the breath
will begin to disappear. The breath appears to fade away as the mind
focuses instead on what is at the center of the experience of breath,
which is awesome peace, freedom, and bliss.
At this stage I introduce the term “beautiful breath.” Here the mind
recognizes that this peaceful breath is extraordinarily beautiful. We
are aware of this beautiful breath continuously, moment after moment,
with no break in the chain of experience. We are aware only of the
beautiful breath, without effort and for a very long time.
Now as I will explain further in the next chapter, when the breath
disappears, all that is left is “the beautiful.” Disembodied beauty
becomes the sole object of the mind. The mind is now taking the mind
as its own object. We are no longer aware of the breath, body,
thought, sound, or outside world. All that we are aware of is beauty,
peace, bliss, light, or whatever our perception  will later call it. We
are experiencing only beauty, continuously, effortlessly, with nothing
being beautiful! We have long ago let go of chatter, let go of
descriptions and assessments. Here the mind is so still that it cannot
say anything. One is just beginning to experience the first flowering
of bliss in the mind. That bliss will develop, grow, and become very
firm and strong. And then one may enter into those states of
meditation called the jhanas.

Stop craving attainment and obsessing about attainments. Shikantaza is just sitting, no jhanas, no BS. You know you have this thorn stuck deep inside your heart, you want to be special, your want to be an achiever. That's the poison that's eating you alive, your worldly life and your Buddhist practice. You gotta let go.

If Shikantaza helps you stop thoughts, then it's useful for that. That's a necessary skill for entering second jhana.
If breath meditation is triggering thoughts, you're not doing it correctly. The main point of that meditation is to give your mind a physical, interesting, pleasant object to occupy your attention so there's no room and no time for stray thoughts.
Another big problem is Goenka system, as well as Late Theravada teaches a very different breath meditation than what the early buddhist suttas teach. If you follow the early suttas, such as here on breath meditation, https://lucid24.org/sted/16aps/index.html (contains many resources compliant to early buddhist suttas on the topic, including my translation and interpretation of the sutta on breath meditation),
then having the sensitivity and full body awareness is much easier to lock in on pleasant sensations of breath and stay focused. Whereas late buddhist technique of being "one pointed at the nostril to the exclusion of the rest of the body" tends to cause many problems like hypertension, head aches, boredom, frustration, tense and uncomfortable body from tight focus, etc.

Without a teacher and teaching, meditation alone may succeed. Indeed, the Buddha own insight and practice were ultimately required for his enlightenment. The Buddha had teachers that brought him to a certain point, but he had to go further on his own.

DN34:1.6.95: Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma … nor does the mendicant recite the teaching … or think about it.
DN34:1.6.96: But a meditation subject as a foundation of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom.

However, for the rest of us, the words of another are quite important--they help save make the best use of time in this very life.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.
AN2.126:1.2: What two?
AN2.126:1.3: The words of another and proper attention.

Regarding meditative bliss, the Buddha acknowledges the attraction. The Buddha also gently reminds us that we should extend our practice to include others:

MN8:4.1: It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
MN8:4.2: They might think
MN8:4.3: they’re practicing self-effacement.
MN8:4.4: But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’;
MN8:4.5: they’re called ‘blissful meditations in the present life’.

I practiced formal zazen for over a decade under the guidance of Tanouye Tenshin Roshi and his students. Zazen has been tremendously helpful to my life. So are the words of the Buddha and good spiritual friends.
p.s., regarding breaths and getting lost, for decades I have simply counted my breath. Keeping the count is easier than trying to fight distracting thoughts.

It's good, that you know your comfort zone. But if you do not come out of it and instead get trapped yourself there, then it's not good.
The purpose of meditation is to get rid of meditation. In fact, the purpose of any practice is to get rid of practice. It's like train, you get in from your home and get down when you reach.
So I suggest you do breath meditation because it brings disturbance and then periodically or whenever you realise you are trapped in thoughts then gently move to your comfort zone.
Later you should aim to be in meditative state throughout the day, while working, sleeping, eating, and amid all walks of life.
If you never come out of your comfort zone, your sankhara will always wait outside your comfort zone and in the battle zone.


text:
What is difference between Nibbana and asaṅkhataṃ (unconditioned)?
Buddha says Nibbana is ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. Out of all these four, only asaṅkhataṃ (unconditioned) is something that I have to achieve.
So can I say asaṅkhataṃ is Nibbana and vice versa?
and by the way what is real meaning of asaṅkhataṃ?
Buddha says its end of greed, aversion, and delusion... But I dont think ending of these three means ending of all past sankhara.. So, in the state of asaṅkhataṃ still lots of sankhara are there. It's just that they are infertile.
So unconditioned is not right meaning of asaṅkhataṃ ... Ideally, it should be unconditionable?  What do you say?

Buddha says Nibbana is ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ.

Nibbana is "not born by separating from something, not a result of something prior developing or transforming into it, not made via a deed, not a result of multiple things coming together." - would be a better translation.
These four are meant to exhaust all kinds of coming into existence. Whatever comes into existence will perish and Nibbana must not perish so it must not come into existence. In other words it must be self-existent or self-present, as in the famous allegory of the Sun always shining even if your view is obstructed by the clouds.

and by the way what is real meaning of asaṅkhataṃ?

Asankhatam is the last of the four points, "not a result of multiple things coming together."
It means that Nibbana cannot be a state because any state is an arrangement of certain elements and conditions that must stay within certain bounds - which makes it vulnerable. Nibbana is unbounded, with no limits - therefore not vulnerable, indestructible, not subject to cessation. Nibbana is not a state - it's a dhatu, a layer of reality. Buddha calls it amata-dhatu, The Immortal Layer.
This "layer" concept explains why sankhatam things don't suddenly disappear when you attain Nibbana - they remain abiding as overlayed conventions, like the boundaries between countries, or the boundaries between separate families or the invisible "boundary" around one's private property, or the notion of separate "I" as "a lifetime of an individual" - indeed all these notions have emerged for a reason and do play a role in society, but for "the one like this" they are no longer absolutely real. Being not real they are not subject to attachment or aversion. Not being subject to attachment or aversion they cannot be a source of suffering.
This is how you "achieve the asankhatam", by elevating your mind above all kinds of boundaries and identities.

the countries don't really exist. There is no "my country" or "my people" vs aliens.
the families don't really exist. There is no "my family" or "my relatives" vs strangers.
the concept of ownership is ultimately a fiction. Do not consider anything as your possession.
the concept of "I" as a separate finite entity is also a fiction.

Buddha said "Greed, aversion, and delusion are makers of boundaries" - and it actually works both ways. Boundaries instigate and sustain greed, aversion, and delusion - and these create and maintain boundaries.
As Nibbana does not have a beginning (nor the end), technically it's not "attained". It just sits in plain sight until you realize it was always here, so to speak. But practically speaking, you have to stop making boundaries to free yourself from greed, aversion, and delusion.

This how i understand it,
The designation for Nibbana is 'removal of greed, anger & delusion.' It has a variety of qualified usage.
We say that the attainment of Arahantship is a removal and that an Arahant is one who has removed from the mind. The mind of an Arahant is inherently conditioned, is a sankhara but it has no greed, anger & delusion. We say that the attainment of Arahantship is an attainment of Nibbana in this sense of removal.
It is said that removal depends on destruction and that these unwholesome qualities utterly cease in one who practices the signless release or the four types of mindfulness as satipatthana leads to the signless release.
The signless release is an entering into & emerging from a meditative attainment of the 'cessation of perception & feeling'. It is also apprehended as emptiness or undirected, depending on how it was approached and what meditative theme was dominant in course of development.
This attainment is a direct seeing with the dhamma eye, one is then absorbed based on this nibbananirodhadhatu [extinguishment-cessation-principle] and it is said that this sorrowless [asoka] state is empty of greed, anger & delusion.
It is said that greed, anger & delusion are a making of signs.
Therefore this attainment of signless release qualifies to be called a removal of greed, anger & delusion and a destruction because it is empty of those qualities and because these eventually utterly cease in who practices it.
When talking about the cessation of perception & feeling one could say 'it's the foremost extreme pleasure' and in regards to that one could say Nibbana is that foremost pleasure where nothing is felt.
In this sense one would say Nibbana [removal of greed, anger & delusion] is pleasant and have it refer to the Asankhata element which is Asoka [sorrowless].
When studying the words Deathless and Nibbana we have to keep in mind three primary circumstances

One who has delusion [non-arahant] prior to entering and emerges with delusion [non-arahant]
One who has delusion [non-arahant] prior to entering and emerges without delusion [arahant]
One who has no delusion prior to entering and emerges likewise.

All three absorbtions occur based on nibbananirodhadhatu which is empty of GAD but are going to be spoken about very differently.
Eg we don't say that an arahant is destroying taints because he has none prior to entering and we don't say that a person who emerged from cessation of perception & feeling without removing all taints is one who has attained removal of taints in the sense of attaining arahantship.
There is a bit more to it but it's close. For full analysis one also needs to delineate differences between 'nibbana with residue', '..without residue/fuel', 'parinibbana' and 'unprovoked release'.

A lot of sankharas are around unconditioned. Sannas (perceptions) are anicca (impermanent), good householder. Not out of no reason the Sublime Buddha encouraged his disciples to even let go of perception of Nibbana, at least (a talk where the monks didn't rejoice at the end, and to assume that good householder does so like-for-like).
What's the purpose of this thought sankharas, those buildings which wouldn't last? Focus on abandoning akusala and instead nourish kusala, when undertaken on trust, would lead one beyond. Ditthis (views) are only useful if taking on sammaditthi (right view), so let go of all else.

Nibbana is that which the mind experiences when it is free of defilements, free of the three poisons of greed, aversion and delusion. It is not a state of mind or consciousness. It is certainly not a self or a witness. Nibbana is not conditioned as in it is not caused or created by anything, or composed of anything, or influenced by anything. On the other hand, states of mind or consciousness is conditioned and changing as time goes on.
AN 9.34 states that nothing is felt or sensed about Nibbana and that's precisely why it is blissful. The absence of suffering (dukkha) is blissful. It's not blissful because it is felt by the senses to be pleasurable - that would make it conditioned. This answer explains more on Nibbana and bliss.
According to Iti 44, Nibbana-element without residue left describes the five aggregates in parinibbana, based on Ven. Thanissaro's footnote. This means that all five aggregates, including consciousness, stop operating completely. In this case, all mental fabrications (sankhara) have been stilled.
Nibbana-element with residue left describe the the five aggregates of a living Arahant i.e. the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations) are functioning without craving, clinging and defilements. The flames of passion, aversion and delusion are no more burning for the living Arahant. But the five aggregates function without clinging, like glowing embers, for the living Arahant. In this case, only the clinging mental fabrications (sankhara) have been stilled.  This question discusses clinging aggregates vs. non-clinging aggregates. In parinibbana, the glowing embers are put out (Nibbana-element without residue left).
So, you can see that that when the Arahant is living, the clinging sankhara (mental fabrications) are stilled. In parinibbana, all sankhara (mental fabrications) are stilled.
What's interesting is that all mental fabrications (one meaning of sankhara) are conditioned (another meaning of sankhara), but not all that is conditioned are mental fabrications. For e.g. water is conditioned, but it's not a mental fabrication (unless you refer to the mental concept of water).
So, in my opinion, the unconditioned (asaṅkhataṃ) in Ud 8.3 may refer to all that is unconditioned. But "the stilling of the conditioned is bliss" (saṅkhārūpasamo sukho”ti) from Iti 43, specifically refers to clinging mental fabrications and not the stilling of everything that is conditioned.

The born, come-to-be, produced,
The made, the conditioned, the transient,
Conjoined with decay and death,
A nest of disease, perishable,
Sprung from nutriment and craving's cord —
That is not fit to take delight in.
The escape from that, the peaceful,
Beyond reasoning, everlasting,
The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states linked to suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.
Iti 43 (translated by Ireland)

Interestingly, Ven. Thanissaro used the word "fabrications" instead of "conditioned" in his translation. I would go further to call it "clinging fabrications".
The stilling of the conditioned (i.e. clinging mental fabrications) is bliss.

The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] —
is unfit for delight.
The escape from that is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications, bliss.
Iti 43 (translated by Thanissaro)

Do not say Iti 44, Nibbana-element without residue left describes the Arahant after passing away. One should not describe the Arahant after attainment of parinibbana because all fuel for a future is with that exhausted and all modes of being utterly cease, one can only speak of relics as being left.

"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant... completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left. " - iti44

How on earth do you infer that nibbana with no residue describes the Arahant after death is not immediately evident. Nibbana without residue refers simply to the attainment of parinibbana

@Letsbuddhism I am merely paraphrasing what Ven. Thanissaro wrote in his footnote: "While the arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else." Please read the whole footnote.

That is a very poor paraphrase. In this footnotes there is no assertion of an arahant being described after parinibbana.

"When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else."  Should be read as "there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else when the arahant passes away."

I think it's critical error to describe an arahant after death. " "Does the Tathagata exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?" ... "Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death." If you describe him after death then you assume that he exists otherwise what is there to describe.

@Letsbuddhism Now I have rephrased it to simply say "in parinibbana".

I think it's much better. I will just add that one should note that 'entering into' does not apply for parinibbana. It is like fire does not abide in extinguishment or enter into it. We say the sage becomes completely extinguished, as you say "In this case, all mental fabrications (sankhara) have been stilled." this very principle & truth of stilling is called parinibbana.

So unconditioned is not right meaning of asaṅkhataṃ ... Ideally, it should be unconditionable? What do you say?
Unconditionable can be understood too easily as applying to a self. It is therefore not an ideal translation.
Unconditioned actions are unfettered by notions of a self.
For the living, there is still conditioning (e.g., one eats to sustain the body).

MN121:12.3: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

That living conditioning disappears on relinquishing the body .

DN16:3.7.2: “parinibbātu dāni, bhante, bhagavā, parinibbātu sugato, parinibbānakālo dāni, bhante, bhagavato.
DN16:3.7.2: “Sir, may the Blessed One now become fully extinguished! May the Holy One now become fully extinguished! Now is the time for the Buddha to become fully extinguished.


text:
Tips for overcoming laziness
In my personal practice, I have found laziness to be my most clearly visible defilement. It plays a role in preventing me from getting out of bed, hindering my mindfulness throughout the day, and tempting me to abandon my daily meditation schedule. I am wondering if there are any tips beyond “just do it” regarding stuff like getting out of bed and meditating regularly, perhaps this is simply a kammic condition I must overcome. Thank you!

Did you try searching this site for previous questions on this topic? For example here's one that received good grades: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/37264/how-come-enlightened-people-dont-have-any-laziness

Ajahn Brahm wrote the following in his essay entitled "Five Hindrances".
The method to overcome sloth and torpor is written in the quote below i.e. by rousing energy through developing interest.

Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!
Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
that is sloth and torpor.
The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
between them.
Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
one slowly. A skillful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the first
signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach and
take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in a
road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.

The advice from SN 9.2 would also be helpful:

Now at that time that mendicant fell asleep during the day’s
meditation. The deity haunting that forest had compassion for that
mendicant, and wanted what’s best for them. So they approached that
mendicant wanting to stir them up, and addressed them in verse:

“Get up, mendicant! Why lie down?
What’s the point in your sleeping?
What slumber can there be for those afflicted,
injured, pierced by an arrow?
You should amplify the faith
that led you to go forth
from the home life to homelessness.
Don’t fall under the sway of slumber.”

SN 9.2

Are you sure this is laziness and not clinical depression?  If I were in your shoes, I'd get that sorted first.  But to answer your question - start using your body.  When we fall into a funk like that, even if it isn't clinical depression, it's easy to spiral down the toilet of apathy.  Commitments get missed, we feel bad about it, and our down and out feelings sap our motivation still further.  Soon we're not doing anything more than feeling sorry for ourselves.
You need a way to upend that karmic cycle.  The body provides the most expedient means for doing so.
Once upon a time, there was a monastery in China by the name of Shaolin.  In it were a bunch of rather unhealthy, depressive, short-lived monks.  It wasn't a very happy place.  A fellow by the name of Bodhidharma happened upon them and felt compelled to help them regain their vigor.  He taught them a series of exercises that involved stretching and strengthening exercises.  Over time, these monks regained their vitality.  Not only that, but their meditation improved as well.  I think that temple went on to do some other things, but I'm not entirely sure...
All kidding aside, you obviously don't need to become a master martial artist to get the same benefit (though I'd highly recommend tai chi; I can't begin to tell you how much that improved my zazen!).  Something as simple as a daily walking practice will help immensely.  Meditation is hard.  It takes a shocking amount of discipline to sit on your butt and stare at your eyelids for hours at a time.  I mean that sincerely.  But walking? Just about anyone can do that.  Keep at it, day after day.  Go out in cold weather, go out in hot weather, go out when it's nice.  In time, your ability to motivate yourself will drastically improve.  You will be able to take on tasks that seem impossibly burdensome now.  I'm also willing to bet that once you really get rolling, you'll be able to sit like a stone!

Setting a small goal for yourself every week might help. For the first month, you could set the goal to sit 5 minutes every week and then gradually increase it. If getting out of bed is difficult, wake up 5 minutes earlier than your current baseline everyday. The Buddha recommended the middle path. Moderation is a virtue.
In the past, I didn’t want to sit everyday, but based on my values I made it a part of my daily routine. Sometimes, other things might matter, but in Eckhardt Tolle’s words, you have to find out what matters absolutely. I agree putting it into practice can be difficult. Find out what you truly value and then remind yourself.
Ruling out health problems is also important as another answer pointed at. Having a good relationship with a primary care physician and going for annual physicals can help. He would most likely recommend a balanced diet and exercise.

When talking about laziness, it's important to distinguish between useful laziness (i.e., inventing the wheel) as opposed to useless laziness. Let's look at the suttas.
Useful laziness (i.e., inaction) would be:

AN8.12:17.3: I teach inaction regarding bad bodily, verbal, and mental conduct,

And useless laziness would be:

AN8.80:1.1: “Mendicants, there are eight grounds for laziness.

You mention getting out of bed to face the day and its demands. This is related to the first ground for laziness:

AN8.80:1.5: ‘I have some work to do. But while doing it my body will get tired. I’d better have a lie down.’
AN8.80:1.6: They lie down, and don’t rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.
AN8.80:1.7: This is the first ground for laziness.

And the Buddha agrees with your "just do it":

AN8.80:10.3: ‘I’ve done some work. While I was working I wasn’t able to focus on the instructions of the Buddhas. I’d better preemptively rouse up energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.’
AN8.80:10.4: They rouse up energy …
AN8.80:10.5: This is the second ground for arousing energy.

The "just do it" approach works well for people who have energy during the day for various pursuits.
NOTE: However, it may also help to see a doctor for a medical diagnosis if a lack of energy pervades all your waking moments. In that case, there may be a medical cause.

Here are my notes, a collection of sutta passages and some commentary on the hindrance of sloth and torpor. https://lucid24.org/sted/5niv/5niv3/index.html
But by far the most useful thing in my decades of meditation practice, in overcoming laziness, sloth and torpor, is doing exercises to strengthen the body, and eating healthily and correctly (not undereating, not overeating).
Collection of notes on that here:
https://lucid24.org/misc/qigor/index.html
The number one physical exercise I can recommend for laziness, sloth, is "shake and bake" (detailed in article above). Basically, it's the equivalent of doing slow jogging, or easy paced swimming, or doing jump rope without the rope (so one can fully relax and not tense up from fear of tripping).
Do at least twenty minutes of that (shake and bake or equivalent cardio), and you'll feel energetic and not lazy, ready to rock (meditate).
The benefits of that are amazing, expending only about 10% more energy than a casual walking exercise, it builds up your cardio conditioning (if you do 20-30min everyday) such that you'll then be able to do regular paced jogging easily without panting, stress, pain, or discomfort after a few months.
laziness will be no problem at this point.
If you eat unhealthy and don't get enough physical exercise, even if you have the mind of a supermonk and no laziness, your body will still fail you and you'll just be forcing your way through bad meditations because of a malnourished unconditioned body.


text:
Flickering light during meditation
I was wondering if seeing flickering lights during meditation meant anything.
My eyes had been closed for about 15 minutes. I would not say I was in a deep meditative state. The room was dark already and the blinds were down. At the beginning of my session I had seen points of light converging on a point. When I try to focus my eyes on the pattern, the shape changes or disappears; I’m not sure which. This doesn’t happen when my eyes are open.
I’ve been meditating for a couple of years for about 10-20 minutes a day but never have felt like I was a good meditator. My mind usually wanders when I try to focus on my breath.
In the past I have felt like my whole body has become stone during meditation but the flickering lights is something new. Was wondering if anybody has ever had that experience or knew if it meant anything. My guess is that I’m not supposed to pay attention to things like that.

Your guess answers your question. The thing about the mind is it wants to try to find something interesting in new experiences. In other words, it wants to entertain another narrative about itself. This is how the mind creates consciousness based in materiality, or in Dogen terms, it is how the mind fragments its inner world into the ten thousand things called forms.

It's just an apparition of the mind and nothing particularly important.  Things like this will arise from time to time.  Like Max said in the comment, the mind subconsciously tries to entertain itself.  This actually happens, like clockwork, at set times in a sit the first usually occurring right around the the 20-25 minute mark.  This is where we really begin to shift from ordinary discursive consciousness to something resembling a meditative state.  Other phenomenon you might experience are feelings of your body twisting, your head or hands inflating, your muscles shaking involuntarily, your face disappearing, or, like you mention, your body feeling like it's made of stone.  FWIW, I would actually say that the feeling of being made of stone is more indicative of progress than the light.  If you can sit unmoving for even longer, a similar shift will happen at around the hour and fifteen minute mark when the body/mind's natural energy begins to arise.  This is where things get interesting.
You're right at the cusp of passing beyond the beginner stage.  If you can find a way to commit yourself a little more, you're practice will start to have a real impact on how you live your life and experience the world.  My advice to you is to sit as stone for as long as you can.  Try to push your sits towards the hour mark and see what happens.

Wow this is helpful. I will see if I can sit longer.

Honestly, that really is the key. A lot of people will tell you that it's the quality of your sits that matter, not their length. I think that sets up a false dichotomy.  Longer sits invariably result in better meditation. Like I said, It takes a good 20 minutes for your mind to settle. Up until that point, you're just relaxing and decompressing. That's important and it feels good, but the real work of meditation doesn't begin until the mind has dropped its grosser afflictions. When you get up after 20 minutes, you are pulling the cake out of the oven just as it's starting to bake.

Yes I totally agree. Whether I am smartly meditating or not. whether meditation is good or not .. I realised that at one point mind drops irrespective of how badly or goodly I handled it. This gives me imense hope and trust on letting the mind play with me and not putting effort much with it. it is any way going to sleep. If I just be sitted here

Not that it is to be expected but sitting longer should help get you into the first Jhana too. Using the quality of a sit as yardstick is indirectly inviting disappointment. One of the troubles I have is my leg falls asleep but I think that question may have already been answered elsewhere.

LMAO!  Yes, I actually answered that one about 7 years ago!  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3361/any-advice-on-leg-numbing-during-sitting I stand by it!

Of that which is experienced during meditation, the Buddha says:

MN64:10-12.1: Furthermore, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption …
MN64:10-12.2: third absorption …
MN64:10-12.3: fourth absorption.
MN64:10-12.4: They contemplate the phenomena there as impermanent …
MN64:10-12.5: They turn their mind away from those things …
MN64:10-12.6: If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, they’re reborn spontaneously … and are not liable to return from that world.

Grasping at impermanence only leads to more grasping. Simply observe and relinquish without grasping.

Nimitta
In the grand scheme of things its not particularly important, but it can serve as a sign to tell you that you have attained to a certain level of concentration. Past a certain point, the light doesn't flicker, its persistent and extremely blinding.
What to do when nimitta arises really depends on your practice and what you are trying to accomplish. Some would tell you to focus your attention on the nimitta to reach deeper states, others will tell you to ignore nimitta and don't get distracted by it. At this point, if you're serious about pursuing meditation beyond a cursory level, you would greatly benefit from the guidance of a trained teacher.

Your guess answers your question. When we mediatate you already know that there are two sides. One side you will be discouraged and make you you to doubt (Sakhaya) about the method you are follwing. The other side will motivate you to stick to your method and not to open your eyes till your goal.
As @cgtk mentions, everything you feel ,see is a hint, sign that you have attained a certain level. But this is not always true as the subconscious mind or the Wizard likes to hallucinate, create illusions. If someone tends to follow/focus this flickering or any other sensations, it is to believe that you would be totally distracted from your ultimate goal and go for secondary benefits.
The best practice is to ignore and if it repeatedly coming, you can Maitri it and follow your meditation. If you had experienced it on the first day and if it feels great, do not expect it to happen on the second day as you are expecting means that it will most likely a illusion from the wizard (Vijñāna).
When you are following a meditation it is always the best to get (Kamatahan/kammaṭṭhāna) guidance from someone who is superior to your level. This helps you to be in the correct path and you can always share what you experienced as the superior teacher precisely knows what you are telling and the teacher will guide you for your ultimate goal.