text:
Interdependence in regards to myself and the universe
As I was meditating this morning I asked myself the question, "If I am destroyed would the universe also be destroyed?". I answered, "No." Then I asked, "If the universe was destroyed, would I be destroyed?" I answered, "Yes."
My question: how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?
Disclaimer: I am completely new to Buddhism (less than 5 months of practice)

As Mahayanist I am biased but recommend reading Heart Sutra with decent commentary.

@dhamma4life Can you recommend some example[s] of decent commentary? And summarise or point out how it's relevant to this question?

Highlights concept of birth and death in relation to interconnectedness. Commentary  might be Dalai Lama’s or Thich Nhat Hanh’s.

First of all, the material parts of you cannot be utterly destroyed ie., made non-existent. The physical universe is governed by the laws of conservation of matter and energy. What does this mean? It means that the total amount of matter/energy in the universe cannot be altered, just rearranged in different forms.
So if you were destroyed all that would happen to the universe is that it would be in a different arrangement of matter and energy. However, this is what happens for every moment of the universe. It is constantly in flux. No moment of the universe is the same as any other moment. The universe is constantly rearranging itself from moment to moment.
The truth of the matter is that you are a part of the universe in the same way that your nose is a part of your body. Consider: if your nose was destroyed would your body also be destroyed? If your body was destroyed would your nose be as well? No and yes, right? However, can you alter one without altering the other? No. They are interdependent in this way. The same is true of you and the universe. And richly so... the interdependencies go far beyond this trivial level. See if you can't figure out some other interdependencies :)

In general, we sentient beings are absurdly overly confident in our own independence. Truthfully, we are so utterly dependent that any notion of independence is really foolish and comical. :)
Consider the ways in which you are dependent upon others... You are dependent on your mother, father, and their mothers, fathers, etc, going back (at least) millions of generations for your very life. Each one of those people was dependent upon myriad acts and people to sustain their lives long enough to produce offspring that eventually produced you. You depend upon countless people to produce the supply chains of food for your daily nourishment. You depend on countless construction workers and supply chains for your daily shelter. The water you drink is made possible by countless engineers and people responsible for maintaining the aquaducts and reservoirs used to provide fresh water. When you go to the grocer you depend upon all the people who worked to stock those shelves and produce the food and the packaging and the huge supply chains that went into it. Your clothing is produced by the people working the fields for cotton and other fibers. The machines used to harvest that fiber was itself designed and manufactured - by engineers and inventors - and required ore and other raw materials that itself took huge supply chains to produce. All the people above were similarly dependent on their parents for their lives. And all were dependent upon education in the various trades on their teachers. The teachers were also dependent through and through. The dependency graph is so thorough with so many nodes utterly replete with dependency that it boggles the mind!
That bug in china and you are not one. You are separate beings. However, both of you are utterly suffused with dependency and there are undoubtedly countless nodes in common between the dependency graph of that bug and your own dependency graph. It takes just a little imagination to come up with numbers of ways in which your story and that bug's are interrelated and mutually dependent.
Maybe, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" is not the definition of interdependent, but it sure seems a necessary condition! Any two things where you can truthfully say, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" you can be darn sure are interdependent :)

Another way of thinking about your question is trying to understand the relationship between a whole and the parts that make it up. Consider a car. Is a car dependent upon the things that make it up? Does the car depend upon the tires? Does it depend upon the brakes? Does it depend upon the windshield? The engine?
Say you start taking parts away from a car... at what point or at what part that you take away does it make the car no longer a car? This is a great question to consider and has been contemplated very deeply by Buddhist masters for thousands of years. Of course, earlier generations of Buddhists considered chariots not cars. The greeks considered ships.  What's your answer? :)
Hope this helps!

Great and concise answer

@Yeshe Tenley, this answer makes sense if the definition of interdependence is "you cannot alter one without altering the other." However, this brings up questions like, "If someone in China steps on a bug and I and the bug are one, how does that alter me?" or "If my neighbor stubs his toe while I am asleep how have I been affected?" Please let me know your thoughts.

@Yeshe Tenley, one more thought, I think I can make sense of all of it if I can say, "both the bug and I are aggregates of the universe, but the universe is not an aggregate of the bug or me." Unless the universe = mater + energy = aggregates of the bug and me. Is that what your point is? :)

Things just undergo transformation. You are not one with the bug, but neither you are separate, table is built of atoms in the way universe is built of us. And so everything is bound by cause and effect, in this sense "A speck of dust contains the whole universe". Human is built of non-human elements also; oxygen, water, air, animals (if you're non-veggie), therefore we should preserve nature, and so on. As we know from physics matter & energy never disappears, therefore effects don't cease, a bug is just transformed into air, the ground as it fertilises grass and so on goes continuity.

@Stanley, sure! the universe consists of nothing more than everything in it... by definition. What else could it consist of?! :) I've added more to the answer to hopefully help explain a bit more...

@Yeshe Tenley, really appreciate all of the time you spent answering. To your question: "what's your answer?" I have to honestly reply that I don't know. I really like the idea of seeing someone else and seeing their suffering as my own suffering (which is why I am meditating on interdependence in the first place). I am trying to understand the connective tissue between me and my fellow humans in such a way that allows me to live my life in genuine compassion and freedom. On the way there I got stuck on "the universe" :)

I rejoice in your effort! Bravo!!!! Keep it up :)

I think that a Buddhist view is that thoughts of self aren't helpful and lead to suffering.
This includes thoughts like:

"I exist"
"I don't exist"
"I am what I see"
"I am something other than what I see"
etc.

I think this doctrine is called or summarised as anatta (i.e. "not self" or "non-self").
One of the "wrong views" related to that is Sakkaya Ditthi, for example mistaking "form" for self or "perception" for self etc.
See topics on this site, like, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

Then the question of whether or not the universe continues might be one of The unanswered questions -- see MN 63 and MN 72 for details.

how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?
I think Buddhist doctrine is that the "aggregates" exist.
I'm not sure there's a universe apart from these aggregates.
It could also be argued (see e.g. "Sabba Sutta") that what exists is what's perceived by the senses (including the so-called "sixth" sense i.e. "the intellect").
That doctrine might sound (or might risk being) solipsistic, except that solipsism is an example of just the kind of "self view" or "I-making" that Buddhism warns against.

What I wrote above is more-or-less philosophical or metaphysical.
I think there's more to Buddhism that that (i.e. than metaphysics), e.g. Buddhism teaches ethics and generosity (and, perhaps, avoiding getting trapped in sensuality).

Also you might be making a category error when you talk about "the universe" -- is there any such single thing?
Instead I think that Buddhism teaches that things are "dependently originated": they exist when they're caused or when the right conditions exist.
This dependent origination is true for forms and true for sensations too.
Saying that "the universe is independent" may be a mistake, instead everything in the universe may itself be "dependently originated" (and therefore "empty" in the sunyata sense of that term).

Although this answer might be good for OP to click through to learn a bit about doctrine of no self I don't think it answers the question or even attempts to answer it.

I tried to answer it in two ways: 1) The OP's question presumes two views i.e. "I exist (depending on the universe)" and "The universe exists (independent of me)": so I try to summarise the Buddhist doctrine (from the suttas) on those topics. 2a) I attack the view that "the universe is independent" as a category error, and claim instead that there's nothing in or of the universe that is "independent". 2b) The universe not only isn't independent, it's not independent of "me", e.g. doctrine that the phenomenological universe depends on contact.

@YesheTenley What I thought was a "category" oddity was the claim that there's "a universe" that's independent, even though there's nothing in the universe that's independent. I guess a Buddhist view is that everything in the universe is dependent (on causes for their existence), just as "people" are dependent (on causes) -- which I think is relevant (a partial answer) to the OP's question which asked, "how are I and the universe one in the same?" And I wanted to separate or deemphasise the specifically "... of me" part of the question, because that's "thicket of views" territory,

@YesheTenley "The whole exists, independent of its parts" seems to me a "category mistake" as defined here: it's like, "the university exists independent of its colleges", or "the division exists independent of its battalions.".And these examples are less mistaken, e.g. a university does have some independent existence of its own: e.g. statutes, a name, and staff employed by the university itself not the colleges. Whereas I doubt that "the universe" has any independent existence: nothing except a collection of empty impermanent compound things?

There is a technical conflict between your question and Buddhist world view because of the doctrine of 'no-self' but there is an easy way to understand your koan.
how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?
Think of yourself as a drop in the Ocean, the drop depends on the ocean for its existance if the drop evaporates ocean is still there but if the entire ocean evaporates the drop evaporate too....
So how can how can the drop and the ocean one in the same?
Because, how can you ever save the drop from getting evaporated...
By dissolving it in the Ocean.
That is so...
Does the dog has Buddha nature?
Joshu said ," Mu"

May I ask, where did you first read or find, "how can you ever save the drop from getting evaporated... By dissolving it in the Ocean"?

@ChrisW I saw that in the movie Samsara by Nalin Pan....its about a Tibetean Buddhist monk....he finds it written on a stone in Tibet.

I never read Buddhism teaches you & the universe are one. This sounds like Hinduism.

It's an old joke: https://www.lionsroar.com/make-me-one-with-everything/

If by 'universe' you mean everything or all, here's an answer from the lord himself:

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range." -Sabba Sutta

They are all impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self.
So what is this 'I'/'myself' that you claim about, repudiating the All described by the Blessed One?

As I was meditating this morning I asked myself the question, "If I am
  destroyed would the universe also be destroyed?". I answered, "No."
  Then I asked, "If the universe was destroyed, would I be destroyed?" I
  answered, "Yes."

Your both questions are wrong. First understand who are you ? Whom do you call you?
Is it the body ? No you are not body because body is changeable and perishable.
Is it the feelings or perceptions or consciounsess or volitional formations ? No you are none of the above because all of them are changeable and perishable.
The thing you are calling 'Self' belongs to one of the five aggregates and it can be shown that you are none of the aggregates. Whatever is giving you the sense of Self is not worth identifying as Self. Therefore it is inappropriate to think in terms of I or me.
As far as Universe is concerned I assume you are talking about existence.
Universe arises then perishes and then again arises to perish again.It is an endless cycle of "birth" and "death". Those who absolutely say that Universe is eternal are wrong. Those who absolutely say that Universe ceases to exist are also wrong.
Universe(existence) arises because of attachment. With cessation of attachment the Universe(existence) ceases to be. It is conditional. With cessation of attachment(or craving) you will escape the endless cycle of birth and death and it is called Nirvana.

My question: how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?

Your question is invalid. It is inappropriate to think in terms of me or I.

These are perfectly valid and appropriate questions. If you don't think the question is appropriate, then perhaps just downvote the question rather than provide a non-answer in the form of an answer?

@YesheTenley Down vote for what ? It is perfectly ok to arrive at such questions because of delusion. It is a invalid question because it is not according to Dhamma.

I would note in case of confusion that It is not that the Universe doesn’t exist (if anyone comes to such conclusion) but the conceptual sense of Universe does not reflect its true meaning due to velcroing Self on top of that. I also presume you inclined Pāli perspective.

Generically telling people their questions are not valid according to Dharma is not skillful. By that rationale all conceptual questions are invalid no matter how artfully phrased. The OP is a self-described beginner.

@YesheTenley Questions about existence and non existence should be properly phrased then only they can be answered. Anyways it was my attempt to answer the question with my limited knowledge if you have a better answer I would be glad to accept it.

If you can't think in terms of "I or me" then how do you refer to yourself in conversation? How do you think of yourself at all in relation to the rest of the world? @Dheeraj Verma: at some point, you are limited by language, physical boundaries, etc. In my opinion, any concept that cannot transcend from the abstract and become practical in day to day life is not very useful.

Agreed. Any philosophy or theory that denies the conventional existence of "I" or "me" is not very useful. You and I exist. So does @DheerajVerma. Denying that seems silly. The question is how we exist? That's the nut of it :)

@Stanley craving leads  to the existence and birth of me. Conversations involve ear contact. With contact arises feelings. With feelings arise cravings. With craving arise existence and birth of me. Then I reply. This is suffering. With cessation of craving comes cessation of existence and birth of me. It will be better to put your questions in the forum.

@YesheTenley Whence did I deny existence of me and you ? Denying me or you would be equivalent to denying existence of suffering. Suffering does exist but it is conditional and if we meet certain conditions then cessation of suffering can be achieved.

@Dheeraj Verma, I am interested in the concept of suffering you talk about here. If there is no "me" then what is it that is it that feels and craves? Are you saying that "feelings" and "cravings" are aggregates of "me"? Please let me know your thoughts and which forum you are referring to.

@Stanley Unfortunately we can not debate here under comments. The questions you are raising should be raised seperately in this site as they demand detailed answer. It is invalid to ask who feels. Feelings arise due to contact.


text:
Is Buddhism antinatalist?
I was listening to a discussion with David Benatar, and the point that Buddhism seems to be antinatalist was raised. It seems that people argue this both ways. Can Buddhism be said to be antinatalist? Or some strands but not others? If it is, what consequences does this have?
I have always kind of dismissed Benatar's ideas as being a kind of Larkin-esque pose, and making a mistake in hierarchy that puts pleasure above meaning, like utilitarians. But if the charge of antinatalism sticks, it seems I am going to have look more carefully at which of his points also apply to Buddhism.

This is nearly a duplicate of various previous questions about having children.

Can you provide any link for the context....as far as the Canon and scriptures are concerned Buddhism has no attitude , for or against making babies.

I understand "Larkin-esque pose" as a reference to the poem, This Be The Verse.

Wikipedia defines antinatalism as follows:

Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social
movement that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue
that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad
(some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as
morally bad).

In respect to Noble People, Buddhism may possibly appear antinatalist, when it says:

Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search.
And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being
subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise
subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness...
death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is
likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth
MN 26

However, for laypeople, Buddhism appears not antinatalist. It says:

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

Buddhism says the pleasant feelings from renunciation, meditation & enlightenment are superior to the pleasant feelings from the household family life. Refer to the Sukhavagga in AN 2.

There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? The
happiness of laypeople and the happiness of renunciates. These are the
two kinds of happiness. The better of these two kinds of happiness is
the happiness of renunciates.
There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? Sensual
happiness and the happiness of renunciation. These are the two kinds
of happiness. The better of these two kinds of happiness is the
happiness of renunciation.
There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? The
happiness of attachments, and the happiness of no attachments. These
are the two kinds of happiness. The better of these two kinds of
happiness is the happiness of no attachments.

It follows it appears Buddhism is not 'antinatalist' because it appears to never say having children is "morally bad". Buddhism appears to merely say (for those capable of entering the Noble Path) not having children brings more happiness when compared to having children.
In conclusion, my personal view is Buddhism is not antinatalist.

Antinatalists argue that people should refrain from procreation
  because it is morally bad

According to the third precept, it's not procreation that is morally bad, it's sexual misconduct. So it's perfectly fine for a Buddhist layman to have a family and make kids. Buddhism doesn't really care if you have kids or not. Although the Buddha once said "Putta wattu manussanam"- son is an asset to man. But that's about it.
For monks, it's out of the question as they are not allowed to have any kind of sexual activity with anyone. But it's not because of women getting pregnant. It's because the lust that is involved is detrimental to their spiritual progress.
Birth is indeed part of suffering, but Buddhism never says that the solution to it is to stop people from making children. Even if you ban women from getting pregnant by law, beings will still be born elsewhere. The only way to end it is to cut off craving. So to call Buddhism antinatalist shows a weak understanding of the teachings of the Buddha.

No. Buddhism is not anti-natalist when it comes to lay followers, as you can see in the following sutta.
From AN 5.39:

“Mendicants, parents see five
reasons to wish for the birth of a child in the family. What five?
Since we looked after them, they’ll look after us. They’ll do their
duty for us. The family traditions will last. They’ll take care of the
inheritance. Or else when we have passed away they’ll give an offering
on our behalf. Parents see these five reasons to wish for the birth of
a child in the family.
Seeing five reasons,
astute people wish for a child.
Since we looked after them, they’ll look after us.
They’ll do their duty for us.
The family traditions will last.
They’ll take care of the inheritance.
Or else when we have passed away
they’ll give an offering on our behalf.
Seeing these five reasons
astute people wish for a child.
And so good people,
grateful and thankful,
look after their parents,
remembering what was done for them in the past.
They do for their parents,
as their parents did for them in the past.
Following their advice, looking after those who raised them,
the family traditions are not lost.
Faithful, accomplished in ethics,
such a child is praiseworthy.”

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Would a true Buddhist engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy?
The No true Scotsman fallacy is a rhetorical trick to avert criticism of a generalization by appealing to the impurity of counterexamples i.e., "no true Scotsman would do such a thing!"
My question is whether or not a true Buddhist would ever appeal to such a juvenile rhetorical trick?
I'm thinking that no true Buddhist would ever do this as I'm sure the Buddha would not have approved of such illogical argumentation. What's the community think?

As in no true Buddhist would do such a thing?

Correct. That's the question...

I think in this particular case given the code of ethics that would be valid in some cases.

I see The True Scotsman Fallacy as a joking illustration of reification. There is obviously no such thing as THE TRUE Scotsman. It's an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Every Scotsman is different and not all of them even live in Scotland! How can we possibly say that some of them are "true" and some are "fake"?
Similarly, "TRUE Buddhist" is an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Believing that True Buddhists actually exist or that someone is a true Buddhist while someone else is not, are two examples of reification.
So to ask "would a true Buddhist engage in The True Scotsman Fallacy" is akin to asking whether a reification would engage in reification. And of course it happens all the time! Someone considering himself a "true Buddhist" (I don't want to name any users here but I can think of a few) is by definition rather prone to engaging into a "no true Buddhist would do or say X, Y, Z" line of argument. Not to say that, even more generally, someone considering himself a sentient being is probably rather likely to have an unconscious predilection for engaging into all types of reifying views that lead to quarrels and arguments.
In fact the entire Buddhist path (according to Mahayana interpretation) can be seen as growing up from naive reification and into the "wisdom" (wisdom or prajna being a short word for "a skillful modus operandi based on special insight into the nature of phenomena with awareness of the rewards of, the dangers of, and the escape from - reification"). In this sense of course, a "true Buddhist" (from streamenterer and above, or from 1st Bhumi and above in Mahayana) would NOT engage into naive reifying definitions like "the true Buddhist" or "the true Scotsman" etc.
Which is why "a true Buddhist" would never ever consider him or her self "a true Buddhist". If this sounds like a paradox, welcome to true Buddhism ;)

So your answer is that a true Buddhist would not engage in this fallacy and further would not consider the term “true Buddhist” to signify anything more than a mere label? Also, can you elaborate on the part about considering oneself a sentient being? I didn’t get that...

@YesheTenley http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html

The "Scotsman" type of generalisation consists of trying to formulate a rule which links two pre-existing definitions. In the example you referenced ...

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

... there's a pre-existing definition of what "a Scotsman" is, and there's a pre-existing definition of what "porridge" and "sugar" are.
I get the impression that Buddhist dhamma avoids this, by (explicitly or implicitly) inventing new definitions or redefining existing definitions.
And so for example when Buddhist dhamma talks about kamma or etc. you can't assume that's a new statement about a predefined already-well-known thing, instead it may be a new definition.
Thus, to learn dhamma you need to learn (to understand) new definitions of existing words: what does "dukkha" mean when that occurs in Buddhist dhama, for example? What is considered "skilful" versus "unskilful", and so on?
I think there's an obvious example of that in the Dhammapada, e.g. in the last chapter -- the following is an example of a statement that might seem like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy:

"Holy men don't get angry."
"But uncle Angus is holy -- you can tell he's holy, by his matted hair -- and he gets angry."
"Well Uncle Angus isn't truly holy then."

... but the Dhammapada is quite clearly intending to redefine holiness:

Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

He who is free from anger, is devout, virtuous, without craving, self-subdued and bears his final body — him do I call a holy man.

See also Sat-Dharma: Buddhism is an (arguably successful) attempt to invent new generalisations which are always true.
I think that Buddhists (even true Buddhists -- who would I be to call anyone a fake Buddhist?) are inclined sometimes to test the limits of these generalisations, for example I've seen questions like:

If dharma is meant to be evident and here-and-now, then what about the doctrine of "rebirth"?
If lying is breaking a precept, what about a white lie told to save someone's  life from a villain?

Perhaps this question is another example: trying to define (and assert) what a "true Buddhist" is.
I'm sure the Buddha would not have approved of such illogical argumentation
Also I somewhat doubt that the Buddha was a slave to logic -- "Do I exist, or don't I?", or, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature, or not?".
It wouldn't surprise me if logic can be viewed as a example of "skilful means".
It's somewhat up to the audience to make sense of what's being said.
And I think that Buddhism isn't necessarily about making well-defined, legalistic statements of a type that can be tested and disproven; it's not like, "here is a picture", where you might ask, "does this picture match a photograph in every detail: or is the picture wrong?" It's more about providing frames of reference, compass directions, doctrine to help evaluate, structure, classify, and make sense of experience -- this answer is an example of de-emphasising the supremacy of the logical/rational (calling it "fruitless quasi-intellectual speculation").

Do you believe there is one true meaning of dukkha that is valid for all Buddhist dhama?
I'm not sure whether it's that ("one true meaning of dukkha") or the opposite.

For a start, they say there's no single English-language word that's a worthy translation ("suffering? unsatisfactoriness? stress") -- so instead, for an anglophone, it's a new word to be learned (with a meaning of its own).
It seems to be defined (in the first noble truth), or maybe the 1NT is merely using it (as a then-well-known word) to characterise other experiences
It seems to be broad or all-encompassing, for example:

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress."

and:

sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā

This sounds like Buddhism as a form of perfected dogmatism... you really think that's what it is about?
Google defines "dogmatism" as ...

the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence

... so no, I don't think that (though I suppose I'm more willing than some are, to consider dogma).
I see it as more of a science, e.g. it identifies experienced characteristics of things, and makes generalisations about relationships between things and between characteristics.
Part of what I find welcoming (about the dhamma as explained in the suttas) is that it claims to be "inviting inspection":

Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti

... and, "good in the beginning".
It's more useful (practical, beneficial, applicable) than some other forms of science.
In particular I see it as a set of (personally) useful (helpful) collection of tools (observations, views), rather than an abstract (impersonal, only-theoretical) set of dogma.
Note that in science it's alright to use logic to predict reality -- that's not called "dogma", it's called a "(working) hypothesis" (see also "faith" -- Andrei's answer maybe suggests that "dogma" is more a character of later forms of Buddhism).
And there's another sense in which it's not dogmatic: i.e. it allows for two forms of right view (mundane and supramundane).
can you give an example of the virtues of illogic
Here's a strawman example:
"Either you love me, and you'll let me skip going to school and stay home; or, you hate me."
I think that's a fictional example or illustration of childish logic, which an adult needn't accept.
SN 7.2 is a sutta about not accepting an insult. I think that in a similar way the Buddha wouldn't necessarily accept someone's logic: for example, "either practice austerities and self-mortification, or backslide into abundance" (instead of which, the Buddha taught a Middle Way).
Logic (as I understand it -- I was taught maths rather than logic or philosophy) is no better than its premises (its axioms); and tends towards black-or-white statements ("Are you logical, or illogical?"); and a closed system of logic is somewhat incomplete.
Other examples of what you called "illogic", and which I'd prefer to call "not constrained by logic":

The unanswered questions
The paragraphs which describe A thicket of wrong views
More generally, views and "attachment to views" can be a type of hindrance or fetter (partly because that becomes a cause of disputes; see also the simile of dhamma as a raft)

Identifying and avoiding the "thicket of views" and characterising it as a "fetter" is an impressive and useful achievement IMO (and an example of not being a slave to logic) -- comparable to cutting the Gordian knot (except kinder and everything).
Finally my personal opinion is that the Buddha described as trackless needn't care to be constrained by logic. Not that the dhamma is self-contradictory, but I once read the following aphorism described as a prière païenne ...

Faites que je me contredise souvent : afin d'être simple et vrai.

... which says that if you have a choice between saying something logically self-consistent, versus saying what's simple and true, prefer the latter.
Also my physics teacher for example taught me to see "first and second order approximations" as useful (practical, admirable, true, and appropriate), rather than as inaccurate.

Thanks @ChrisW! "what does "dukkha" mean when that occurs in Buddhist dhama, for example"... Do you believe there is one true meaning of dukkha that is valid for all Buddhist dhama?
"Buddhism is an (arguably successful) attempt to invent new generalisations which are always true."
This sounds like Buddhism as a form of perfected dogmatism... you really think that's what it is about?
"doubt that the Buddha was a slave to logic" ... can you give an example of the virtues of illogic?

@YesheTenley I edited, to try to answer your questions.

First, be careful with the word logic. It is easy to see oneself as ''logical'', but for anybody who does not want to pass for a boob, there is no relevance in  using the word logical,  before any learning about formal logic and natural logic, typically by talking to logicians.
Second, only rationalists claim that logics matter and they fantasize that some of the products of their imagination connect them to ''true reality'' which is some fantasy of going beyond ''appearances'' and ''emotional biases'' and that the various logics is a way to ''communicate clearly'' and a way of ''justifiable knowledge'' which would be a realization one of their deepest fantasy of labeling as knowledge something that is something else that the consciousness of whatever ''objects'' (to speak like the realists) is felt through the 5 senses.
This is for the ''secular'' rationalists. For the ''religious'' rationalists, the ''justifiable knowledge'' also include the scriptures that they claim ''are true'' or, let's say, ''are authentic, meaning authoritative'' or ''not altered'' by bad people.
In natural languages, their fantasy of ''arguments'', inside a ''debate'' are there to ''support a thesis'' and they claim that, somehow, the adversaries are supposed to changed side once they ''understand the arguments''. When they do not like a statement qualified as an argument, they are quick to label the statement as ''fallacious''.
All those quoted words are theirs and mean absolutely nothing.
Third, since you care about what rationalists do and that those people write books, you ''learn'' (to speak like a them) that the various indian buddhisms that you have today have been created by indian puthujjanas, then later on taken by the chinese and the tibetans who created the Mahayana and the vajrayana whose followers -- being puthujjanas -- are bound to love to use bad words to express their bad ideas.
The buddha did not create any buddhism. IT is the puthujjanas who created buddhism as their natural tendencies to fantasize a system out of any doctrine they hear or read. Some of those people go even further and try to create, or rather mix, their system with the organization of people, which is typically called a society.
Those people love to fantasize that the buddha would worry, or even worse, would agree with their views about some current social issues.
Yet, Typically, the only system created by the buddha is the called the vinaya.
Now puthujjanas love to fantasize about what a ''true something'' would be, like you who want to follow your natural tendency of puthujjanas to fantasize about ''what is a true buddhist'', you could say it is the one who at least follows the 5 precepts, but most people are not able to follow those for more than a few days or weeks.
You can even be more severe on your ''criteria'' (as if you -- as a puthujjana -- are able to discriminate among people) declare that such a person would be someone who has sati and restrain the senses all day long like a good fortress, day after day avoiding ''the 3 poisons'' of ignorance of the right view, of the path, of the 8 fold path, and, of course, of the lack of engaging in the ''middle way'' which is the presence of aversion and avidity towards the pleasures and pains, (by enjoying the senses or being such an ascetic that even the joy of the jhanas would be seen as inappropriate), like mentioned here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.063.than.html
. In one word, a true buddhist is a student of the buddha.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It looks like just a lot of word salad. BTW, I am very familiar with true formal logics.

No true Scotsman would do such a thing.

The statement above assumes existence of two kinds of Scotsman ,true Scotsman and untrue Scotsman. It assumes people are struggling to be called true Scotsman. True Scotsman is a highly coveted title.
The statement silently encourages the person be a true Scotsman. Applying that to Buddhist Sangha, it perfectly makes sense. The statement appeals to conscience. I think the statement can be used to make a  valid and wise appeal to both true Scotsman and true Buddhist.

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


text:
Spiritual & 'Worldly' Pleasures
If the mind experiences more and more happiness, calmness and all the other positive emotions due to virtue and meditation, does the mind then by itself slowly (!) withdraw from sensual pleasures?
Answers with sutta reference are preferred

The joy and happiness of spiritual development is considered to be far more superior than sensual pleasure, which is fleeting and bound up with suffering, as explained in MN 14. Also see SN 36.31 for further info.

Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.


text:
What is the difference between Citta contemplation and Dhamma contemplation in Satipathana?
What is Citta?
What is Dhamma?
What is the difference between above two in Satipathana?

https://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/chapter-two-sitting-meditation/

These are the two last stages in the 4 foundations of mindfulness:
Citta means "mind". Dhamma refers to the Buddhist teachings.
Cittanupasana is the meditation on the mind: the observation of the arising and setting of thoughts and desires. It is required to understand the impermanent nature of mind, which is wrongfully perceived as a permanent self.
Dhammanupasana is meditation on the Dharma, the Buddhist teachings. Typically a student will be asked to meditate/research one of these topics:

The Five Hindrances
The Four Noble Truths
The Seven Factors of Enlightenment
The Five Aggregates
Canon Literature

I don't think that this is a proper translation of the 4 Satipathanas. If we take your approach, how are we supposed to feel dispassion in Dhammanupassana? "Dhamma" in "Dhammanupassana" does not refer to the Buddha's teaching but rather about the 3 characteristics and the letting go (vosagga) of craving (tanha). The 4 Satipathanas are done in a chronological way. Once the Body and the Mind is tranquillized one is feeling rapture. Once rapture arises it is the object of meditation and one is in the vedana "realm".

Dispassion in the Dhammanupassana section clearly indicates that the Mind is that sharp, that is,without thoughts so that one can clearly see the impermanence of the 5 khandas and once the impermanence is seen, dispassion arises since they cannot be grasped. One ultimately lets go of the clinging since it is otherwise dukkha.


text:
Meditation and body scan
I have been practicing what I believe is insight meditation for over 5 or 6 years now in the Mahasi tradition but still very frequently I feel like I'm not doing it right or something. I suppose I thought that I would see some kind of change or have some insights but nothing much has changed and I can't say I've had any insights into the true nature of reality which is so often emphasised and mentioned.
I've started to do body scans but I'm unsure if I'm doing it right. I sit for a while and notice the breath then I start at the top of my head and go down the body part by part ie crown of head, back of head, forehead, eyes, nose, lips, chin, neck etc.  But I have difficulty with this. I'm unsure how to focus on a body part apart from trying to see it in my mind.
I don't feel anything anywhere except for the air going through the nasal passages, sometimes the eyes flutter a bit, the abdomen rises and falls and the hands sometimes tingle or pulse. Everywhere else feels completely dead. Maybe I'm completely out of touch with my body and its sensations. I know they must be there but why can I not focus on them?  Also sometimes I'll start at the head and then I realise I have wandered off for so long that the mediation is nearly over so I cannot even manage to scan the body at all!
Please don't tell me to read the scriptures or find a teacher. The scriptures bore me. I'm not a religious person.  They are just so repetitive and convoluted that I don't find them helpful. They send me to sleep, and trying to find a teacher is impossible. I have attended Sanghas regularly on occasions and nothing ever comes out of it. I don't know how to approach people and say can you please be my teacher. The people at the Sanghas didn't seem to be open to having students.

Get Ajahn Brahm’s meditator handbook.

If scriptures bore you that what do you expect to find on this site?

I have been practicing what I believe is insight meditation for over 5 or 6 years now in the Mahasi tradition but still very frequently I feel like I'm not doing it right or something.
You are practicing for 5-6 years but was it like 1 hour sitting every day for 5 years? Did you do any 10-day retreats? In all those years did you spend any days solely for meditation? If you have been doing it for that long, let's assume you have learnt the instructions and you are doing it right.
I suppose I thought that I would see some kind of change or have some insights but nothing much has changed and I can't say I've had any insights into the true nature of reality which is so often emphasized and mentioned.
The path of spirituality does not work like ordinary marketplace logic. Besides only doing insight meditation will not bring any significant change. Meditation or 'Right Mindfulness' is just one of the fold of the eightfold path of the Buddha. If you want to see a significant change then you have to follow the eight-fold path, you don't have an option of being selective.
I've started to do body scans but I'm unsure if I'm doing it right. I sit for a while and notice the breath then I start at the top of my head and go down the body part by a part ie crown of the head, back of head, forehead, eyes, nose, lips, chin, neck etc. But I have difficulty with this. I'm unsure how to focus on a body part apart from trying to see it in my mind.
After 5 years of practice, if you are still unsure and having difficulties with practice I will suggest you change the meditation you are doing. Samatha meditation is relatively easier and  Zazen is what I will recommend to you.
Please don't tell me to read the scriptures or find a teacher. The scriptures bore me.I'm not a religious person. They are just so repetitive and convoluted that I don't find them helpful. They send me to sleep and trying to find a teacher is impossible. I have attended Sanghas regularly on occasions and nothing ever comes out of it. I don't know how to approach people and say can you please be my teacher. The people at the Sanghas didn't seem to be open to having students.
I see your problem is not as much as of the practice as much as it is about the frame of your mind. You have failed to understand the context of Buddhism and you have directly jumped to practice and expecting results. From your overall question, I understand you have missed studying the practice of, 'let-go', of not having 'Expectations', the importance of getting instructed about Dhamma along with meditation.
I agree that if you start reading the scriptures of Pali canon it's repetitive and at times boring, but there is an option available, and that is reading the commentary. I reckon you read the book, 'In the Buddhas words' by Bhikkhu Bodhi, that will put you in a greater context of Buddhism which will guide you towards the experiences you want.
If this is still boring to you, I will suggest that you read a few books by Ajahn Brahm, he is a Cambridge graduate in Physics, his words might resonate with you. And if you are hell-bent on having spiritual experience only through the medium of instructions on Meditation, in that case, I will suggest you read, Ajahn Brahm's book, 'Mindfulness, bliss and beyond', no boring scriptures straightforward instruction manual which takes you to la-la land.
About the teacher part, you really don't have to deal with real world people now that the internet is there. There are a plethora of videos on youtube teaching you the basics of Buddhism putting you in the right context. Watch Ajahn Brahms videos on youtube.
You don't have to approach anybody and ask to become a teacher, it doesn't work that way. A teacher is usually a highly ordained monk who professes to be a teacher, by himself or herself. Don't rely on people if they are not around you, the internet is there.

"Besides only doing insight meditation will not bring any significant change." This is absolutely untrue. People get enlightened by 'only doing insight meditation'.

@Medhiṇī yes but they are instructed in Dhamma and then they do insight meditation as only meditation practise. By that what I meant was, not knowing anything about Budha or Buddhism and only getting instructed in how to do insight meditation. This seems to be the case of the OP.

Not sure what you mean by 'they are instructed in Dhamma and then do insight meditation.' I probably should have been clearer in my response as well. Insight meditation as taught by Mahasi encompasses the 8-fold path, in a practical way, meaning not reading and/or studying sutta's or hearing dhamma talks. Maybe for the OP it's best to keep with meditation. Maybe with enough practice the wish to also study the Dhamma will arise naturally. Who knows. ;)

@Medhiṇī by that I mean atleast you know about the nobke truth, 8 fold path, and some history of Buddha. IMO without any background whatsoever even if you are given best instructions in insight meditation its not possible to progress as the modern mind finds it meaningless. The OP is averse to scriptures and he also trying to find teacher so assuming he has no context whatsoever he wont be able to progress. What I am saying, the OP is the example. 5 years of practise and he still hasn't felt and change.

@Friederick Clear :) I myself have no idea whether background knowledge is really necessary. If I would have to speculate I would say it must be possible without text book knowledge to become enlightened. But maybe only for people who have done a lot of groundwork in past lives or so. The universal characteristics are not specific for Buddhism, that's why I think it should be possible. Change is change for everyone. But, hey... who knows. This is just speculation. :) The lack of progress with OP can simply be wrong meditation practice.

@Medhini  Background knowledge is absolutely necessary, Buddhism is based on discipline and code of ethics, otherwise mindfulness is used to create brain dead killing machines like in feudal Japan. Buddha said do good, avoid evil and purify your mind here’s eightfold path you need to follow. Anything other than that is not Buddhism and not enlightenment.

Very much agree about reading commentaries and exploring zazen,   .

The scriptures say to feel the air moving, which includes going through the nasal passages, the abdomen rises and falls, etc. The scriptures don't teach body scanning.

Predictable answer.  As I said Im not religious and do not refer me to scriptures. Can you read or you just choose to ignore?

Bodyscan is superstition.

“Please do not refer me to scriptures”, so how else in this ignorance would you like to know whether what you’re doing is right if not looking into the original source?

Likes of Goenka that taught methods of Vipassana body scanning  are strange interpretations of one of the Satipatthana Sutra reflections on the body.
When you do Vipassana try to do it the way they teach it in Theravada, based on scriptures. It is much more “organic” approach.
Instead of trying to forcefully scan your body bit by bit, focus on whatever becomes the object of mindfulness and current attachment; leg pain, itching, thinking, hearing. Label it at least couple of times and then concentrate to see it dissolve and become something else like hearing the airplane - labelling it just “hearing, hearing, hearing....” or “thinking, thinking, thinking...” etc.
Your mindfulness will eventually have to come back to the breath in the area of sensations (abdomen rising typically) as it is present to be aware of when other formations are absent or just perish due to detachment - we breathe as we are alive and our body moves. Such mindfulness with the breath is the core of what insight should revolve around.
I was also once taught in the temple that it’s best to precede Insight meditation with 30-60 minutes of walking meditation so we sit down fully concentrated and ready for Vipassana.

The following is not intended as ridicule. It is hopefully a skillful way of showing the error I think you might be making.
..........
I have been practicing what I believe is climbing for over 5 or 6 years now in the REI tradition but still very frequently I feel like I'm not doing it right or something. I suppose I thought that I would have scaled a couple of the 8000 meter peaks by now or have perhaps climbed one prominent one like Everest but nothing much has changed and I can't say I've had any success reaching the top of Olympus Mons which is so often regarded as "the ultimate climb" by my fellow Earthers.
I've started to climb the trees in my backyard and neighborhood, but I'm unsure if I'm doing it right. I usually begin by donning my climbing gear and grabbing my ice pick. I'm not sure how the ice pick is supposed to help, but the sales folks at REI said it was indispensable on the really hard climbs so I figure it must be really useful for what I'm doing.
I've gotten to the top of a few trees, but don't really feel any of the supposed exhilaration that comes from the higher altitudes. When I get to the summit I usually stop to take in the sights, but it all seems rather mundane. I know a successful summit attempt should should lead to feelings of accomplishment and a sense of grandeur, but it really doesn't in my experience. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Please don't tell me to join a climbing club or do any research into what climbing is all about. I know I probably don't have the best technique, but I would have thought I'd experience something by now. I'm not a person big on focused learning or discipline, I prefer to just do things and see what happens. Besides, the climbing community seems so serious and the materials I've seen describing proper technique or the accounts of others climbing are so boring for what so obviously boils down to just putting one foot in front of another on a continuous incline.

It should be "metres" not feet. Also you say it's meant to "show the error" but this doesn't seem like constructive criticism? The OP has explained specific difficulties ("scriptures convoluted and soporific" and "nothing comes out of attending Sanghas regularly" and "don't know how to ask someone to be a teacher") ... any advice about that? Or about what the Mahasi tradition says, about body scanning, or how to get insights into the true nature of reality? Or if you can't answer properly in this format, can you reference something that might be a relevant answer?

Hopefully the answer is sufficient. When the error is seen the answer to the other difficulties should be apparent.

I may be wrong. But I suppose you have a restless mind and you do the meditation incorrectly.
Meditation is like driving a vehicle. You learn how to drive and path to arrive a destination from someone who has already arrived the destination using the same way (or from someone who knows the way and still keeps driving). He/she mentions some landmarks you'll pass along the way to ensure you're in the correct path. What if you only search the landmarks everywhere from the beginning? You forgot driving or soon you'll have an accident. You should only focus on driving. By this way, eventually you'll pass the landmarks that you've heard. If you see a landmark, don't be overjoyed from that and stare at the landmark. Just keep on driving and you'll be arrived at your destination.
There's a good simile has been provided for mindfulness meditation:
Think of a doorkeeper. He only pays attention to the ones who step-in and get-out. Does he look at someone all the way from passing the entrance to his/her destination? The answer is No. His focus is on the entrance and he pays attention to the ones who step-in and get-out. In mindfulness meditation, think of your mind as the doorkeeper. Breath-in and breath-out is like the ones who step-in and get-out.
By saying "body scan", I think you've meant turning to insight (vipassana) meditation from tranquility (samatha) meditation. For this you should first practice tranquility meditation very well.
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.


text:
Is there any biological constraint to attain Nibbana?
This question may look like a copy of this question, but I am asking in a broader sense including age limit.
The historical reference of a person attaining Nibbana in oldest age is Joshu, apparently, he became enlightened at the age of 80 and then settled down to become a master. But he looks like some kind of exception.
Gotama Buddha attained Nibbana in His 30's, from scriptures all the others seem to be between 30's to 40's nobody is told to be very old. Neither was Bodhidharma, Zen patriarchs, Tibetan masters like Milarepa, Marpa all seem to be somewhere in 30's or 40's during their Nibbana, based on what all things they did after that.
So, I am asking is there any biological limitation, age limitation, for Nibbana?

As far as I know the youngest arahant in the sutta's was 7 years old. Unfortunately I don't remember which sutta this is.
So, I would say: no, there is no limitation to reaching arahanthood or nibbana.

(check my pali spelling because it's from my memories too)  Tabba-Malla-Putta -Thera).  one of Buddha's great disciples in the area of arranging places for Bhikkus  to live (at Jetta Grove-by matching personalities to share same room etc), and distributing gifts received for Sangha.   He was accused of raping a Bhikuni.  when asked by Bhudda, his answer was something like ( act of fornication) wouldn't even occur in his dreams, etc..  This goes to show that an arahat has dreams, just not about sensual pleasures.


text:
Sila & (Non)Remorse AN 10.1
Suppose a person does certain acts that are not in line with the precepts but he does not feel remorse because it seems to the person as an trifling act, for example taking something from his/her parents without their consent or gossiping and lying (as skillful means for example).
What is the Buddhist answer to that? As I know, regarding lying and gossiping for example, it is quite clear that one shouldn't do it regardless of an alleged benefit.

Bikkhu bodhi issues a video mentioning precisely the topic of discussion
Anguttara Nikaya: Duka Nipāta, The Book of the Two (2018.07.07) Bhikkhu Bodhi
Sutta 77-
I do not recall at what time he talks about that. But his answer is that the kamma of somebody who does not feel shame of doing bad things as exposed by the buddha is worse than the karma of the guy who feels shame for the same acts.
This answer leads to the conclusion that dangerous are the people who claim that the feeling of shame must be avoided once you follow the path, and that other people who follow the path must not judge other followers.

The last paragraph says that, "People who claim you must avoid feeling shame, and/or who claim that people on the path shouldn't judge others, are dangerous".

The Buddha discovered the Middle way before He attained Nibbana. The middle way is also in the first sermon of the 'turning of the wheel'. Its an important aspect of following the path.
The point I am making is, to attain to Nibbana you have to live as the Zen says 'on the razor's edge'. You have to balance the Eightfold path.
This means that you don't have to live on the extremes of moral behaviour. So the trivial acts you should learn to ignore.
In modern times creating work-life balance, we do a lot of things which strictly speaking won't be moral but can be trivial. If you end up being pedantic to every action you will become paralysed. You don't have to be critical but you do have to be aware and mindful of every action.
So as long as your actions don't cause suffering to others and yourself it is fine.
Edit: There will be another set of answers pointing the obvious references to Karma, but one has to understand there is a difference between 'do-gooders' and the current generation of 'Stream-enterers'.

...a person does certain acts that are not in line with the precepts but he does not feel remorse... (i.e., delusion/ignorance)
A child, craving a memory of love might steal from parents. A person once slandered might gossip. A person once betrayed might lie. And these actions perpetuate suffering. This is suffering.

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. ... then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering

Like gravity, kamma happens. Always and eventually. Consequences do arise. For lying, trust is lost. For stealing, fear of loss arises. However, we tend to consider solutions only when we know suffering.


text:
Holding my breath
I don't breath appropriately.
Most of the time i hold my breath its like I'm tensed.
When i was a child i started doing this when i was near people but today (40 years old) i hold my breath all the time even when i walk.
When i am sleeping i breath appropriately.
I have developed a lot of problems like Photophobia and Phonophobia .
Is there any exercise that can make me breath appropriately?

Looks like a medical condition to me. You should consult a doctor.

I was. He said that i need to exercise breathing.

Try to breathe mindfully; be aware of in breaths and out breaths and also be aware of the length of the breath more often. Make it so that there is a proper rhythm to it, and a habit.
Important bit is to combine it with mindfulness practice in a gentle fashion - stressing gentle.
On the other hand, how wonderful that you will be doing it mindfully with such purpose!
There is also a beautiful yoga in Dzogchen tradition called Yantra Yoga that is a yoga of breath; it is worth taking up classes for great benefit.


text:
What is a Buddhist approach to reducing envy?
Envy is an explicitly unwholesome mind-state, according to Buddhist doctrine. Unfortunately I am experiencing strong envy lately. Can somebody please provide any and all resources to help understand and eliminate envious feelings?

While it is now easier said than done by me, but "eliminating" envious feelings is quite problematic.

The Pali scriptures say the antidote for envy is to practise 'mudita', which is to be happy for the happiness & success of others. The phrase for the practise/recollection of mudita is: "may all beings not be parted from the good fortune they have attained".

Do you have any sutta references for "may all beings not be parted from the good fortune they have attained"?

This formula “sabbe sattā laddhasukhasampattito mā vigacchantu” occurs in Vinayavinicchaya-ṭikā (3134) and in the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha (ix.24).

The important step to deal with envy is to be aware or conscious that you are feeling envy and you have achieved that.
Following are the different envy states and dealing with them;
1. Envy about worldly possession/achievement:
We usually feel envy towards somebody we know, someone we have some degree of a bond. So identify, do you feel envy because he/she achieved something that you haven't.
So, instead of focusing what he/she has got and feeling envy, you should focus on what you have been already given to you by life and generate a sense of Gratitude towards life. Gratitude is the opposite of envy when you will have a sense of gratitude for what you already have, your envy for what others have will be automatically dropped. Also, remember someone somewhere is always dying to get into your shoes.
Some words of the Buddha on Gratitude

"These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done."  — AN 2.118

2. Envy of a person
In the second kind of envy, you might be straight out jealous of a person, about his/her just being. Maybe he/she is more good-looking than you, more intelligent than you etc.
Here again, you have to turn the focus inwards and stop comparing your self with others. You should develop some positive and realistic self-image. Focus on some creative activity and find a sense of well-being through that.
3. Pure Envy
This is the third kind of envy where you are just envious, no matter what, no matter who. In this case, its a kind of a blessing in disguise that you have become aware and conscious that its there.
Now watch, there is envy, envy, envy. Do not react. Remain aware and mindful. Be watchful. Remain a witness to the energy of feeling of envy. Stay non-judgemental. If you practise this it will go by itself and you will have an added capacity of dealing with feelings.

this i am trying to help you out by contemplating knowledge gained from netsite puredhamma.net.on buddhism.
envy is nothing but the dejection of what you did not get. Further, if we expect money then we dont envy with bill gates. from this it is observed that for envying somebody that person should be of our or lower than our level . something is wrong in contemplating the other person"s level. leaving aside general talk,
buddhism needs to be understand in broader perspective ,particularly from rebirth point of view . there are 31 realms where one cyclicly takes birth till attainment of nibbana . the lower five  realms are of human,animal,asuras,preatas and hell. considering human life we can experience the suffering in it howsoever sweet it may be. animal realms itself has its agony. the asura realm is for that being who is full of greed. preta for hate and hell for tremendous suffering. the human posses all i.e greed,hate,anger,envy,sensual desires etc .The births in any of this realms we get is due to our deep rooted cravings or aversions .  It is extremely difficult and uncertain that we will get human birth,howsoever we have lived moral and pious life bcs at the time of death which craving or aversion stacked from our previously lived milliuons of lives ,cropp up is totally not in our hands. yes to some extent if we can control our cravings or aversions in this life ,the very habit of craving and aversion is weakened till the time of death and at the time of death this weakened habit will not be able to cropp up any of the cravings or aversions deep rooted since many past lives. the whole morality i.e not to envy,judge is having base of our selfish motto of not getting birth in any of these four lowest but strongly filled with agony and suffering realms. so forget about this span of 80-100 years of this birth. think about the future births.envy cropps out of deep craving for something which we didnot get but other gets it and that too with virtues less than us. so choice is yours. understand the feelings are bound to arise ,thanks to us only bcs we have stacked enough fuel from many past lives. the nature of fuel is to burn and exhaust/extinguish . you have started the car ,the fuel is burning ,let it burn ,dont move the car. after burning of the fuel it will automatically stop. just sit and listen,observe to the firing of engine ,burning of the fuel. the very craving of going somewehere has made you to fill the fuel tank. though this have been accomplished ,still you have the choice  to go or not. think envy as the fuel compelling you to take birth in the realm of extreme suffering and agony. this understanding can only stop you from envying. this is the only difference between us and animals .if we would have been able to stop and control any feeling,not to be carried away with it ,then we would have not been humans then we would have been gods. only understanding,thinking,reviewing one can get out of it .there is no other way. God if you  might have been  believing , then he has given only these weapons to us .

Since some buddhist anwers were given I will give you now as an adjunct also a western psychological solution:
While it is now easier said than done by me, but "eliminating" envious feelings is quite problematic, because as the Buddha mentioned emotions are compounded and therefore they take time to 'cool of'.
We have to obstacles here:
i) You attitude(s) about the situation/person where you feel envious and
ii) Your attitude(s) about your envious feelings.
From a modern psychological point of view it is largely your rigid and dogmatic shoulds', 'should not', 'must', 'must not which give you problems. If a 'must' does not happen, or a 'must not' happens then there are 3 other derivatives which stem from these musts and those are:

Awfulizing: You rate the situation as more than 100% bad. Nothing could be worse and there is no bigger picture considered.
I can't stand it: You believe that you cannot bear a situation just because it is uncomfortable, yet, while it is uncomfortable you can stand it, you won't disintegrate and now the most important part: Since you have a goal to change your thoughts, emotions and behaviours you have to tell yourself: 'It is hard to bear with this, but I can stand it and it's worth to stand because [...]
Self, Other and World depreciation: A HUGE ONE!
You give absolute ratings to yourself, others and/or the world. Whether these ratings are in positive nature or in a negative one is unimportant. Once you rate something as an absolute, for example "He is wise", "They are good/bad" it can be quite problematic, for everything is in a quite complex nature. Human beings are always changing and they do many good, bad and neutral acts. Additionaly, they are also quite fallible. I don't think you can dispute that fact, can you?

Next to fallibility and complexity we have also the characteristic of uniqueness that every person only exists once and has his/her special attributes, preferences, past experiences etc.
The solution? Self Acceptance. You accept yourself, others and the world in their essence. You do not demonize them, but you accept yourself or them, never the act of what you or they did, but the person. 'Forgiving the sinner, not the sins'. With regards to the world you also realise that discrete parts of it are bad, good and even neutral.
Counterparts of shoulds, awfulizing, I can't stand it and self, other, world depreciation:
'Shoulds' which I refer to as rigid are the counterpart of flexible beliefs are usually formulated as: "I would (strongly) prefer if Condition [...] happens/not happens", but I realise that there is no law of the universe that spares me from such condition".
'It is bad that this happened, but it is not the end of the world. There are also alternatives to take into account and I can also learn something from these seemingly bad event' is the counterpart of the 'awfulizing' attitude.
'It is hard to stand this situation but I can stand it, I won't disintegrate and it's worth to stand it because [...]'.
'I/He/She/They/The World am/is not/are not[stupid, rotten, bad...], but a fallible (for humans), unique and complex entity. I/They do many good, bad and neutral acts but I/They are not their acts and to say otherwise is an arrant over-generalization on my part'.
Before, in the midst and after facing the difficult situation you can try remember your self tailored belief and rehearse if internally to get you back in a rational state of mind, but remember that your old beliefs are still somewhat active and old feelings and thoughts will still occur. If they do you can dispute these thoughts with mainly three disputing questions:
1) Empirical: Where is the evidence? Where is it written? Is there a law that states...?
2) Logical: Just because I want [..] to happen/not happen, does it therefore mean that it absolutely must? Just because he/she/they think I am stupid does it mean that I am?
3) Pragmatical: Is it helpful to believe this? What are the short and long term consequences in believing this?
Remember that while you can counteract your old thoughts they won't go away immediately. Just counter them once or twice to get familiar with the process and have an alternative at hand. After the amswering back just accept these feelings and don't engage in them. 'Let them be'.


text:
Favourite Mahayana inspirational texts/treaties
I would like to ask the community here what are your favourite treaties or texts in Mahayana tradition that did personally make great impact on your practice in the way that it cut through illusion or allowed you to grow by breakthrough in understanding etc. It might have sentimental value of sorts.
It might be a bullet point list with the title and description what it is and why it had such impact on your practice.
Examples of such works could be Dogen - “Shobogenzo” or Shantideva - “Way of Bodhisattva”. It might be written from perspective of Vajrayanists but not about tantric practise per we.

This question is potentially divisive given that there could be an "accepted answer" to such an open ended question.  A better forum for such a question might be: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/discussion, which supports open, thought provoking supportive discussion.

@OyaMistAeroponics An answer's being accepted "simply means that the author received an answer that worked for them personally."

Hope this helps!

On the method side: Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life

The quintessential guide to the method aspect of the Mahayana path and one of the most beautiful works of literature ever conceived. I challenge anyone to read this book three times and not come away with an aspiration to become a Bodhisattva for the benefit of all.

On the wisdom side: Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way

The definitive explanation of the Buddha's Middle Way. This treatise explains how things exist and how they utterly do not exist. Ideally, the commentary by Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, Je Tsongkhapa and others should be read in order to understand what this treatise says and what it does not say. Probably one the most important yet misunderstood text in all of human history.

Analogies, metaphors, allegories, illustrating and illuminating the above including: Rope and Snake, Dreams of a Mother, Ambrosia+Water+Pus&Blood, Chandrakirti's Chariot, Ship of Theseus, many many others.

These have been extremely helpful to my mind and contemplating them has opened up my own understanding meager as it is.

Diamond Cutter Sutra

Especially this verse, "As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all the compounded like that." This succinct instruction by the Buddha summarizes how to view all phenomena.

The Sutra of Golden Light

The last few chapters are both self-referential in delightful way and give extremely beautiful examples of Buddha Shakyamuni's actions as a Bodhisattva in previous lives. IMO, reading this Sutra is a good way of starting a New Year.

This verse, "As long as space endures, as long as sentient beings remain, until then, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world."

The quintessential sentiment of a Bodhisattva displaying profound Bodhicitta.

I agree Diamond Sutra had great impact on my practice it explored notions of Heart Sutra that match my meditative and mindfulness insight about interbeing. It has a great shock value when first read.

Vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā sūtra (aka The Diamond Sutra) - one of the first Buddhist texts I ever encountered in my late teens. Very puzzling back in the day. Inspiring, because apparently full of meaning but absolutely incomprehensible.
Shōbōgenzō by Dōgen - yes, because it very clearly expresses the spirit of Enlightenment.
Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra - clearly illustrates practical implications of prajnaparamita.
"The Prayer of Kuntuzangpo" and what basically is a commentary on it, "Lamp of Mahamudra" by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol - very clearly explains the Ground Mahamudra.
Śālistamba Sūtra - the best explanation of Twelve Nidanas, linking Early Buddhism and Mahayana.

The Diamond Cutter Sutra was going to be near the very top of my list of Sutras, but OP asked for non-Sutra refs.
This verse especially, “As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all the compounded like that.”

I have lifted that requirement, I think it was unnecessary. You can go ahead and add it @Yeshe

I've been much impressed by (the german translatio of) "the essential teachings of Zen Master Hakuin". A partly very fierce statement - that style of teaching was really new to me and unexpected when I'd just a couple of years met buddhism. One which really took me on his line was his refusal of bad habits in contemporary zen-lineages and/or temples: very populated temples preferred by young monks because of good food, dried-out lineages: dead ("ashes") after only few generations of followers, and something else the like.
On the other hand a very clear, detailful and even challenging interpretation of the dharma: for me a true spiritual leader (and successful reformer)

Without a doubt, the Heart Sutra was the most impressive sutra I heard which basically put me on the path of the Dhamma. This is coming from a Theravadin.
1. The Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form.
Before I read this, I had just finished reading Krauss' book, the universe from nothing. There are many commentaries on this sutra, one of them is by Indian mystic Osho. When I listened to His commentary on Heart Sutra I could relate so much of it to physics that I never looked back. The core of this Sutra also resounds in recent research in physics like works of Bernardo Kastrop about Idealism.
2. There is no suffering and no end of suffering.
This was another Sutra which established me into immense faith in the words of the Buddha. Basically, Buddha contradicted Himself while explaining to Sariputta. The intelligence of the Buddha to put forth His ideas is unparalleled. This made me realise there is nothing dogmatic about Buddhism.
Some works by Zen masters.
3. Zen Mind beginners mind, by S. Suzuki
Not a Sutra but a scholarly work by the S. Suzuki, excellent explanation of No-mind approach towards living life. Ths made a huge impact on me because after reading this book I was in a Zen monastery and was cleaning a pathway covered with dry leaves of silver oaks, believe me, or not, I had a Kensho.
4. The way of Zen, by Alan Watts
Don't remember the exact lines or words, but this book gave me a very vivid understanding of Zen.

Do you understand a 'kensho' as being the same as a direct perception of emptiness? ie., achieving the first bhumi?

@YesheTenley no i just tried to find a word from Zen literature to describe the experience I had...it wasn't emptimess but it was a sense of annata with hightened joy which lasted for few seconds...

The Heart Sutra contradicts Theravada therefore a Theravadin cannot ever praise the Heart Sutra.

@Dhammadhatu I have my troubles accepting the Bodhisattava Vow other than that I see the differences as contextual. So as a Thervadin I don't have much problem praising the sutras.

Curious about Dhammadhatu's comment, I found this interesting: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/5480/heart-sutra-controversy

The differences are huge. It merely shows you don't understand Theravada and don't understand the Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra is teaching "nothingness" or "non-conceptuality", which is not Theravada.

Heart sutra teaches that things are empty of Self, but that does not mean nothingness of non-conceptuality which is essentially nihilism. Mahayana is not nihilism. When you have negations in the sutra it is only to show that things aren't as they are if we frame them without considering dependent origination. And then we get the meaning,only when it is Selfless context-wise. Seeing the mountain, not seeing the mountain and seeing the mountain again.

Its just Mahayana sutras have different tactics vs Theravada. They are meant to be figurative and non-direct in meaning in order to accelerate progress through a shock factor, rather than using direct, unambiguous meaning through vocabulary.  From Tricycle magazine (Gil Fronsdal, former Theravada monk): https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/emptiness-in-theravada-buddhism/

In all discussions of ...your favourite treaties or texts...that did personally make great impact on your practice..., one must be sharply aware and mindful of the following:
... he conceives 'the gods of Abundant Fruit as mine,' he delights in the gods of Abundant Fruit. What is the reason? Because they have not been fully understood by him, I declare.
There are those who may consider the Pali canon "non-Mahayana". However, this particular root discourse is very helpful in understanding the saying often attributed to Zen master Lin Chi:

If you meet the Buddha on the path, kill him

Even the Heart Sutta ends with

Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha

To paraphrase, Gone, gone, gone all the way over,all gone to the other shore, Enlightenment, hurrah. And that includes gone beyond favorites.

When I started studying Rinzai Zen in the 1980's I was captivated by Rinzai zen books. They became my "favorites". The pithy sayings spun my head and galvanized me into intense inquiry. And yet, the more I studied, the more favorites disappeared. I eventually found and resonated with the Heart Sutta and started chanting that core mantra. It seemed an appropriate focus to the disappearance of favorites. And then one day I met a Buddhist monk. I asked him why I could not find a copy of my favorite Heart Sutta in Benares/Varanasi when I visited that Indian city holy to Buddhism. He told me, "the Heart Sutta is Chinese." And then he directed me to the Pali Canon.

That doesn't mean to let go of everything. A translation is, "go, go, go beyond, go thoroughly beyond, and establish yourself in enlightenment."

FWIW, I don't think of the pali-Canon as "non-Mahayana" either :) The important question for this thread is what @dhamma4life was intending.

@YesheTenley yes. Answering this has been somewhat personally stressful for me. A good practice. Thank you.

I prefer this translation : "Gone, gone, gone all the way over, everyone gone to the other shore, Enlightenment, hurrah!".

Given the variety of translations, I've edited the paraphrase to simply reflect my own crude and imprecise personal interpretation. Apologies for not getting it quite right. It is ironic that this is a Chinese sutra that I, even though I am Chinese,  cannot read in the original because I don't know Chinese.

Nothing wrong with the translation you had, it is one of the popular ones, however, there is a slight stress on "everyone gone" or "all gone" to point out bodhisattva's wish for all beings and it's always worth pointing out.

Since I started the topic, I may post something as well.

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - Shunryū Suzuki

First book on Buddhism that I have read. It was about 14 years ago when I took it from the shelf, pointed to me by my mother. Frankly, it caused more confusion than actual merit. Concepts explained in the book are not laid out very well, and concept of non-duality presented may be counterproductive taking emptiness for nihilism by ordinary person. It is quite shocking given how popular this book still is. Nonetheless, this was the first touch and opportunity for getting to know Buddhism per se, as such it has only sentimental value.

Dogen - Shobogenzo

Greatly inspired by Suzuki's book I delved deep into Dogen's work and Zen in general. Shobogenzo and Dogen's postulates didn't make much sense to me at the time, but eventually, what I considered utter nonsense came back to me with the wave of understanding as a surprise, only after reading bits and pieces from Pali canon by Buddha - the proper way, ground-up as it should be. Dogen's work is a true masterpiece that anyone should read, I much believe so. I recommend Gudo Nishijima's translation along with commentary.

Diamond Sutra

Whoever wrote this sutra, that person was a realised being at a great level of understanding. A mother and father of all koans, it’s a Diamond that cuts through illusion, a cleaver penetrating through consciousness. With all the Theravadin heritage to Buddhism, and all the reflection that Mahayanists had at gradual, patient ways of understanding, with all the respect towards rich and rigid Pali vocabulary and knowledge-centric drills of understanding - here’s something different, the Diamond sutra, a complete antithesis of the above. The text that negates all the subtle, patient ways to experience glimpses of Enlightenment. It is meant to shock, to violently prod in order to rewire the way brain perceives and understands things. Diamond sutra is best to be taken by an inexperienced person, the unprepared lost sheep that will become a wolf and then ultimately shepherd of the sheep (Bodhisattva). It hammers with shocking and fearful statements, only to bring joy and understanding borne out of shortcutting and cracking the mind open. All to arrive at the true door of the dharma eye. There was nothing starker that stood in contrast with traditional ways of teaching, teaching not by laying out mere intellectual knowledge, but by exposing direct experience of states of mind beyond concepts and cognition. It is more than sutra - it is a deeply meditative experience, just by barely reading it.

Thich Nhat Hanh - A poem on Vietnam war crimes.

The poem was written shortly after Hanh's followers faced brutal execution. I cried when I first read it, it struck me deeply how much compassion a person might have, then I first realised what burden it is to take up a Bodhisattva vow and what it actually means. Link: Promise me, promise me this day, promise me now...

Eight Verses on Training the Mind - Geshe Langri Thangpa

Following on concept of Bodhisattva, this is a great text when one feels down and needs a hint or a reset on the path. It conveys all of the advice required to get back on track in the moments of confusion. I chose this text due to simplicity and because it's very concise (short) as a memo.

Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment - Atisha

Another profound text that tackles on Bodhisattva discipline, profound insight into Emptiness and meditational advice. This is from the perspective of Vajrayana and the last stanzas tackle Greater tantras. Just as Eight Verses for Training the Mind, I use it as a supplement whenever confused, and in need of clarity. An invaluable read of greatest value.

Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way - David J. Kalupahana

This book is actually very interesting as it was written by Theravadin and aims to prove that Nagarjuna was no Mahayanist. Rather, later some of the interpretations and commentaries oftentimes distorted many points of Nagarjuna's message. In my opinion the book does prove its presumption successfully. It also describes false prophet phenomenon in which Nagarjuna was given too much credit without actually being revolutionary with his philosophy. Furthermore, it tackles why Mahayanists chose a new icon that many times was worshipped and the put on pedestal above Buddha in the canon.  Kalupahana there concludes that it was merely a rivalry aspect/tactics between the two schools, purely to undermine Theravada. The book also includes Kalupahana's translation of Nagarjuna's work.


text:
According to Buddhism ,what is God?
If I am not wrong ,Buddhism denies God. But I am not sure what is the kind of God which Buddha denied ?
My question is : According to Buddhism what is God ? ( Any scriptural reference would be great.)

Also along with the duplicate question....god is devas in some indian language translations....so in this case god also means devas like indra and all...

I was looking for scriptural reference where Buddha explicitly denies any God whether Indra or Jesus or Krishna or Allah etc.

“God” has many definitions. One definition is of a omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe. The Buddha has denied this exists or is even possible. Another is of a “god” as supernatural non-human being or beings. The Buddha does not deny this and in fact has supported the existence of these. Other definitions of “god” are possible...

@YesheTenley nice answer. Any reference to suttas ? (Original question mentions jataka tales)

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


text:
How can I end my attachment to holidays?
Every day I look forward to the day when there will be a holiday. Holiday brings a sense of relief to me. However I know this is a false sense of relief as after every holiday there will be a working day. I am attached to holidays. If there is a work on holidays I feel greatly stressed. If there is a holiday on a working day I feel greatly relieved. (Some people experience Monday blues which is a specific case of my generic experience. )
My question is: How can I escape the mental affliction I bring upon myself by getting attached to holidays ?

You are not attached to holidays, you just hate your job.
As you said, you feel greatly stressed if you have to work when its holiday, shows that you don't enjoy your work.
You should learn to enjoy the work you are doing.
Now how to do that?
Become mindfully aware. Watch every action you are doing. Don't be judgemental towards your work. Basically apply everything they teach about mindfully washing the dishes.
Also I recommend you read Dogen book on cooking.
Then everyday will be a holiday. No attachments left.

I love my job when I have no choice of holiday. For example if I am told that I will have to work everyday then I will be glad to do that. But for some reason holiday comes along and I miss my routine but soon I realise that holidays are there to celebrate as they are stress busters. There is nothing to do on holidays. Thus I become attached to holidays. I do not hate my job. It is like having two wives. I love one more than the other.

Can you please tell me the name of the Dogen’s book ?

@DheerajVerma its called tenzo kyokun.

I read the book. It is called instruction for the zen cook. Dogen was a cook for the Sangha. He was serving Buddha,Dhamma and Sangha therefore he had faith which gave him the confidence. Who am I serving ? I am serving nobody. From where I can generate the same confidence as Dogen. Either I will have to change religion or I will have to find faith in humanity...which I am loosing lately.

You missed the point of the book. I recommended you to read it to learn about how to cook mindfully, meaning to do your job with such degree of mindfulness that the very act of doing job brings deep relaxation and you wont need a holiday. It is not the question of serving anyone. Whatever job you are doing do it in a way Dogen instructed the cook. It will bring peace. No need to change religion. And if you have lost faith in humanity then excuse me I can't be of much help...I am part of humanity.

Verma #iseewhatyoudidthere actually changing religion is actually a good idea, work or holiday it will bring peace to you.

As Japanese Zen Master Dogen said in Genjō Kōan:

We get nostalgic when the blossoms wither but hate it when the weeds blossom.

This is a typical example of The First Noble Truth. We look at the beautiful cherry blossoms and morn their transience. We get attached to the experience of beauty and want it to go on forever. But because we know it won't last long we get nostalgic even before they wither. And once they actually dry up and fall, we feel the sadness. This is an example of attachment-based-dukkha.
At the same time, when the weeds grow high in our yard, when they thrive and bloom - we do not feel the joy of beauty. On the contrary, we feel joy when the weeds wither and die. We'd rather kill the weeds with a lawnmower or a herbicide chemical than see them flower. When the weeds thrive despite our efforts to kill them, we feel frustration. This is an example of aversion-based-dukkha.
In both cases, a plant grows flowers which bloom and then eventually wither and fall. But we think that the cherry blossoms are good because they are beautiful and the weeds blossoms are bad because they are ugly. It is our attitude (aka "attachment") that determines whether we experience dukkha or not. But what is the nature of this attachment and how can it be removed?
If you look at your mind directly, you will see that you have this fixed preconception - "holiday is good and work is bad, because _______". Just like with flowers and weeds. You need to look at your mind directly and see the formula that you are stuck on, e.g.: "work is stressful, because at work I'm continuously bombarded by endless requests and don't have time to even use the toilet" - or something like that.
These type of formulas often come from some implied social stereotypes that we subconsciously absorb from the social interactions. For example, if most people around you assume that hard work is for dummies and that the "smart/successful" people do not work much, you may internalize this attitude as "hard work is for losers" - which may lead to the kind of aversion to workdays and attachment to holidays you're talking about. The exact formula will be different for everyone, but there is always some kind of formula involved, you just need to see what it is.
Once you see your formula directly, you can get rid of attachment/aversion by simply letting go of the formula. If your vipashyana is not strong enough yet to do it directly, you can use a counter-fabrication like seeing peace in effort and stress in rest - or as Buddha have said, "see doing in not-doing and not-doing in doing". In other words, you can analyze the two situations (holiday-time and work-time) upclose, find the elements that go contrary to the attachment, and upadana those element-signs - to fuel the counter-fabrication by going over the signs again and again.
An internalized preconception - what I called "the formula" - is an example of reification at play. We generalize some description ("There is a hard line dividing weak and successful people => The weak people are forced to work a lot => The successful people are smart enough to avoid hard work => Overtime work is for dummies => If I work overtime, I'm a loser => Attachment to holidays, feeling stressed when there is work on weekends => Dukkha") and then we reify this description into a wordless formula that contains all of that description in a highly condensed form. Every time we think about working overtime, we feel stressed, with the entire description quickly replaying in our heads.
The technique that Buddha taught -- "seeing the non-pleasant in pleasant and seeing the pleasant in non-pleasant" and "finding the not-doing in doing and finding the doing in not-doing" -- works by breaking the generalizations we make about the components of the formula. We can attack the formula that "Overtime work is for dummies" by finding factual evidence that makes the formula false, for example: "Successful people actually work a lot, they work crazy hours - in fact, that's how they become successful!" -- Here, we have found an example that goes contrary to the generalization we have internalized (that "Successful people do not work hard"). By thinking about this counter-fabrication over and over again we can weaken the original reification and destroy the formula that leads to suffering.
Or, in the other example, one where "I" felt that "work is stressful, because I'm continuously bombarded by endless requests" - we could approach it like this: "Why do I think that being bombarded by requests leaves no time for anything else? Indeed, it is up to me to control my work pace. Why don't I slow down a little to make it more comfortable?" In this case the unquestioned generalization was the formula that "being bombarded by requests leaves no time for myself". We have internalized an assumption that we must handle every request as soon as possible, with no regard to our own comfort level. Identifying and deconstructing that assumption allows us to change our behavior and our perception of the situation - eliminating the source of aversion that leads to suffering.
Holiday is holiday and work is work - but you don't have to love one and hate the other. You can learn to be at peace in the suchness of here-now, whether it's work or holiday. You just need to understand how dukkha comes from reification and how reification can be dispelled by challenging one of it's underlying assumptions.

Wisdom says both flowers and the weed give dukkha.

Both work and rest are source of dukkha. Eight fold path is the solution to dukkha nirodha.

Don’t get too attached to cutting off your craving for holidays, I consider it a hindrance that is counterproductive - it is the source of aversion and suffering.
If you find happiness in each moment being free with liberation and bliss - you will have lesser degree of attachment to temporary conditional sources of happiness and sensory pleasures.
Maybe mindful life doesn’t make you feel happier and suffer less? Maybe you try too hard or need to focus on Perfections on the path also. It is important to set boundaries in your practice that don’t make you fall into low mood so you seek for temporary pleasures that much. Then increase these boundaries slowly overtime when the tolerance is greater.
While you’re on holidays enjoy your time, but bear in mind the recollection that this sort of happiness is unsustainable, and so even on holidays try to find peace in mindful sightseeing, so it is more than enough to make you feel free of attachments, and even attachments to holiday attractions. These will eventually  become just high pitch noise - it’s fine if this sort of sensory pleasure is there, so we enjoy while it lasts, but also fine when it isn’t.
When practising joyful and gentle mindfulness one should get enough bliss and glimpses of unconditional happiness after fetters and some causes of suffering are gradually combated.
That is in my opinion the solution, based on my personal practice experience. But don’t be harsh on yourself! It is not making you a happier person.

If you alwayd chase for holidays you probably don't like your job (as Friedrick mentioned). You can conciously choose positive aspects in it and try to focus on them more, or if people are involved you can use this to cultivate metta.
If there are people that are bothering you you obviously have to tell them quite assertively your concerns, or alternatively l2eave your job for a more fullfiling one.

I am sharing a very subtle change in my feelings which I experience due change in circumstances.

Since Effacement doesn't seem to be working (i.e., you love your work), consider applying Satipatthāna and its progression, which proceeds from craving, through aversion, thence to delusion:
Here, monks, a monk knows
 a craving mind state as a ‘craving mind state;'
 a craving-free mind state as a ‘craving-free mind state,’
 an aversive mind state as an ‘aversive mind state,’
 an aversive-free mind state as an ‘aversive-free mind state,’
 a delusive mind state as a ‘delusive mind state,’
 a delusive-free mind state as a ‘delusive-free mind state,’ (etc.)
...I look forward...
Specifically, take special care to avoid the automatic expression of "I" as posed in the question and simply acknowledge the craving as "There is a craving mind state (for holidays)."