text:
If consciousness is a Reification, how does a Buddha attain the Truth?
'Reification' is making something real, bringing something into being or making something concrete.
The Pali suttas say about the relationship between consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment:

Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the
  other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one
  discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. MN
  43

Is the Enlightenment or Wisdom of a Buddha a Reification?

Isn't that (i.e. "how does a Buddha attain the Truth?") answered in the next line of MN 43 -- i.e., "The difference between these things is that wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood"?

The question make a wrong comparison. It's a totally different story.
From question's quote, ven. Sāriputta in Ma. Mū. Mahāvedallasuttaṃ (MN 43) is talking about minds&wisdoms, which are clinging-aggregates of  run-of-the-mill person before enlightenment; But from question's asking, enlightened minds&wisdoms of Buddha are minds&wisdoms after enlightenment, so Buddha's enlightenment-wisdoms are declung-aggregates of the noble one.
1. Question's quote is declung-aggregates:
Declung-aggregates  in Sutta. Saṃ. Sa. issatthasuttaṃ:

The entire spectrum of an adept’s ethic-aggregate, immersion-aggregate, wisdom-aggregate, freedom-aggregate, and knowledge&vision-aggregate of freedom.
Asekkhena sīlakkhandhena samannāgato hoti, asekkhena samādhikkhandhena samannāgato hoti, asekkhena paññākkhandhena samannāgato hoti, asekkhena vimuttikkhandhena samannāgato hoti, asekkhena vimuttiñāṇadassanakkhandhena samannāgato hoti.

Declung-mind-aggregates in the end of Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Anattalakkhaṇasutta:

And while this exposition was being given, the cittas of the group of
  five bhikkhus, by not clinging, were liberated from the āsavas.
Imasmiñ·ca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṃ bhaññamāne pañca·vaggiyānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ
  anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṃsūti.

Declung-wisdom-aggregates and declung-mind-aggregates in Sutta. Ma. U. Mahācattārīsakasuttaṃ:

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom(paññā), the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind(citta) is noble, whose mind(citta) is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.

2. But question asking about clinging-aggregates:
Clinging-wisdom-aggregates in Sutta. Ma. U. Mahācattārīsakasuttaṃ:
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
Clinging-mind-aggregates in Sutta. Tī. Ma.  Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ Cittānupassanāpabba:

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands citta with rāga as "citta with rāga", or he understands citta without rāga as "citta without rāga", or he understands citta with dosa as "citta with dosa", or he understands citta without dosa as "citta without dosa", or he understands citta with moha as "citta with moha", or he understands citta without moha as "citta without moha", ...

So, the Enlightenment or Wisdom of a Buddha is a Reification, and the other aggregates as well.

Note: Citta (mind), mano (intellect), and viññāna (experience/consciousness) are same, according to  Sutta. Saṃ. Ni.  assutavasutta:

"But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted
  with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain
  release from it...


text:
Food enchanted by spells (SN 7.8)
The Aggikasutta (SN 7.8) below states that the Buddhas do not eat food enchanted by spells i.e. food that was chanted over for the Vedic fire sacrifice.
Does the Buddha reject ritually chanted over food? Why is this the case? Does this apply to Buddhists as well?
What is the meaning of "The Buddhas reject things enchanted with spells. Since nature is real, brahmin, that’s how they live"?
I asked another similar question before here. That sutta seems to be about offering food after receiving a teaching as not being allowed, because that's remuneration. However, this question is different because the Buddha did not give any teaching before being offered the milk rice. Instead, the milk rice seems to have been chanted over, in the fire sacrifice ritual. Furthermore, the Buddha asks the brahmin to serve some other food, not the one chanted over with verses.

At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove,
  the squirrels’ feeding ground. Now at that time ghee and milk-rice had
  been set out for the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshipper, who
  thought: “I will serve the sacred flame! I will perform the fire
  sacrifice!”
Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe,
  entered Rājagaha for alms. Wandering for alms to be consumed on site
  in Rājagaha, he approached Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper’s house and
  stood to one side. Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshipper saw him standing for
  alms and addressed him in verse:

“One who’s accomplished in the three knowledges, of good lineage and
    ample learning, accomplished in knowledge and conduct may enjoy this
    milk-rice.”
“Even one who mutters many invocations is no brahmin by birth if
    they’re filthy and corrupt within, with a following gained by fraud.
But one who knows their past lives, and sees heaven and places of
    loss, and has attained the ending of rebirth, that sage has perfect
    insight.
Because of these three knowledges a brahmin is a master of the three
    knowledges. Accomplished in knowledge and conduct, they may enjoy this
    milk-rice.”

“Eat, Master Gotama! you are truly a brahmin.”

“Food enchanted by a spell isn’t fit for me to eat. That’s not the way
    of those who see, brahmin. The Buddhas reject things enchanted with
    spells. Since nature is real, brahmin, that’s how they live.
Serve with other food and drink the consummate one, the great seer,
    with defilements ended and remorse stilled. For he is the field for
    the seeker of merit.”

When he had spoken, the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshipper said to
  the Buddha: “Excellent, Master Gotama! …” … And Venerable Bhāradvāja
  the Fire-Worshipper became one of the perfected.

With the Pali version:

“Food enchanted by a spell isn’t fit for me to eat.
“Gāthābhigītaṃ me abhojaneyyaṃ
That’s not the way of those who see, brahmin.
Sampassataṃ brāhmaṇa nesa dhammo
The Buddhas reject things enchanted with spells.
Gāthābhigītaṃ panudanti buddhā
Since nature is real, brahmin, that’s how they live.
Dhamme sati brāhmaṇa vuttiresā
Serve with other food and drink
Aññena ca kevalinaṃ mahesiṃ

See pages 96-97 of Piya Tan's essay:

The Saṁyutta Commentary paraphrases the significance of the two verses, thus (as the Buddha’s
  arrière pensée):

Though I have stood for such a long time waiting for alms, you would not give even a spoonful;
    but now that I have revealed all the Buddha-qualities to you as though spreading out sesamum
    seeds on a mat, you wish to give. This food has been gained, as it were, by singing a song
    (gāyanena gāyitvā). Therefore, as it has been ‘chanted over with verses’ (gāthā’bhigīta) it is not
    fit to be eaten by me. Since there is the Dharma (dhamme sati), out of respect for the Dharma,
    established in the Dharma, the Buddhas sustain their life. This is their rule of conduct, this is their
    way of livelihood (esā vutti aya ājīvo). Such food should be discarded and only what is properly
    gained should be eaten.” (SA 1:232; see Miln 228-232)

The Critical Pali Dictionary defines abhigīta as “spoken over with mantras,” suggesting that the Buddha
  rejects the offering by the brahmin because he has chanted over it with the sacrificial hymns. However,
  Bodhi thinks that “it is doubtful that the Buddha would reject food for such a reason. Further, according
  to [SED], gāthā is not used with reference to the verses of the Vedas, and thus here the word likely refers
  to the Buddha’s own verses” (S:B 446 n446).
  To suggest that the Buddha rejected the brahmin’s offering simply because it has been chanted over
  with Vedic mantras would suggest that the Buddha is superstitious! The real reason has to do with right
  livelihood (sammā,ājīva).

His translation is a bit different from Ven. Sujato's, i.e.:

Gāthā’bhigītaṁ me abhojaneyyaṁ
  The gatha-sung should not be partaken by me,
sampassataṁ brāhmaṇa n’esa dhammo
  O brahmin, this is not the way of those who see.
gāthā’bhigītaṁ panudanti buddhā
  Buddhas reject what is gained by the singing of verses,
dhamme sati brāhmaṇa vuttir esā.
  When there’s Dharma, brahmin, this is the rule.

I re-read the "food" chapters of these Vinaya summaries ...

The Bhikkhus' Rules --
A Guide for Laypeople
The Patimokkha Rules
The Khandhaka Rules

... and didn't see anything there about ex-sacrificial food not being allowable as alms food.

Based on ChrisW's answer, the standard commentaries seem to be of the opinion that food offered as remuneration for teaching the Dhamma is not accepted by the Buddhas. They also reject the idea that the Buddha was superstitious.
This seems to conflict with Itivuttaka 107:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, brahmans & householders are very helpful to you, as
  they provide you with the requisites of robes, alms food, lodgings, &
  medical requisites for the sick. And you, monks, are very helpful to
  brahmans & householders, as you teach them the Dhamma admirable in the
  beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end; as you
  expound the holy life both in letter & meaning, entirely complete,
  surpassingly pure. In this way the holy life is lived in mutual
  dependence, for the purpose of crossing over the flood, for making a
  right end to stress."

From my reading of other suttas of Brahmana Samyutta (SN 7), I think the Buddha rejected food ritually chanted over from the Vedic fire sacrifice, not because he was superstitious, but because he discouraged superstition. By accepting the food, he would be validating the notion that the sacrificial milk rice is special and meant for noble ones. Challenging superstition seems to be part of the theme of SN 7.
In SN 7.7, the Buddha says that austerities does not make one pure and chanting mantras does not make one a brahmin.
In SN 7.9, the Buddha challenged the superstition of caste by birth.
In SN 7.21, the Buddha enlightened a brahmin who held the superstitious view that purification rites using water can wash away sins.

What is the conflict with Iti 107? I think that monks and laypeople are meant to depend on each other (e.g. as described in Iti 107) however monks must not sell their dhamma talks for food. So there are monastic rules about food and dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a quid pro quo is forbidden -- having given a dhamma talk (i.e. after his speaking) the Buddha was no longer willing to receive food, because that would appear as if he were receiving food in exchange for or as payment for talking.

@ChrisW I will add a new question asking for references.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is papañca?
One word in Pali Canon seems to be especially challenging for translators to convey. This word is "papañca" (e.g. MN18, DN21, Sn 4.11, AN4.173). Some attempts at translating papañca include "exaggeration", "proliferation", "association", "conceptualization", "objectification", and "reification".
What is papañca and what is it's significance in Buddhism? How is it used in Pali Canon and what is it's referent in real life?
How is papañca (prapañca in Sanskrit) explained by Mahayana philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Asanga, and Tsongkhapa?

Apologies, because this may be overlong. I would like to look at three examples from Buddhist literature, two being Pāli suttas and one being a Mahāyāna treatise, because they both address directly the issue of "prapañca" (which can be translated as "proliferation," "hypostatization," "objectification," "fetishization," etc.).
The first is the Ānandasutta at AN 4.174. The translation here is from Venerable Sujāto:

Then Venerable Ānanda went up to Venerable Mahākoṭṭhita, and exchanged
greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were
over, Ānanda sat down to one side, and said to Mahākoṭṭhita:
“Reverend, when these six fields of contact have faded away and ceased
with nothing left over, does anything else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Does nothing else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Do both something else and nothing else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Do neither something else nor nothing else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Reverend, when asked these questions, you say ‘don’t put it like
that’. … How then should we see the meaning of this statement?”
“If you say that ‘when the six fields of contact have faded away and
ceased with nothing left over, something else exists’, you’re
proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘nothing else
exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that
‘both something else and nothing else exist’, you’re proliferating the
unproliferated. If you say that ‘neither something else nor nothing
else exist’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.

The text that I have bolded, "proliferating the unproliferated," corresponds to "appapañcaṁ papañceti." This is "papañca" with a negatory "a-" prefix followed by another form of "papañca," namely "papañceti." If we substitute the other translations offered for "prapañca," we get:
"conceptualizing the non-conceptual," "objectifying the non-objectified," and "hypostatizing the unhypostatized," among other possibilities.
In the sutta quoted above, Venerable Ānanda asks, essentially, whether or not the Buddha exists after death, or if he both exists and does not exist, or if he neither exists nor does not exist. Venerable Mahākoṭṭhita tells Ven Ānanda that he should not say it like that (referring to his questions). Ven Ānanda asks for clarification, and Ven Mahākoṭṭhita further explains to him that these four positions (or "four theses") are instances of "proliferating the unproliferated." Namely, four kinds of instances:

"when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else exists"
"when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, nothing else exists’
"when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, both something else and nothing else exist," and
"when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, neither something else nor nothing else exist."

This is what is called the "tetralemma." It appears in the earliest of Buddhist literatures, but is often associated with Madhyamaka. Here it appears again in another Pāli sutta:

... a mendicant went up to the Buddha ... and said to him:
“Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why an educated noble
disciple has no doubts regarding the undeclared points?”
“Mendicant, it’s due to the cessation of views that an educated noble
disciple has no doubts regarding the undeclared points. ‘A Realized
One exists after death’: this is a misconception. ‘A Realized One
doesn’t exist after death’: this is a misconception. ‘A Realized One
both exists and doesn’t exist after death’: this is a misconception.
‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death’: this is
a misconception. An uneducated ordinary person doesn’t understand
views, their origin, their cessation, or the practice that leads to
their cessation. And so their views grow. They’re not freed from
rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness,
and distress. They’re not freed from suffering, I say.

(Abyākatasutta AN 7.54 translated by Ven Sujāto)
We see the same four views outlined here and identified as things that concern "the undeclared points." The "undeclared points" are the four positions of the tetralemma that the sutta outlines. They are described elsewhere as "a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views."
What brings these two sections of Pāli suttas together? Ven Ānanda asked if the Buddha existed or not after death. In the other sutta, the Buddha explains that the existence, nonexistence, etc., of the Buddha after death is "an undeclared point." This term, "undeclared/undeclarable" (avyākṛta), is also sometimes translated as "inconceivable," "unfathomable," or "unspeakable."
So we see that even in the earliest of Buddhist literatures, "prapañca" is associated with speculation concerning "the undeclared points," which are further known as "the unfathomable things."
In the East Asian Buddhist tradition, prapañca is translated as various versions of "戲論" ("xì lùn). This is sometimes translated as "meaningless talk," but I prefer the rendering "frivolous pondering." In this section of the Madhyamakaśāstra, a 3rd century Central Asian Madhyamaka treatise that was translated by Venerable Kumārajīva in 409AD, the commentator, Venerable Vimalākṣa, engages in a dialogue with an unnamed interlocutor. Notice how Ven Vimalākṣa references "appapañcaṁ papañceti" (proliferating the unproliferated) when he says that Nirvāṇa "cannot be frivolously pondered as a frivolous pondering" (不為戲論所戲論).

[Ven Vimalākṣa] Living beings are of three
kinds: a superior, a middling, and an inferior. The superior sees the
characteristics of all phenomena as neither real nor unreal. The
middling sees the characteristics of all phenomena as either all real
or all unreal. The inferior, on account of his shallow intellect,
reasons seeing the characteristics of all phenomena as slightly real
and slightly unreal. He sees nirvāṇa as the unconditioned phenomena
and as the imperishable and reasons it to be "the real." He sees saṁsāra as the
conditioned and the false and reasons it to be "the unreal." "Neither real
nor unreal" is taught to break (the view of) "Both real and unreal."
[Interlocutor] The Buddhas, in other places, say "separate from neither
existence nor nonexistence." In light of this, why say "neither
existence nor nonexistence" are the Buddhas' words?
[Ven Vimalākṣa] On those occasions, it was to break the four kinds of
attachment to existence that it was taught, not for dramatic discourse. We hear the words of the
Buddhas. We attain the way. Like this, we say, "Neither existence nor
nonexistence."
[Interlocutor] Even if we know
that the Buddha on account of the four theses spoke, how does one attain this true
aspect of all phenomena, and by what characteristics is it made known?
[Ven Vimalākṣa] "Not from another," means that even if the
non-Buddhists appear to you with godly powers, saying
"This is the right, or wrong, path," you will be confident in
yourself. Even if they can transform their bodies, even if others
cannot tell they are not Buddhas, knowing the true aspect, you will be
undistracted by them. Within it, there are no phenomena to be gained
or surrendered, as it is quiet tranquility. Because it is
characterized by quiet tranquility, it cannot be frivolously pondered
as a frivolous pondering. Those are of two kinds. First is the
argument from emotion, and the second is the argument from opinion. Via the middle,
there are none of these two frivolous ponderings. Two frivolous
ponderings (being) naught, there is neither agreement with nor dissent
from. "Not another" and undifferentiated from itself, it is
described as "reality."

(Madhyamakaśāstra T1564.25a14)
Some notes for context:
In the above, when Ven Vimalākṣa quotes "Not from another," he is quoting from the root text of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā XVIII.9, which reads "It is known through itself, not through another. It is quiet tranquility devoid of frivolous ponderings. It is undifferentiated and non-discriminative. Thus, it is called 'the true aspect'" from the Chinese (自知不隨他寂滅無戲論無異無分別是則名實相).
I've also bolded where the tetralemma appears, once referred to as "the four kinds of attachment to existence" and once referred to as "the four theses." The "argument from emotion" refers to argumentation rooted, ultimately, in ignorance and suffering, as well as craving and greed. We want to live forever. An "argument from emotion" to this effect would be "Isn't it awful to believe that people just die? Surely it's better (and makes me feel better) if ordinary persons, or maybe just the Buddhas, were immortal." An "argument from opinion" refers to personal theories as well as to secondary theses derived from primary doctrines. An argument of this sort would be "The Buddha must exist after death, because it is said that he doesn't not exist after death."

Excellent points, I especially loved the Pali examples. In the context of those two Pali suttas I suppose the best translation would be "to reify" or "to hypostatize" (as opposed to "to proliferate" or "to ponder frivolously") - but regardless, I definitely "get" the meaning, no need to "papancize" it :)

"Reify" is a good one. I didn't include it in the list of examples in the post. These are all getting at the same sort of thing. To reify is to "thingify," which arguably is the "proliferation" of things. So with that sense, I don't mind "proliferation," but I do admit that it is highly vague. Proliferating what?
"Hypostatization" is fine as well, and its only downside is that it is usually associated with Christian theology where it means something completely different. I am somewhat biased to the rendering of the Chinese translations of ~400. "Meaningless talk." It's hardly literal though

"Frivolous pondering" being a variant reading of "meaningless talk."

IMO, it refers to a "conceptual proliferation" of (unskillful) ideas concerning something that is, in truth, inconceivable and unutterable (such as "the Buddha exists after death," "the Buddha does not exist after death," etc.). It is the mental "hypostatization" of a non-entity into an entity (such as "self" from "the five aggregates"). It is an "objectification" and a "reification" because it makes objective and makes real what is non-reifiable and unreal. It is also, ultimately, "meaningless talk." All of the proposed senses can apply. The best is a matter of opinion IMO.

i downvoted this answer because of its focus on 'non-conceptual' , 'undifferentiated' and 'non-discriminative'. Obviously, the mind of enlightenment discriminates, differentiates and conceptualizes what is papanca vs non-papanca. If non-pancana or appapañcaṁ was not discriminated, differentiated and conceptualized, it could not be described verbally or spoken of. Papanca obviously refers to concocting wrong views & unnecessary views. For example,  many suttas say Buddhas do not "die" therefore questions about a Buddha & death are redundant & arise from papanca.

Your personal opinion is noted, Dhammadhatu. How you arrive at your opinion, as usual, is mysterious and baffling, as nowhere in my answer do I talk about the "nonconceptual," but it is noted.

also AN 4.174 appears to correlate "contact faded away and ceased with nothing left over" with "appapanca". This appears to show the fading away of contact refers to the ending of ignorance at contact rather than the destruction of sense experience.

That is not relevant to my post or the OP.

Its relevant. It points out appapanca is the cessation of ignorance. Therefore wise conceptualization & wise differentiation is not papanca. .

You are confusing correlation with existential equivalence.

Irrelevant. I made my point which is correct. Thank you

It is incorrect. Thank you.

You guys are hilarious

I am not a translator and do not know of the proper translation, but another closely related word that I'm particularly fond of is hypostatize. There is also the noun form hypostatization.
Mark Siderits and Shoryu Katsura translate the Sanskrit version of this term - prapañca - as hypostatization in Nagarjuna's Middle Way so it looks like I'm not too far off :)

The general definition is very close to reification. It means to attribute real ontological identity to a concept and Mirriam Webster gives the root as the Greek hypostatos which is "substantially existing."
Here is my favorite example of hypostatizing...

From Insight Into Emptiness page 258, “For example, a young woman may
  want to have a child. When she is asleep, she dreams she gives birth
  to a child and is elated. But later in the dream, the child dies and
  she is devastated. However, on waking, she sees that neither the
  exhilarating appearance of having a child that brought her joy nor the
  horrible appearance of the child’s death that caused her anguish is
  real.”

Before she woke up she hypostatized her child (attributed real concrete existence to it) and this led to both elation and anguish. After she woke she stopped the hypostatization and the elation and anguish faded. However, there is also something very subtle happening when she woke up: she considered the dream unreal in relation to something else! Unreal and real are a dichotomy and mutually dependent notions :)
Another great and famous example is that of how three different beings perceive a cup filled with a liquid substance.

Three beings each perceive a cup filled with a liquid substance in
  front of them. The first, a god, looks and takes a sip and perceives,
  “ambrosia!” The second, a human being, looks and takes a sip and
  perceives, “water.” The third, a hungry ghost, looks and takes a sip
  and perceives, “blood and pus.”

Which is real? Which is unreal? What is worthy of being hypostatized and what is not? This is sometimes referred to as the simile of the three cups of liquid in Mahayana texts.
Another famous example by Nagarjuna is the body of a woman being seen differently by an ascetic, a lustful man, or a wild dog:

With respect to the same female body,
  Three different notions are entertained
  By the ascetic, the lustful and a [wild] dog,
  As a corpse, an object of lust, or food.

Each hypostatizes the body as very different things. Which is real? Which is unreal? Can the body be thought of as having any essence whatsoever? Or is each perception thoroughly and utterly relative and dependent? Is there anything whatsoever objectively real or worthy of being hypostatized in such a situation? Can any of it withstand analysis?
In fact, prapañca is a concept so important to Nagarjuna that he opens his famous Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way with this:

And here is how Siderits characterizes the commentaries on this opening Homage Verse:

Indeed, if you look through the rest of Nagarjuna's verses you will see that this is a major subject of the treatise as the commentaries attest.
Here is that very same Homage Verse as translated by Garfield and commented on by Je Tsongkhapa:

I prostrate to the perfect Buddha,
  The best of all teachers, who taught that
  That which is dependent origination is
  Without cessation, without arising;
  Without annihilation, without permanence;
  Without coming; without going;
  Without distinction, without identity
And peaceful—free from fabrication.

Je Tsongkhapa cites Chandrakirti saying in his Prasannapada that these Homage Verses, "reveal the content and ultimate purpose of the Treatise."
Further, this site gives prapanca in Tibetan as spros pa which is also how it is used in Je Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Reasoning:

free from conceptual and verbal elaboration : sgra rtog gi spros pa
  zhi ba
  sgra rtog gi spros pa zhi ba : free from conceptual and verbal
  fabrication

Thank you for this new word, I have not seen this before. Though the question is more about usage and interpretation of papanca in Pali Canon and Mahayana texts, but I appreciate this information too.

@YesheTenley, it seems your last two examples (while correct) emphasize the other aspect of reification. It is true that our perceptions largely depend on our perspective and interpretation (which is what your examples emphasize) - but the traditional emphasis in (Mahayana) Buddhism is, I think, on our tendency to grasp abstractions as if they were realities, regardless of perspective. To be sure, your emphasis on reality as interpretation is equally important.

@AndreiVolkov hmm, I see these examples as also providing evidence for what you call the traditional emphasis if I'm understanding you correctly. IOW, the fact that multiple perspectives exist - indeed infinitely different perspectives - undermines that anything real is being perceived at all.

@AndreiVolkov found quite a bit more including how the most recent translation of Nagarjuna's MMK from the Sanskrit is filled with this word. It is indeed very important to the teachings of the Middle Way school of Mahayana!

Yup, I'm watching the answers, so I see the changes. Already +1'd once so can't do again :) But yeah this is like the heart of the Teaching as per Madhyamika.

Three years and one month, and you haven't ticked this as the right answer. Even if it's not right, it's the nearest anyone would get to a Mahayana understanding.

Bah, I don’t think it is necessary to sweat any of that Max :) Whether OP wants to mark an answer or not is up to them and not so important

First, I will start with a canonical definition of papanca from MN 18 (translated by Ven. Sujato):

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting
of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you
feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think
about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from
which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the
proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known
by the eye in the past, future, and present.
MN 18

And the same applies to the other five senses and their sense objects, including mind and thoughts.
For e.g. I see a cup. Feeling means sensing the vision of the cup with my eyes. Then I perceive it, meaning I identify it as "my late grandmother's cup" from memory. Then I proliferate, meaning I think about the times I spent with my grandmother and the times she drank using the cup. It stirs emotions about my late grandmother. Then I think about what I'm going to do with the cup in future. That's mental proliferation (papanca).

"What is Papañca?" is precisely the name of the article by Andrew Olendzki, the editor of the Insight Journal, who tries to answer this question, and then relates the purpose of vipassana later in his article, beyond my quote below.
Basically, papañca is the layers of thoughts and concepts that obscures what is barely perceived.
Imagine you walk through a canteen line and the canteen staff places five pieces of potato on your plate, while placing six pieces of potato on another person's plate. If you get angry about this, thinking perhaps, that the canteen staff is discriminating against you perhaps due to your ethnicity - well, this is an example of papañca, where it gives rise to aversion. You imagined a lot of stuff, on top of what is insignificant.
Another good example is this answer, where the author wrote that she was terrified because she misinterpreted the nightly sounds of cats mating as an adult woman and her baby crying in pain.
I've recently spoken to a depressed friend who did not feel that he is good enough and suffers from a lack of self-confidence. He cites examples of where others are better than him. I quoted qualities and examples of him that are better than each of those other persons and he was shocked. He never saw it in that way before. He was too obscured in his mental commentaries of his deficiencies that he couldn't see his good qualities and personal strengths.
But papañca can be a lot milder than that. For e.g. your feeling of patriotism or pride towards your country or ethnicity or religion is in my opinion, papañca too, as it a built-up concept.
In the article, he continues to speak of Vipassana as a means of one seeing things as they truly are.
The opposite of "papañca" could be "yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti" which means "seeing things clearly as they truly are".
From Andrew Olendzki's article, "What is Papañca?":

papahcabkirata paja nippapanca tathagata
“People delight in
proliferation, the Tathagata in nonproliferation.”
—Dhammapada 254

Papañca is one of those delightful Pali words that rolls off the
tongue (or bursts through the lips, in this case) and hits the nail on
the head. It points to something so immediate, so pervasive, and so
insidious that it deserves to join the English language and enter into
common usage. The exact derivation of papañca is not entirely clear,
but its sense hovers somewhere between the three nodes of 1) to spread
out or proliferate; 2) an illusion or an obsession; and 3) an obstacle
or impediment. The place where these three meanings converge in
experience is not hard to locate. Sit down with your back straight and
your legs folded around your ankles, close your eyes, and attend
carefully to your experience. What do you see? Papañca.
This term is used to describe the tendency of the mind to 1) spread
out from and elaborate upon any sense object that arises in
experience, smothering it with wave after wave of mental elaboration,
2) most of which is illusory, repetitive, and even obsessive, 3) which
effectively blocks any sort of mental calm or clarity of mind.
These are the narrative loops that play over and over in the mind, the
trains of thought pulling out of the station one after another and
taking us for a long ride down the track before we even know we’re
aboard. Bhikkhu Bodhi, eloquent as always, calls papañca “the
propensity of the worldling’s imagination to erupt in an effusion of
mental commentary that obscures the bare data of cognition” (from note
229 in Majjkima Nikaya (MN)).

Also of interest from the Tuvataka Sutta:

Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'

Ven. Thanissaro's footnote states:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The
perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of these
classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a set of
distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought;
identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and
physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms
a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine
these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they
are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that
we would be better off to be able to drop them.

That means the mind creates a self and then it objectifies and classifies everything else based on its relationship to the self.
For e.g. to a non-vegetarian, cooked meat looks like delicious food and to a vegan, it's disgusting.
The root of objectification-classification is the mental idea of the self.

The Madhupindika Sutta, cited in the question, seems to state that objectification (papañca) leads to "obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance" and also "taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech".

"If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions &
categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there
to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the
obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of
views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the
obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance.
That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments,
quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false
speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without
remainder."

The PTS dictionary says it means "obstacle or impediment", and that it maybe isn't related to the Sanskrit prapañca.
It's used in DN 21 e.g. like this:

“But how does a mendicant appropriately practice for the cessation of concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions?”
  “Kathaṃ paṭipanno pana, mārisa, bhikkhu papañcasaññāsaṅkhānirodhasāruppagāminiṃ paṭipadaṃ paṭipanno hotī”ti?

In papañcasaññāsaṅkhānirodhasāruppagāminiṃ perhaps the "proliferation" part of the meaning comes from saṅkhā rather than papañca, and "perception" is from saññā -- therefore papañca by itself only means "impediment" not "conceptual proliferation".
In MN 18 too it's mostly used in compound words like papañcasaññāsaṅkhā (as in DN 21 above).
The only other way it's used in MN 18 is in papañceti which Ven Sujato translated as ...

What you think about, you proliferate.
  yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti

... but I don't know how to verify/justify that translation.
There are not many suttas in which it's used at all: it's not a commonly-used word.
(That search also returns results like pāpañca i.e. with a long first vowel, but I think that's a different word, which means evil).
(That search may be unreliable e.g. it didn't find it's being used in Snp 4.11, I don't know why, so maybe by relying on this search as I do in this answer I miss some places where it's used).
A few suttas use it in the formula "Papañca udapānañca", e.g. SN 1.47, where it's translated as "a drinking place and a well" (I don't know why, so I'll ignore this meaning), ditto in the phrase "Papañca vivane".
It's used in AN 4.174, in phrases like iti vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti translated as "you’re proliferating the unproliferated". However a) I don't understand the overall meaning of this sutta b) for all I know this might just as well be translated as "you're hindering the unhindered".
It's used in Thag 17.2 translated as follows ...

Whoever is devoted to proliferation,
  A wild animal delighting in proliferation,
  Is deprived of nibbāna,
  The unexcelled safety from the yoke.
Whoever has given up proliferation,
  Delighting in the path free of proliferation,
  Is blessed with nibbāna,
  The unexcelled safety from the yoke.

... I dont know why that's translated as (specifically) "proliferation" instead of (more generally) "an unspecified kind of hindrance". The same formula is used in AN 6.14 and AN 6.15.
It's used in Snp 4.11 whose topic is "Arguments and Disputes". I guess this is a famous use of the word. Here it's used in the phrase Saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā -- note that here again it's used with Saññā and saṅkhā explicitly.

That's about all there is, the only places it's used.
In summary I think that:

It's rarely used
It just means "hindrance"
In the (only) places where it's (famously) used i.e. DN 21 and MN 18, it's used in the compound word papañcasaññāsaṅkhā -- which maybe explains why that's translated as "conceptual proliferation" ... I guess that compound word means literally "the hindrance of numerous perceptions".
Snp 4.11 uses the similar-but-not-identical phrase ...

Na saññasaññī na visaññasaññī,
  Nopi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī;
  Evaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ,
Saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā

That's translated as ...

Neither one of normal perception nor yet abnormal,
  neither unperceiving no cessation of perception,
  but form ceases for one who (has known) it thus:
  Conceptual proliferation has perception as its cause.

... i.e. translating papañca and/or papañcasaṅkhā as "conceptual proliferation" again, even though it's missing the word saññā.
I guess that literally should be translated as "perceptions cause many troubles" -- except that papañcasaṅkhā should be understood as actually saying (or meaning) papañcasaññāsaṅkhā: IMO it's been abbreviated from papañcasaññāsaṅkhā to fit the meter (because Snp 4.11 is verse, and they do that when it comes to versifying).
All three (MN 18, DN 21, and Snp 4.11) are describing this as a cause of arguments and quarrels (MN 18 and Snp 4.11), and/or envy and hostility (DN 21).
That explains this introduction to MN 18:

This discourse plays a central role in the early Buddhist analysis of conflict. As might be expected, the blame for conflict lies within, in the unskillful habits of the mind, rather than without. The culprit in this case is a habit called papañca.

I'm not sure how it comes to be translated as "reification". Perhaps it's from e.g. this bit in MN 18: Yatonidānaṃ ... purisaṃ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti, translated "a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions." Maybe that's saying that papanca is the "reification" of identity -- although not necessarily in the (modern?) "this is a logical fallacy" sense but more in the "this is the cause or foundation (or conditioned arising) of" sense (see also What does “hypostatize” mean?).

Thanks for looking at this @ChrisW but I think your conclusion is generally wrong. In addition to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's account of the importance of this concept have a look at the book that Larry Pitts just linked to below. It does not support your answer.

@ChrisW Your search of the sutta's above seems to be not wide enough. I found https://suttacentral.net/an6.14/en/sujato. Here is the english:
"A creature who likes to proliferate,
enjoying proliferation,
fails to reach extinguishment,
the supreme sanctuary.
But one who gives up proliferation,
enjoying the state of non-proliferation,
reaches extinguishment,
the supreme sanctuary.”
Which both testifies to the importance of understanding what papañca is (in order to abandon it) and renders it hard to square with your definition of hindrance.

Ironically, arguing about the meaning of papanca is an example of papanca in action ;))

@YesheTenley Thanks. there's an AN 6.15 as well.

@AndreiVolkov such is the lot of sentient beings... endlessly papancanating :)

@YesheTenley The "Concept and Reality" book you refer to says, Being derived from 'pra √pañc' it conveys such meanings as ‘spreading out’, ‘expansion’, ‘diffusion’, and manifoldness -- which I think begs the question: starting with that assumption implies a different conclusion. Do you know what evidence there is, that it's related to prapañca? Why does the PTS dictionary says that its origin is more likely "pa-pad-ya", like, "(an obstacle) in front of the feet"? I don't know.

Whichever, it's mostly being used in a compound word, i.e. papañcasaññāsaṅkhānirodhasāruppagāminiṃ helped those suttas to make sense no matter what papañca means exactly.

This word's etymology is ultimately less important than the meaning or concept it conveys which is intimately associated with the dharma of emptiness as explained by the prajnaparamita sutras. This dharma is extremely subtle and difficult to understand. I'm comfortable that I have some small understanding here so I don't see this word's etymology as having much mystery or inspiring much confusion. For me, the Pali-canon suttas that use it are entirely consistent with Nagarjuna's works and the prajnaparamita sutras.

The Buddhist Sanskrit tradition and the Buddhist Prakrit tradition (of which Pāli literature is a member) come from different traditions of early Buddhism and often represent differing recensions of the Dharma as these sects passed it down. An example of this is "saṁvṛti," the Buddhist Sanskrit equivalent of the Pāli "sammuti." The Sanskrit tradition reads "sammuti" as coming from the root √vṛ, not √man. The "proper" Sanskrit correspondence is "sammati" (agreement, consensus). The Buddhist Sanskrit tradition is anomalous here. These two different analyses of "prapañca" are the same.

As to why it is relevant here to differentiate between "(classical) Sanskrit" and "Buddhist Sanskrit," see the Wiki article on "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Hybrid_Sanskrit The Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit linguistic tradition is what is informing the discrepancy between √pad (as in the Pāli) and √pañc (as in the Buddhist Sanskrit).

As a final summation, the variants that we find across Sanskrit and Pāli like "papañca" verses "prapañca," "sammuti" versus "saṁvṛti," and "bodhisatta" versus "bodhisattva," are variants of the same words ultimately. They have the same meaning, but are understood differently. The Sanskrit "saṁvṛti" comes from √vṛ (to conceal). This suggests a meaning of "the hidden" or "the thing that hides" more than "convention/consensus," and this sense of "that which hides" is used poetically in literature from the Northern Tradition of Buddhism.

On terms of usage in scripture, the meaning is the same. Venerable Candrakīrti defines "saṁvṛti" as "lokavyavahāra" or "the speech of the world," which is opposed to the speech of the Āryas. This is how the "agreement/consensus/convention" (see the Vajirāsutta) sense of the Pāli is preserved in the Sanskrit even though the Sanskrit understands it as derived from a different root. The √pañc derivation makes a lot of sense, but often language is curious and arbitrary in how it developes and it could well be that the term finds its origin in √pad.

How to analysis this vocabulary?
Pac(a/i) + [ṃ of abbhāsa(root-repeating)] + pac(a/i) + a = papañca (saddanīti dhātumālā).
Pāka/vipāka, which use the same pac(a/i)-root, didn't abbhāsa by Buddha, because it is resultant. It is not the lead-cause dependent-origination-loop's repeating. So, Buddha didn't abbhāsa it.
What does pac(a/i) of papañca mean?
It refers to kilesa-vatta (unwholesome-causes) of the dependent origination which are the causes of the dependent-origination-loop's repeating. Because Kamma-vatta (formation/kamma-becomming) depending on kilesa-vatta (avijjā/taṅhā/upādāna) to cook(pacati) pāka/vipāka (resultants) of the dependent origination (vaṭṭa/paṭiccasamuppāda).
Why Buddha did abbhāsa(root-repeating) to pac(a/i) as papañca?
To refer papañca to kilesa-vatta (unwholesome-causes) of the dependent origination. I described above.
Where are kilesa-vaṭṭa (formation) in dependent origination?
The italic text below of Saṃ. Nidāna. Vibhaṅgasutta are kilesa-vaṭṭa (formation), the bold text are vipāka-vaṭṭa, the regular text are kamma-vaṭṭa:

– Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo?
– And what, bhikkhus, is paṭicca-samuppāda?
Avijjā·paccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā;
Conditioned by avijjā, bhikkhus, there are saṅkhāras
saṅkhāra·paccayā
viññāṇaṃ;
conditioned by saṅkhāras, there is viññāṇa
viññāṇa·paccayā nāmarūpaṃ;
conditioned by viññāṇa, there is nāmarūpa
nāmarūpa·paccayā saḷāyatanaṃ;
conditioned by nāmarūpa, there are saḷāyatanas
saḷāyatana·paccayā
phasso;
conditioned by saḷāyatanas, there is phassa
phassa·paccayā vedanā;
conditioned by phassa, there is vedanā
vedanā·paccayā taṇhā;
conditioned by vedanā, there is taṇhā
taṇhā·paccayā upādānaṃ;
conditioned by taṇhā, there is upādāna
upādāna·paccayā bhavo;
conditioned by upādāna, there is bhava
bhava·paccayā jāti;
conditioned by bhava, there is jāti
jāti·paccayā jarā-maraṇaṃ soka parideva dukkha domanass·upāyāsā sambhavanti. Evam·etassa kevalassa dukkha'k'khandhassa samudayo hoti.
conditioned by jāti arise jarā-maraṇa, sorrow, lamentation, dukkha, domanassa and distress. Thus arises this whole mass of dukkha.

Which are the evidence sutta of this answer?
Every sutta which are contented papañca and papañceti are the evidences. They talking about dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda). So, I analysis papañca-word as dependent origination follow to those suttas' context.
Why atthakathā comments papañca as the Resistance?
Because the kilesa-vaṭṭa  causes the repeating of dependent-origination-loop. So, atthakathā comments papañca as the resistance of the dependent-origination-loop cessation.
Why atthakathā comments papañca as only Taṇhā, Diṭṭhi, and Māna, but the sutta refer to 7 anusaya?
It is just a brief of those 7 anusaya to cover 10 fetters in brief 3 kilesa, some point of atthakathā comment more than 3 as well. So, the sutta and atthakathā similarly explained papañca.

I think it probably means "recognizing".
Thus we get something like

What one perceives that one thinks about. What one thinks about one recognizes. One's recognition is the starting point from which a person is beset by the proliferating perceptions associated with the theme. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.

that would make it synonymous with "samjna"?

The two aren't synonyms albeit the semantic properties overlap. Used together in a sentence 'I perceive pleasure recognizing the drawbacks of sensual pleasures'

A good reference on this topic is Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda's 155 pg. book, Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought. It is available online as a free download.
Quoting from the blurb on the back cover:

This work deals primarily with two important, but controversial
  doctrinal terms, found in the Pali Canon - Papañca and  Papañca-
  saññā-sankhā. The characteristically Buddhistic doctrine of
  'not-self' (anattā) is shown in new dimensions of significance having
  far-reaching implications not only in the context of Buddhism but also
  for the student of philosophy, psychology and ethics, as well.

Thanks, would you like to summarize the main points of the book here in this answer? Link-only answers are helpful but tend to get broken when the target moves. Inline answers are easier for readers to consume, since they don't have to follow the link and study the other resource.

Papañca means proliferating with ignorance.
For example, SN 22.81 says 'contact' in dependent origination is 'contact with ignorance' ('avijjāsamphassajena').
For example, MN 18 says papanca (arising following contact, feeling & perception) is/results in vexation & suffering.
SN 22.5 says the word 'samudaya' ('arising') means when the mind continues to desire the five aggregates. Therefore, the word 'cessation' means when ignorance, desire & clinging cease.
Suttas such as MN 140 say a Buddha does not die ('marana') because their mind is free from conceiving 'self'.
The 1st noble truth summarizes all suffering as attachment (upadana).
Since MN 18 says papanca is vexation & suffering, papanca must be similar to attachment.
AN 4.174 says the cessation of sense contact is appapanca or non-papanca. AN 4.174 accords with the definition of cessation in SN 22.5, namely, the cessation of ignorance & attachment towards the five aggregates & sense contact.
AN 4.174 may also suggest views about Buddhas & death are papanca. They are certainly papanca because the word 'death' ('marana') does not apply to Buddhas (refer to SN 22.85).
Therefore, papanca appears to mean mental proliferation that produces suffering and is characterized by wrong views.
Papanca appears to not simply mean thinking, conceptualization or differentiating. Papanca appears to refer to ignorant thinking & foolish proliferating.

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


text:
Why is in the budda days, jhana seem so easily attainable but so hard now?
As i read text from canon. It seem like in the budda day jhana was a lot easier and highly recommended for the fold path. But now it seem like this rare thing only a handful of people can attain. If it was so easy how can we find the path to enter it without all the complication?

One thing has to be understood that people who joined the Buddha many of them were already trying on different ways to attain liberation. Like Mahakasapa and Sariputta were already asectics practising elsewhere. And that time in India was really a peak for people trying attain Nirvana. So many people must have been ready psychologically to attain jhnana. They just needed right instructions.
Even for today you need right teacher to get there and a firm practise. I have heard in some youtube talk by Ajahn Brahm that a retreat participant with him attained jhnana. I am just not able to find that video atm.
Besides, so many Buddhist monks meditating everywhere must be achieving jhnana they just have no need or even bother about putting it on internet and tell everybody about it. They might not even have the resources.
Besides, its very important for advancing on the path that your spiritual experiences should be kept secret and should only be discussed with your teacher. This rule is like 101 of practising spiritual path.
That leaves us with rest of us internet noobs who have recourse to internet and can discuss such things and who dont attain it.
So the point is, you just dont hear it. The difficulty level is left unchanged by the system.

All my teachers without exception said that the idea of "goal" that you are striving to "attain" is THE final obstacle to attainment.
To that aim, one is advised to completely eradicate the idea of goal from one's mind. As in, on the deepest emotional level you have to give up any slightest hope, dream, or intent to attain jhana - and keep meditating on the resulting state.

But even then isn't it still considered hard? Like something very difficult to obtain yet it seem everyone who wanted jhana in the budda era got it?

I guess it's because they were drinking directly from the spring and we are drinking from the bottles?

Guess i must find that spring haah

No, we are also drinking from the spring,  the spring hasn't dried up, it's just that we are not thirsty enough. Meaning that it's not our priority if the first thought you will have when you open your eyes in the morning is Jhnana and if you will talk about Jhnana on your date, if you have that level of obsession or commitment, along with the right instructions from right teacher like for e.g. Ajahn Brahm, you must not need to find another spring.

There is probably lots of propaganda in the Pali suttas. For example, if the core of the Pali suttas are actually understood then the doctrinal perversions in Buddhism that arose less than a few hundreds years after the Buddha's passing (including doggy suttas placed into the suttas) give the impression there could not have been as many arahants as the suttas claim.
Also, at least in the West, many people with jhanic potential are Christians.
As for reaching jhana, it is not complicated. SN 48.10 refers merely to "letting go of craving" as the way to reach jhana (which includes letting go of craving for jhana).

When i meditate i just try to keep my mind interest maybe thats a craving as well

Deus, well, The Buddha said that one should be "ardent, alert and mindful" with regards to one's breathing, so I would say that keeping the mind interested (in the object) cannot be wrong.

It has not become harder. These things have always been hard.
Even to be born as human and getting the chance to listen to the Dhamma is also rare and hard.
From Dhammapada 182:

Rare it is to gain birth as a human being.
  Difficult is the life of mortals.
  Hard is the hearing of the Sublime Truth (Dhamma).
  Rare is the appearance of the enlightened ones.
Kiccho manussa patilābho
  kiccham maccāna jivitam
  Kiccham saddhamma savanam
  kiccho buddhānam uppādo

I guess it was equally equally achievable.  Hard or Easy is only relative. From my personal opinion, the reason for less and less to achieve jhana or even Arahant-hood, is because the effectiveness of teachings of the dharma is gradually less as 'original' as time passes.

Entering jhana, or dhyana is facilitated by merit and virtue. The elders had ALOT more merit and virtue (they had accrued much more blessings, generally speaking). That's why they only needed to hear the Buddha say a couple of phrases to get enlightened.
Personally, I strive for cultivating blessings and morality as the foundation for entering dhyana. It's hard.

I marked this answer down because there is no evidence for the 1st paragraph. It is merely a speculative opinion. As for jhana, merit is required for jhana but merit does not guarantee jhana. Being ale to let go is required for jhana and its letting go of ego and animalistic lust that makes jhana difficult.

Ajahn Buddhadasa said: As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has correct samadhi.

Thanks for the comments. You may disagree but I am repeating what I read from other virtuous Mahayana masters. Even your comment seems to agree with it though.


text:
How does *Buddhist* meditation differ from others and lead to awakening?
The practice  of meditation is central to certain Buddhist traditions, e.g. Vajrayana, Dzogchen, Zen, important for recognizing Buddha nature.
Furthermore, Vajrayana and Theravada traditions assert that the meditation serves as a basis for realizing selflessness:

the purpose of meditative stabilization is to serve as a basis for
  achieving supramundane special insight realizing selflessness, the
  emptiness of inherent existence, through which afflictive emotions can
  be removed completely and forever
-- Dalai Lama
So what is the purpose of satipaṭṭhāna? The purpose is to see
  anattā, that there is no self, no me, nor anything that belongs to a
  self.
-- Ajahn Brahm

But dhyana and samadhi are not unique to Buddhism, also found in schools such as Hinduism which do not lead to realization of no self.
And even highly accomplished Buddhist meditators have found that with a radiant mind in meditation, the sense of self can still fail to be uprooted.

At that stage the mind was so radiant that I came to marvel at its
  radiance...
“If there is a point or a center of the knower anywhere, that is an agent of birth.”
-- Ajahn Maha Boowa

How exactly does Buddhist meditation practice lead to realizing selflessness, versus other forms other forms of meditation which do not? What exactly makes Buddhist meditation different?
What made the Buddha's meditation technique differ from others' (e.g. Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta) which did not lead to enlightenment?  (Please be more specific than "Middle Way").

Very good question.
Buddhist meditation is based on the understanding of the mechanism of arising and cessation of suffering. Suffering arises whenever there is a conflict between "is" and "should". Craving for any "should" because of attachment to that (usually to a concept within a framework) is the generator of suffering. Letting go of the "should", or even better, transcending the boundaries of a framework that served as the foundation for the concept, leads to cessation of suffering.
Buddhist meditation involves methodically applying the above principle from coarse to progressively finer "shoulds".
As you thus let go of these attachments, preconceptions, prejudices, and overgeneralizations - the notion of self dissolves as the hidden counterpart of these overgeneralizations.
However, I think you got the relationship wrong way. It's not that the peace of no-attachment (no-should, no-overgeneralization) is a step that leads to selflessness which then leads to Enlightenment. It is the other way: freedom from attachments, preconceptions, prejudices, and overgeneralizations -- including the overgeneralization known as "Self" - leads to Enlightenment and Peace.
Non-Buddhist meditation is either trial and error, or something trivial like gazing at the candle or running water, or it is brute-force stopping the thoughts, or it is visualization of some images that has useful side effects, or working directly with psychosomatic energies. The last two types were later repurposed by Tibetan Buddhists and integrated into Buddhist framework of progressive attainment of suchness.

the story I've heard sounds like the Buddha spontaneously found a superior meditation that led to his enlightenment. But, what was the key difference from where his teachers had failed? They both seem like highly concentrated meditative states of absorption. What did he do differently?

He spontaneously discovered letting go and then worked through all the ramifications.

"Letting go" -- this is what the non-Buddhist meditations did not have. Now I see. To "let be" is a recurring part of Dzogchen instruction, so I've read.

"You got it, Kaundinya!" ;))

..."Non-Buddhist meditation is either trial and error, or something trivial like gazing at the candle or running water, or it is brute-force stopping the thoughts..." Really? Does nobody meditate effectively except Buddhists? Is this what you meant to say?

In context of stopping dukkha, non-Buddhist schools are not effective, because they (by definition) do not operate within the framework of dukkha and cessation of dukkha. They may achieve their other objectives but not the Buddhist objective as effectively as the Buddhist methods.

How a doctrine influences the outcome of meditation is both powerful & subtle.
For example, it can be observed on Buddhist chatsites how much certain individuals egoistically attach/cling to delusions about 'jhana'. These delusions about personal attainments of (imaginary) jhana arise from their emphasising of 'jhana' and their de-emphasising of abandoning 'self-clinging'.
Similarly, if a religion or doctrine teaches about 'True Self', 'Brahman' or 'God', then follower will develop an inclination or bent to regard meditative experiences as 'God' or 'Self' or 'Brahman'.
In short, the underlying doctrine or culture is extremely influential.
In genuine Buddhist doctrine, the Buddha strongly emphasised the abandoning of self-clinging & self-views. Therefore, if a beginner meditator attempts to do their very best to abandon self-clinging & self-views, this will affect the quality of concentration, which will be much more lucid, sensitive & free.
As such meditation develops, when subtle clinging arises, the mindful meditator (who is properly instructed) will quickly learn & act to dissolve that clinging.
Therefore, the more selfless the basic instruction, the more selfless will be the fruition of meditation and the more selfless will enlightenment be.
In MN 118 (final paragraphs) and SN 48.10, for example, the Buddha directly taught that right mindfulness and right concentration have the quality of 'letting go' ('vossagga').
This quality of 'vossagga' is what distinguishes genuine Buddhist meditation from non-genuine Buddhist meditation, which includes the non-Buddhist techniques found in the most famous later-day Buddhist commentaries, such as the Visuddhimagga, which emphasis force and suppression rather than letting go.
Buddhist meditation is the abandonment of craving, attachment and every type of self-conceit (I making & my making) without exception; including as much as possible from the very beginning of practise. About this, AN 4.34 says:

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is
  reckoned to be the best of them all: the crushing of all infatuation,
  the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the cutting off of
  the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion,
  Nibbāna. Those who have faith in the Dhamma of dispassion have
  faith in the best; and for those who have faith in the best, the best
  result will be theirs.

You have already answered this question yourself ---> "such as Hinduism which do not lead to realization of no self."
To be specific, Satipatthana is the key difference.
The whole technique of Satipatthana, along with observing the three marks of existence (Impermanence, Suffering, and no-self), is the key difference between Buddhism meditation with Tirthika that practices meditation.

The question asks why does Buddhist meditation lead to realization of no self, whereas others e.g. Hinduism do not. How does the quote already answer the question?

Perhaps you may focus on the latter part of my answer, too.

In the context of Buddhist meditation, there are 40 subjects of meditation (Kammaṭṭhāna). These are divided into

Samatha for concentration and mastery over the mind
Vipassanā for wisdom

All the Samatha techniques were borrowed from contemporary meditation techniques. What is unique to Buddhism is Vipassanā which results in wisdom (Paññā).
In Buddhism, the practice has 3 folds:

morality (Śīla) - developed though recollection of morality (Śīla)
mastery over the mind (Samadhi) - developed through Samatha
wisdom (Paññā) - developed through Vipassanā

Many contemporary teachers and even before and after the Buddha taught morality (Śīla) and mastery over the mind (Samadhi). Using these techniques you can develop morality to some degree and gain certain spiritual development. In religions like Christianity, there are many cases of pious people who have been able to perform miracles. The Hindus also had practices which resulted in Samadhi upto the highest Jhana. They reaped the benefits of developing Jhana. Alara Kalama has the 7th Jhana and Uddaka Ramaputta has the 8th Jhana. The Bodhisatta was not satisfied with these Jhana as the ultimate realisation investigated further found there still is a step further and found the way to develop Paññā. These 3 fold training, without any extremities and taking out any vital elements, in totality codified in the Noble Eightfold Path was the middle way.

Buddhist meditation practice leads to realizing selflessness since that is one of the targets of meditation. The purpose of meditating on another object, such as the breath, is to train the mind to focus on the object of meditation. Once the practitioner has the ability to pick and hold an object of meditation, the practitioner is able to choose selflessness or emptiness as the object, and eventually have a direct realization.

The Visuddhimagga (english translation by Bhikku Nanamoli) chapter XXII.46 draws our attention to 'balancing the two powers of serenity and insight in such a manner that neither exceeds the other'. The canonical source from the 'Path of Discrimination' is also given. If serenity or samatha, based on breathing is equated to form/body, the power/energy  behind the body is said to be atomic.  If insight or vipassana based on thoughts and contemplating the three characteristics is equated to mind/consciousness, the power/energy behind consciousness is said to be cosmic. In Abhidhamma, the Higher Doctrine, we understand that the cosmic power is 17 times more powerful than the atomic. If therefore, it is necessary to 'balance these two powers' it means that the power of cosmic needs to be reduced and the power of atomic needs to be increased, in such a manner that 'neither exceeds the other'? The merger of these two powers presumably leads to a state of vipassana samadhi, which is clearly more powerful than the serenity or samatha samadhi. The yin/yang, shiva/shakthi, name/form.

cosmic power is 17 times more powerful than the atomic. Do you have a reference for this?


text:
Personal practice of vipassana meditation
no rise of ill will towards other beings and  sankhara disappears  after samadhi nimitta has been seen. Sometimes when other person have scold ,dukka appear as a cloud and disappeared. What is the state of this?

Maybe this video can give you an idea of the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np5aYcZCEWo

You care too much of states and 'what is this, what is that'.
It's not necessary to know all this. There is too much wanting.
Whenever a question arises you should just say to yourself: wanting to know, wanting to know, wanting to know. Or just: wanting, wanting, wanting.
Get rid of all that desire.


text:
I had peace initially while meditating and then lost it?
I set up a routine to do my meditation where i just watch my thoughts. After some days i found a peace after meditating which continued through out my day. I enjoyed the calmness inside me. Following a stressful period for 2 or 3 days my peace was lost but i am continuing my meditation still. I try to be detached from the results of meditation but the peace was so good, i am searching it now. Did anyone felt this kind of experience ? Any suggestions for me or encouragement to continue on the path ?

States of higher bliss (like Jhanas) might be addictive and therefore, it may become a hinderance in practice in the long run.
Important part is not to feel too attached to such states as they arise by letting go of desires. If they arrive, fine, but if they aren't there, it is fine too. In each of these states of feeling "good" and "bad" there is contained the opposite of it.

Not seeing what is pleasant brings pain; seeing what is unpleasant
  brings pain. Therefore go beyond both pleasure and pain.
Don't go selfishly attached to anything, for trying to hold on to it will bring you pain. When you have neither likes or dislikes, you will be free.

It is a hint conveyed there, in Dhammapada, that to achieve states of unconditional higher bliss, freedom and peace in the long run is to go beyond the desire for good, and aversion for not-so-good experiences.

Samadhi too is impermanant.

Calmness is not real peace. Real peace comes when craving is cut off. What you are dealing with is a mind state that liked(Tanha) the  feeling of calm and got attached(Upadana) to it as a result. Now you are trying(Bhava) desperately to experience it again. Try Vipassana meditation if you want real peace. Not just Samatha.

I have a trouble watching my breath. I try myself to just be a watcher of breath but i control it everytime. So i stopped doing it and now I am just watching my thoughts as an alternative.

@SGN Stop watching the breath and just note the sensation at the nose or at the top of your upper lip where the air hits

@SGN I would advise also to try watching anything that comes as experience for mind consciousness, which is Vipassana. Then, if there isn't anything at all you will naturally come to breath sensation as it is the only thing left, they say that breath will come to you and its a right phrase. With what you are experiencing during meditation, what helps is to perhaps take breath as one, without splitting it into phases. Splitting breath is only beginning/introductory phase of meditation anyhow; a helper just like counting breaths.

The question is about searching peace once attained for a while when in meditation.---It is totally human and normal whatever is happening to you. The meditation had brought you few glimpses of peace and tranquility and after going through some stressful situation ,you are not able to get it again. For understanding this we have to understand the working of "panch skandha". Afterall it is age old habit/conditioning of the mind to react with aversion/craving to the sensations arised after contact of sensory bases with external/internal inputs. still reacting skandha is reacting in aversion to the stressful situation. observe that by doing vipassana ,you may come out of the situation.


text:
Anapanasati and Metta
Background
Hi all, i have been practicing Metta and self-compassion meditation for a while but have just switched (back) to following the first couple of exercises in the Anapanasati Sutta (translations: Thich Nhat Hanh, Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
I can successfully practice exercises 1-4, but when i come to 5 and 6 i have a hard time to feel joy and happiness (i have a low-grade depression and also anxiety and maybe this is interfering with my practice)
Question
Can we (is it recommended to) integrate Metta practices in the 5th and 6th exercises of the Anapanasati Sutta?
(And how can this be integrated? We may not want to switch the phrases since these are already provided in the Sutta, but thoughts can still be filled with Metta and help us that way)
I'd like to find a way to successfully practice these two exercises so i can continue in my spiritual development and practice of the Sutta
Please provide references if you have!

Grateful for help!
Kind Regards, Tord

We cannot integrate Metta practices in the 5th and 6th stages of the Anapanasati Sutta because the 5th and 6th stages of the Anapanasati Sutta arise naturally from the calming of the breathing at the 4th stage. Metta practises can be done separately.


text:
Dealing with colleagues who hate me after mistake
Im in the process of trying to 'wake up' I made a grievous error with a colleague recently. I sent a nasty email about something she was involved in. I was trying to manipulate her-even perhaps bully her with my views
I was drinking a lot at the time.
I have since realized the error of trying to control anybody or not to take the views of others to heart. I have realized my error after reading various guides to Buddhism.
I have offered an apology but now a considerable amount of my colleagues hate me.I see it in their eyes and way they communicate with me.
How does a novice Buddhist deal with this?

You are not going to become any better if you are just looking for a way to escape from the consequences of your mistakes. You need to put forth an honest effort to become better. Here are some steps that will help you in doing that.

If you haven't already done it, send another mail to all those who received the original mail, correcting the previous mail and apologizing for it. Mention that you have realized your mistakes after getting guidance from Buddhism.
Go to the Buddha and take the Triple Refuge and the five precepts. When you take the 4th precept, make sure to promise to refrain from all 4 forms of wrong speech: lying, hateful/vulgar speech, divisive speech, idle speech.
Practice on-the-go-Metta meditation towards your friends and colleagues regardless of the way they look at you. Meaning, you have to chant in your mind "may you(other) be happy, may you be well, may you be successful, may you be free from suffering" as you interact with them.
Whenever the thoughts of regret come to the mind, simply discard them as impermanent, suffering and non-self. Later as the mind becomes more matured and capable, try to observe these thoughts to see the 3 characteristics.

Thank you so much for the replies. I think if im being fully honest I did intend to hurt her .

The past is in the past. What matters is what you are going to do to improve at the present moment. Follow these 4 steps with an honest effort and you will notice the difference within a month

The four steps below?

@Barryseeker in the answer I gave do you see 4 items starting from the apology letter?

@SankhaKulathantille excellent, excellent Sankha! The one thing I would add is that regret can be useful. However, it is important not to mistake regret with guilt. Guilt is never useful. It is just an ego-centric activity. To understand the difference think of the feeling you have right after you came upon a cup of liquid and thinking it was nourishing juice you drank it happily. After drinking it you turn the cup around and find a poison label. Would you feel guilty for having drank the poison? No. Would you feel regret for doing so? Absolutely!!

Dictionary says regret = feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over etc. Those are unskillful mindstates.
I think the word you are looking for is reflection

@SankhaKulathantille It is true that the word regret is often used synonymous with guilt and you are right that guilt is not a skillful mindstate. However, the word can also be used to mean simply the wish that one had not done what one has done. Like wishing you had not unknowingly just drank poison. This is the usage that is skillful: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/regret
Upon discovering that drinking poison will lead to suffering one regrets that one has unknowingly done so. Then one resolves to never do it again. This is skillful!

Wishing for the past to change is unskillful. You only need to realize that drinking poison will lead to suffering and determine not to do it again. No wishing required there.

Why is wishing for the past to change unskillful?

Because you are identifying yourself with the past. Wishing something in the past to change also comes under the 4th hindrance of the 5 hindrances.

wishing that you had not done something is not the same as wishing to change the past

It is. Otherwise why wish at all? There's a difference between wishing you had not done a past action and knowing that a past action is wrong.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Answer given by dhamma 4life is very nice arisen  out of real and genuine concern/compassion about the questioner.It is very appreciable and important that you have developed an interest in buddhism ,which is a very true and gives guarantee of attaining liberation  if followed ardently and honestly giving stress of 10% to the codes of conduct and 90% to the practice. First of all whatever you have done to your colleague ,was it not out of deep interest of wellbeing of her? if yes then dont bother at all ,howsoever others may have whatever look in their eyes. Afterall we are surrounded by mundane people controlled by their ego,jealousy,hatred. And as we have these things in us it will not be proper to think that why they behave with you like this. As long as you are true in your intention ,forget about everything happening to you or whatever you have done.Whenever we commit mistake ,our so called built up image of a goody person gets little bit shattered . That image building is part of the running of ego.(here i mean running of a machine) . So our mind convince us that say sorry ,by doing so the shattered image again rebuilds itself by assuming that i have said sorry. okay i have done wrong but i am so good that i have said sorry also for it. this assumption makes us again ready for commiting mistakes. So saying sorry is of no use .  Now as pointed out by  dhamma 4 life , you are very much engrossed in thoughts about the things happened . I do not know what you are trying to practice ,but if it is vipassana then observe the sensations rising on arising of thoughts and be equinimous ,dont react to them with aversion,be neutral. It is the sensations produced and the reaction of us towards them is the root cause of whatever we do ,feel happy or sad . So make use of the situation. In buddhism dukkha is the base from where to move further.  Our father/mother  sometimes speak harsh words/beat us but never feels guilty about it bcs he is very sure of his good intention behind it. Your action is immaterial, your intention behind it is important .As buddha quotes "intention is kamma". Go in some 10 day retreat to practice vipassana available and convenient to you. Afterall we are not that which we see in the eye of people. people's eyes see very superficially. Pl bear in mind that the interest developed in buddhism /your starting of the practice let it be in crude way , is of very very importance and of top priority, So don not waste time in this senseless,foolish things of engrossing in those thoughts again and again. Wish you practice/study buddhism  ardently and genuinely to go further and further on the path. heartily best luck.

In addition to all the good answers here's some solution from my experience.

One of the problems you have dealing with this situation is Guilt that you are still feeling about sending that email in the first place. This guilt can be dealt with skillfully. Now that you have already accepted the problem that's the first step. As you have already said that you were drinking at that time, sit for meditation and contemplate on the following.
You didn't have had a real choice to make at that time as you were
not mindful and aware of your action in that moment of anger, your
brain/mind reacted to something she did. In that moment limbic
system of your brain completely took over the neo-cortex and you
acted out of emotions of anger and hatred. In part, it was also your
biology so have forgiveness for your self for what got done through
you.
You are saying, I see it in their eyes and way they communicate with me, you have to trust me on this, it is largely made up by your mind. At the most you can say, your colleagues don't have a good opinion of you. What happens is we are filled with some expectations from people, based on our past mind projects these expectations, and you end up experiencing what you were looking for in the first place. Think about this, if they are filled with hate over an email, every time they see you, it is really their problem, not yours. Contemplate on these words of Buddha.

“By doing this (holding on to anger) you are like a man who wants to hit another and picks up a burning ember or excrement in his hand and so first burns himself or makes himself stink.”
  Visuddhimagga IX, 23.

So, in effect don't think about the hateful eyes of your friends.

As pointed out by other answers, practice metta meditation. The best place to start is Ajahn Brahm's youtube videos of guided metta meditations. No matter what has happened to give metta and loving kindness to your friends. Dukkha is an inevitable consequence of human life. Maybe your friends need metta too.

Also, contemplate the following verse from Dhammapada

One should not consider the faults of others, nor their doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether one has done or not done good or bad deeds. --- Dhammapada Verse 50.

The point is you cultivate the pure mind by following the 10 paramitas. Don't focus on others, like everything else, others will change.
Hope this helps. Metta to you.

There is nothing you can do about the past, and Buddhist deals with it in a way that avoids clinging to the past. Let it go for that is what makes you suffer. Also, all memories can be transformed if done skilfully, it just takes time and they will flourish in their own way. But that requires non-violence towards your thoughts and memories, no matter the content, good or bad.
As for present, try mindfulness. Be mindful, keeping right view in mind so you do not act wrongly (through wrong view), that is right mindfulness. Let it get you to the shore. If you find yourself lost in thoughts and guilt, or feeling being despised of, again, be gently mindful of it. I stress gently, as such is the way of non-violence, as opposed to violence that is being harsh on yourself and your thoughts.

183. Avoid all evil, cultivate the good, purify your mind: this sums up the teaching of the Buddhas.
281. Guard your thoughts, words and deeds. These three disciplines will spend you along the path to pure wisdom.
(Dhammapada)

Be compassionate towards those who hate, as hate does not bring happiness. Be compassionate towards yourself.
I  advise plenty of Metta (Loving-kindness) meditation throughout that hard time you are having. It will definitely help to purify the mind.

You might know this already but here's some advice.
It's appropriate to apologise (people do apologise, in the Suttas; and apology or confession is prescribed in the Vinaya). I think that elements of an apology include:

Saying, "I understand that action was wrong"
Saying, "Understanding it (and having understood it) as wrong, I will not do it again"
And then, in fact, not doing it again

I think that part of the reason for an apology is that, without it, the victim of your offence might live in fear that you'll do it (hurt them) again.

You said "I have offered an apology", but it's not clear how clear (nor how public) your apology was, nor whether it was "accepted" and if not why not.
Anyway, maybe if it's not accepted that's out of your hands? You said "I have since realized the error of trying to control anybody" -- and maybe this is an example, i.e. you can't force people to accept the apology.
The "second noble truth" associates suffering with craving -- craving is wanting things to be other than they are -- perhaps part of your suffering is your wanting your colleagues' action to be other than they are.

There's a saying that "people are heir to their own kamma". If colleagues are unhappy maybe that's a result of your actions, not their fault, i.e. you shouldn't blame them for being unhappy. Blaming them will only perpetuate your own suffering.

Some people talk of "body, speech, and mind". The body permits experience (e.g. of pain and pleasure); and speech help people understand what you say, and what you say might be kind or unkind. Your mind is important because it determines what you say (and what you experience).

If you're successfully avoiding alcohol now, well done. Drinking is against the fifth precept.
In the West some people are alcoholic addicts, which is difficult to resolve. One of the (non-Buddhist) methods or programs that people try is a "twelve step program". If you are or were alcoholic you might find this description of its Process informative, and perhaps steps 8, 9, and 10 of the 12 steps.
I don't know, some people (non-Buddhists) find a 12-step program more helpful than nothing and continuing with addiction as before; but it is non-Buddhist.
Instead you might want to explore some Buddhist resources such as http://5th-precept.org/

You might want to learn to practice the Brahmaviharas:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

and:

The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind

There's a bit of discussion in comments under Sankha's answer, continued in this chat room.
If I can try to summarise:

There are different states of mind (including emotions, views, perceptions); which may be categorised as wholesome or skilful (they lead towards non-suffering), or as unwholesome or unskillful (their result is suffering).
Craving (e.g. "I wish things were other than they are") is unwholesome.
Desire (e.g. "I want to follow the wholesome Buddhist path) can be wholesome.
Aversion (e.g. "I don't like this") is form of craving and unwholesome.
Skilful variants of aversion are called something other than "aversion": e.g. not wanting to hurt people is called "compassion" (not called "aversion to hurting people"), and knowing the difference between wholesome and unwholesome might be called "wisdom" (not called "aversion to the unwholesome"). Maybe "aversion" is always associated with an unwholesome state of mind.
A sense of "shame" (i.e. Hiri) might be defined as wholesome (see also those alternative translations: "self-respect, conscientiousness, moral self-dignity, dignity"). Conversely a lack of shame (being "shameless") might make a person untrainable (immoral or amoral).
A sense of "guilt" (i.e. Kukkucca) might be defined as unwholesome (also translated "regret, worry, remorse"). That might seem odd, or a subtle difference, because I guess that "shame" and "guilt" imply something similar in English, but there's an important distinction in the Pali.

I think that the difference between Hiri and Kukkucca is that Hiri results in virtuous behaviour and non-suffering, and Kukkucca is associated with non-virtuous behaviour and suffering.
A result of skilful/virtuous behaviour is meant to be "absence of remorse": which results in joy and so on ... i.e. it's the absence of remorse that's wholesome and is a foundation for peace of mind.
I suppose an example might be:

I used to have a bad habit
I later eventually understood the error (and associated suffering), and eradicated the habit
Now I don't (and shouldn't) feel remorse (about a bad habit which is in the past and no longer exists), instead feel a lack of remorse as a result of having stopped the habit (conditioned by the non-existence or eradication of the habit).

I think (I can't find a reference) that even a desire for fame or for people to hold you in high esteem, caring about reputation, might be a form of greed of craving (and "conceit") and unwholesome.

If you're looking for suggestions about how to communicate, you might get (non-Buddhist) answers if you post on InterpersonalSkills.SE or Workplace.SE.
I guess the Buddhist answer (even about how to communicate) is to be clear about your mind state. I recommend the first few verses of the Dhammapada, for example:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.