text:
We need to remove fear. But mothers fear for their kids?
If I have no expectation, I can't feel fear. I can't be afraid of dying. Yet, when I fall off a bike, isn't it fear that protects me from dying? Mothers also often worry about their kids. Are they weak for doing so?

In Buddhism, there are different kinds of fear or 'good fear' & 'bad fear'.
Bad fear is fearing what should not be feared (e.g. afraid of dying when you are old or terminally ill or fearing what other people think about you).
Good fear called 'ottappa' is fearing what should be feared; such as fearing doing bad actions that will bring a bad results (for example, fearing addiction to drugs).
The Dhammapada states:

317. Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.

If I have no expectation, I can't feel fear.

Yes. You are right.
Fear comes from expectation.
Fear of death and eagerness of life is the two sides of the same coin.
No expectation, no fear.
That is the gist of Buddhism.
An arhat does not have exception ("What could have be done have be done."),
so an arhat does not fear.

Yet, when I fall off a bike, isn't it fear that protects me from dying?

No. It is not the fear protects you.
It is your reaction protects you.
And your reaction may have come from fear,
but it does not have to.
Do you breathe because you fear death?
Will a person who want to die be able to hold their breath to kill themselves?
And not fearing dead does not mean
"when there are some choices of reactions,
I choose the one that will kill myself".
I will given an counterexample.
Suppose you see a hole in the road,
you should stop the bike.
But your fear of not stopping the bike in time
may drive you to turn a sudden round.
Then you get hit by a car
(the driver cannot predicate your sudden round and cannot stop their car in time).
Here the fear push you into death.
On the other side,
a person who do not fear death that much may be more clam,
and take a more suitable reaction.
If you die from fallen a bike, it is called a transformation from life to death
If an arhat "die" from fallen a bike, it is called a transformation from sa-upādisesa-nibbānadhātu to anupādisesa-nibbānadhātu.
(Sorry for using Pali, I do not know the English words).
What causes the death?
Not falling from a bike, otherwise why arhat does not die from this?
So the cause is fear.
It is the fear that drives you to death,
in the view of Buddhism.
You may not agree this view.
You may think an arhat also die from a falling from a bike.
But at least consider
there is something different between your death and arhat's "death".
From a shallow perspective, at least the arhat "dies" peacefully.

Mothers also often worry about their kids.

It is mother's caring protect their kids,
not their fear.
Suppose a mother is kept in prison,
and she worries about their kid everyday.
Is this fear helpful to their kid?
Is this fear helpful to the mother herself? No.
And suppose a mother ask a Bhikkhu to do her a favor to take care of her kid for a while,
and the Bhikkhu accepts.
Do you think since a Bhikkhu pursues fearlessness,
so they may treat the kid badly unlike normal people?
Do not mistake fear for caring.
Caring may also cause problems in the view of
Buddhism, but this is another topic.

Are they weak for doing so?

Yes. They are weak.
But it is not their fault.
It is their ignorance (avijjā).
And a ruthless child murder is also ignorant,
thus not stronger.
On the other side, fear is also a weapon, or a mean.
The fear that fear drives you to death and pain
may motivate you to search for a way to a relief from fear.
So fear also drives you to fearlessness.
Same applies to expectation.
Expectation, or eagerness drives you to death and pain.
The expectation to get rid of death and pain
may motivate you to search for a way to a relief from eagerness.
Buddhism is a way Buddha developed to free oneself from fear, eagerness and death (since fear and eagerness causes death).
And it has been verified by a lot of arhats in history.
Thus it is highly recommended instead of developing your own way.
If you decide to develop your own way,
I  recommend the biography of Buddha.
You can ignore the details like when or where did Buddha bore,
but pay a lot of attention to the process and method Buddha use to develop Buddhism.
I would recommend Buddha: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Carrithers,
a thin book that is very comprehensible.
You should be careful since it is very difficult to develop a proper way.
And a wrong way may be harmful.
Otherwise people would have found out Buddhism before Buddha was born.
However, even if you do not get any result,
trying to develop your own way may let you understand Buddhism better.
You just need to be careful, like Buddha did.

Fear is caused when you cling to something or endear something. It is not fear that will help you, it is caution or carefulness. We wear a seat belt not because of fear, but because of carefulness. We don't touch fire or heated objects not because of our fear, but because of our carefulness. Unlike fear, carefulness is a form of wisdom. It is wisdom that sees potential danger.  Fear can arise as a result of one's clinging towards something when one notices the danger. But it is your wisdom that bails you out of trouble, not fear.
A mother worrying  about a child is unskillful. A mother being cautious about potential dangers is skillful. It's the same case when falling from a bicycle.


text:
Does Buddhism focus on suffering too much?
The core of the Buddhist teachings are the four noble truths which talks about the existence of suffering. Other religions criticize Buddhism telling that this focusing on suffering makes the followers to be aware of the existence suffering and to feel more suffering instead of trying to enjoy the good things life can give us.
One answer Buddhism gives to this review is that, yes suffering exists and we are in a suffering situation but the four noble truths continues and tells us that it's possible to stop suffering.
On the other hand, suffering is stopped when enlightenment is achieved and yes, it is possible to stop suffering but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult.
Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

Related: How to explain what Buddhism is?

Nope. You are focusing on that aspect too much. Remember, it's always you and your thoughts. Without your ideas, Buddhism as a concept wouldn't even exist.

See also Buddhism is kind of depressing

Only Buddha told what is dukkha (Sorrow) and how to overcome it. You can see neither praying nor reciting can conquer suffering, Buddhism is a sole way to peace.

The understanding of Karma has to be balanced with the FNT.

It's a bit like asking "does cancer treatment focus on cancer too much?"

It seems to me critics of Buddhism's focus on suffering often do not grasp how the word is being used,

"They will say Saptha Visuddhi only approaches when a lot of reputations can be expected. –" ... you are very wrong to say this. I am not appreciated in this site. That is the reason for my silence. Going forward, maybe I will from time to time , reply to one or two of your OPs. with metta...

Does Buddhism focus on suffering too much?

Buddhsim doesn't focus on suffering, it only tells that suffering is essential part of life.

Other religions criticize Buddhism

Because they haven't understood Buddhism. They may think that Buddhism makes person to think life is full of suffering and lets person feel bad by making them think this things. But what Buddha told is only that suffering is essential part of life but it also can be removed, that's all. And he started to search for a way from which this remaining of suffering can also be removed. As a result he understood the four noble truths i.e:

Suffering is always coming in your life not life is suffering. All the suffering has some reason. all the upcoming suffering and unhappiness and negative experience can be stopped/decreased. and finally the 8 methods which if any human being follows he will feel no suffering in future. That's all. simple. Its just a simple psychology of human mind. Because Buddha himself was just a master scientist/psychologist who have carefully observed and examined everything related to mind. Surprisingly he also discovered that everything what we call universe is just part of mind and other unbelievable things related to parapsychology which truth seekers may find interested. But he also found that involving in other fruits of meditation ignoring the main goal is only stupid thing. So it can be see that what other religious people say about Buddhism is total 100% ignorance and lack of understanding of Buddhism.

... but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult.
Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

It only means that those who are practicing the 8 noble paths: i.e

will start to feel less suffering than other normal people. Because those people who are practicing Buddhism will realize that what they were thinking as suffering, loss and unhappiness were only their thoughts created by their own mind and nothing else.  It should be noted that anyone who knowingly or unknowingly follow this natural laws, not Buddhas teaching he will live more happier life.
So the meaning of following this path is to just increase the level of awareness, realization, happiness and joyfullness. So it doesn't means that average follower will feel more suffering. You can watch the videos made by the 10 day course meditators, they'll explain the difference in before and after experience of following this 8 fold paths.

Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

No. Like every religion there are Buddhists that take the teachings of kamma too seriously or miscomprehend the 1st noble truth, just as some Christians take sin & hell too seriously.
However, most Buddhist love Buddhism & are very happy to have it.

The core of the Buddhist teachings are the four noble truths which
  talks about the existence of suffering. Other religions criticize
  Buddhism telling that this focusing on suffering makes the followers
  to be aware of the existence suffering and to feel more suffering
  instead of trying to enjoy the good things life can give us.

This statement is false & mostly pertains to the recent modern political, economic & imperialist phenomena called Protestant-Judaeo-Christianity, whose followers are spiritually blind due to their lust for worldly things.
In other words, the real Christian teachings in the Bible & also historically talked much about the suffering of the world & the giving up of 'worldliness'.
People who believe there are "good things" to enjoy in life are called "worldlings", in both Buddhism & Christianity,
The love of the world is for Judaics & the Crypto-Judaics who call themselves 'Protestant Christians'.
Real Buddhists & Christians seek the bliss of heaven. Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this world".

One answer Buddhism gives to this review is that, yes suffering exists and we are in a suffering situation but the four noble truths
  continues and tells us that it's possible to stop suffering.

This is not a Buddhist answer but a view influenced by fundamentalist religion that tries to present a total view of life.
Buddhism does not state "we are in a suffering situation". Instead, like a doctor waiting for sick people to visit, Buddhism waits for people who are themselves aware of suffering in their life and look for a solution.

On the other hand, suffering is stopped when enlightenment is achieved and yes, it is possible to stop suffering but also very
  unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even
  more difficult.

It is true the majority of people cannot stop all suffering. Buddhism has no illusions about this. When the Buddha reached enlightenment, he said his core teachings, such as the four noble truths, were for the few rather than for the many.
In the Bible, it is reported Jesus said the same, when he said: "The road to life is narrow & only few will enter through the narrow gate".
This said, the Buddha & Buddhism rarely taught the four noble truths to ordinary lay people. Most Asian Buddhist lay people cannot even tell you what the four noble truths are.
Again, it is only a Western academic phenomena that believes the four nobles truths are the be all & end all of Buddhism.
Buddhism has teachings for lay people who, like the Christian Protestants, love the world.

Yes medicine or science tells us that our body has bacterias but a lot of them or the majority of these are responsible for oue immune system etc. Same can't be said of suffering in Buddhism. It's always something one wants to get rid off.

Does Buddhism focus on suffering too much?
Buddhism teaches the law of nature.That everything is subject to change.
Suffering  =clinging to change.
..instead of trying to enjoy the good things life can give us.
Even the good things in life is suffering.Because it will end  and give way to something else.You can see this for yourself.There is no happiness that you will meet that will last forever.We are always continuously trying to store it somewhere.Hold on to it.Fight for it.Cherish it...But it is nature to change.
As the practice matures you realise everything is subject to change.Everything is so unreliable.So you hold on less and less.And then you realise even the self is subject to change.What you always considered your self starts to gradually fade away.And then it dawns on you..if everything changes..consciousness changes..who exactly is suffering happening to..who exactly is life happening to..who is life revolving around..every time i try to pin point it i can never seem to find it..
If Buddhism is portrayed as teaching that Life is suffering.Then the good news is there's no one suffering to begin with.No one that suffering is happening to.
Buddhism shows a path where you realise for yourself through direct experience that there is no-one suffering.All there is is ever changing experiences.All there ever was was constantly changing experiences.Then you get a sense of relief.Release.

Does medicine focus on disease too much?

but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult

Not that very unlikely.
In Ancient India, an average person does not have access to internet, books, mediation centers, etc. to learn about Buddhism. In fact, an average Ancient Indian person is illiterate.
However, there are still a lot of people achieved enlightenment as recorded.
Also, the WHO definition of health is:

a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

According to this definition, few people are healthy.
But medicine is still useful even if most people can only achieve incomplete health via medicine.

Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

Medicine tells average followers that their body is full of bacteria.

Buddhists also believe in the Law of Karma, which explains that one’s
  own happiness or suffering, success or failure, health or illness and
  so on, are caused by one’s own bodily, verbal or mental actions (karma
  means action). Karma is not fatalism, since Buddhists realise that
  karma is ‘work-in-progress’ so that even now they are generating the
  causes for future prosperity or failure. Thus, in times of distress,
  Buddhists will seek to do good karma to alleviate any unpleasantness.

Culture and Religion Information Sheet Buddhism by The Buddhist Society of Western Australia in July 2015

Householder Luis Orantes, and those interested,
In order to understand/better see the 1. Noble Truth, which is actually the cause condition of the path to liberation, one has to get known the The difficult, importand friend, who is not at all an enemy but the cause that Saddha, ...contentment,... happiness,...concentration,...wisdom, release, knowledge of release whould arise. For one who does not proper focus on suffering everywhere, the path would never develop and he would stay delight once here, once there, bound.

...conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite...

So without leaving home, stand, and look out for the suffering in the world, as long householder, it's difficult to ever trace or practice on the path, yet it is the suffering seen in the world, in ones home, stand, that leads one out and to went forth, having found a worthy refuge.
(Note that this is not given for trade exchange, stacks or entertaining but to realice suffering in it and seek for an escape from this wheel)

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Help me to understand the concept of Svalakshan & Savikalpaka jnana intuitively
I've found this phrase-

Buddhist logic school of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, which flourished in medieval Kashmir. According to this school, the foundation of knowledge is a series of momentary and discrete perceptual data (svalakshana). There are no grounds in those data for the recognitions of any enduring entities through ostensible cognitions utilizing linguistic or conceptual interpretation (savikalpaka jnāna).

But I'm unable to intuitively understand the meaning of Svalakshanam & savikalpaka jnana clearly. Can anyone help?

Shcherbatskoy wrote in "Buddhist Logic" (translating Dharmakirti's Logic Manual) something like this:

Senses can directly perceive only one 'moment', but there is a 'chain of moments' that enters our consciousness, thanks to the activity of mentation (which unites them in regard to that moment) on the basis of sensual perception.
Only a chain of moments can enter the consciousness on the basis of perception, because one moment cannot be apprehended by consciousness.

As I understand, it means we build our knowledge not on the basis of those momentary discrete appearances, but on the basis of something like their superpositions, somehow prolonged in time.
But that leads me to another question: are these momentary and discrete things actually real?
It seems possible that "momentary" and "discrete" are just our ideas.
Maybe there's nothing really "momentary and discrete" at all.
PS to explain more:
(1) More on Svalakshana, read Shcherbatskoy: The Buddhist Logic. It's a well known book, where he translates and comments Dharmakirti. I have only Russian edition, so I myself translated the quotation above to English, which might introduce some inaccuracies, as I'm not a native speaker.
Also I found an interesting article by Victoria Lysenko, who explored exactly those problems - sense perception (pratyaksha), conceptualizations, etc. In an article "Svalakshana" in Russian Encyclopedia "Philosophy of Buddhism" she says that Svalakshana is somehow a controversial term, understood differently in Sautrantika and Yogachara.
http://www.fshq.ru/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY_Svalakshana.html
I don't know is there this text anywhere in English, so here is the Google-translation with several my corrections:

Svalakshana
[The opposition] Svalakshana - samanya-lakshana (Sanskrit svalakshana: literally "characterizing / defining itself". Sämänya-lakshana: "defining through the common [with others]") - the terms of the epistemology of the Dignaga and Dharmakirti schools, denoting individual, concrete, singular, unique - "particularity", in contrast to the general characteristic - "universalia". Svalakshana is something that is perceived in itself, as a reality, independent of any other things, whereas samanya-lakshana is the result of comparison, comparison of the given perception with something else, or their perception in some capacity, in some role, in otherness. Between them there is an impassable abyss: the svalakshanas are changeable, or rather, instantaneous (see Kshanikavada), and the general characteristics, on the contrary, are stable. Since reality, from the POV of Buddhists, is a discrete flow of dynamical point events - dharmas, then svalakshanas are real, while Samanya-lakshanas are mentally constructed.
The opposition Svalakshana - Samanya-lakshana goes back to the abhidharmic opposition of the truly existing (dravyasat) and nominal (prajnaptisat) dharmas, where the former are endowed with their own nature (svabhava), and the latter are declared unreal. In abhidharma schools, svalakshana is the self-nature of the phenomenon, distinguishing it from other phenomena, or a specifying characteristic (eg, svalakshana of Earth - resistance, of Fire - burning, etc.). Ontologically, S. - S.-l. become these units of analysis in the philosophy of Dignaga-Dharmakirti.
Dharmakirti puts forward a number of criteria that distinguish svalakshana from samanya-lakshana: the ability to produce effects in the form of expedient actions (artha-kriya-shakti), dissimilarity [with nothing else] (asadrishta), nonspecificity by word, perceptibility regardless of any other factors (such as agreements on the use of words, etc.) (Pramana-Varttika III, 1-2).
According to Dharmakirti, actual existing svalakshanas are perceived in two ways: in their own form (svarupa) and in the form of something else (pararupa), i.e. in the form of generalization. Hence two tools of reliable knowledge (pramana): direct perception (nirvikalpaka-pratyaksha) - for svalakshanas, and logical cognition (anumana) - for samanya-lakshanas.
If there is almost no disagreement in the interpretation of Samanya-lakshana, since this term is unambiguously associated with mental construction (kalpana, vikalpa), which is in Buddhist Epistemological School of Dignaga-Dharmakirti belongs to the category of non-genuine, conditionally-true being (parikalpita; see Trisva-bhava), then there are different, often mutually exclusive opinions about the much more complex and ambiguous concept of svalakshana, sometimes even from the same author. For example, Shcherbatskoy, on the one hand, saw in this term an analogue of the Kantian noumena and "things in themselves"; on the other hand, he likened the svalakshanas to "sensory data", sense data, sensibilia (Stcherbatsky 1930, vol. 1, p. 68, 79, 87 ). The difficulty of interpreting Svalakshana is that in the teachings of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, the position of the epistemological idealism of Yogachara is combined with realistic position of Sautrantika. Amar Singh, criticizing Shcherbatskoy's attempt to bring the concept of Svalakshanas closer to Yogachara idealism, notes that the real opposition of the Svalakshana as the ultimately particular object of perception to Samanya-laksana as an object of logical cognition is possible only within the realistic theory of knowledge of Sautrantika (Singh 1984). From the point of view of Sautrantikas, cognition does not deal with external objects, but only with their representations in consciousness - sensory data, which, however, are caused by objectively existing external stimuli. It is these stimuli that are called in Sautrantika Svalakshanas. From the position of Yogacharas, once cognition is independent of external objects, svalakshanas can only be sensory data. In the works of Dharmakirti, the term svalakshana is used, as a rule, in the context of the realism of Sautrantika. However, here arises the problem of the relationship between the Svalakshanas and their sensory reflections in cognition, images (abhasa, akara): are these images similar or different to their svalakshans?! Are svalakshanas noumenas or are they knowable?
Dharmakirti did not give direct, unambiguous and consistent answers to these questions. First, he adhered to the Sautrantikan concept of similarity (sarupya) between the cognitive image and his real prototype, i.e. external object (see Sakaravada - Nirakaravada), and secondly, he acknowledged that the svalakshanas are "grasped" (grahya) by pratyaksha (sensory perception, sensation), which implies that they can not be noumenal. But then in what sense can we speak about their inaccessibility to verbal expression? In Buddhist epistemology this is explained, first, due to the instantaneousness of the Svalakshanas (see Kshanikavada), because of which they can not be objects of empirical experience, which is a mixture of instantaneous sensations with their conceptualization - kalpana (only buddhas and other enlightened beings are able to recognize kshanas), and secondly, by Buddhist nominalism - the conviction that the meaning of words is only mentally designed universalia. Therefore, the verbal ineffability of Svalakshanas does not imply their transcendence in relation to perception. Against the noumenality of the Svalakshanas is also the fact that Dharmakirti speaks of Svalakshanas as atoms (paramanu - meaning Buddhist "phenomenal" atoms of colors, tastes, etc. qualities). Though, he does not develop this idea; so researchers argue about whether he understands by Svalakshanas individual atoms or their clusters (samchita) and, accordingly, whether the atoms generate one sensation (sensum, eg, a color spot) or a set of atomic sensations, which are then synthesized into color spots.
Analysis of new sources, inaccessible in the times of Scherbatskoy, especially Skt. and Tib. commentaries of the followers of Dharmakirti, allow to better understand the dilemma faced by the Buddhist philosopher. If he recognizes that the svalakshanas are single atoms, then this will contradict the Buddhist postulate of the non-perceivability of individual atoms (from the POV of Buddhists, atoms are perceived only in mass, like hair); but if he would assert that these are aggregations of atoms, he will face the objection that the accumulation of atoms, as representing "single in many", is actually a universal (samanya-lakshana), and, cognizing it, sensory perception turns to be conceptual (Pramana Varttika III. 194). In response to this objection, Dharmakirti denies the possibility for one object to be both single and multiple at the same time, citing the example of a multicolor on the wings of a butterfly, which is perceived as a single color (the reference to the well-known concept of the "motley" color "chitra" in the Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya schools, which is not a collection of different colors, but an independent color). According to the commentators, Dharmakirti interpreted the cluster (samchita) of atoms not as a whole (avaya-vin), different from the sum of its parts (avaya), but as an impulse acquired by each individual atom as a result of the impulses of other individual atoms entering the causal complex (hetu-samagri), which generates the sensible given. Since in Dharmakirti's teachings it is the Svalakshanas that are causally effective (artha-kriya-karitva) stimuli of perception, and therefore the only real entities, they should be identified not as a collective impulse of all atoms, but rather as a complex of interdependent impulses of individual atoms (Dunne 2004, p.103-109). This interpretation ultimately proves to be close to one of Shcherbatskoy's interpretations, who often compared svalakshana to energy point-moment. ("External object is not matter, but energy ... reality is instantaneous and consists of moment-points, which are centers of energy" - Shcherbatsky 1930, vol. I, p. 510).
However, the question remains open: what is the content of this sensory given - a mere reflection of the Svalakshanas, which by definition are non-spatial, - or it is an image, for example, of a color (a color spot) having a spatial extent? Dharmakirti does not give an answer, but it is obvious that the lack of spatiality of the Svalakshanas jeopardizes the principle of congruity (sarupya) of the cognitive image and its external referent, to which he was committed. Critical analysis of the concept of S. - s.-l. of Dignaga and Dharmakirti was performed by the Madhyamik-Prasangik Chandrakirti.
REFERENCES: Stcherbatsky Th. The Buddhist Logic. Vol. 1-2. Leningrad, 1930-1932; Singh A. The Heart of Buddhist Philosophy - Dinnâga and Dharmakïrti. D., 1984. P. 117-137; Dunne JD Foundations of Dharmakïrti's Philosophy. Bost., 2004. P. 91-113; Arnold D. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. NY, 2005.
V.G. Lysenko. Source - Encyclopedia Philosophy of Buddhism - Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy

That's an interesting text, and there are more interesting articles by Lysenko - on Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Vasubandhu, Vachaspati Mishra etc., e.g. "What is immediate perception? The Buddhist answer". Download PDF here: http://www.iias.asia/sites/default/files/IIAS_NL44_2021.pdf
or from Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/8135589/What_is_immediate_perception_The_Buddhist_answer
(2) So if you asked what I think, I approach it from Madhyamaka (as I understand it). Or, in modern logic, from what they call "constructivism". How did ideas of "momentary" and "discrete" appear in our thinking?
They might look self-evident, from the point of view of our experience:

a book moved by my hand seems to be a discrete object;
and an idea of "zero-length moment" comes from imagining a frozen cut of the world...

But does "zero-length moment" have any reality except being our imagined concept?
No.
Then are we sure that separate moments exist at all - even of non-zero length?
What if the world and the time are not discrete at all, in any sense?
Then how can we speak of elementary constituents of our perception as discrete momentary things?
Did you ever perceive really discrete momentary perceptions? Even a flash of lightning is not a discrete perception, because it has a "tail" of subsiding blindness.
So isn't "discreteness of moments" just a mental construction which we use to cut the world in our imagination?
I.e., "discreteness" might belong only to our mental constructing, but not to primary sensory data or their sources.
Do these questions make sense?
Then, speaking about discrete things, are they really discrete, or that discreteness exists only in our modeling of the world?
Is the book in my hand really discrete thing, or that is just an illusion, developed in my mind?

Thanks. Can you explain more? Svalakshanam also seems Self evident.

@Rohit., glad if it helped somehow. I will add more in a PS to my answer in a few minutes.

@Rohit., enjoy. It took a bit longer than I thought... :)

@Rohit., welcome. I vote for Yogachara/Madhyamaka: we can't really know anything about "stimuli of perception", ideas of them are just our mental modeling. Cognition starts from appearances - dharmas - which then turn (in our thinking) into dualities like "consciousness and its contents", "unity and multitude". In fact, there's no unity without multitude, and no multitude without unity. All these notions come not from real perceptions, but only from our mental modeling. In reality there's no unity at all, no multitude at all.

Did you see the first Jurassic Park movie? Remember how the T-Rex couldn't see them if they didn't move? Because while his senses could detect the persons (sight, smell, sound), he didnt recognize that as being his target unless it moved. He didnt actually recognize them (it) as his target or prey until they moved or made a difference from frame to frame so to speak.
Same type of conception here. It isn't the quality or whatever itself but the difference from one moment to the next that consciousness recognizes.
It is actually a rather mind-boggling concept when combined with big bang theory. It means that consciousness only existed once time existed so it really does, literally, make us the fabric of the universe.

Thanks I didn't watch the movie so couldn't understand.

So sorry Rohit. I was trying to think of a common reference. It's hard coming from a different culture. namaste.

no problem :)  .

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


text:
Sutta Reference of Buddhism Not being a Philosophy
I am looking for the proper Suttra/Dhammapada in which the Buddha states the following.

My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct
  experience...  My teaching is a means of practice, not something to
  hold onto or worship.  My teaching is like a raft used to cross the
  river.  Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already
  reached the other shore of liberation.

The raft is in MN 22.

I shall show you, monks, the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung
  to.

I'm not sure what to give as a reference for "it is the result of direct experience" ... perhaps Paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi ("to be experienced individually by the wise"), or Sanditthiko ("apparent here and now").

Or the paragraph before the one you quoted: which says e.g., "... They do not study the Teaching for the sake of criticizing nor for refuting others in disputation. They experience the purpose for which they study the Teaching ..."

Okay but is Buddhism a philosophy?

Because some people consider it as philosophy. Philosophy is a taern for academic research. But I don't think using philosophy for Buddhism is a good idea since Buddhism itself is a result of direct experience rather than sepculation and academic research.


text:
Cause and End of Suffering vs the Four Noble truths
I have heard that the Buddha once stated that he only teaches the cause of suffering and the end of suffering.

Can I have a Sutta reference for this?
What happened to the other two of the four noble truths? Doesn't he teach them? Why did he only specify two?

Can I have a Sutta reference for this?
Yes; it's in more than one sutta, e.g. at the end of the Anuradha Sutta (SN 22.86):

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

There's this commentary in footnote 14 of MN 22
(because it's also mentioned in MN 22):

Some have suggested, citing SN 12.15, that this passage means that there are only two things happening in reality: stress and the cessation of stress. However, in the context of SN 22.86, where this statement also occurs, it clearly means simply that the Buddha is selective in the topics he chooses to address. In that discourse, he is refusing to take a stand on questions regarding the ontological status of the Tathagata after death. Here he is refusing to take a stand on the related question of the status of the "existing being" (see note 13). In every case, the Buddha chooses to take a stand only on questions where the process of answering would be conducive to Awakening. On this point, see MN 63 and SN 56.31.

In other words "stress and the cessation of stress" is the only topic that the Buddha intends to "take a stand on" (conversely, at other times the Buddha is described as "trackless").
Why did he only specify two?
I think that "stress and the cessation of stress" is a summary: the four noble truths are detailed in a different sutta (SN 56.11).
Also this sutta (SN 22.86) says something slightly different about stress and cessation: e.g. it says that "that which is inconstant is stressful", that the five skandhas are stressful... and that it's good not to regard these as "self" (i.e. the anatta doctrine); good not to regard the skandhas as the Tathagata; and improper to "pin down" (make declarations about) the Tathagata existing, not existing, both, or neither.
So this sutta does talk about stress and cessation.
The whole suttas starts with, is the Tathagata described as:

Existing
Not-existing
Both (existing and not-existing)
Neither (existing nor not-existing)
Other (none of the above)

Anuradha doesn't give a good answer, and wants to learn how to answer the question:

If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?

And "describing stress and the cessation of stress" is the answer or conclusion to that question.

This is in MN 22.

What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

Here, the teachings are summarised in a two-fold manner; other times four-fold, such as four noble truths; other times twenty-four-fold, such as dependent origination & dependent cessation.


text:
Is Anapanasati a complete path? Does it, by itself, lead to nirvana?
I have been doing meditation of various forms (Goenka body-scanning, anapanasati, just sitting, kaya, citta, and vedana nupassana, etc.) but am trying to figure out something about anapanasati in particular.
My question is partly about Buddhist history, partly practical.
If I understand the story of Buddha's enlightenment process, he began by practicing anapanasati and attained to the various mystic absorptive states, including the eight jhanas. Yet, he failed to attain insight into dukkha, annica, and annata in any meaningful way, and remained in samsara. Eventually, after relaxing self-mortifying ascetic practices, he resolved to become enlightened, and accordingly practice anapanasati--again.
What changed in the end? Wasn't Siddhartha practicing anapanasati all along? Why did it suddenly lead to nirvana after years of mere dead-end concentration.
Practically speaking, does anapanasati in its purest form--that is, simply focusing on the breath to the exclusion of any and all other thoughts, sensations, etc.--actually lead to the deep and abiding understanding of annata, annica, and dukkha?

most buddhists would say you need more than meditation, right? a teacher, or right view, insight training, etc.

Initially the Bodhisattva was practicing a form of Pranayama in the form of holding or controlling one's breath. [Deva Sangarava Sutta, Maha Saccaka Sutta]
The Breath meditation practiced later was was observation of phenomena. Each 4 Sathipattana is covered in sets of 4 Tetrad with a total of 16 steps. Also it is the complete path. The 16 steps can be found in Anapanasati Sutta and Anapanasati

I have been doing meditation of various forms (Goenka body-scanning, anapanasati, just sitting, kaya, citta, and vedana nupassana, etc.)
  but am trying to figure out something about anapanasati in
  particular.

You obviously have not been doing anapanasati but instead doing an incorrect explanation of it by Goenka or someone else.

If I understand the story of Buddha's enlightenment process, he began by practicing anapanasati and attained to the various mystic
  absorptive states, including the eight jhanas.

This did not occur. He was taught meditations on 'nothingness' & 'non-perception'. Refer to MN 26. Obviously, these were some crude form of these meditations rather than the 7th & 8th jhanas developed from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhanas.

Yet, he failed to attain insight into dukkha, anicca, and annata in
  any meaningful way, and remained in samsara.

This view gives the impression his goal was to realise anicca, dukkha & anatta. In reality, he was groping in the dark; searching.

Eventually, after relaxing self-mortifying ascetic practices, he resolved to become enlightened, and accordingly practice > anapanasati--again.

He remembered back to when he was a child & spontaneously entered into the 1st jhana. Refer to MN 36. However, what is not clear here is exactly what is meant here. My view is the Buddha as a child attained jhana via non-attachment & he realised the path of non-attachment is the path to end suffering. This accords with SN 48.10 & the end of the Anapanasati Sutta, which states jhana is achieved by making 'non-attachment' (rather than the breathing) the meditation object.
In the correct practise of Anapanasati, the meditation object is non-attachment. The resultant awareness of breathing is merely a sign (nimitta) that the mind is correctly non-attached.
The proper translation of Anapanasati is 'mindfulness with breathing' rather than 'mindfulness of breathing'. This distinction is crucial.

What changed in the end? Wasn't Siddhartha practicing anapanasati all along? Why did it suddenly lead to nirvana after years of mere dead-end concentration.

What changed was the realisation of anatta (not-self). The scriptures (SN 12.10) state before his enlightenment he began to discover dependent origination; namely, how the 'birth' of 'self-view' arises from attachment, creates all suffering & is not intrinsically real.
Therefore, when non-attachment is the primary meditation object, the mind becomes more open, fluid & clear to be able to see anicca, dukkha & anatta clearly.
If there is too much effort & intention to focus on breathing, this makes the mind unclear & too narrow. This is called wrong concentration.

Practically speaking, does anapanasati in its purest form--that is, simply focusing on the breath to the exclusion of any and all other
  thoughts, sensations, etc.-

Of course not. Read the Anapanasati Sutta & the answer to this question will be quite obvious. Before this, empty the mind of the wrong views of Goenka.

Hi, and thank you for the detailed reply. I am enjoying the guide you linked above. Sounds like you're not a Goenka fan. Actually, I do the mindfulness of breath (or "with," I don't know which really) as presented by Shinzen Young, not the version Goenka taught. Nothing wrong with the latter, but focusing on the abdomen rather than the nostrils seems more productive for me, as vedana so often shows up in the abdomen.  I do like Goenka's acupuncture-like, cubic millimeter scan of the body. Seems to really clarify sensory experience--the sensations dissolve into mist-like waves of impermanence.

"This did not occur. He was taught meditations on 'nothingness' & 'non-perception'. Refer to MN 26. Obviously, these were some crude form of these meditations rather than the 7th & 8th jhanas developed from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhanas." what do you mean by this? how did he enter the Arūpajhānas, after the 1st four, by a new technique?

I don't know. But MN 36 states he remember back to his childhood about the 1st jhana. Therefore, the arupa meditation in MN 26 with is first teacher must have been non-jhanic. For example, to discriminate: 'There is nothing". If we keep thinking the thought: "There is nothing", the mind will enter into a blank state eventually. This is my guess or speculation. Regards

In abhidhamma's commentary  said "samatha people already saw some part of anicca and dukkha, except anatta" (so they try to get out off samsaravatta, too). But they didn't choose to develop vipassana.  They didn't chosen to always clearly comprehend anicca and dukkha. They try to just pause unwholesome consciousness by samatha instead. Samatha people just divert attention from unwholesome consciousness's object to wholesome consciousness's object.
So bodhisatta, who already have jhana, just meditate the method that samatha people haven't chosen, develop clearly comprehend in anicca and dukkha to access insight anatta, the most part that just buddha can done.
Anapanassati in anapanassati sutta have 16 steps:

4 first steps of anapanassati are samatha.
12 last steps of anapanassati are vipassana.

In the enlightened day of bodhisatta, he meditate samatha  and vipassana. Based jhana of pubbenivasanussati and cutupapata is samatha. Asavakkhaya is vipassana.
Each jhana step of bodhisatta have 4 first steps, and after get out of  each jhana have  12 last steps.
These method are called yuggalanaddha and samathapubba.
Reference from vinaya mahavibhanga veranjakanda, mahavagga bodhikatha, patisambhidamagga, anapanassati sutta's commentary, ayatanavibhanga's commentary, and visuddhimagga.

In the Pure Dhamma site it is mentioned that Anapansatti is watchfulness on arising of bad thoughts, impulses of bad habits, etc. -- and when noticed, not to get carried away with them. This weakens the fourth functionality of mind of reacting , hence if not reacted upon, no sankhara is formed, and the flow of consciousness in a slight way is setbacked.
  Of course there are innumerable sankharas piled up in innumerable lives  but even though they may be innumerable, they can be sided by or eradicated. It is only the habit/conditioning of mind that is responsible for enhancing the sankharas and consequently strengthening its habit/conditioning.
For example, suppose there is a person having no greed for money: then even if millions are kept in front of him, he will not react so as to have it; and then another man, with greed inbuilt for money, will react upon it. So here the habit of mind for reacting driven by the greed comes into play.
According to Buddha there are five panchdoshas, greed (kam or lobha), anger (krodh), hatred etc. Greed/kam/lobha are based upon craving, and anger/hatred is based upon aversion. These two are basic weapons of mind to strengthen its habit of reacting.
   In breath, anapan satti the awareness or mind is concentrated upon in/out breath i.e it is focused in one kasina (object for concentration), which normally otherwise is scattered in receiving inputs from five sensory bases.
   Having done so, first of all it gets rested from wandering. Now the breath is such type of kasina that it neither develops aversion or craving towards it and alas the mind is of habit to avert or crave. Hence mindfulness in breath slowly weakens the habit of the mind and we experience that, if not repeated, the habit diminishes and finally extinguishes.
    In my opinion this is everything all about the practice of anapan, with stopping of additions/inputs of reactions, will definitely leave unto the path of nibbana. It's the habit of mind driven by either aversion or craving responsible to take next birth to satisfy itself.
Regards, with best luck to tread on path without any doubt, and understanding the hindrances given by Buddha while treading on the path.
Your co-traveler
Anchal Kate, India
To add more--The mind is ingrained with habit/conditioning of reacting abiding to craving /aversion since many lives. Hence stilling it, slowly weakening its habit, may take much time: perhaps many lives. In our normal life we experience that if in anything there are no fruits as desired by mind, our mind has no interest in it: it never gets agitated or reacts on that thing further. It implies that whatever mind learns from experience is inbuilt in it, and based upon that experiance it either reacts or not react .
Hence in kayanupasana i.e mindfulness upon bodily sensations without reacting to it, the fact that the sensations arise and passes away is realized by mind upon experiential level to give rise to the understanding of anitya.
    If it is anitya what to react upon? Now another e.g there are lot many cultures, teachings, elders, schoolings, which goes on teaching virtues and true values but then where everything goes when we observe so much chaos in spite of the said teachings of virtues. The reason is, all this teachings is given to the conscious mind whose all actions are superficial ,this is only 4 percent or so. The subconscious which is almost 97 percent or so is the captain of the ship.
 All the shoutings of teachings does not reach up to it. but if it reaches somehow then the results can be seen. Then on what input signals it works, it works on the inputs of sensations, and with weapons of aversion or craving built in it, it reacts without even knowing to our conscious. The so called conscious learnt degrees of education, mannerisms, cultures, religious upbringing is shocked when it sees the reaction shooted out of it. This is known phenomenon encountered in our daily life.
   So the subconscious is 24/7 busy in reacting to the sensations, the only language it understands, without knowing to our conscious. Hence observation of sensations and remaining neutral to it by not averting/craving nullifies the sensation produced on receipt of input from any of the senses: this is what  is done in vipassana ,always to remain alert and vigilant. Among many saints there is one saint named Tukaram from Maharashtra whose one of many quotes says, "day and night we are on war duty". In the context of vipassana this is really understood what he wants to say. Hence anapan is okay up to stilling of conscious mind but vipassana is needed to weaken the captain which is subconscious. If at all some day some one explains exactly why and how the sensations are produced upon contact through the senses, then having rightly understood everybody will practice it to eradicate the sankharas and ultimately upon exhaustion of all sankharas attaining nibbana.
NIBBANA is nothing but eradication  of all sankharas/conditioning. There is nothing left to take rebirth for. Even if we forget about how to avoid rebirth because many among us does not have understood on subconsciuos level the futility of life . it is only at conscious level arised due to some sort of depressions due to the agonies of life. If the agonies are removed again we will be jumping and dancing in our life turmoil. The deep inside constant agitation at subconscious level does not keep us in happy /satisfied state. practising anapan/vipassana can definitely reduce the agitations which is of utmost importance in our present day lives. The path of avoiding  rebirth/attaining nibbana can only be trod once at experiential level understands the impermanance/anityabodh.
   This all above has been derived after attending vipassana 10 days course of goenkagurujiat igatpuriand with strong belief , book "art of living"by william harts and personal experiance of stillness of mind on practice of anapan and development of belief on this scientific discovery by buddha as our belief in   law of gravitation by newton

Please edit the post and insert links to your references, add line-spacing to increase readability and avoid walls of text. Thank you.

My first impulse is to tell you that the meditation prepares you to be open to receive and explore those ideas. A relaxed, objective state wherein the mind is more apt to examine the contours of ideology and teachings learned elsewhere in the dharma. Not that it brings those specific thoughts.
But it may. My "canonical" knowledge is rather limited and my views come from the laymen's perspective. I will add that the anapanasati sutta seems to agree with my view here when it mentions being OPEN TO this and OPEN TO that.
So, from the laymen's view I'd say yes if someone had mastered the techniques in anapanasati and made use of the other aspects of the dharma then as those concepts are encountered in the mind during meditation I believe you'd be susceptible to insight regarding all 3 marks of existence. In my view those initial concepts are borne from activities other than pure meditation and then fleshed out by the mind during the meditative state. But I dont have 16 factors of this or 9 steps to do that.


text:
I hate human beings how can I develop metta?
I don't like human beings because of their ego centric nature. They have destroyed nature- plants, species, morality, love, harmony etc. I just wish whole human species vanish or come to end. They have messed up the perfect nature. How can I develop love or Metta towards human beings? What are the ways by which I can develop love towards who are not doing such works to be loved?

I have posted a few times recently, to focus on developing equanimity (upekkha). Unlike Abrahamic religions, Buddhism teaches what creates the (social) world is ignorance. In Buddhism, that people are ignorant is just the way things naturally are. It is the true nature of the world (refer to the Lokavagga). Buddhism teaches people who are truly humane or human are "rare" (SN 56.47).
Therefore, Buddhism instructs to practise equanimity (upekkha) to free the mind of irritation & aversion. Once this is done, more positive mental states can be practised, such as forgiveness, to remove hatred & cruelty. When hatred & cruelty are removed, metta & compassion will arise.
'Metta' ('friendliness') is a social value, which can be difficult to practise in today's world, which has become extremely immoral & corrupt over the last 30 years or so.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "The Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has two Dhamma discourses given in sequence. Which two?
'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse.
These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence."
Iti 39

You sholud know the difference characterizes  between wisdom with metta and hate.
Metta is practitioner's consciousness that thinking to make happy consciousness arise in the other lives. (sukhī attānaṃ pariharantu)
There are the same and the difference characterizes  between wisdom with metta and hate.

Wisdom clearly comprehensions about cons (unwholesome consciousness) & pros (wholesome consciousness).
Hate see only cons, cons of pros, and pros of hate.
Wisdom never love anything.
Hate love it's beloved such as you love the world, hate it's enemy such as you hate human being.
Wisdom with metta clearly comprehensions about the cons of hate, but never hate people who having cons.
Hate see  the cons of people, and hate both people and cons.

Have you ever see the pros of your enemy such as  "they still not kill you"? That is the pros but you never thinking of it, because you hate your enemy's pros, too.


text:
Non-attachment as object of meditation
Is there text (e.g. suttas, and/or articles by modern authors) which describes "non-attachment" as an object of meditation? Specifically, how is "non-attachment" an "object"?
I'm asking partly because of this answer which says:

In the correct practise of Anapanasati, the meditation object is non-attachment. The resultant awareness of breathing is merely a sign (nimitta) that the mind is correctly non-attached.

I previously found texts reference more palpable meditation "objects", e.g. Kasinas or breathing.
I once found something which seemed like it might be a meditation on non-attachment, towards the end of the Atthi Raga Sutta (SN 12.64):

Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
"On the western wall, lord."
"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
"On the ground, lord."
"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
"On the water, lord."
"And if there is no water, where does it land?"
"It does not land, lord."
"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase.

However, literally, that's presented more as if it's a simile than as an object or type of meditation.
In the context of "meditation on non-attachment", is awareness of breathing a symptom of attachment to (i.e. contact with) form and perception (or if not, why not)?
Have I misunderstood what's meant by "the meditation object is non-attachment" -- perhaps it means the "the meditation goal, ambition, or purpose is non-attachment", but not "the meditation focus or contact is non-attachment"?

I think all these descriptions -  meditation on non-attachment, meditation with no goal, "just sitting", Diamond Samadhi etc. all refer to the type of meditation where your goal is to learn to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field - without either suppressing it or getting carried away by it.
One metaphor I heard to describe this, is the touch-and-go practice of the airplane pilots. You let the free-floating thoughts/emotions emerge and take shape just enough to get a flavor of each, but not to take over your awareness completely. You don't get attached to either the thoughtless state, or to any individual thought (or emotion) hence meditation on non-attachment.

"to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field"? Then what should you do when attachment comes to your phenomenal field? To be at peace with it and let the attachment develop?

no, I don't think we have to be too mechanical with our logic here)

Actually it seems to be a question worth some exploration. We could either (1) just watch, in a non-attached way, how the delusion develops. It could help to realize the mental processes through direct experience. Or, we could (2) dissolve the development of delusions somehow. ...Or (3) - maybe we should combine those two methods, in accordance with particular circumstances? Maybe I will ask this as a separate question.

Posted: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21826/being-at-peace-with-mental-phenomena

Focusing on non-attachment for practitioner is daydreaming. It is like people daydream about money but never work to get any money. No one can get the effect before they will make the clause of that effect, similarly, no one can take non-attachment before they completely developed their meditation.
Non-attachment = wholesome consciousness & resultant consciousness & arahanta consciousness & nibbāna.
Ārammaṇa = object = stuff is sensed or imagined by consciousness.
Ekāyano maggo = various paths that lead to just the same one destination (one destination of vipassanā = nibbāna).
Destination of samatha-meditation =  5 hindrances avoiding, not destroy. Samatha-meditation develop consciousness to focus on single object of samādhi consciousness, instead of various objects of uddaccha-hindrances consciousness. However, 5 hindrances still can arise after stop samatha-meditation.
Process of samatha-meditation =  just focus on samatha-object (and the way to develop that focusing), but overlook other objects.
Object of samatha-meditation =  breathe for ānāpānassati, 32 organs for kāyagatāsati, happiness living being for mettā, etc.
Destination of vipassana-meditation = destroy roots (avijjā&taṇhā) of causes and effects (paṭiccasamuppāda).
Process of vipassana-meditation =  After practitioners have gotten jhāna, then they leave jhāna, and focus on whole suffering to clearly comprehend suffering in the past, present, and future, as alike as it is. What suffering is? Suffering is anicca, dukkha, and anatta, that arising and vanishing by roots, so they are anicca, dukkha, and anattā. This clear comprehension about suffering will destroy roots (samudaya,avijjā&taṇhā), that ignores suffering, attaches suffering, and being clause of kamma that make the suffering, the whole khandha. (This is paṭiccasamuppāda and ariyasacca)
Object of vipassanā-meditation =  5 khandha, that are clauses and effects so they have 3 characterizes, that make we know 5 khandha is "suffering". And the roots/main clauses  of 5 khandha's arising and vanishing (avijjā taṇhā kamma āhāra phassa nāmarūpa).

Every wholesome consciousness are  non-attachments (kusalamūla is not akusalamūla).
So practitioner who getting anapanassati nimitta, has not attaching in nimitta. Because they just focus on breathe to pause their nivarana, 5 hindrances in 5  kāmaguṇa, the objects of the five physical senses.
If the practitioner attach nimitta, he having kāmachānda-hindrances. So his anapanassati nimitta, that appear because of wholesome consciousness, will lost. Then the meditation will not develop.

We can meditate on the awareness that doesn't develop attachments.
Phenomena come and go - freely, "not landing anywhere".
It can be described as the practice of Letting Go
With practice, we realize:

... When only concentration remains and there is no environment and no body, at that point there is still one thought left. The final step is to let go of even that one thought. And that would be letting go of the mind.

Anything that appears - consciously appears as empty.

The fourth of Bodhidharma's practices, "union with the Dharma," is a basic tenet of Buddhism that all phenomena are impermanent and do not have an intrinsic self. In the practice of union with the Dharma, we try to personally experience this impermanence and selflessness through direct contemplation of emptiness. This is the highest practice of Ch'an, and it leads to the highest attainment. It is the practice that allows us to reach the point of "entry through principle" that we talked about earlier.
http://chancenter.org/chanctr/ddp/talks/spiritchan.html

Compare this with "Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva’s Method of Complete Penetration Through the Sense Organ of Hearing", described in Shurangama sutra.
For more details, see Charles Luk. The Secrets of Chinese meditation.
In my practice I used this method:

First you contemplate the sounds.
At some point, you shift the awareness to the sensory field where sounds appear. So you contemplate "the canvas of sound", rather than individual sounds.
Then at some point you move to the contemplation of feeling of hearing.

Then senses work very clearly, but without specific focusing on phenomena, no attachment arises.
Thus from the contemplation not attaching to phenomena we explore and develop non-attached awareness. And then we can let go even the contemplation.
Naturally not abiding, without loss of awareness, without generation of attachments.

At the end of the Maha-Rahulovada Sutta (MN 62) and in the Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) there's a description of several types (or objects) of mindfulness, which lists "sixteen steps" (grouped into four tetrads) to be mindful of (or, it says that "he trains himself") during in-and-out breathing.
In Chapter 8 ("Other Recollections as Meditation Subjects") of the Visuddhimagga are two dozen pages of commentary which explain the above in more detail. This commentary says, in summary:

The first four ("tetrad") are to calm the body. There's also restraint (of senses), with an analogy of a wild ox tethered (to the breathing) until the ox lies down and stops trying to roam wildly.
The second four are associated with the first two jhanas (which are associated with rapture). The reasons for happiness are the object, and non-delusion.
To explain what it means by "the object", it gives a simile which says that if a man is looking for a snake, and finds the snake's home, then the snake itself is easy to find (similarly, I suppose, this is the abode in which happiness can be found).
The last steps of this tetrad (bliss and mental fabrication) are associated with the third and fourth jhanas.
It's understood that happiness is conditioned (associated with the jhana), therefore temporary; so there's non-confusion about that characteristic.
The third tetrad seems similar to the second; except that it's about "consciousness" rather than "feeling".
The four jhanas deliver or liberate the mind: the first jhana liberates the mind from hindrances; the second liberates from applied and sustained thought; the third liberates from happiness; and the fourth from pleasure and pain.
The fourth tetrad is focus on (contemplation of) impermanence, dispassion, cessation, relinquishment (with details that I won't try to summarize here).

Getting back to the phrase question in the OP, "the meditation object is non-attachment", and comparing that phrase with the commentary n the Visuddhimagga, it seems that phrase is a good summary of "correct practise of Anapanasati":

Beginning: it starts with going to a secluded place, and awareness of breathing ... instead of awareness of other things (so that's a detachment from mundane pursuits)
Middle: there's awareness of impermanence in the first three tetrads, and replacing earlier jhanas with later ones
End: contemplation of impermanence and cessation (nibanna)


text:
Unknowingly Drinking Alcohol
Me and my brother visited this pizzeria recently and he ordered two apple juices. Ryder's Wild Apple to be exact. I drank a sip of it and it tasted and smelled a bit like alcohol and obviously had the apple taste. But it had that beer smell. And then only I saw the label 8.8%. And I stopped drinking after it.
Did I break my 5th precept? I'm a person who doesn't take my precept very lightly. But I want to know whether I broke my 5th precept or not.

You're probably going to benefit from the following: Some vinegar have a tiny bit of alcohol percentile in them.

Did I break my 5th precept?

In order to break the 5th precept, the following four factors need to be present and fulfilled:

Mada-niyam -- intoxicants.
Patu-kamyata-cittam -- the desire to drink.
Tajjo vayamo -- the effort is made.
Pitappa-vesanam -- the intoxicants being drunk passing the throat.

Very importantly is the second factor, i.e. the desire to drink. This is also known as intention/volition (Cetanā).
If just one of these factors are not fulfilled, the precept is still intact.

Pali has not Mada-nīyasaññī, but the other sikkhāpada have. So although person does not know "this is Mada-nīya", but that person want to drink, then drunk. Sīla broke.
Cetana of this sikkhapada is difference from the other 4 sikkapada because just this sikkhapada is acittaka. So in vinaya pali wrote "Bhikkhu has broken pacittiya precept, although he think that it is not alcohol, while drinking (majje amajjasaññī pivati, āpatti pācittiyassa)".
The commentary also have the same comment like pali.
See: Vinaya Surāpānasikkhāpada Pali.
https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-bu-vb-pc51

Are these four factors the same for all the precepts?

@m2015. No, they are not but they are similar in nature. Common for all precepts, is that intention/volition has to be present. Visit this website and all factors for all 5 precepts will be shown.

Your 5th precept has not broken because the alcohol has not enough to make your unwholesome consciousness arise after drink.
This precept have 4 elements to done. You already done the last 3 elements, except the first "Mada-niyam -- intoxicants". (Patu-kamyata-cittam -- chanda to drink, chanda is not desire, and you have chanda to drink anything in that glass).
My reply is very difference from the others because I decided this from these all conditions:

pali included amajjasaññī (innocent of that beverage), too.
commentary said "must broken by unwholesome consciousness", but the
elements of sikkhapada have not Madanīyasaññī .
This sikkhapada also not included in 10 akusalakammapatha, too. But it is in 5 sikkhapada, that can let people go to niraya.

So the way to broke this precept should be unwholesome consciousness, that arise after drink, because of that drinking. And that unwholesome consciousness must can be done someone in 10 akusalakammapatha, too.

I would say that if you stop drinking something the moment you realize it contains alcohol then you are following the fifth precept, as the point of the precept is to keep you out of the troubles which come from intoxication and addiction.
From a strict rules lawyering perspective it's a little ambiguous around intention. Some commentaries would argue that intending to drink something that happens to contain alcohol is enough. Others would argue that you must be intending to drink alcohol. Both interpretations have the potential to be problematic: if you drink something not knowing it contains alcohol and get drunk you can go do stupid things so not knowing clearly doesn't make it okay. But taking this logic too far can cause fear and paranoia and increases problems in your life instead of reducing problems. And the contrary argument brings up problems with wilful ignorance.
In such cases of ambiguity it is good to fall back on common sense: it is reasonable to taste something to see if it safe to eat/drink; it's better to check in advance but no-one is expected to have perfect foresight nor be paranoid. Even the idea of "breaking" the precepts is a little misguided, the precepts are not magically purifying, they are helpful prescription on how you should live if you want to avoid some serious problems in your future and create a stable foundation for practise. Even if you do feel you broke it a little bit, it's enough that you are resolved to do better in the future.

How would wilful ignorance work in this circumstance?

What's with the fear of breaking it anyway? It's not like committing a sin in Christianity.    The precepts are just behaviours suggested to help you along the path. Maybe you need to stop worrying about it and look at how attached you are to the whole idea of keeping them.
Personally I love a good glass of wine every know and then. I believe it to be healthy in moderation. I'm not a monk and I'm not going to live a life of asceticism. Life is to be enjoyed and in my opinion good wine is part of that. Relax.

I don't drink anything different than tea, water or maybe cola etc. in maybe 99% or 98% of the days in a year but I upvoted this answer.

Let me take a different approach to this.
I sometimes shudder at the meticulous, deliberate approach I see from many in Buddhism. Much more exacting than I could ever justify purely from a canon that was passed down by word of mouth for 500 years. This is NOT to say that any of the interpretations (like Nanavara Thera) are wrong - - just that their approach may be a little more exacting than is necessary.
Everyone appears to address this question from a perspective that in the west we call "criminal law". As a criminal defense attorney myself I have been dealing with these incidents for decades and the criminal justice system has hundreds of years and millions of cases further defining this concept we call intent (Cetana).
For example - the description of 4 factors necessary to violate the 5th precept written by Nanavera Thera. In the west this is what we call criminal intent and it is taught to attorneys attending post-graduate Law School. My point here is that we are unnecessarily exacting by going this deep. It's not nearly so complicated.
Are you an alcohol drinker? As a result of this incident would you now call yourself a consumer of alcohol? Remember the acorn. We are not defined by our condition at any given moment in our life. That is much too linear. If we ARE going to so label then at least do it by a predominant trait and not a singular incident. Thats the philosophical approach called "utility" and it's also the most rational. It's what we think of when we consider fundamental fairness.
You cannot live life being so exacting. It's all about balance. The lines defining either side are NOT clearly drawn - it's all gray instead of black or white. That's where we normally live. In the gray. So in the gray where the lines are vague we examine the entire context and not just one incident. Again I ask - are you a consumer of alcohol?
No. An accident does not make you a drinker of alcohol. Your guilt shows that immediately. If I wanted to control you I would say "but you should strive for perfection". Thats not my intent though. My intent is to relieve your concerns and remove the trouble from your mind. See how I almost took that another direction? Intent matters and we get it from context. Keep striving. The path is a hard one.


text:
Which body of the Buddha belongs to the Buddha nature?
Which body of the Buddha belongs to the Buddha nature?
I suppose all three, but I would be interested to hear otherwise.

probably going to delete the question, cos it may just generate confusion (in both me and you) about the term "belongs"

What do you mean by "Buddha nature"? I think it means:
Anyone is Buddha, as soon as he stops to generate vexations.
That fact can be described as: "We all are Buddha by nature, we only differ from Buddha in maintaining some mental processes".
Therefore, the term "Buddha nature" is applicable to sentient beings, not to metaphysical concepts of reality like Trikaya.

thanks for the reply. i don't think the trikaya is always a metaphysical doctrine though.


text:
Does all Tibetan Buddhism classify the sutras in the same way?
Does all Tibetan Buddhism classify the sutras and sastras in the same way, or do specific schools elevate different Indian etc. texts?
I read about Chinese discussion about panjiao (doctrinal classification), and found it really interesting, especially the systems developed by Tsungmi and Zhyiyi, even if may seem quite dogmatic compared to someone like Wonhyo, who practiced hwajaeng, doctrincal harmony, so that "in his works we do not see the application of the practice of doctrinal classification".
Is there an equivalent in Tibetan Buddhism?

There are variations in the classification per school/monastery. All schools divide the canon in Kangyur and Tengyur (resp. original canon and treatises).
The number of Kangyur texts varies. Variations include the Derge, Lhasa, Narthang, Cone, Peking, Urga, Phudrak and Stog Palace versions, each named after the physical location of its compilation.

If your question is whether all schools of Tibetan Buddhism have historically agreed upon which sutras were definitive and which were provisional, then the answer is no they have not always agreed.
In particular, there is a dialectic between the schools of Tibetan Buddhism similar to the dialectic between the two great philosophical schools of Indian Mahayana Buddhism: Madhyamaka and Yogacara and their proponents.
The dialectic is complex and the issues are subtle, but the upshot for sutras is the question of which of the 2nd Turning of the Dharma Wheel or the 3rd Turning of the Dharma Wheel should be held as definitive and which provisional.
To be clear, I do not think any modern Tibetan Buddhist school thinks there is any real contradiction between these sutras, but there is still argument about which sutras should be held as definitive and which provisional in order to resolve the apparent contradiction between these two turnings of the wheel.
See here for a decent discussion.


text:
Fear of enlightenment
(I know there have been some questions about this same topic but each one is a particular issue)
I have started taking the buddhist path not long ago, less than three years. Life felt too heavy and it felt like it was pushing me towards not wanting to play the game anymore. So buddhism seemed like the way to go.  I was pretty excited about it for quite some time, hearing about the mystic expeciences, the idea of feeling the float from releasing from ego and the satori experience itself - but only as long as it was a distant, remote possibility.
As soon as I started digging deeper into this reality, investigating it for what it really is, things changed. I started feeling afraid of it and then terribly afraid. I can't forget the first time I faced the idea of vanishing from this existence forever, the true death; never being able to come back once I 'saw it'. Nevertheless I kept investigating. Then I contemplated the idea of being trapped in this. Existence has no way out, anywhere you go there is still existence. In other words 'What if it has been like this for millions, billions of years, maybe even for eternity? What if I am stuck in this illusion, completaly alone, unable to get anything out of it, for the eternity, and this is what the whole, me, ultimately is?'. Having seen this brought me to an unforgettable state of total dispair.
Some months have passed and now the whole thing feels weird. The more I look at reality, the more weird it gets and if I look hard enough it becomes dreadful. How strange is this thing we call death, or enlightenment, or time or self. I can't put in words how weird life feels for me. Sometimes when I wake up in the morning there is a strong sense of feeling weird to have hands and to move and to be in a body. Indeed, the I does not make sense, nothing makes sense. And I am afraid of being stuck in this forever. But if enlightenment is the only scape, I am afraid of never being able to come back. I am afraid everything is just an illusion, that there aren't others, just images and I'm alone. Sometimes I fear there isn't even enlightenment to save me.
My question is:  Am I going crazy? Am I getting it all wrong? I just wanted some light. Also, I am asking here because I know other people won't understand what I am talking about. Sorry for the long question.

i think the abhidharma kosa bhasyam says something about being afraid of nirvana thinking it's annihilation. hth, and i'm right

I have suffered from the same problem since years. But it happened suddenly, without any reason i started to feel scared by my own self, similar to the way you have mentioned and it was terrifying. I was in search of any such medical condition which can justify this extreme fear of my own existence, as if I am only the one in Universe and will always exist. I am still finding my answers, but with meditation i have gained control over my thoughts so the fear has reduced.

@Sona You are describing solipsism and existential dread. This feeling of solipsism can be described as falling to the extreme of eternalism. The counterpart dread is that this "I" that is the only one that truly exists can be annihilated by nirvana. Luckily, both views are completely wrong. That is why the Buddha taught the truth: The Middle Way free from extremes.

fear of liberation from 5 skandhas is normal for those who haven't studied Dhamma.  Buddha mentioned it in (Udana Sutta,

"There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ... falls into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is fear for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' But an instructed disciple of the noble ones does not fall into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is no fear for an instructed disciple of the noble ones [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.'

Quite long sutta but it answers your question.

As Buddha said:

Just as faeces always have bad smell, even a tiny bit of, so does the [illusory] existence. I do not recommend even a tiny bit of [illusory] existence, not even for so long as a fingersnap.

This phenomenal world is a horrendous, weird, strange, awesome place. The good news is, the experience of the world is our own projection and is therefore in our control. The power of the enlightenment is in being able to stop projecting the experience that makes one miserable.
Thinking these thoughts of yours is exactly the act of projection that makes you feel weird and scared. Do not feed them.

Are you saying experience is completely inside my control?

Much of experience is in our control, specifically what we pay attention to. The rest that is not in our control is subject to interpretation. Interpretation is in our control, how we assemble the pieces we see and what we assemble them into. The attitude to experience is in our control.

it is not, he's thinking of "substance"  @DhiegoMagalhães besides which, the alayavijnana is called "unconscious"

“Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind." (MN 19)

I see some parallels of what you have described with a discourse in the pali canon, MN 2. In it, the Buddha called this a "thicket of views":

“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’"
“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say."

The same goes for speculations about the world, universe, existence, in the past or future. These speculative views can be challenging when our imaginations are given wings to fly wild, and when we are sensitive to the places it takes us. But they are just that: imaginations.
For a buddhist, one thing that might be useful here is to revisit the teachings on Right View (and on Wrong View, such as above). These may help prevent the mind from wandering on thoughts that are unhelpful and only disturb it (again, that's an important point here: the thoughts and imaginations are the cause of disturbance and fear, not the reality itself. For example, your body and mind are likely fine and possibly comfortable while imagination trips away and disturbs everything).
When imagination is getting in the way, the one "place" one should go is to the experiences of here and now: that which is felt and perceived with the senses as they occur. It might be useful also to look for comfortable and pleasing places, since irritable or painful situations can only increase the anxiety caused by these imaginations and fears, feeding them once more. When the mind is pleased, it feels no need to look out there for answers to fill voids. Then, one can direct the mind inwards, and inwards it will go.
In other words, with Right View in place and a mind that is not distracted, it can be more easily brought to unity:

"But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained."
-- MN 19

So, subsequently (or alternatively, if reviewing Right View doesn't help), one can direct him/herself to the sublime (non-sensual) pleasures of the path that lead to Nirvana: the footprints of the Tathāgata (MN 27), the tastes of nirvana itself, the Jhānas. Abiding there, there's no anxiety or fear, but confidence that this is indeed the path to solving the problem of suffering.

“Having thus abandoned these five hindrances, imperfections of the mind that weaken wisdom, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, he enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. This, brahmin, is called a footprint of the Tathāgata, something scraped by the Tathāgata, something marked by the Tathāgata [...]’"
-- MN 27

I liked the second MN 19 quote (and also the first) - "But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained."

Am I going crazy?

The scriptures (SN 4.77) say thinking about Buddhism & life in the wrong way can bring madness & vexation.

Am I getting it all wrong?

Basically, yes, you are getting it wrong.
Buddhist practise begins with calming the mind with meditation, such as breathing meditation. When the mind is calm, it will not have fear in relation to the strangeness of life. In Buddhism, we try to stop the thinking & feel peace.

Yes, I should definitely develop samatha.

Would metta meditation help? Could be too much focus on illusion/reality and not enough on generosity and kindness.

Hi Simon. This is not a discussion chatsite & i think your comment is not really related to my post in the context of the purpose of the comments facility here. I think you should write your own answer to the question. Kind regards. DD

You are afraid not of enlightenment but of your thoughts.
All those emotions and conditions you develop - they are because of thinking and imagination. Those thoughts do not really correspond with reality.
So the most basic answer is: stop generating all those scary thoughts and unusual conditions. They look more like a sign of hypochondria rather than spiritual practice.
Actually nirvana means "to cease shaking".
Or "to extinguish vexations".
When you stop shaking your mind, it stops to appear as existing. Imagine that you shake a bowl of water, and so you see moving plashes of reflected sunlight on the ceiling. When you stop shaking the bowl, and the water stands still, plashes disappear. There is some light in the room, but it doesn't appear as the result of the activity of the bowl.
Likewise, nirvana means natural abiding, which is also non-abiding.
No plashes, so no "existence", because "existence" is a concept that appears as the result of activity.
In nirvana, there's no more of your activity. The body functions naturally, dissatisfaction disappeared.
The body doesn't appear existing as some highlighted entity, it's just a part of natural life of the intertwined causes. It was actually the same when you "existed". You just had an illusion of some "existing self". It was always just a play of intertwined causes. So the point is: not that you lose existence in nirvana, but it becomes clear that this existence was illusory.
Your births and deaths are ended, but there is neither existence nor non-existence.
If you form new concepts from this explanations and start to play with them intellectually, that's probably not a correct practice. Better come to the natural state. Buddha explained nirvana not to feed people for mental games, but to explain how to cease mental stirring. What is there? Explore by your experience, not by developing more stirring!
PS. See more about being "afraid of no-self" in the Dharma talk by Chan Master Simon Child, "Constructing a Sense of Self" (Chan Magazine, 2016 Winter). Free download: http://chancenter.org/cmc/publications/chan-magazines/

At least from a Theravadin perspective of the Buddha's teachings, the world and everything in it are not an illusion. However, they are not constant, not permanent and subject to change. This is anicca. Therefore you should not feel that the world and the people around you are illusions and that you are, in some sense, alone, and make yourself depressed.
The self is also existent and is not an illusion. However, the self is not an independently existing entity or agent, but rather, it is a mental idea that arises out of the inter-working of the five aggregates. A working wristwatch is composed of various parts such as the battery, strap, housing, glass cover, needles, gears etc. but doesn't exist as a standalone entity apart from these. It appears as a working wristwatch only when all these things work together. It is the same with the self. This is anatta. Therefore, you should not feel that you yourself are some kind of illusion and make yourself crazy.
All these exist, but are not constant or permanent or absolute.
However, there is also suffering, because of pain, disease and death. Suffering due to the inconstancy of everything that makes us happy, including the people that we love. Suffering because we cannot always avoid things that make us unhappy. This is dukkha.
You wrote that "I am afraid of never being able to come back", therefore displaying that you have the craving to be (bhava tanha) - you want to exist. Therefore, you should not feel trapped in this existence. After all, you are here, because you want to be here. And as long as you have this craving, you will definitely continue to be here. This is one of the causes of suffering. One type of craving. But there are also other types of craving like sensual pleasures.
The Yamaka Sutta (SN22.85) is very suited to the next part of your question on the fear of enlightenment.
The monk Yamaka once had this wrong view:

"As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk
with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated,
perishes, & does not exist after death."

Your fear is based on his wrong view that on achieving nirvana, you would cease to exist, or as you wrote, "I am afraid of never being able to come back."
Ven. Sariputta corrected Yamaka and Yamaka now understood:

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and
gone to its end."

Stress here is the same as suffering.
Furthermore, Ven. Sariputta taught him that:

"Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard
for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their
Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as
possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

(and the same applies to the other four aggregates of sensation, perception, fabrications and consciousness)
Hence, you should not feel trapped to be here now and you should not feel the fear of not existing after enlightenment. Rather, you should understand and acknowledge that there is suffering, and find means to become free of that suffering. This then leads to the Noble Eightfold Path.

It is gradual training. Take one step at a time.
Do not try to eat the whole elephant in one bite.
-)

You should know how lucky you are to be on this path. In my opinion if there is any fear it's not the real you it's the mind that is afraid .So it's your ego justifying it's existence. Ego doesn't want to let go. And that glimpse you had is not all. Trust me .
 Have you heard about this Buddhist monk/teacher Bhante Vimalaramsi? He describes nibanna and many other things and methods as well. Please, i want you to know that things will get better indeed. This ''depressive state'' will pass and it can pass really fast if you practice mindfullness ,watch your thoughts and understand that your feelings usually are thoughts in motion . Once you stop the thought and replace it with positive  your experience changes immediately. You can go crazy only if you believe in your thoughts...Relax

I think that Buddhism categorizes things (including thoughts, views, intentions, habits) into categories of "good" and "bad".
For example something is good if it's "moral/ethical", "kind", "harmless", "skillful", "helpful", "benevolent", "conducive to ease", "conducive to non-delusion" and so on.
Conversely something is bad if it's immoral, unkind, harmful, unskillful, unhelpful, malevolent, conducive to disease, conducive to delusion, and so on.
"Enlightenment" is meant to be a good thing ... so if you're not seeing it that way, perhaps it's your view of enlightenment that's wrong, not enlightenment itself that's wrong.
More specifically I think of enlightenment as being intended to counter-act (it acts as an antidote to) a pre-existing unenlightened fear of death. It's meant to be an escape from death (and rebirth).

I am afraid everything is just an illusion, that there aren't others, just images and I'm alone.
Also I think the fact that other "people" exist is axiomatic, a feature of Buddhist belief. Buddhism is meant to be a Middle Way between extremes.

One extreme (to avoid) is to over-value sense-impressions ... if you put too much value on a ruby, for example, you might use the distaste for (detachment from) sense-impressions to tell yourself "Of that's just a red stone and some light, I won't become attached to it"
An opposite extreme (to avoid) is to assume that nothing is real ... for example to assume that there are no other people, that other people don't suffer, that actions don't have consequence.

But if enlightenment is the only scape, I am afraid of never being able to come back.
I guess this too is one of the problems which enlightenment is intended to solve. I think it looks like the problem you're describing happens because of view that there's an "I" which might come and go (or an "I" which might "go" and not "come back") -- at least according to the Pali canon this sounds like an "identity view", which is an unenlightened view and part of the problem (it's a view that leads to suffering, as you say).

Well, makes sense.. and doesn't haha. I guess enlightenment isn't meant to make sense to a thinking mind anyway. Identity view is indeed very strong "I AM here, am I not? Isn't there a self?" Well, I guess at least there are experiences, right? And there is the fear of not having any more experiences. I am afraid. But there is no me so... there is fear. No one is fearing, it just happens. Okay, what can I do to get out of this? nothing because there is no me to act. It's a paradox.

If things go wrong, maybe because we lost our ground which is gratitude.
Perfection, greed and complaining are the different faces of the same thing.
In my experience, simple gratitude is the best meditation and ultimate healer by far.
Sitting, feeling your breath and being thankful to it clears most of the fog.
and by the way, everything happens for a (good) reason.
I hope you feel well.

The suspicion on your teacher always leads you backing up being enlightened. Therefore the fear always born there for the enlightenment. The five reason behind the fear of enlightenment could be identified as lust, anger, suspicion, arrogance and doubt which leads a person's mind in millions of states preventing him being understood the ultimate truth.

Fear not included in sobhana-cetasika (wholesome mental factor group). Fear is dosa-akusala-cetasika (unwholesome mental factor group).