text:
"Free will" or just 'will' ?
The term "free will" can imply that one's will is without causes. But whenever we make a decision, it always has causes.
ex: If you have just enough money to buy either an apple or a chocolate for a snack, what makes you choose one over the other?
Is it a spontaneous decision without any causes? No! If you pick the chocolate, it could be due to the craving of the taste of chocolate at that time. Why do you crave for it? Because the taste of chocolate had made an impression on you which says that it is enjoyable. Would you have chosen the chocolate, if it had an unpleasant taste? So your willingness to pick the chocolate is not really free. Because the taste played a big role in your decision. On the other hand, if you are willing to pick the apple, is that willingness free? No! Again, it could be because of the of the taste. Or because eating the apple would be healthier. If the apple wasn't a healthy food, would you have picked it? So your willingness to pick the apple is dependant on the condition of the food.
Even if you pick any one of them just because you are hungry, is that decision free? No! Because the decision is cause by hunger and hunger is cause by other causes.
So the question is: is free will possible in a practical world or is it just 'will' which isn't free?

I believe you're a bit too quick on the trigger with the conclusions you draw here. May I suggest being more cautious about what you take as truth, and what still needs more inspection before you commit to eternal statements.

I don't have a fixed view on it, @Sadhana. That is why I asked the question. If you can give a satisfactory answer, I will definitely appreciate and agree. :)

Well, isn't it enough to consider that this is the Buddha's teaching?

@Sadhana, what is the Buddha's teaching? The term "free will" (liberum arbitrium) was introduced by Christian philosophy (4th century CE)

My friend I believe that people have been wasting time arguing over this concept since way earlier than that. But my answer at least points out some excerpts from the time of the Buddha.

In this comment you say that a choice is not "free" if it is "caused" (conditioned) by "an awareness of any nature". I find it hard to imagine choice that's NOT 'conditioned by awareness of any nature': that leaves only choice that's unaware (e.g. non-sentient), or choice that's unconditioned (e.g. truly random). Neither of those seem to me useful/desirable definitions of "free". Was it your intention, when you posted this question, to argue that "free will" doesn't exist and/or isn't a useful concept?

@ChrisW, yes, if something is born of causes and sustained by causes, it cannot be truly regarded as being 'free'. Thus there's 'will' but no "free will". But some might limit the scope of 'free' to not being influenced by a god.

@SankhaKulathantille And if a major cause is your present intention, which is a result of your free will, given a present situation and the options it leaves you with? Say, at the very least, kill or not kill. Would you say that there is no free will there? If that be the case, then is the killer to be held responsible? Is there anything wrong about the act if it were just another predetermined, unavoidable consequence of something primordial?

@Sadhana There's a notion of Proximate and ultimate causation. You could say that the killer was the proximate (near or direct) cause of the murder, however that the killer's poverty was a more distal cause, and the killer's poverty was caused by the king's wars, etc., etc. It sounds like a description of Samsara which has "no discernible beginning".

@ChrisW According to the canon, it's karma. But the precepts say that no matter how easy or necessary it might seem, they say you can, and should, always stick to them, even at the expense of your life. So long as you're on the path, you stick to your precepts, you try to restrain yourself when needed, and you look after yourself and others, then any such metaphysical discussion goes nowhere, and is a lowly waste of time, and that's what the canon says as well. Having reached this conclusion, I must now withdraw from this discussion, and wish you well.

Karma doesn't require free will. But it requires will. Karma is simply another process of causes and effect.

"No free will" is a theory which seems to discount personal responsibility/authority for choice. I still think that's just arguing about whether there is "a person" or "a self".

Karma doesn't require personal responsibility or for it to be fair. Karma is just a law of nature. if you throw a ball up, it doesn't have a personal responsibility to come down. But it comes down nonetheless

From what I can tell you ask six question here which you answer yourself in a very rhetorical way. First, I do not feel that the rhetoric is helpful in the stackexchange community. But more importantly I do not see any mention of Buddhism at all with this question. Try asking at philosophy.stackexchange.com

@ChristopherLee This question was (presumably) partly a result of the discussion in these comments. I don't think it's off-topic, though you may not like its being a "rhetorical question".

How is this question Buddhist in nature and not just Philosophical in nature?

@ChristopherLee Just because Buddhists sometimes want to explain their view. For example according to this comment it's meant to be obvious that karma, albeit natural law, cannot be defined by an equation because free will is axiomatic. Or in this comment I tried to claim that one doesn't have to feel anger but can instead learn to be able to choose.

The ego has survival instincts hardwired into our bodies. These survival tendencies are what give rise to greed, ignorance and hatred. This is what creates suffering.
To be conscious of this process is the aim of most Buddhist paths. This awareness itself is what gives rise to our capacity to choose something other than what our programming demands. Thus, "free will" as opposed to "will". Will implies that our choices are predetermined, which is true when the ego reigns.
Free will is the entire point of our chasing enlightenment to begin with. This is why Buddhism exists, and why it's called "liberation" in English.

"awareness itself is what gives rise to our capacity to choose" - Again you are describing a will that is caused by awareness of a certain nature. Here the 'will' is again dependant on the quality of another. So how can it be free?

You are trying to define will outside of a context of consciousness. It doesn't exist in a vacuum; it relates to another concept: choice. The difference is whether that choice is driven by ego or by Mind. If there is no awareness, there is no choice; if there is no choice, there is no will.

I'm talking about something being caused by another. Not something being related to another. Ego or no ego, if the choice is driven by another factor, it's not free.

If it is caused by something, is that not a relation?

The relation is such that the effect cannot be declared free as it cannot come to existence without the causes.

You are now arguing against your previous statement... either there is a relation, or there is not. It is defined as free, but the question then becomes "what is it free from?" And for that question, I have already given an answer.

A mango plant is caused by a mango seed. In that sense the seed and the plant have a causal relationship. But there can be 2 mango plants related because they are from 2 seeds of the same tree. But they don't have a causal relationship. So the qualities of one doesn't affect the other in that relationship. So like i've said before, I'm talking about a specific relationship in which one is dependant on the other.

In trying to see what you're saying, I am still confronted by the idea that you're rejecting the concept of karma in the statements you're making. The term "free will" is present because it describes an experience. What experience is it describing? You're trying to separate and overanalyze the term without considering its source. Thus, causality is still the primary issue in your arguments. For the mango plants, how could they both be mangos without a common ancestor? Dependence is causal in nature. Cause-and-effect relationships are what demonstrate dependence.

The ancestor and the plants have a causal relationship. But not plant 1 and plant 2. Karma is all causes and effect. How does it contradict with my statements?

To say they don't have a causal relationship is to deny their source. The contradiction is in your trying to remove the causality and have something exist in a vacuum when it simply can't work that way. Trying to hammer a nail with a jellyfish would have more effect.

If we are considering only the 2 plants, there's no causal relationship. Causal relationship only comes when you bring a 3rd item into the discussion which is the cause of the items that are being discussed. I'm not trying to remove causality. I'm simply saying that if something is born of causes and sustained by causes, it doesn't qualify as being free.

If we are considering just the two plants, then how can we possibly have a conversation about will, which is by definition about causality? You're trying to talk about a term and yet exclude the primary thing that defines it.

The 2 plants were given as an example for relationships other than causal relationships. That's why in an earlier comment I said, I'm talking about causes. Not just 2 things being related.

The concept of will depends on causality in order to be defined. It simply cannot exist in a vacuum. Your method of rejection of the argument is a denial. It shows that your intent isn't to learn or to ask in earnest, but to be superior.

The idea of "free will" is free only from the constraints of ego; it is not free in any absolute context. (Which is what my answer said, less briefly.)

"The concept of will depends on causality" - That's why I say it isn't free.
" your intent isn't to learn or to ask in earnest, but to be superior" - sounds like a neat way of saying "You are trolling". But I'm not! :)
"The idea of "free will" is free only from the constraints of ego" - Well, anything is possible if you narrow down the scope like that. You say ego. Someone else can say being free from a god.

In either case, free from biological pre-programming.

now you are giving another definition.Someone else can say "free from electromagnetism". We can consider anything to be free, if we keep twisting it like that. :)

In the case of will, the definition is pretty well-defined already. I'm not twisting anything; I'm using the common social definition that everyone uses.

There's no reference to ego here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will  :)

It's implied in this conversation by the nature of the topic (Buddhism), and the way that the ego operates. If you're going to strictly go by the philosophical definition (which is what that article does) then perhaps you would be more at home in a philosophical venue?

Ok, if you are saying that the meaning of the term in a Buddhist context is the choice without ego, you should be able to come up with a Sutta reference for it. Otherwise, it's just your own interpretation.

By its nature, free will is subject to interpretation. So yes: there is no absolute definition of it.

So it's your own interpretation :)

What do you hope to gain by arguing about my answer? Nothing so far has caused me to need to re-think any portion of it. It's my answer. There's not going to be a singular correct answer, because that would require proof. There being no possible evidence of free will or destiny being dominant, any attempt to say that any answer (my own or yours or anyone else's) is anything but our own interpretations is going to be flawed at its foundation. Such is the nature of anything experiential.

There's nothing right or wrong about my answer. You're trying to be right, is all. Thus, proclaiming your superiority or something similar... and yes, now you're trolling, truly.

Good night, friend! :)

Words are pointers. They are not the thing they represent. As such the question misses the point.
In Buddhism there a distinction between karma and things like cultural programming on the one hand and liberation and conscious choice on the other hand.
The problem is that you don't have a concept of what conscious choice means. You might never have experienced it so any word can't point you to the concept. You will always match it to previous experience that are of a different quality.
You can observe that all the decisions you have made in your life can't be reasonably called free but that doesn't mean that's true for everyone.
If you sit a while in meditation you can discover new ways to make choices. Not anymore by bound to pick the chocolate because you have aren't picking the chocolate anymore because you have a craving for it or eat the apple because you should eat healthy.

But your mistake is thinking that conscious choice is synonymous with free will.

@SankhaKulathantille : I don't say or imply that anything is synonymous. You missed the part about "words pointing to places".

By the same logic, your answer misses the point as it is made up of words :)

@SankhaKulathantille: It's not supposed to be logic. Logical inquiry is a quite Western concept. It has it's use for some domains but it's not the way the Buddha taught.

Whatever you choose to call it, it disqualifies your answer, if it disqualifies the question

@SankhaKulathantille : I answered the question, I didn't disqualify it. The later would mean not answering.

You didn't answer it. It's only an attempt to answer :)

@SankhaKulathantille : I did answer it, but then deep answers are seldom immediately seen as such and there no reason to answer this question on a shallow level that's immediately apparent.

Your attempt doesn't answer the question at any level

There may be a mistake in your first sentence, i.e.:

The term "free will" can imply that one's will is without causes.

I think that the state of willing (wanting) anything "without cause" or "for no reason" would (if that state can even exist at all) be seen as a bad (unnecessary, useless, random, insane, unwise) thing.
If that (madness) were the actual definition of "free will", then probably nobody would be interested in it.

Instead of "without cause", the first two sentences in Wikipedia say "unimpeded by contraints",

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain prevailing factors. Such prevailing factors that have been studied in the past have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism),[1] physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).

For example:

A "prevailing factor" might be that my neighbour owns something which I do not own and which I want: but "unimpeded" by that factor I might be able to "freely choose" to not steal it.

A "constraint" might be that I'm hungry and have no food: but unimpeded by that constraint I might "freely choose" to be happy instead.

A "constraint" might be that my country's laws require me to join the army and go to war: but unimpeded by that constraint I might "freely choose" to go to prison instead.

A "constraint" might be that you are taking (stealing) things from my house, but unimpeded by that constraint I might "freely choose" to give those things to you as a gift.

Some things (e.g. a river which is running downstream) might be seen as acting mechanically without having any "will" (and without sentience): they're just a machine.

Part of the "free will" discussion is whether people have no choice because things are pre-decided by God.

Another part of the "free will" discussion is whether people have no choice because things are pre-decided by Physics, by a nothing-but-mechanical nature/universe.

I suspect that by the time you agree or claim that there is such a thing as "will" and "choice", then you're already moving away from Hard determinism.
I searched the Wikipedia article to see whether it mentions such a thing as non-free will. The word "will" exists 500 times in the article, and almost every time it's used it's used with the word "free". In other words, "will" and "free will" might be (intended to be) used as synonyms: if it's not "free" then it's not "will".
For example if you a enter a contract under duress then the contract can be void: because if it wasn't of your own "free" will, therefore it wasn't really "your will" at all.
There only very few (pathological) places in the Wikipedia article where "will" is used without "free":

Free will as a psychological state
A person's will is identified with their effective first-order desire, that is, the one they act on, and this will is free if it was the desire the person wanted to act upon, that is, the person's second-order desire was effective. So, for example, there are "wanton addicts", "unwilling addicts" and "willing addicts". All three groups may have the conflicting first-order desires to want to take the drug they are addicted to and to not want to take it.
The first group, wanton addicts, have no second-order desire not to take the drug. The second group, "unwilling addicts", have a second-order desire not to take the drug, while the third group, "willing addicts", have a second-order desire to take it. According to Frankfurt, the members of the first group are devoid of will and therefore are no longer persons. The members of the second group freely desire not to take the drug, but their will is overcome by the addiction. Finally, the members of the third group willingly take the drug they are addicted to.

and

The physical mind (see also Neuroscience of free will)
For example, an addict may experience a conscious desire to escape addiction, but be unable to do so. The "will" is disconnected from the freedom to act.

and

Neurology and psychiatry
Similarly, one of the most important ("first rank") diagnostic symptoms of schizophrenia is the delusion of being controlled by an external force.[186] People with schizophrenia will sometimes report that, although they are acting in the world, they did not initiate, or will, the particular actions they performed. This is sometimes likened to being a robot controlled by someone else. Although the neural mechanisms of schizophrenia are not yet clear, one influential hypothesis is that there is a breakdown in brain systems that compare motor commands with the feedback received from the body (known as proprioception), leading to attendant hallucinations and delusions of control.[187]

I suspect you'll agree that Buddhists commonly experience at least the first kind of "freedom": the feeling that they are able to do what they want to do.
Note however that being conscious that "I choose" might be a view of self. An answer like this one might (I don't know) suggest that "free will" and "choosing" is the normal state of mind: and that a state of non-choosing or surrender-of-self might be an (enlightened) ideal which a Buddhist aims for.

+10 for the 2nd attempt. But lets analyse one of your examples.
"my neighbour owns something which I do not own and which I want: but "unimpeded" by that factor I might be able to "freely choose" to not steal it" - Here you presume that for a choice to be free, it should not be caused by factors which are deemed evil. In this case, greed or jealousy. But it is free, if it is caused by factors which are agreed to be good. In this case, it could be shame and fear of being caught, fear of Karma or some other good factor. But freedom has nothing to do with good or bad.

Love, compassion, awareness, wisdom etc. are all causes just like the greed, hatred, ignorance. 'Will' is something that is caused by them. 'surrender-of-self' doesn't even apply as there's no self in any of them in the 1st place. The only reality worthy of being called free is 'Nibbana' as it is uncaused.

You cannot always choose - conscious choice implies awareness: but when you can, choose well.
Free will has been the subject of argument in Western philosophy: partly because of notions like "God is omnipotent" (because if God can do anything and does everything then how much choice do we have); and/or because the opposite notion of the world having a physical (not spiritual or mental) basis.
IMO this is a 'false dichotomy'. It might be asking a question about the existence of self of the kind that it's recommended you don't ask.
There was a nursery story (i.e. a children's fable) told to me: someone asked a centipede, "Which foot do you move first?" and the centipede thought about it and didn't know and got confused etc. Whereas a natural centipede will just move.
Similarly a natural person makes decisions, and those decisions have an effect, and self-training (if you choose to do so) can make the decisions more skillful, etc.

Yea, but the question is, whether one is aware or not, can the action be taken as an instance of free will? The centipede moves because of will. But that will could be caused due to the need of food. So it isn't really free.

If you want to describe will as "free" then it's up to you to specify what it's free of. I think Buddhists typically won't accept a statement like, "I had no choice because God made me do it": therefore will is "free" of, for example, predetermined divinely-ordained constraint.

Similarly, Buddhism is a bit more subtle than cause-and-effect: it teaches "dependent origination" i.e. there's more than one 'condition' for origination. I think you can 'need food', you can be hungry, yet you can choose to eat or choose not to eat. So, that is some freedom.

Buddhism doesn't accept a God or a soul. So "I had no choice because God made me do it" doesn't apply in any case. Yes, there's always more than 1 causes for all conditioned things.
"yet you can choose to eat or choose not to eat"- But why? It could be because you are on medication. So your decision  to eat or not to eat is affected by factors other than hunger. So again, it isn't really free. But I guess if you narrow down the word 'free' to just being free from another being, there can be free will.

I would say that acceptance of God or Soul is actually dependent on lineage. The tradition I am in actually teaches about God and Soul.

Then it must be a lineage that rejects 'Anatta' - one of the core teachings of Buddhism.

It certainly doesn't reject anatta; rather, we consider it non-self, in the same way that non-action is defined. It appears to be thus, but is not necessarily. The non-self (anatta) necessarily requires self (atman) or it could not exist as a definition in any vocabulary. To speak of it at an intellectual level requires only words; to understand requires an experience. That's all I can say in such a limited space, but it should suffice for now.

Non-self doesn't require a self. It only require a definition of what a true self would be.

And how could you define a true self without a false one from which to infer the truth?

You define a true self by defining it's qualities. Not by inferring it from a false self. You should read the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

My friend, if you already have real knowledge, why ask? But if your asking is sincere you must be more sensitive about the way you conduct and lead discussions. As the water snake similie goes, we don't study the Buddha's Dhamma for attacking others nor for defending ourselves in debate.

@Sadhana Thank you. I was not thinking of that, and its timing was well done. However, I must also question how much real knowledge is there, and how much is simply regurgitation of what he was told (assuming Sankha is male by the name). It's one thing to speak the truth; another to know it.

@Sadhana, I never claimed direct knowledge. Either you have misinterpreted my motives or opposing views hurt you. That is usually caused when you cling to a view. I don't cling to mine, so I don't need to ask others be sensitive when they post opposing comments. :)

@VishwaJay, @ChrisW, I'd appreciate it if you reviewed my answer. I've also tried to formulate it in such a way so as to speak to where you're coming from, though I'm not sure how well that went. P.S. It's true, the canon never says there is no self. In fact, in MN2 it says As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... So any established doctrine of existence/non-existence of the self simply isn't part of the practice as suggested here.

@Sadhana I'm not saying that self or view of self exists or doesn't exist. I'm saying that I suspect that Sankha's definition of "free" might imply a specific view of self: i.e. that the existence or non-existence of "free" will is meant to imply view of a "self which is or isn't a chooser who is free, independent, unconditioned". Therefore I think this question belongs in the thicket of views category. Either answer is problematic: if you accept "no free will" then perhaps you deny personal responsibility or authority.

But "free will" according to Sankha's definition here seems to be that it's not considered "free" if it's even conditioned by an awareness of nature. If that's a good definition then what does "free" even mean: does it mean "free of awareness" i.e. unconscious and non-sentient? Does it mean "unrelated to all conditions" i.e. truly random? So both of the extremist views, of "totally free will" and "no free will at all" are untrue or counter-productive or useless.

@ChrisW Yes, I easily agree with that. If will were totally free then of course we would not need the practice, which we do. :) So indeed what you say makes a lot of sense to me.

@ChrisW However, I do find it odd to call that will. From my own experience, I can say that often I'm not entirely sure what to will. I often go for what I'm told is bad, until I've directly experienced something better. Now, it takes some effort trying to go off the natural path (of the autopilot). But it's only when I manage to do it and glimpse at what's out there that the words of the teaching really go to heart, and then I can genuinely, and with much less internal conflicts and effort, direct my will towards them.


text:
Spacious versus Empty
This comment says,

True the world becomes more SPACIOUS when we focus on the moment and thus see that to save one life is to save the world. This is why it is important to translate spaciousness as spaciousness and not emptiness.

Are "spacious" and "empty" words that are confused or mis-translated?
Is "spacious" a word that has a use in Buddhism?
A search for "spacious" on Access to Insight suggests that word is used, but is not used often and not used canonically.
I think "empty" usually means "empty of self", am I right? I.e. when people say "empty" do they mean Anatta?

To the best of my knowledge, the canon's treatment of emptiness is in terms of disturbance, i.e. empty of disturbances.

Try this

More like shunyata instead of anatta. The former has a philosophical as well as an experiential component. It speaks to the inherent emptiness of all things as well as the spacious feelings that often accompany the direct realization of that emptiness.  The etymology of the word shunyata also conveys a notion of "hollowness" and has actually been translated as "emptiness", "voidness", and "spaciousness".
Side note - I'd be careful not to confuse the perception of shunyata with the experiences of the formless attainments (namely the base of infinite space and the base of nothingness).  Those are very different things; even the Pali/Sanskrit roots of the word are vastly different.

wow to all this

Simplicity is considered virtuous.
Spaciousness is the accompaniment of emptiness.
But all are perceptive; objectively, neither spaciousness nor emptiness exists, because we are filled with space, or we are filled with something else. There is a dimensional zero as much as there is a dimensional one. But in the abstract sense, both are numbers, and therefore the same.
Truly accomplishing yourself means that you understand that the perceptions are illusions; but the illusions are what we have to work with, and so are the only truth we have.
Hope that makes sense.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a scientific book summarizing the orthodox buddhism, the most ancient form of it?
I found many personal book about Buddhism; witnessing; life story; spiritual encounter, experiences, meditation. I never found however a book that explain and summarize the classical Buddhism : a consensus clear that none Buddhist can read to understand that philosophy better.

I recommend deeply that you try www.accesstoinsight.org There you can find good texts

East Asian Buddhism. I am assuming this is Zen Buddhism steaming from Japan, Korea, China, and possibly Vietnam. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by Classical Buddhism. When I think Classical I think of Buddhism from India, but I have no real reason to support why I think that way.

There is an awesome book in Russian, http://iph.ras.ru/uplfile/root/biblio/2003/Lysenko_Buddizm.pdf

Science is really the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is:
Observations
Hypotheses
Predictions
Experiments
Analysis
As a Zen Buddhist, specifically Vietnamese Engaged Buddhism here is what I see.
Most all of the studies (book, dharma talks, dharma sharing, sutra) have the elements listed above. A typical dharma talk (whether oral or written into a book) discusses observations. These observations lead to "insight" or a hypothesis/predictions about the true nature of reality/the mind/etc. Every dharma talk I have ever heard in zen has always asked us to take these insights and test them. Apply them in your life and see the outcome for yourself. I am not just told theories but asked to practice them. This is the Experiments phase. Then I am always asked to examine the practice to see the fruits of my effort. This is Analysis.
So basically I find that Zen Buddhism follows the scientific method quite perfectly. Thus I would say any Zen text could be considered a scientific text by the standards of the scientific method.
Now of course you are asking for a single book that "none Buddhist can read to understand that philosophy better". As a Zen Buddhist, this is pretty all-encompassing of Zen Buddhism: The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh. I read this book with non-buddhist weekly, as well as read this book with monastics. The approach in this book follows the methods I described above and is written in a way that is very approachable regardless of your skill level in the practice.
Here is the Table of Contents of the Book so you can see what is all covered.
Part One The Four Noble Truths
Chapter One Entering the Heart of the Buddha
Chapter Two The First Dharma Talk
Chapter Three The Four Noble Truths
Chapter Four Understanding the Buddha's Teachings
Chapter FiveIs Everything Suffering?
Chapter Six Stopping, Calming, Resting, Healing
Chapter Seven Touching Our Suffering
Chapter Eight Realizing Well-Being
Part Two The Noble Eightfold Path
Chapter Nine Right View
Chapter Ten Right Thinking
Chapter Eleven Right Mindfulness
Chapter Twelve Right Speech
Chapter Thirteen Right Action
Chapter Fourteen Right Diligence
Chapter Fifteen Right Concentration
Chapter Sixteen Right Livelihood
Part Three Other Basic Buddhist Teachings
Chapter Seventeen The Two Truths
Chapter Eighteen The Three Dharma Seals
Chapter Nineteen The Three Doors of Liberation
Chapter Twenty The Three Bodies of Buddha
Chapter Twenty-One The Three Jewels
Chapter Twenty-Two The Four Immeasurable Minds
Chapter Twenty-Three The Five Aggregates
Chapter Twenty-Four The Five Powers
Chapter Twenty-Five The Six Paramitas
Chapter Twenty-Six The Seven Factors ofAwakening
Chapter Twenty-Seven The Twelve Links of Interdependent Co-Arising
Chapter Twenty-Eight Touching the Buddha Within

I've read a tiny bit of http://plumvillage.org/ but I don't know Thich Nhat Hanh's writings so I couldn't upvote your answer before. But that Table of Contents looks convincing: on-topic, "classical"; so thank you for adding that and +1 now.

As a member of a plum village sangha I am pretty subjective to Thay's writings. However if you search for "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh pdf" in google you can find the book for free. The intro chapters are a short read that really give a good feel for Thay's writing style and intentions.

The question asks or literature about Buddhism which is:

orthodox
the most ancient form
classical

This is probably "the Pali canon" (and/or the "Theravada" school of Buddhism).
I say that because someone asked about the 'Buddhism which Siddhartha taught', and I tried to answer that here with an introduction to the earliest schools and extant literature.
Other questions whose answers are references to the early literature (which I therefore recommend you read as anwering your question) include:

Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?
English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

A very popular classical summary is the Dhammapada (there are many translations available online).
You might also like What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
I don't know what you mean by a "scientific" book. In my opinion "science" just means "knowledge" and Buddhism is its own branch of science/knowledge. The clearest introduction to Buddhism might be the Buddha's, which is The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma.
You might find that Wikipedia provides quite a good summary, of classical terms like,

Four Noble Truths
Noble Eightfold Path
Three poisons
Three marks of existence
Three Jewels
Four immeasurables
Five Precepts

Apparently or allegedly a lot of the early canon is intended more for monks than for laypeople. This answer summarizes a book I read recently, written by a monk for laypeople. I found it surprising because its message (i.e. "prosperity" instead of "renunciation") is unlike the message you would normally/easily/naturally get from casually reading from the Pali canon.
You tagged this question with "east asian buddhism", I'm not sure why, so perhaps you're interested in later Buddhist traditions too (the earliest Buddhism i.e. the historical Buddha was around modern-day Northern India, so the spread to Sri Lanka, Tibet, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan and so on happened later): see for example Mahayana.

I was always taught that science is anything that follows the scientific method.  "Four essential elements of the scientific method are iterations,recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:
Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments (tests of all of the above)" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process

Yes. I had a Physics teacher who taught that the "scientific method" is: a) observations; b) hypotheses (theories about the observations, which must fit and/or not be contradicted by the observations); c) experiments (i.e. further observations to test corollaries suggested/predicted by each hypothesis, to test/probe/prove the limits or edge-cases); d) synthesis of previous theories with new observations.

The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is a systematic and thorough deconstruction of how we mis-interpret reality. It is considered a classical text in Mahayana Buddhism however I don't think I would refer to it as orthodox because I'm not entirely sure of its relevancy in the Theravada tradition, and it's not a sutra. Its meaning is the heart of the Buddha's message, however it is a difficult read as an introduction. It does kind of fit the bill for what you're asking though.
I highly recommend the foundation of Buddhist thought series for introductory texts. You can find translations of the MMK on Amazon as well as the foundation of Buddhist thought series.

The source most close to the ancient teachings is in the Tripitaka. The Dhamma illustrates a reality and the path is an empirical realization of it. This is what is covered in the Tripitaka. Hence it is also scientific.

I recommend the book "Gombrich, Richard : What the Buddha thought". It is written from an academic point of view and employs a historical method of investigation. Probably "academic" matches your meaning of "scientific".

Of course I am biased, but I would recommend this book: "Quantum Buddhism - Mahajrya Bodhana Sutra, Teachings on Awakening to the Great Field". It is written by Maha Vajra, who is the founder of the tradition I belong to. This book helped me immensely to understand some of the problems as well as some highly interesting correlations. Not necessarily correct or incorrect; merely interesting.
And before you jump to the idea that what he's talking about has been disproved, consider that what he's trying to talk about is an experience, not a proof. That point has caused a lot of trouble because it wasn't made incredibly clear.
Other than that, there are lots of books on Quantum Buddhism, and books that allow someone with a scientific background to understand what they're reading before diving into the up-to-2500-year-old texts. These other books will give you enough of a background to really understand what you're reading. But as I said, I'm biased in this case. :-)
For example in this book, using the holographic universe concept, it offers the idea that universal wisdom could be viewed as universally-pervasive quantum datum, repeated everywhere, at every time, and at various scales. Thus, nonlocal, atemporal, and scalar in nature (three terms that many Buddhists might actually be familiar with in English). We can learn to detach from the limitations of human perceptions of time and space, perceiving the higher wisdom (which is more refined than typical intellectual information) in a way which is more direct and with greater clarity, thus perceiving the quantum world for a moment or two at a time.
But there are also examples given of the double-slit electron experiment, simplifications of the Unified Quantum Field concept, and correlations to Buddhist texts (written both for Buddhists who want to understand quanta and scientists who want to understand Buddhism).
It then leads people through the basics of Quantum Buddhism, such as meditation, fixity, and other practices that help bring about this greater clarity and heightened perception.
Though I don't have a math background per se, a couple of my friends say that the simple equations in this book are philosophically deep and really get your mind going.

Thanks, ChrisW, I wasn't sure how much needed to be linked.

A problem is that links can break. If in the future the book is no longer available on Amazon, or if Amazon goes out of business, or if Amazon changes its URL scheme, then a link like this would not work anymore. By including the title of the book here as well as the Amazon URL, then at least someone in the future can know which book you were talking about, can search for the book by title, maybe fix the link with a new URL.

It's also welcome/better to add more than just the title: for examplem explain or show why the link which you gave is relevant to the question. Ideally answers should be "self-contained" with hyperlinked references to further information. Some people won't follow the link but you'll want them to understand your answer anyway. Some people might need to decide whether to buy the book you linked, and information in the answer about why you think the book is helpful/relevant can help them make that decision.

Ah, good advice. However, I didn't want to sound like I was trying to sell the book.

I think the same would apply if you were recommending a free/online PDF file.

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


text:
What is meant by the 8 stages of insight?
I have heard that there are 8 attainments or stages of insight in the progression of Vipassana, can anyone explain? I'm familiar with the 8 stages of jhana but I believe this is in reference to vipassana specifically.

This is 7 purification and 16 stages of insight. See:

The Progress of Insight
Transcendental Dependent Arising
Relay Chariots
7 Stages of Purification & The Insight Knowledges
A Map of the Journey (Very readable book)
The Development of Insight
The Sixteen Stages of Insight

NB: Don't get too engrossed in the stages. Many of the naturally manifest them self. You cannot force the development or crave for it to come. Either way you are regressing.


text:
Does meditation increase productivity for software developers and related professions?
Is there any evidence for Buddhist meditation practices increasing productivity for software developers? Just from my own experience it seems like it does but I'm just interested into other experiences or evidence, anecdotal of otherwise. If I can try to clarify this further

Is there any research on this?
Are software companies using meditation techniques at all to help
their employees? If so, what reasons do they give for this?
Does anyone have reasonable compelling evidence for this from their own experience?
If I can broaden this a little - what about related professions? - ones
that require sustained concentration and maybe a little creativity.
Do they use meditation techniques at all?

If I can just share my motivation for asking this. I'm considering giving a lightening talk at a local software user group on this topic and I just want a broader idea of what kind of evidence there is around this kind of thing. If it seems like there is something there then I will probably throw my hat it the ring and give the talk. If it just my own personal experience I probably won't. I don't want to give the talk it it is entirely unsupported.

This article prompted me to look on the Skeptics site to see what evidence there is. The question (about "what kind of evidence there is around this kind of thing") is partially answered here.

There's an old (2004) article from the CBC: INDEPTH: MEDITATION
The Pursuit of Happiness
It includes:

Using an MRI to test monks who are meditating
Using meditation to help olympic athletes and stressed-out office workers
Meditation courses being offered by hospitals (e.g. St. Joseph's in Toronto)

One way to look at it would be from the point of view of stress: if meditation helps cope with stress, and if the job is stressful, then meditation helps with the job, am I right?
But IDK whether a company might admit whether their employees are subject to stress?
I remember Tom DeMarco's The Deadline: A Novel About Project Management (1997) included the claim/observation that, "People under pressure don't think any faster."
For anecdotes about the connection between stress, problem solving, and concentration, you might find some large percentage of developers (and research scientists/engineers) have had or remember the experience of "seeing the solution to a problem" when they "stop thinking about the problem". I remember puzzling over a bug during one afternoon, and then more-or-less suddenly "seeing" the cause of it after I left work and was walking home and enjoying the day (weather and landscape) outside.
That seems to be so common-place that it could be an archetypal way of problem solving: you have a problem, so, you go out for a walk, ...
I found it noticeable with cigarettes too, when I used to smoke: feel stressed at work, step outside for a smoke, feel destressed, inevitably therefore see the solution i.e. what I need to do to solve the problem or at least what I needed to try next, step back inside to my computer to do that.
BTW "productivity" is IMO notoriously difficult to measure in software developers: because people don't know what to measure; and you don't usually have teams and people working on several identical (comparable) software problems; and choosing specific metrics distorts behaviours (joke reference).
So arguing via stress (meditation => stress => productivity) might be easier to "prove" than a direct link (meditation => productivity).

Here's a possible anecdote/joke for someone who objects to people "doing nothing" while at work.

This guy is in his office (an office! you can tell it's old story...),
  sitting back in his chair with his feet up on the desk. His manager
  walks past, looks in the door, sees him sitting like that (instead of,
  you know, working) and asks,

"What are doing?"
"I'm thinking."
"Thinking? Can't you do that at home?"

I like the quote, "People under pressure don't think any faster"- A person may have a tight deadline but that doesn't mean he or she allows themselves to feel pressured.

@Sisyphus Perhaps you mean that a skillful person doesn't allow themselves to feel pressured; and that (worst case) any undue pressure (stress) may cause another person (who has less skill for coping with stress) to think (i.e. work productively) more slowly (less efficiently).

I'm a software developer and practiced different kinds of meditation (first - sit for 5-10 minutes with open eyes and pay attention to inhaling and exhaling, second - 16th Karmapa meditation in the Diamond way Buddhism).
From my subjective experience I can say that (other things being equal), on average, I am more productive on days, where I do meditation in the morning than on days when I don't.
By "more productive" I mean

that I solve problems faster (the day of a software developer consists of making solving big and small problems/decisions) and
am less distracted by e-mail, Facebook etc.

Also, I have the impression that meditation in the morning allows me to better concentrate in a loud environment (i. e. I can easier focus on my work, when I'm surrounded by lot of talking people, whom I don't like). Same applies to situations, where I am exposed to stress.
Once in a while meditation (once in 3-4 weeks) leads to a productivity breakdown. This happens, when I discover some information about me (which you didn't realize/notice earlier). Usually, this information is a) embarassing (I've been doing ... wrong all my life!) and b) helpful in my development (you can only fix bugs, which you know exist - this applies to the mental hardware as well).
In my opinion, you can test the hypothesis "meditation increases my productivity" using at least two experiments:
Experiment 1: Productive time per week

Start tracking the time, when you are doing something useful (there are lots of fine tools out there, including those, which run on mobile devices).
Collect data on the average productive time for several weeks.
Start meditating and continue to track time.

Once you have enough data, you can use statistical methods to find out, if there is a difference in productivity and if that difference is significant.
Experiment 2: Accomplished tasks per week

Create a spreadsheet with 3 columns: Date, Task completed, Subjective size & complexity of the task (e. g. "small", "medium", "big").
Whenever you accomplish something useful during a week, add a record to that spreadsheet.
Gather data on your weekly productivity (in terms of number of small, medium and large tasks accomplished during a week) without meditation.
Do the same thing, when you regularly meditate.

Many people aren't aware that software developing and programming also requires creativity when at an impasse.  When I get stuck, I want to try harder to solve the problem and get it over with (almost in a forceful way) which usually makes things worse. I notice that my eyes fatigue much faster and I get a sense of generalized restlessness. My body wants me to take a break but my mind wants the problem solved.
Even if you don't have the will to meditate at this point simply getting up and doing something will work wonders. When John von Neaumann was working on the Manhattan project, the breakthrough occurred to him when he was stepping off a bus. During these ordinary moments when we are separate from the problem, we have the most freedom to solve the problem, and although just getting up from the computer may not be beneficial as sleep or extended meditation, thinking about the problem on the couch away from the computer works great. By that time you've learned enough about the problem to think about it while not physically at the computer.

I like all the other answers (less so the one saying try two approaches to measuring your productivity, but that is my bent), and I wanted to say something else as a former software developer:
Spiritual practices are to get yourself out of the way. Pitching it to others is like saying: "here, let me help you get rid of yourself, you will feel so much better (and be more productive too!)" I realized at some point that the best I could do as a developer was to create a system for building applications that did not require programmers. I did that. Fortunately, nobody took me seriously in my quest to eliminate my own position. Eventually, my position was no longer needed and I went on to run a retreat center, then when I was no longer needed there, I went on to something else. Later, I misplaced myself, and now I feel so much better!
Are you feeling uplifted? Did I sell you on the project of making life so much better for everyone? All I can do is stand here and be an advertisement for overcoming self, but that is not a product most people will ever want. I suggest you keep your realizations to yourself (ha ha). If anyone wants to know, they will ask, as they see your face day in and out, being... nobody. And that is just fine.
I think I have addressed your "real" motivation for asking your question. Please let me know if I did not.

I wonder what you mean with "misplaced".

Eric, I had an experience that left me without a self, beyond just mastering ego. Not much changes when that happens, except there is less drama. Still things to learn, still interactions, experiences, "textures", as Deborah Westmoreland says. Still a "character", but not to get caught up in. It is simply a natural course of development, nothing to work at or attain. It is inevitable. Not special at all, any more than growing is. "Who by thinking can add one inch to his height?" I created a SE proposal for Nonduality, you might want to check it out.

I'll present a counterpoint, maybe adding to what @no_comprende wrote. It's about my personal experience, and probably a consequence of not meditation alone, but also Buddhist philosophy.
After I started meditating my productivity in LoC/day lowered, and I don't solve problems faster, and not even more tasks per week are accomplished.
But in the other hand, I started to think more carefully, trying to be more aware of program states, of side effects, of bad code interactions, of unexpected use case conflicts. I started to test more, and I usually don't "turn a blind eye" to problems without taking note of it (commenting or registering a task).
Put in short, I became more defensive and I started thinking in a more attentive way. Instead of just completing more features, fixing more bugs and thinking in a rush, I began to try to be more aware of what I do.
Thankfully my bosses allow it, and seemingly they support it.

Do this sound like I'm showing off "my accomplishments?" Maybe my answer is not very appropriate for this site. What do you think?

Eric, I was in a similar situation to you as a programmer. I did more planning, which saved time in writing, and even more time straightening out problems later. Most of my stuff was back-end, didn't have much of a UI anyway, so that is the best approach. Eventually I saw that my goal was to do as little as possible (not selfishly). Most of the things people do are completely unnecessary. When I realized that, I didn't see a need to be a programmer anymore. I was dinged for apparently showing off on this site, but I was not. I suggest you ignore that. "What is necessary is never unwise."


text:
"Creativity Attacks" during meditation
Sometimes, during my meditation sessions, I have "creativity attacks" i.e. creative thoughts. It can be a piece of poetry or something I would write down in my diary. How should one engage this kind of thoughts? Just observe without reacting or writing them down? If yes, what about the different kinds of Buddhist poetry like Songs of Milarepa, Japanese Haiku or Thera/Theri Gatha. The problem is, on one hand I can see that there are a lot of examples of creativity and poetry in Buddhism, but on the other I also can see my own mind being destructed by these kind of thoughts during meditation.

I'm a beginning meditator and I look forward to "creativity attacks"

This is the way the mind is, uncontrollable. Acknowledge their presence and gently try to return to your usual object of meditation. If this fails, acknowledge the failure and gently try to return to your usual object of meditation. If you get frustrated, acknowledge the frustration, et cetera.
Being gentle and acknowledging whatever comes are important. And if the thought is something you want to write down for creativity's sake, that's not a bad thing. It's also not a good thing. It just is what it is. Just leave it until meditation is finished. If you forget what the thought was, then you simply forget. It is what it is.
If you practice this way, you will become less and less invested with the content of these thoughts, causing two things to happen:

Creativity attacks will bother you less.
They will also become less common.

This is how I meditate on my own creative thoughts.
Source: My own experience meditating in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, and my teacher Yuttadhammo's advice.

One insight that has helped me in this situation is the realization that mindfulness practice is not destructive.  That is to say, if you have a sudden creative idea while practicing, it will still be with you after your session.  Realize that this is simply a thought and return your attention gently to your object of mediation.  Then, when you are done with practice, you'll find your ideas are still there and then you can write them down.

This is an awesome concept

Haha. "attacks"
Nice choice of word but I think it's better to be called creative interruption... but even that isn't correct because sometimes following through with that interruption will allow you to get to the next leve in project _____ which helps in another different project, project ______ and in the end will somehow give you great peace of mind in your meditation (because you have your life better handled and less background worries).
Cultivating the jhanas, the foundation for developing wisdom (which in itself is the means of attaining Bodhi), requires stillness. Stillness requires... stillness. Creative interruptions, however wonderful and useful for our lives, is not directly helpful to the Training (2nd and 3rd training).
Nonetheless, the nature of stillness is that the more you achieve it, the more creative and integral you will become so it should get easier over time even though you can get some freaky creative outbursts. This is because yin is the foundation for great things to happen. This is a classic Taoist principle of extreme yin attracting extreme yang.
Nonetheless, it is essential to let the waves on the water calm down so you can master yin (samadhi/jhana). You must manage these creative outbursts but also use them like a car directs the internal combustion to getting it to move forward...
I oftentimes find that there is IMMENSE value in the insights, remembrances and recollections that happen during meditation. I have a to-do list widget on my home screen which is frequently used for exactly that purpose.
I try to never get up and do the activity (write a script, do something, modify something, try something out, etc.) because that is breaking the first thing I was talking about, the stillness.
In order to master anapana, or whatever method you do, you have to stick to it!
So my recommendation to you would be that you should write down a good keyword(s) for whatever idea you had so you can come back to it when your session is complete. I reccommend using your phone simply because it is fastest (and thus least interruptive) method and can be done in the dark.
Feel free to design automation scripts to help you in this (for example, a meditation timer that after started automatically pulls up a notepad for your collecting of any creative interruptions)
This should not take more than 10 seconds.
Learn to differentiate between worthless insights/fantasies/wanderings and ACTUALLY practical creative outbursts.
The more you learn to differentiate between them... the more GOOD creative interruptions you will have.
Talk about mining the good stuff from meditation, in an indirect way, huh?
Then go right back to meditation, doing a mini 5 second adjustment and re-declaration of your intention before you gather your 5 Faculties again for the Training.

Following Want to be happier? Stay in the moment might be of some interest to you.
The main things is you should watch you mind drifting away to creative thoughts. When you realize it has gone, this creates a slight discomfiting sensation in the body but predominantly around the head. (if you are not sensitive enough you mind not see it at 1st, but more practice you will start seeing the sensation around the head area and with mo practice on the whole body. Other than creative thoughts you get a few emotional thoughts in quick succession you can easily see the depressed or happy feeling / sensation. ) Notice this sensation and get back to your object of meditation.
Also you should note that these creative attacks are a verbal and mental fabrication. So you have to calm the these fabrication as part of your meditation by looking at the sensation when these thoughts come in contact with your mind sentence door followed by the metal state you get into when this happens. (E.g. Scattered mind.))

Great question! Extinguish the ego and end the narrative. This internal dialogue is part of us all; it is like food for the ego. When cultivating stillness a myriad of thoughts will bubble up.... these are your illusions.. try not to provide the narrative.. better to recognize the thought for what it is.. let it go.. non-attachment
Try to reside in your heart centre more than the mind. This internal dialogue is the polar opposite of mindfulness it is with us in sleep,meditation and thru out the wakeful day.
Some folks use mantras or focal points of reference such as breathing to return to mindfulness. i found listening the best focal point for my practice.. especially while enjoying the chaos of the day.  Good Luck in your practice my Brother !


text:
How to increase the speed of learning about oneself?
Regularly, after meditation or reading spiritual books, I get "epiphanies" (new pieces of information about myself, my behavior and/or the outside world), which induce strong emotions in me. I lose productivity, sometimes stop to meditate for a couple of days and need quite a lot of time to recover. Sometimes, but not always, I get an understanding of what should I do different now (based on that epiphany).
As a result, I learn too slowly.
Since I'm probably not the first to experience these problems (depressive state after learning things about me, which require me to do something differently), there is probably advice in Buddhist writings about how to fix it (so that the learning part remains and the depressive part is reduced or eliminated, i. e. the time between an "epiphany" and new way of doing things is minimal).
What does Buddhist literature (especially from the Diamond way Buddhism) recommend in this situation?

Free yourself from the need to increase the speed of learning about yourself. Guaranteed to speed up your progress :)

A student goes to the dojo and asks how long it will take to become a master.
The master replies “There is no answer to that, my son. First you must learn patience.”
The student replies “Yeah, yeah, patience. How long is that going to take?”
What you need to understand is, the more you force it, the more likely it is that no wisdom, insight or freedom from suffering will occur. You must reach an understanding or realization that nothing needs to be learned, you just need to except things for what they are, then the "letting-go" of our want to control, this will free you from pain and suffering!!
Continue your meditation daily and the answers you seek will reveal themselves deeper and deeper the more the mind quietens.
Metta

When it come to Buddhist meditation:

You should not try to speed up anything. You want to speed up since you crave for results. Then you crave this leads to regress.
You cannot loose balance of of you mind no matter what, as this is main part of you mental training. A reacting mind creates new fabrication resulting in misery. So any form of reaction is a regress. Whatever experience you should be equanimous realizing its impermanence.

Get yourself a copy of Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness, from the Dzogchen tradition, and read it aloud to yourself from time to time.
You are actually doing very well.  You feel a little distress because you are moving something that has fallen asleep and become numb, just like you will feel tingling or pain in your arm or leg if you move it after cutting off its circulation.  The pain is preferable to the numbness you had before you moved it, and it is only temporary; whereas if you leave something unmoved, eventually numbness becomes necrosis.
These things have fallen asleep in you because you have been grasping them for a long time -- for so long that you don't even remember when you first started grasping them.  It is human nature to have thoughts and emotions, just like it is natural for clouds to arise in the sky.  But after a while, the clouds pass and the clear sunlight is once again visible.  Likewise, if you allow the thoughts and emotions to pass, you will once again be restored to your fundamental state of peace and joy.  To let something pass, simply notice that you are having it.  Do not grasp at it -- and more importantly -- do not grasp at not having it.  Just observe it, and it will naturally transform.  If you are moved to laugh, then laugh.  If you are moved to cry, then cry.  Just let it flow.

Since you mentioned you got the effect after meditation and reading spiritual books, I think it's important to re-examine your meditation method and the types of "spiritual books" that you read. There're just so many different types of "meditation" and so many different kinds of "spiritual" books nowadays. Practicing the wrong method and reading the wrong book can lead to pretty dangerous side effects. When someone says the Buddha said this or that in some book, that's not good enough. A good book on Buddhism should provide plenty of references straight from the Sutras/Suttas detailing the chapter, section, and paragraph. The same thing with meditation method you're following. It should be traceable back to the source, the Buddha's teaching in the Sutras/Suttas. This will help tracing the problem back to its root cause.

Currently, I do the 16th Karmapa meditation ( http://www.diamondway-buddhism.org/buddhist-meditation/meditations-in-our-buddhist-centers/ ). Most recent book, which caused such things, was The Great Seal: Limitless Space & Joy: The Mahamudra View of Diamond Way Buddhism ( http://www.amazon.de/Great-Seal-Limitless-Mahamudra-Buddhism-ebook/dp/B006IGSBJM/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1416695595&sr=8-6&keywords=mahamudra+nydahl ).

I'm from a Theravada background and so won't be able of much help with Vajrayana. But anyway, similar approach could be used to examine the teaching. For example, a good solid book on Buddhism is "In the Buddha's Words" by Ven. Bodhi. I was perfectly fine after reading this book. So, strongly recommend if you haven't read it..

It takes time to progress spiritually, and we mostly learn by experience, not book-learning. I am sure that you are doing your best, so there is no need to be depressed about anything that came before you had better understanding.
Most people are stuck in an ego-defined state, and so they do not really learn. It sounds like you are in the state I call "Neo", which includes lots of 'epiphanies' and rapid progress (and a lot of emotion sometimes). The next stage is nonduality, and it is more calm. It is coming, just be patient with yourself.

Do a retreat with a good teacher.
EDIT: Explanation: Doing a retreat (several weeks of day-long practice with no other occupation) is much more beneficial than doing equivalent meditation time e.g. over one year, one hour a day (I read this somewhere written by Kenneth Folk, and my experience confirms that 100%).
Insights ("epiphanies" as you call those) occur naturally as your practice progresses, and emotional reaction sometimes occur as well. Intense practice helps you deal with both -- more insights coming, less attachment to them (you don't have to think about insight, you just need to be present, and let it come and go as anything else; it does the work by itself), and the emotions are dealt with within the practice, as another hindrance you get over by awareness of the present moment. That way, the emotion is cleared quickly (if you practice, have emotion, then don't practice for 1 day, the emotion9s) might go wild).
Retreats with regular (daily) individual interviews with a good teacher were very important for me, especially at the beginning, as things (emotions and insights) happening might be unusual and unsettling. The teacher can help you not get lost, not go too much into emotions, if possible, just note them and let them go.
Meditation, if done right, is the true teacher, and it also clears some of the bad motivation you may have for the practice (such as being great, or understanding everything, progressing fast, etc); that simply perishes under the scrutiny of mindfulness.
Since you ask about literature: I am not aware of traditional literature on this subject, which is due to my limited knowledge, and also the fact that vipassana was until recently (say 19th century Burma) practiced almost exclusively by monastics, if at all. From the contemporary writings, Daniel Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha has a chapter "Practical Meditation Considerations" (section Daily life and retreats) which touches the subject; Kenneth Folk wrote on that as well (somewhere on the web, can't find it now).

The downvoter, would you care to state the reason? I find it ridiculous that no-one at a buddhist forum said simply: do more practice, that's your true teacher. My experience (and many confirm that) is that it is much better to do a retreat than spend the same amount of time on one-hour-a-day meditation during the whole year.

I didn't down vote you.But i think it's because you gave a one line answer.Your supposed to kind of elaborate on your answer.

@eudoxos, I didn't vote at all on this q/a but I sometimes get the feeling it is here as with voting in general, what you vote is a consequense of how the person feels about it the time of voting, and not always so thought through


text:
Who said 'if you are too busy meditate for two hours'?
There is a zen quote that goes something like

Meditate for an hour every day unless you are too busy. In that case
  meditate for two hours.

I'm not sure about the exact quote - it might be 0.5 hours/1 hour or some other timescale. Does anyone know what the exact quote is and who said it?

I will look it up very soon. I am busy right now : )

Isn't this notion from meditation traditions in general?
James Altucher, in his Ultimate Cheat Sheet For Reinventing Yourself:

What if I don’t have time to sit in silence [for one hour a day]?
Then sit in silence for two hours a day.

which he adapted (with an entrepreneurial slant) from a story about Mahatma Gandhi.

I think that the "sugar" story is mis-attributed (i.e. I think that it's not Ghandi who is the origin of the "sugar" story); so maybe the other ("hours of meditation") story is also mis-attributed.

@ChrisW, IFIRC, the sugar story is in his autobiography, but therein I don't recall him talking about meditation. Your second doubt may be correct.

The exact quote is

You should sit in meditation for 20 minutes a day. Unless you're too busy, then you should sit for an hour.

It is indeed an old Zen saying, but AFAIK the exact origin is not known.

It's just an old Buddhist saying that passed down to people. No one claimed to say that in particular.

As per some masters in the Theravada tradition it is good to do 2 sessions a day. One in the morning and another in the evening. Ideally a minimum of 1 hour per session.

As a zen quote, it really has nothing to do with meditation. It is more about labels and assumptions that we put on ourselves/reality. At least that was what I was taught as a zen practitioner.

It's all about priorities... you don't have time for meditation because you don't hold that importance for it which is needed. So you surely won't find the time to meditate for an hour a day, you will have to create the window. hope that helps..


text:
Strange experience after meditation- Is this normal?
I have once meditated on the Maha Mangala Sutta and I slipped into deep concentration. I opened my eyes and felt my carotid pulsating and I didn't even have to touch it. It felt like it was throbbing and it didn't go away for the rest of the evening. Also, since then, every time pirith is playing, and I choose to listen in, it is always that particular sutra. When I am not even listening to the words of the pirith, I always know that that one sutra is playing and I decide to listen in on the words. What could be a reason why I am experiencing this?
Thank you.

In meditation when you stop creating new Sankara. The affect of this is old Sankara comes up and start passing away. This manifests as different sensation and experiences.
When Pirith is playing if you are very mindful the same can be happening.
This is a good thing as you are getting rid of your old condition and Karma.


text:
Intense pins and needles
I tried meditation literally just now...Monday 24 November 21:00 UK time. This is the second time I have ever tried it... literally twice this evening. I have tried before lying down in bed etc to see if I could get out of body experiences but no luck. So tonight I had nothing to do and tried sitting up (the classic meditation look.)
I sat in a dark room with low level background sounds. My mind went blank and concentrated on my breathing which went super super slow. Then my airways opened up...i heard my air passages "click." Then i felt slight tingling. Then the tingling seemed to travel over my whole body then it was REALLY REALLY itchy tingling or "pins and needles" darting over my whole body...I had to stop as it was starting to hurt a little!!!!! After I started itching...mainly my back area and got a bit blotchy. I have just had a hot shower to help with the itching.
As I know NOTHING about what Im doing, Is it normal to have that experience? I literally could not carry on. What would happen if you forced yourself to carry on? What should I be looking for when trying to meditate?
Any help or information would be greatly appreciated. This isn't my scene really but Im interested in learning more.
Thanks for your time.
T

Can you describe how you sat? Did you sit on the floor? If so, what was the position of your legs? Did you sit on a cushion? When you stopped your back was straight or hunched?

I’ve read the answers above... and I can tell you they were not the “pins and needles” that you experience when applying pressure on hands and feet or from poor blood circulations... my arms and hands are hanging freely, yet the “needles” starts randomly here and there... I had the similar experience. I just want to clarify the experience as they were not from applying pressure or poor blood circulations...

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice
by Shunryu Suzuki is a very good way to start. Read as many books as you can on all the wonderful schools of meditation.
From my experince the sensation of pins and needles has to do with poor blood circulation resulting from blockages of different parts of your meridian system. Tai Chi or Yoga can help prepare you physically and mentally for sitting meditation. You may want to consider standing or walking meditation as an alternative. i commend your spirit your practice is well on it's way. i applaud your questions you show real insight. Our teachers first question after sitting was.. Please share with us what you felt? Your question was one of the most common physical sensations shared among beginners. May i suggest that you look for a teacher.... that in it's self can be a fun journey. OVER&OUT

Very good answer, although I would add that it's not blood circulation that causes pins and needles but rather nerve impingement.  You can also get a similar sensation when otherwise tense muscles start to relax.  That might have been the "whole body" pins and needles OP was experiencing.

@enenalan Greetings Enenalan, thanks for the respose "I would add that it's not blood circulation that causes pins and needles but rather nerve impingement." Ummm...."Paresthesias of the hands, feet, legs and arms are common, transient symptoms. The most common, everyday cause is temporary restriction of the blood supply to an area of nerves, commonly caused by leaning or resting on parts of the body such as the legs; Paresthesias.[1] Wikipedia ...."the sensation of pins and needles has to do with poor blood circulation resulting from blockages of different parts of your meridian system"Thanks

The same article says "Other common examples occur when sustained pressure has been applied over a nerve, inhibiting/stimulating its function."  Sitting meditation is a notorious applier of sustained pressure!  And I can also attest that getting whacked in the forearm on one of the meridian lines will numb your hands.  One of my fellow martial arts students is quite fond of doing that to me.  ;-) But it doesn't have much to do with loss of blood flow.

Yes, "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" is great. The first chapter has instructions about how to meditate. And it is appropriate even for beginners.

This is normal. Every one gets a different type of experience, so based on your accumulation of fabrications this is the experience you get. Do not like it or be averse towards it. Just accept it as this is what you are experiencing now.

pins & needles, the feeling of ants crawling over your face, or all over your body, body shaking, bodily pleasureful sensations, bodily painful sensations in localized spots only during meditation,  those are all normal byproducts of correct meditation, nothing to worry about.
Normally, people are tense and thinking too much, it constricts the energy flow (not just blood)  in the body.
In correct meditation, when we break out of the normal habits of mental and physical tension and instead relax deeply, a force permeates the entire body, and massively increases circulation of blood, lymph, qi. Wherever there are blockages that the force runs up against, you'll feel it as itchy, painful, tight, uncomfortable. If you persist long enough in meditation (days, weeks, months, years), once the blockage starts to melt and clear out, then pain and discomfort fade, the brain pleasure chemicals start to fire, and you feel it as physical pleasure, bliss.

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


text:
Seeking sources on -- practicing for this life alone is not even Dharma
The Gelugpa Lam Rim says that someone who practices for benefit in this life alone is not even practicing Dharma -- the minimum Dharmic motivation is to achieve better rebirth (and there are two levels above that, which I am not concerned about here). Here is Pabongka Rinpoche, Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand (Wisdom Pubs, Kindle Edition, location 2937; same spot in the 1991 paper edition from Wisdom begins on p. 154):

The difference in our motivation makes an enormous difference to the
  sort of virtuous karmic results we will receive, and to the measure of
  strength of these results. Suppose four people are reciting together
  the Praise of the Twenty-One Tārās. One has bodhichitta as a motive.
  Another is motivated by renunciation. The third yearns for a better
  rebirth. The last only aspires to the concerns of this life: long
  life, good health, and so on. Although all four recite the same amount
  of words, there is a great difference in the sort of karmic results
  they will obtain. ... The fourth’s recitation belonged only to this
  life and so was not even Dharma. And it would even be difficult for it
  to have any of the the hoped-for effect on his life.

So, my question -- can folks point me to similar material in the Pali Canon, Visuddhimagga or other non-Tibetan sources. Likewise in Tibetan lineages other than Gelug.

Added 11/25 -- Or, is this a Mahayana teaching, and therefore not found explicitly in the Pali Canon. The distinction between bodhicitta and renunciation as motivation is certainly Mahayana -- initially taught in this "three scopes" form in Tibet by Atisha in Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. So maybe even this pre-three-scopes teaching is not only Mahayana, but a Tibetan addition not found even in Atisha.
If so, then I'd be interested to at least find other Tibetan sources, or hear that this is strictly a Gelug teaching.

More still 11/25 -- Looks like Tsongkhapa, contra Pabongka, includes motivation for this life only in the lower scope, thus making a general motivation for better samsaric life apart from the rebirth distinction:

Furthermore, the scriptures mention many ways of positing a least, a
  medium, and a superior person. Like Atisha's Lamp for the Path to
  Enlightenment, Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa Auto-commentary
  (Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya) defines the three types of persons. Among the
  persons of small capacity, there are indeed two types — those who are
  intent on this lifetime and those who are intent on future lifetimes.
  However, here I am speaking of the latter, whom I will identify as
  those who engage in the unmistaken method for attaining high status. (The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Volume One. The Lamrim Chenmo, Wisdom Pubs, pp. 131-132)

So maybe this teaching is actually post-Tsongkhapa Gelug.

May I ask for the motivation here? If it's for someone who doesn't believe in rebirth at all, then the Buddha said it's a problem in itself, because it's wrong view. I just want to make sure you're really asking: if someone is convinced of rebirth, and yet wants to practice for just this life alone, then did the Buddha have anything to say on that. If this is the case, I actually find this sort of situation puzzling. :) But is it the case?

Good question -- was thinking of it myself. I am interested in both interpretations -- lack of belief in rebirth; belief but disregard of it -- but primarily the former. Can you cite where the Buddha said it's wrong view to disbelieve in rebirth? I believe many, like Batchelor, doubt it's in the Pali Canon.

Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view... when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. -- MN 60

@Sadhana Your first post above was a question about the question, so it was good you posted that as a comment not as an answer. Your second, recent post above looks like it would be better posted as an answer than as a comment.

@ChrisW Ok, thanks. I added it to my answer below.

The closest I can think of is the Dana sutta in which the Buddha explains how the purity of one's motives have an effect on the results.

"Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
[...]
"Or, instead of thinking, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,' he gives a gift with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death,'
[...]
" — but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
"This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit."

-- AN 7.49
Now, if you're asking about the possibility of practicing the Dhamma without, at the very least, assuming rebirth to be true, then in the Apannaka sutta the Buddha indeed said this was wrong view, and thus against the path.

Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view... when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested.

-- MN 60

Thanks -- this definitely addresses motivation, though not in the specific way I am looking for, with respect to this life vs subsequent lives.

Yes, I think your addendum (last citation) is relevant -- thanks.

As per Theravada tradition Dhamma has the quality of Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (To be meant to perceive directly and this experience in withing this life time), Sandiṭṭhiko (can be examined and the results been seen here and now), Akāliko (timeless and immediate results when practiced correctly). All this leading to the fact that you should practice for this life time though the benefits would also manifest in substantial life times if you do not get fully liberated in this life.
You need some level of motivation otherwise you will not,

put the effort, or
be diligent in the way on how to practice.

Thanks, but you address results, while my question concerns motivation. Yes, there will certainly be results in this life, but what the Lam Rim is saying, I think, is that the results even in this life will vary according to motivation. Specifically, if one's motivation is not even Dharmic (that is, it is confined to this life), then even the results for this life will be in question. Where in the Pali Canon (etc) is that doctrine? I am assuming it is there somewhere, as most everything not specifically Mahayana in the Lam Rim derives from the early teachings.

I don't see how this isn't obvious.

bodhichitta
renunciation
better rebirth
long life, good health

The first three are all (aspects of, mentioned in, included within) Dharma.
"Better rebirth" at least allows you to detach from a view of self-is-this-body.
"Long life, good health" are slightly mentioned as possibilities (for example inasmuch as it's recommended not to eat too much, which is beneficial in this life), but practicing only for that motive seems to me to originate in (and to sustain) a view that's contrary to Dharma, which says for example:

Be heedful of the current moment
No guarantee about the future, except that all compound things will decay
Attachment (e.g. to long life, good health) causes suffering

So that view or intention seems to me to be contrary to the noble truths, contrary to the eightfold way ... if it's not Dharma ... if, therefore, it's not Buddhism ... then I don't see how it isn't obvious that it's likely that the "hoped for effect won't happen":

If the "hoped-for-effect" is the benefit-of-practising-Buddhism (e.g. happiness of renunciation) then the effect won't happen if you're not practising Buddhism
If the "hoped-for-effect" is benefit-to-health then, if you're only pretending to practice Buddhism (e.g. "reciting the same amount of words"), practising it badly or falsely, why should that have any effect at all?

Thanks -- and agreed that it seems obvious. But there's plenty of "obvious" stuff in Buddhist teachings. So I am still looking for scriptural references other than the Gelug Lam Rim, preferably the Pali Canon. But I am beginning to wonder if it is there -- I did a search on motivation in Pali Canon and did not find it.

@DavidLewis How about "intention" ... "right intention" a.k.a. "right thought", "right resolve", "right conception", "right aspiration" ... is that the same as "motivation"? There's a lot about "intention" and "resolve" on accesstoinsight.org

Parting from the Four Attachments :a short teaching spoken by Manjushri to the Sakya patriarch Sachen Kunga Nyingpo:
If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner.
If you are attached to samsara, you do not have renunciation.
If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta.
If there is grasping, you do not have the View.

This first line addresses this exact point: if your only concern is for this present life, then you can't practice. Actually, your first practice can be changing this attitude!

Thanks -- but I am looking for non-Tibetan sources, especially Theravada.

I'm going to add an answer of my own based on some reading I did today (but still give the nod to Sadhana for a good citation).
This piece -- The Truth of Rebirth, by Thanissaro Bikkhu -- makes the point that "birth" in the first of the Four Truths can only refer to rebirth, otherwise why would it be relevant to an already born being. It also cannot refer simply to micro-level, momentary mind-states because the Buddha is quite clear (SN 12:2) that he means the literal birth of a person, and likewise illness, aging and death. And for all, he means cyclic repetition of them.
This and numerous other points, particularly Paticca Samuppada (dependent arising) make it clear the the Four Truths are intimately bound up with literal rebirth. So any view that denies rebirth also denies the Four truths, that is, Dharma.
The only remaining question for me is the person who acknowledges the truth of rebirth but is still not motivated by it. But to do that is clearly not to practice Dharma either, since intention and action are a crucial elements of practice.
So bottom line, I think the Lam Rim formulation is a forceful summary of these facts, which is deeply built into the fundamental Pali Canon teachings but scattered around. (Plug for Lam Rim -- it claims to be a succinct, systematic gathering of the fundamental teachings, both Pali Canon and Mahayana. I think this example demonstrates that quality rather nicely.)


text:
How is the Concept of Consciousness in Psychology Related to the parallel Buddhism concepts?

Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us.

(The illusion of consciousness)
The above look very much like the Buddhist understanding on the matter where you are initially not mindful of the realities on the present moment but ultimately realize it through meditation.
How does the concept of Consciousness in modern psychology relate to that of the Buddhist understanding? What are the similarities and differences of the concept and the background body of knowledge surrounding concepts in psychology and Buddhism?

Are you asking: a) "when modern psychologists study consciousness, how much of their theory/hypothesis comes/came from Buddhism?" i.e. 'related' because it comes from Buddhism; or b) "when you study modern psychology, to what extent can you relate that to your Buddhist understanding?" i.e. 'related' because you relate/connect them.

If you compare and contrast the two theories, what is common and what is different, what are similar at the surface but different.

In answering the question i think we can look to the Anattalakkhana Sutta by Mahasi Sayadaw which can be found here.
In here the 5 aggregates are discussed, how they are formed and why they are not-self.
All of the 5 aggregates are suffering because they are subject to the 3 signs of existence: impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self.
I think this philosopher Dan Dennett does not go to the deepest level of reality - Paramattha Sacca, the ultimate reality. Here designations such as "we, us, brain" does not exist. They are only conventional truths that humans have constructed in order to be able to communicate with each other.
If one looks at the ultimate level of reality there are only 4 things that can be said to be ultimately real according to the Abhidhamma. These 4 things are: Mind, Mental concomitants, Materiality and Nibbana. When Dan Dennett talks about "us and the brain" he speaks only of conventional reality.
There is no "us". The human being is a comming-together of the 5 aggregates. When these aggregates are working together as a physio-psychological machine the idea of an "I" is formed. But this false idea of an "I" is really just one of the 52 mental states, contained in the 4th aggregate of mental formations. This is said by Dr. Walpola Rahula on p. 19 in his book "What the Buddha taught" .
I think that a philosopher like Dan Dennett would get much intellectual knowledge out of reading the Anattalakkhana Sutta and The Abhidhamma but he will never truly understand consciousness or anything else if he does not engage in insight meditation.
To my knowledge even Modern psychology, limited as it is, has finally come to the conclusion that the "Self" is merely a construct. Although they only deal with it at a conventional level.
Buddhism have been dealing with this on an ultimate level for 2500 years while modern psychology have just begun to scrath the surface in the last 100 years. Although modern psychologists are actually beginning to understand more about how buddhist psychology is really what they are now "rediscovering".
I am here quoting Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda as he writes in his book "What Buddhists Believe" on p. 109:
"... The analysis of the nature of the mind given in the Abhidharma is not available through any other source. Even modern psychologists are very much in the dark with regards to subjects like mental impulses or mental beats (Javana Citta) as discussed in the Abhidharma. Dr. Graham Howe, an eminent Harley Street psychologist, wrote in his book, THE INVISIBLE ANATOMY:
In the course of their work many psychologists have found, as the pioneer work of C.G. Jung has shown, that ‘we are near to [the] Buddha. To read a little Buddhism is to realise that the Buddhists knew two thousand five hundred years ago far more about our modern problems of psychology than they have yet been given credit for. They studied these problems long ago, and found the answers too. We are now rediscovering the Ancient Wisdom of the East.’..."
I hope i have understood the above mentioned correctly. If im wrong about something feel free to correct me.

Is your answer the same as saying, "If we analyze a house we find it's just made of bricks: the bricks exist but there is no 'house': and 'house' is merely a construct"? Also although the question was about "consciousness", a majority of this answer is about "self".

"Consciousness" is a word or concept which is not well-defined, for example:

Pholosophy of mind

Philosophers have used the term 'consciousness' for four main topics: etc.
Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is

Scientific study

Measurement

Experimental research on consciousness presents special difficulties, due to the lack of a universally accepted operational definition.

Biological function and evolution

Opinions are divided as to where in biological evolution consciousness emerged and about whether or not consciousness has any survival value. It has been argued that consciousness emerged (etc.)

Medical aspects

Whereas the philosophical approach to consciousness focuses on its fundamental nature and its contents, the medical approach focuses on the amount of consciousness a person has: in medicine, consciousness is assessed as a "level" ranging from coma and brain death at the low end, to full alertness and purposeful responsiveness at the high end.

Stream of consciousness

In the west, the primary impact of the idea has been on literature rather than science etc.

IMO "modern psychology" will describe consciousness as an "emergent" property: for example, a home is not a brick; nor is a home two bricks; but with enough bricks put together in the right way you can construct a house.
I think that "consciousness" does exist in (at least some) Buddhist metaphysics, which calls it "sentience":

Sentient beings is a technical term in Buddhist discourse. Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself.

Because it's such a broad (not well-defined) concept I think the question is too broad to be answered in more detail.

I agree to this. In my experience, the field of psychology isn't too concerned with a defintion of "consciousness", rather, psychology looks at specific processes like emotion, perception, cognition, memory et c, in a similar investigative fashion just like buddhism.

I use the medical definition of consciousness as quoted by ChrisW “as a ‘level’ ranging from coma and brain death at the low end to full alertness and purposeful responsiveness at the high end.” This definition has been successfully operationalized as a checklist helping any emergency physician to determine the severity of a brain injury. On the basis of this definition neurologists identified certain brain areas necessary to create conscious brain processes: neocortex and thalamus.
Today we can go beyond cognitive psychology to investigate the question ‘What characterizes conscious brain processes?’ First on a physiological basis and secondly, even on a basis from information theory.
Apparently, consciousness is an emergent property – if we call a system property emergent if it is not owned by any of its separate parts. A current approach tries to quantify consciousness by the amount of integrated information. Integrated information is the excess of information created by the system in comparison to the information created by its parts [Tononi, G.: Consciousness as Integrated Information: a Provisional Manifesto. Biol. Bull. 215, 216-242 (December 2008)]. Tononi’s approach is one of the first attempts to formalize the vague concept of consciousness by a mathematical model from information theory.
All these findings, from the brain areas involved up to the concept of integrated information, are independent from any statements of mainstream Buddhism. Instead, these results have been detected by using the scientific methods and techniques developed during the last two centuries. At most, Buddhist monks act as probands for introspection and meditation, its refined variant.
Insofar, nothing of these theories/hypothesis comes from Buddhist theses.
A second meaning of your question asks how these results fit to Buddhist theses, which have been formulated independently. In my opinion, the Buddhist core thesis hits the point: Consciousness should not be considered a permanent substance but a property of impermanent brain processes. Up to the best of my knowledge, this point of view has not been emphasized in Western philosophy earlier than David Hume in the 18. century.
The earliest Buddhist teachings consider consciousness (vijnana) under the heading of the fifth aggregate as the mental capability to make analysis, judgement and cognition in general. That seems to me a correct, but not comprehensive description of consciousness. It remains on the level of folk psychology. Notably, I do not see that it contributes much to solve the question: How to explain the phenomenon of consciousness?

From my understanding as a Buddhist, the worldview is that only 6 things truly can be said to truly, truly, exist.
These 6 things are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking.
Anything beyond these 6 things such as "the body" "the brain" "the economy" "the world" "the internet", is a mental construct, a thought.
All these mental constructs we make are for the sake of convenience, or comes from misunderstanding.
This understanding goes against the grain of the world, goes against the view of the status quo that "we" exist, that the outer world really exists.
Modern Psychology comes up with data through using these 6 senses. In order to gather data through these 6 senses, these 6 senses must be accurate and reliable. According to Buddhism these 6 senses, the idea of these 6 senses, is deceptive. There is no real 6 senses, it is just a mental construct, a thought. Anything besides seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, is not "real".