text:
States of mind or extraterrestrial life
As per Buddhist teaching there are six realms in universe. Buddha,gods,demi gods,humans,animals,hell beings.Did Buddha explains extraterrestrial life or these are states of mind? Why did Buddha kept humans and animals separate?

Both interpretations are valid in different traditions of Buddhism

The body we get as we leave one I based on the good deeds we have done & our state of mind. The gods etc. are other (extra terrestrial) life forms with a more developed mind than ours. The animals are considered seperate from humans because of the higher state of mind the humans posses in compared to animals.

You can get to know about the states of mind or extraterrestrial life in the Kuddhaka Nikaya 2 - Vimana Pretha Vattu (or check out two recent publications on Stories of the Mansions & Stories of the Departed by the Mahamevnawa Monastery in Sri Lanka) In reading these stories you will learn about the gods that live in the highest heavens in the brahma realms. In other suttas too of states of mind or extraterrestrial life. For example, you will get to know of how arrogant gods became disciples of the Buddha. They are in the Brahma Samyutta found in the Samyutta Nikaya.
We humans cannot see the results of our good and bad deeds. Because of this, we doubt the benefit of doing the skillful and the danger of doing unskillful deeds. In Vimana Vattu, you will learn about gods and goddesses who did wholesome actions in their previous human lives. You will be able to understand how powerful the results of doing good things can be.
We get to see our fellow humans in the human realm and those born in the animal realm. But it is not so, when it comes to the ghost realm. Buddha saw these beings as well as the action that led to the suffering that they experience. In Pretha Vattu, Stories of Ghosts, we learn about many kinds of ghosts and their actions that led to be reborn in the ghost world.

They are states of mind.

The word 'human' ('manussa') means 'high minded' & refers to moral
reflective people.
A 'god' is an extraordinary state of love or power (both spiritual & worldly).
A 'demi-god' is one that wants to rule the world with fear (e.g.
Stalin; refer to SN
11.5)
'Animal' is living without morals; based on instinctual desires &
reactions
'Hungry ghost' is a state of addiction to craving.
'Hell' is a state of suffering.

As SN 56.47 states, the 'animal realm' is where: "there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity; there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak".

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable.
I have seen, bhikkhus, the heaven named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never
  undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.
  Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with
  the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever
  tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon
  one cognizes with the mind is desirable, never undesirable; lovely,
  never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.135

Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu devappatto hoti?
How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a god?... A monk enters & dwells is the first...second...third...fourth jhana...
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu brahmappatto hoti
How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a brahma?... A monk pervades the entire world with loving-kindness... compassion...
  appreciative joy... equinimity...
AN 4.190

Living with Brahma are those families where, within the home, mother and father are respected by their children. Living with the early
  devas (gods) are those families where, within the home, mother and
  father are respected by their children. For what reason? Because
  mother and father are very helpful to their children, they take care
  of them and bring them up and teach them about the world. Mother and
  father are called "Brahma," "early teachers" And "worthy of
  veneration," Being compassionate towards Their family of children. Iti
  109

Bhikkhus, suppose a man would throw a yoke with a single hole into the great ocean, and there was a blind turtle which would come to the
  surface once every hundred years. What do you think, bhikkhus, would
  that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years,
  insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole? If it would ever do
  so, venerable sir, it would be only after a very long time. Sooner, I
  say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred
  years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool
  who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state.
  For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by
  the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no
  meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the
  devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have
  not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of
  suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
  SN 56.47

Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs & jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… & the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm (tiracchānayoniyā) appear (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous that reappear in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four?  A wretch lives together with a wretch; a wretch lives together
  with a female deva (god); a deva (god) lives together with a wretch; a
  deva (god) lives together with a female deva (god). When both are
  immoral, miserly and abusive, husband and wife live together as
  wretches. The husband is immoral, miserly and abusive, but his wife is
  virtuous, charitable, generous. She is a female deva living with a
  wretched husband. The husband is virtuous, charitable, generous, but
  his wife is immoral, miserly and abusive. She is a wretch living with
  a deva husband. Both husband and wife are endowed with faith,
  charitable and self-controlled, living their lives righteously,
  addressing each other with pleasant words. Then many benefits accrue
  to them and they dwell at ease. Their enemies are saddened when both
  are the same in virtue. Having practiced the Dhamma here, the same in
  virtuous behavior and observances, delighting in a deva world, they
  rejoice, enjoying sensual pleasures. AN 4.53


text:
Which Sutta does Sakkra asks 14 Questions from the Buddha?
In Maha Buddhavamsa The Great Chronicle of The Buddhas by Tipitakadhara Mingun Sayadaw, page 949 to 980, there is a series of question between the Buddha and Sakkra. This seems very relevant to the Buddhist meditation practice. Which Suttas does this conversation appear in?

Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.21.2x.than.html

As per the Story of the Youth Magha... It is found in the Dhammapada Commentary – in Book II. Heedfulness, Appamāda Vagga. Under that chapter  II. 7. Is about “How Magha Became Sakka”.
You could also read about it HERE

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to do an intense home retreat?
I am planning to do an intense home retreat, of 2-3 months -- just like a ven. Mahasi Sayadaw retreat: which means 1 hour walking, 1 hour sitting, all day long, short sleep, repeat.
The thing is, to do a long intense retreat in this tradition (ven. Ajhan Tong Sirimangalo technique, to be specific), I think you need a teacher.
Is there a way I can do a retreat alone at home, with some other technique maybe?
I would like as much advice from as much people here -- in case they know of ways to do a home-alone intense retreat -- without a teacher.

Do you need to do this with other people?
Or
Do you need to do this solitary?

Im doing it alone at home - though if i get someone to guide me it can be better i think  - and if i find a teacher to guide me than that would be better

similar: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/18209/any-tips-on-creating-a-stay-at-home-retreat/18212#18212

thank you -  i did saw that and thats why i emphesized in this question that its an intense home retreat in difference to what seems that people answered that question

The Buddha, according to tradition, sat under the bodhi tree for 7 days without moving. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi_Tree.
He had practiced with other teachers before this though.

Live in the present moment as long as possible. That is the way. Don't bear the future burden. Like driving a vehicle. Cut down thinking. Study following links well before start.
http://www.nissarana.lk/audio-and-publications/publications-english/
http://www.nissarana.lk/file_manager/browseCollections.php?CGroup=2
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=LEIUpGmmEGQ

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


text:
What should I tell other people about giving money to a Beggar?
This question asks whether, what, or how to tell other people about giving money to a beggar.
Scenario
I was seated inside the bus today and I saw a man begging for while selling some incense sticks boxes and he was wearing a mask for an unknown reason. Firstly it occurred to me whether it's worthwhile to donate some amount to him. Them it occurred that drop by drop only the pot will be filled.
So I decided to donate some and I was suppose to give the bus ticket money to the conductor. I had some hundred notes and a 20 rupee note. I was thinking whether to give a 100 rupee note to the beggar at first and then I thought of donating the 20 rupee to the beggar and pay the conductor with a 100 rupee so that I could have change.
Both the beggar and the conductor arrived near my seat and I was having both notes on my hand. (I was holding the phone from the other hand). I tried to give the 20 ripped to the beggar and the conductor unknowingly reached his hand to the 20 rupee note and asked where I was going to. I was about confused on what to do and then I settled my mind thinking "It's fine. Let the beggar have the 100 and let him do something beneficial with it". After saying where I was going I donated the 100 rupee to the beggar. This incident happened very fast. And at the instance I let go of the typical craving for the small 100 rupee note so that I could fulfill the charity purely.
And after that the conductor told me not to give that sort of large amount to them. I smiled and, unshaken in my intention, I continued on the journey.
Question
My question is this:
I'm not sure whether the beggar was virtuous or not; but I know for a fact that only drop by drop a pot can be fulfilled. So the question is, if this sort of a situation were to arise another time, should I instruct the other person (in this case the conductor) on what the intention and the situation was, or just shut up and mind my business?
May the Triple Gem bless you.

The Buddha has mentioned that it is the givers qualities that matters most in giving. He says for example that if he were to receive something from Ven. Sariputta, that would not be as meritorious as if he gave the same thing to Ven. Sariputta.
So, if you are a person with Arya qualities, as long as your giving is also Arya, the effects will be much greater than that dictated by the receivers qualities.
Arya giving is letting go at a distance.

I edited the question a bit. I think the question was about the relationship with the conductor, not the beggar.

@Ravindranath I totally understand. Is there a reference on what you mentioned on what Buddha said?

I'm reading Tipitakaya these days. I'll let you know if i meet the reference.

Sanctification of the Gift is explained here.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25889&hilit=

Firstly, I think you should, because I for one feel like many people are conflicted on how to handle situations with beggars and other homeless people.
Tell them that giving depends on your intentions. Some people help out beggars with the intent of satisfying a desire, or tricking their ego into believing something (example: I'm a good person, because I help out beggars, I donate to charity...etc) when in actuality, they are doing it to satisfy a deep rooted desire they have. If I knew money I gave to a beggar would lead to drug abuse and self-destruction, I believe the Buddhist way would be not to help the beggar. On the other hand, if I had no idea about a beggar's drug problem, and I gave it to him with the full intention of only providing for his well being, then giving would be a good thing to do.
Though I think another important thing is the context. If you feel like you have to help the beggar because the situation calls for it (maybe they approached you and you feel pressured to comply?), then you shouldn't, especially when you need the money yourself, because that is not the same as giving to a beggar out of your own good intentions.


text:
How can a person become a real Buddhist?
In this society a lot of people say "I'm a Buddhist" but they're just saying that. So my question is, how can a person become a real Buddhist? And how do we know he's a real Buddhist?

You become a real Buddhist when you walk the path of Dhamma. The Buddhist teaching is to be experienced here and now and to be verified here and now. There are many ways this has been put forward:

Sila - Samadhi - Panna where later is realisation at the experiential level or at the level of wisdom
Pariyatti - Patipatti - Pativedha where the latter is the experience
sutta-maya-panna - cinta-maya-panna - bhavana-maya panna where the latter is experiential wisdom

When you have the 1st vision of the Dhamma your faith never changes. This is because nobody can convince you otherwise of what you have already seen for yourself.

I think a real Buddhist at the very least follows the five precepts.

To become a true Buddhist one should have a pleasant mind towards, and confidence, in the Supreme Buddha. This confidence should be rooted (mulajata), and it should be well established (patitthita). To develop this kind of unshakeable confidence, it is important to know about the knowledge of The Buddha. A “Sotāpanna”/stream entry Buddist is a True Buddhist.
The Pali Canon recognizes four levels of Awakening, the first of which is called “Sotāpanna”/stream entry. This gains its name from the fact that a person who has attained this level has entered the "stream" flowing inevitably to nibbana. He/she is guaranteed to achieve full awakening within seven lifetimes at most, and in the interim will not be reborn in any of the lower realms.
The practices leading to stream entry are encapsulated in four factors:
Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream entry.
Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream entry.
Appropriate attention is a factor for stream entry.
Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream entry.
The Sotapanna is free from the following three fetters (samyojana):–

The wrong view that the aggregates of physical and mental phenomena are ego or self. (sakkāya-ditthi or personality-belief).
Any doubt about the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the discipline (vicikicchā or sceptical doubt).
Belief that methods other than that of cultivating the qualities of the eightfold noble path and developing insight into the four noble truths will bring eternal peace (silabbataparāmāsa or belief in mere rite and ritual).

Furthermore, his observation of the five precepts remains pure and absolute, as a matter of course. For these reasons a Sotāpanna is well secured from being reborn in the unhappy existences of the four lower worlds. He will lead the happy life in the world of human beings and devas for seven existences at the most and during this period he will attain Arahantship and nibbāna.

One "becomes a Buddhist" by seeking refuge in the 3 jewels: the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha. By seeking refuge we mean actively learning and using that knowledge.
After the point of inquiry into "Buddhism?" then you start to learn about it thru literature or asking people or videos. All part of the dharma. Then as you learn and envelope yourself with the Buddhist community ... the sangha. But it all starts with the initial seeking of refuge.
That initial step is all that is "required" to be a real Buddhist.

Have unwavering faith in Buddha
Have unwavering faith in Dhamma
Have unwavering faith in Sangha
Be relentless in eliminating Sakkaaya Ditti

I don't know about "Buddhism" as a name.  There are those who honor the Buddha by practicing the eightfold path. There are those that honor the Buddha by giving garlands and incense but both are wholesome and real "Buddhist" practices alright. Even someone who has little idea what they are doing can technically be a "real" Buddhist. It's just a word.
What is more real than any other Buddhism? What do I know? Maybe it's the Buddha's  actual core teaching and those enlightened enough to recognize the Buddha's actual core teaching in the Suttas that is "Real Buddhism".
I think that, "really" The Buddha's teaching is always Buddhism but Buddhism isn't always The Buddha's actual core teaching ,  or in many instances, Buddhism isn't even anywhere near the Buddha's actual core teaching.
We should be able to talk about  things like this...
...and how we feel about things with out fear of being misunderstood, persecuted, oppressed, corrected and censored by whoever has enough nerve to think they understand themselves enough to judge other forum members as "wrong".  How can this be good karma? Can a "real" Buddhist just decide that we can be  judge , jury and executioner and that is congruent with the Dhamma?
Who in this forum really understands enough to transgress punitive measures against other fellow human beings and still at the same time be a "real" Buddhist?
Anyone who justifies they're transgressions against another person because the person violated the "group's rules" can never be sure they are being fair or appropriate when they punish unless they are enlightened. Maybe I am missing something...I certainly know that I am no saint, this is just my little opinion. -Metta


text:
What will Most Effect in Next Life Done Good or Bad?
If some person when he live's on earth His doing 50% good & 50% Bad things (theatrically). after he died what will Happen to him in next life. 1st will he effected with his good things he done in Past or bad things?

In balance of probability his last though may be 50:50 good or bad. Therefore there is a 50:50 chance the next birth will be good or bad but more biased towards the bad as there always decency that more bad through arise as you minds have the unwholesome roots. Also the action you did near the end may have a significant influence over that happens. Also in this life you might have done 50:50 good and bad but who knows what proportion of Karma you have from previous lives. In absence of a proximate to death or powerful Karma from this life giving arise there might be a chance a Karma from a part life and deciding the final moment. Also if what was done was done low level of volition this might affect the results, e.g., some may give for publicity than benevolent intentions. So it is very difficult to say what the chances are.

How do you know this is true?

Only a Buddha will know for sure, as Karma is only fully comprehended by a Fully Enlightened Buddha.

There are five subjects Buddha has stated that cannon be fully understood except by a Buddha.

Buddha
Citta
Kamma
Loka
(...)

So one might argue that it really cannot be told with certainty which kamma will take precedence or carry more weight in the next birth.

I think this kind of question is very speculative. The Buddha always stressed that thinking/worrying about future and past should be avoided. Instead it would be wise to examine the present.

Buddha said a chance of devas, humans, hungry ghosts, animals to be reborn in heaven or human realms is slim.  He compared it to dust on the tip of his finger nails with respect to great earth. However, There are many ways to beat the odds.
And notice that Buddha did not say that about beings in hell.  It is possible (IMO) that beings in hell have no chance to come straight from there to heaven or earth.  They might have to work their way up.

It depends on three things.
 If one has big enough karma either good or bad to carry through afterlife, it will surely be carried through.
 If no such big or remarkable karma, the last moment recall what one regularly or frequently done karma which is passed over to immediate afterlife.
If no two above is in effect, the very last moment karma reflection will have its effect.
So it is not to question 50:50.


text:
Do Buddhists need affection, physical touch or intimacy?
I am interested in learning about Buddhism, and there are a lot of questions. I wonder (since it seems to me Buddhists are quite independent, and they don't attach that much to people or things) what about like if they did have families or friends or wives or husbands: do they live without affection etc.?

Hi Hannah and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

Marriage does not guarantee happiness (some married people are unhappy). This answer includes advice about how to choose a marriage partner.
And chapter 6 of A Happy Married Life (which is titled "Security, Respect and Responsibilities") identifies what attitudes and behaviour are recommended by Buddhist doctrine/scripture, between husband and wife.
There may also be affection between e.g. a mother and her children.
I don't think it's affection that's identified as the principal problem in Buddhism: the problems are craving (e.g. for what you don't have), and attachment. So for example if you craved more affection than you think you're getting, you will "suffer" (and, I think, cause suffering too). Also, a characteristic of sensual pleasure (and of other "compounded" or "conditioned" things) is that it's impermanent. So for example "physical touch" cannot be a permanent (even if continual it couldn't be continuous), and so people must learn (or must also learn) to live, to behave, to control or regulate themselves without it.
And I think that attachment is likely to cause the survivor problems when their partner dies, etc.
For these kinds of reasons, the pursuit of sensory pleasures may be unwise or unsatisfying.
As for "living without affection" there are attitudes which I think are recommended by Buddhism and which are like affection (perhaps these are affection, or perhaps they're a good substitute for or alternative to affection), for example kindness, benevolence, harmlessness, even equanimity.

As for the title ("Do Buddhists need...?"), I'm inclined to read that as "Do Humans need...?". I'm not sure whether to say that all humans are the same, and have the same needs. Perhaps they do, but have different capacities or abilities to deal with those needs. There's a field of Western psychology (which I'm not familiar with) called Attachment theory, which has theories such as how secure people feel depends on things like how they were treated and how they developed when they were infants: as well as how they developed (how they were developed, and how they developed themselves) as children and so on into adult life. Maybe people's needs, or how "needy" they are, varies according.

Attachment Theory is a good place to look for more insight. People are 'formed' by early life in ways that are almost impossible to change. Insecurely attached people can seem to "never get enough".

Buddhist generally show kindness. Living in solitude is encouraged to practice detachment and other Buddhist teachings.
A need is a personal preference. A Buddhist may choose to entertain affection at the risk of losing his "sila"

Very interesting question that you asked. The short answer to it is “yes!”.  Buddhists who are well grounded in Dhamma do have intimacy. They have friendship, companionship and intimacy with the good, because of their abstinence from excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures, abstinence from drunkenness, and non- indulgence in gambling.
The five precepts… specially the third... Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami - “I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.” Is a safeguard for us from such.
The five precepts as we know and practice is the worldly right view and worldly right conception. The distinction made in the discourse between worldly right view and the right view that is above the world (supre-mundane) is that, in the case of the latter, this means **Complete Abstinence, expressed by the use of these three more terms - aarati virati and pativirati. Such abstinence applies to right action and right livelihood as well.
One who takes the five precepts with an aim of walking the Noble Eightfold Path, towards attaining Path-Fruition aim for the aarati, virati, pativirati level of abstinence.

I don't think it's relevant (or at least, maybe not clear to the OP why it might be relevant) to talk about pornography and masturbation when the question is about affection and physical intimacy. They are, kind of, completely opposite things; perhaps it isn't clear to everyone why you would equate them.

I tend to agree with you on this @ChrisW.

@ChrisW I didn't see this before it was edited, but perhaps the connection is that lack of 'proper' intimacy seems to give rise to impropriety? I don't agree with that assertion, but it is very common. I also do not think that any physicality at all must pull one back down in to delusion, but that is the normal view also.

@nocomprende You can see edited versions by clicking on the link below the answer, where it currently says "edited 15 minutes ago". I guessed it was based on the doctrine of the twelve nidanas (that pleasurable sensual contact gives rise to craving and attachment) but if the OP isn't Buddhist I doubt that they might have understood that. And I think that whether one's ethical capacity may either develop or atrophy might vary depending on whether there's more than one person involved.

@ChrisW thank you. To me, no one can develop beyond a certain point in isolation. We 'need' deep interactions to become more fully human. So, to me, all the avoidance of sensation and intimacy is nonsense. But I am not a Buddhist.

Buddhists come under 4 groups: monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen.
Monks and nuns are not allowed to engage in any romantic or sexual activity. They are not even allowed to touch a person of the opposite gender even as a friendly gesture.
Laymen and laywomen are only expected to refrain from sexual misconduct. ex: Becoming intimate with another's wife or husband. So as long as they keep to the five precepts, they can show affection to another in any socially acceptable method.

ZEN Buddhist priests and nuns may marry, and laypeople of any tradition do have intimacy at any level.
From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

“Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life, even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings.”
Real Buddha Quotes


text:
According to buddhism, do demons exists?
I have heard a lot about this kind of things called demons, satan, evil spirits from other religion. But is their any mention in buddhism about existance of such creatures or spirits?

According to Buddhism Demons exist. The Four Great Kings in the Cāturmahārājika Heaven keep watch over us of harm from these demons. There are a handful of (few) good demons too who have seen the Dhamma.)  These four Devas are Virūpākṣa (he who sees all), Dhṛtarāṣṭra (he who upholds the realm), Virūḍhaka (he who causes to grow), and Vaiśravaṇa (Kubera) (he who hears everything).  All four Devas serve Śakra, the lord of the devas. All demons have spontaneous birth (opapatika) like the Davas and the Petas (Hungry Ghosts). You may know by now that there are four kinds of birth - namely, egg-born (andaja), womb-born (julabuja), moisture-born (samsedaja), and spontaneous birth (opapatika).
There are four lower planes of existance = Niraya = devoid of happiness. There are four kinds of niraya - namely, woeful state (apaya / hell), the animal kingdom, the plane of Petas (hungry ghosts) and the plane of Asura-demons (Titans). None of these states is eternal. According to their unwholesome / unskillful kamma beings may be born in such woeful states. Departing from those states, they may be born in blissful states according to their past good kamma. In the sense-sphere (kamaloka) the human plane and the six celestial planes are regarded as blissful states. They too are not eternal.
Devil is referred to as MARA, in the scriptures. Mara means killer. He is the personification of the force that kills virtue and also kills existence. His armies are poised to attack all persons; they even tried to overcome the Buddha on the night of his enlightenment. But Mara is a post that is been held by a person.  If you are attached to the six senses, you are in the Mara (Devil)s grasp (a firm hold or grip). He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.
At the time of Kakusandha Buddha – our Gautama Supreme Buddha’s chief disciple, Ven. Maha Moggallana was the Mara, chief of demons, lord of the lower worlds.  Kakusandha is the fourth of the Seven Buddhas of the last 91 Kalpa (Aeons), and the first of the five Buddhas of the present kalpa. The present day Mara is his sister’s son (nephew). When someone talks about “God’s grace” and “God’s mercy”,  it can more likely be that the blessings are of Mara and his hosts. This is possible. As the great jealous one, Mara has the power to bestow blessings on his hosts and subjects.
Getting back to the subject of Demons, here is a question & answer session that once took place between a King (Milinda) and an Arahant ( Ven. Nâgasena):

'Venerable Nâgasena, are there such things as demons (Yakkhâ) in the world?'
  'Yes, O king.'
  'Do they ever leave that condition' (fall out of that phase of existence)?
  'Yes, they do.'
  'But, if so, why is it that the remains of those dead demons are never found, nor any odour of their corpses smelt? '
  Their remains are found, O king, and an odour does arise from their dead bodies. The remains of bad demons can be seen in the form of worms and beetles and ants and moths and snakes and scorpions and centipedes, and birds and wild beasts.'

There's apparently one 'modern' form of Buddhism which doesn't, which is called Secular Buddhism:

Secular Buddhists interpret the teachings of the Buddha and the Buddhist texts in a rationalist and often evidentialist manner, considering the historical and cultural contexts of the times in which the Buddha lived and the various suttas, sutras and tantras were written.
Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that can't be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc.

I think that all other, traditional forms of Buddhism "mention" demons.
For what it's worth I've also heard of "evil spirits" and so on, in folktales and children's stories (which are sometimes called "fairy tales") -- I'm not sure whether they come "from other religion", or whether it's better to recognize them as coming from all human cultures and literary traditions.
Some people (and I don't mean to say that these people are "secular Buddhists") explain demons as metaphors, personifications, etc. (see for example this answer); or say that demons were imported from contemporary (Vedic) religion or culture, and that although they're "mentioned" in Buddhist literature they don't have a role in Buddhist doctrine and practice (see e.g. this answer).
I guess this is hard to answer without down-playing or over-playing the importance of "demons".

Yes.
But you find yourself inclined to reject it do not do this either.
If something in the Dhamma does not agree with you do not reject or accept it until you know for sure at the experiential level or experienced great deal of Dhamma to infer the rest might be true also out of faith.


text:
Scientific Problem solving and Wu Wei
I am a mathematician, and I often find myself obsessing over the problems that I'm trying to solve.
While I have made incredible progress over the last 6 months with my practice. I find myself suffering, sometimes for a few days in a row, because of my obsessive thinking towards the problem. It's as if my entire consciousness became the problem and that I could not find any relief until it was fixed.
I enjoy getting consumed by what I do, I also know that being consumed AND remaining grounded is much more powerful. Any tip? / similar experiences?

Maybe my job is easier than yours, i.e. a software developer.
The traditional psychology of software development includes the psychology of "flow".
One of the doctrines of that psychology is that flow can happen when a job is neither too easy (which isn't interesting or demanding, doesn't engage or satisfy), nor too difficult (if it's too difficult it promotes anxiety, regret, hopelessness, and desire to quit etc.).
So there's a happy medium: when it's neither too hard nor too easy.
I read once that they used functional MRI to measure of brains in "flow" state and discovered that brains in that state are less active than
usual, or more specifically have fewer areas which are active. I suppose that (limited number of active areas) is associated with concentrating on one task, with a lack of afflictive emotions, etc.
What does this have to do with Buddhism?

I think one comment to make is that the flow state is pleasurable. For example you say "I could not find any relief until it was fixed" which implies that you feel relief; and you said, "I also know that being consumed is powerful", where I suppose that "powerful" is pleasurable in a Nietzschean sense. So maybe beware that it (what you're doing) is something of a pleasure-feedback loop, like any other (sugar, alcohol, you know, sex, social status, whatever your weaknesses are). Your "obsessive thinking" might be a result of subconscious desire or craving "I want to carry on thinking like this, to feel relief and power again". The fact that Mathematics seems relatively harmless activity doesn't confer immunity: see e.g. Saptha's comment here, about sukha giving rise to dukkha and the consequence of our indulgence in pleasure.
A phenomenon from Buddhist practice which might perhaps be analogous are Jhāna concentration states. I think that doctrine says that practicitioners sometimes mistakenly take  these states as an end instead of a means. They should be a means (to improve insight) but might be taken as an end in themselves (because of their (temporary) relief from suffering).
You wrote "I have made incredible progress over the last 6 months with my practice" though I don't know what your practice is. In any case you might try some explicitly Buddhist practice as well as (or, at least sometimes, instead of) Mathematical pursuit.

Also, in my experience and I think in everyone's, often a problem is solved in routine concentration; and sometimes that routine fails and is  counterproductive, because you don't see the problem in a proper context, e.g. "you don't see the forest for the trees". So even if your only motive were to solve the mathematical problem, you might find it beneficial to let "obsessive" thinking subside when it is failing.

This is something I face too. I work in the IT industry building automation systems.
This is my own opinion on the matter. I think most people, including me bias toward a belief that being consumed or obsessed by something (some call it passion) gives great outcomes. This is correct. However; I believe far more intelligent people exist who are able to achieve much greater results while remaining detached. How this can be achieved is a tricky subject and might be out of scope of this forum.
For example, the Buddha himself knows all sciences that should be known. Ven. Sariputta was highly intelligent. All of them practiced detachment and still remained sharp and more intelligent.
So, maybe practicing dhamma might help us.


text:
How is the doctrine of no-self compatible with reincarnation?
The term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings.
If this is the case, then what exactly is being carried over from one life to the next in the cycle of reincarnation? And against which entity are Karma points being increased or decreased?

I think is a duplicate of other question tagged anatman+rebirth, isn't it? Or of this question?

Seems very close to "If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?" but that one doesn't mention Karma.

Good question. Maybe there's something - call it 'energy' or 'information' - that outlasts the body. That doesn't necessarily mean it's some permanent 'soul'. Why can't it be subject to causality and impermanence like any other phenomenon.

When you light a candle with another candle, nothing transferred from first candle to the second candle.
When you copy a CD nothing physical transferred  from first CD to the second CD.
In cell division nothing physically transferred from first cell to the new cell.
The same way when one life end another life is crated.
Depend on the first the second is crated.

A candle must have a "living body" (i.e., wax & wick) to transfer a flame that is dependent upon the wax & wick. Therefore, the candle analogy always fails.

No what I am saying is how the fire transfer from first candle to the second.

You are not saying anything that is logical or realistic. The candle can only transfer flame while the candle is whole or complete. Your analogy can only be true if a living five aggregates transfers atman or consciousness while it is living. A dead candle cannot transfer a living flame because the living flame depends on the fuel of the candle. Refer to MN 140, where the Lord Master Only Bhante Buddha states: "Just as an oil lamp burns in dependence on oil & wick; and from the termination of the oil & wick — and from not being provided any other fuel — it goes out unnourished..."

I am not talking about Nibbana here. I am talking about re-birth.-)

The only "rebirth" the Buddha taught is the rebirth of self-view. "Birth" or "jati" refers to the production of the view of "beings" ("satta"). Please refer to SN 22.81, SN 5.10, SN 23.3, SN 12,2, etc. The kind of rebirth you are inferring is materialism and not the Dhamma. The Dhamma the Lord Only Bhante Buddha said was visible here-&-now, inviting inspection & verifiable by insight. Kind regards.

Visible here-&-now, inviting inspection & verifiable by insight, are past lives more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, visible here-&-now, inviting inspection & verifiable by insight is the truth of the origin of suffering the Buddha found at the seat of his enlightenment, visible here-&-now, inviting inspection & verifiable by insight is the whole arising of this mass of suffering. Come and see. Develop meditative stabilization and you will see, visible here-&-now, inviting inspection & verifiable by insight, the Buddha's dharma, which ends all circulating transmissions.

The Buddha generally did not teach 'not-self' together with teachings about 'karmic inheritance'.
The teachings about karmic inheritance are based on the view of self. That is why both good & bad kamma remain outside the sphere of enlightenment.
'Good kamma' always results in the mind believing: "My actions have brought me happiness" & 'bad kamma' always results in the mind believing: "My actions have brought me unhappiness"
If self-view ends (i.e., 'not-self' is realised), then kammic inheritance also ends, which is why AN 6.63 states:

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of kamma.
AN 6.63

In summary, ideas about reincarnation are completely incompatible with not-self. They are completely different teachings.
'Not-self' is for enlightenment & reincarnation is a teaching to keep ordinary people (puthujjana) moral. These two teachings & their purpose are clearly delineated in MN 117, which states:

Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming];
there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a
factor of the path.

To teach 'not-self' things are reincarnated destroys the personal incentive to do good karma. This is why the analogy about "nothing" is transferred from first candle to the second candle is heresy or adhamma in Buddhism because the teachings in Buddhism that infer 'reincarnation' are always personal so to provide personal incentive for ordinary people to do good kamma. Here, MN 60, a teaching for puthujjana householders, states:

The observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is an other world, then
this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is
praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of
the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a
heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped &
adopted by him, covers both sides and leaves behind the possibility of
the unskillful.

A corollary question might be, "How is the doctrine of no-self compatible with reincarnation in this very life?"
Consider... if no-self is true, then what is it that continues from moment to moment in this very life? If there is something that continues from moment to moment in this very life, then can that something be understood in a compatible way with anatman? If so, then why couldn't it also be compatible with that something that continues from life to life??
On the contrary, it seems to me that believing that anatman is compatible with conventional understanding of self in this very life, but is somehow incompatible with a conventional understanding of self from life to life just betrays that anatman hasn't really been understood at all! Rather, someone who thinks this necessarily believes that a true self exists in this very life from moment to moment and then is utterly annihilated upon the breakup of the body. But that is clearly not compatible with the doctrine of no-self.
If you think about it carefully I think you'll find that the very question you are posing reveals an incorrect or insufficient understanding of anatman :)

What the Buddha has taught is:

there is no permanent or continuous core (everything is impermanent)
there is not absolute controler internally or externally (God)
there is nothing worth identifying as self as nothing can bring absolute pleasure (there is nothing you can call satisfactory)

Essentially what this does is Buddhism rejects an entity view on a being but says a being is a creation of being through causality process / Dependent Arising (DA). This is not continuous but happen as one set of states arise and pass a way followed by other in quantum (Kalapa). When DA is broken there is no self. Otherwise both there is a self and there is no self is extreme view. Also see: Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts
Karma is what drives, fuels or turns DA process. So there need not be an entity which is the self who own's the Karma of external (God) who is the law giver. Karma works independent of any entity / continuous core.

"All cittas and cetasikas are collectively classified as name. The life force or life principle of name is called jivitindriya. All cittas and cetasikas can function actively because of this life force or principle. If this jivitindriya is absent, mind cannot function at all. In short it is jivitindriya that prompts cittas and cetasika to continue arising according to kamma. There is also a living part called rupa jivitindriya in the material element. The vital force of mind and matter therefore termed nama jivitindriya and rupa jivintindriya respectively. These two in combination forms the “life” of a being. Apart from this two, there is no such thing as eternal soul, or ego. There is no attá (self) at all"

~ Cited from: Jivitendriya, one of the seven universal mental factors
As far as I understand, nothing goes from one life to the next. There is no soul. It's just the mind stream continues with the help of the universal mental factor, Jivitindriya (Nama Jivitindriya). If the flow of the Rupa Jivitindriya stops we call it "death". After the last consciousness (cuti citta) of one's life, the first consciousness of the next life (patisandhi citta) will arise. There is no gap between these cittas which connect two lives. Consciousness does not travel across the space from one place to another at rebirth. The originated consciousness/mind dissolves at the same place.
"Suffering exists, but no sufferer can be found. Actions exist, but no doer of actions is there. Nirvana exists, but no one who enters it. The Path exists, but no traveler can be seen."

"There is no doer of a deed
  Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
  Phenomena  alone  flow  on—
  No other view than this is right.
And  so,  while  kamma  and  result
  Thus  causally  maintain  their  round,
  As seed and tree succeed in turn,
  No  first  beginning  can  be  shown.
Nor in the future round of births
  Can they be shown not to occur:
  Sectarians,  not  knowing  this,
  Have  failed  to  gain  self-mastery.
They assume a being, see it as
  Eternal  or  annihilated.
  Adopt  the  sixty-two  wrong  views,
  Each  contradicting  one  another.
The stream of craving bears them on
  Caught  in  the  meshes  of  their  views:
  And as the stream thus bears them on
  They are not freed from suffering.
A monk, disciple of the Buddha,
  With  direct  knowledge  of  this  fact
  Can  penetrate  this  deep  and  subtle
  Void  conditionality.
There is no kamma in result,
  Nor does result exist in kamma;
  Though they are void of one another,
  There is no fruit without the kamma.
As fire does not exist inside
  The sun, a gem, cow-dung, nor yet
  Outside them, but is brought to be
  By means of its component parts,
So neither can result be found
  Within  the  kamma,  nor  without;
  Nor does the kamma still persist
  [In the result it has produced].
The kamma of its fruit is void;
  No fruit exists yet in the kamma;
  And still the fruit is born from it,
  Wholly  depending  on  the  kamma.
For here there is no Brahmá God,
  Creator of the round of births,
  Phenomena  alone  flow  on—
  Cause  and  component  their  condition.

~ Cited from Path to Purification (English translation of Visuddhimagga)

“Cetanaham bhikkawe kamman wadami."

which means,

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma."

~ Cited from: Nibbedhika Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, Tipitaka
Cetana (Intention) is a universal mental factor which can be seen in every consciousness/mind. But not all Cetana becomes kamma. Cetana which can be seen in 12 Unwholesome Consciousness (Akusala Citta) and 17 Mundane Wholesome Consciousness (Laukika Kusala Citta) become kamma.

It's no different from your smartphone.
You have SMSes, chat history, photos, videos, notes etc.
Now let's say you have bought a new phone, so, you can manually or automatically (using a cloud-based service), transfer all the contents to a new phone, and sign in using your various accounts.
The phone doesn't need a soul or self for that.
Similarly, old karma (SN 35.146) can be inherited as genes and information from our parents, schools, books, media, neighbours, teachers, peers etc. Also please see 'Why are they called "old kamma"?'.
This is also explained by Milindapanha's oil lamp flame transfer analogy in Miln 3.5.5.

The Dalai Lama gave a very good answer to this conundrum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7WgTHNc0OI
In Buddhism, what we call as the 'self' designated as the combination of body and mind
At the subtle level, body and mind has no beginning and no end, thus it cannot 'die'
Upon death, subtle mind separates from the body and is what is carried over to the next body, including whatever karmic imprints have been accumulated in this body.

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


text:
Visualization and visualized meditation
I've come here many times for meditation on the breath. I've come to understand this meditation better, but I encounter problems unrelated to meditation.
I've noticed that my memory is rather bad, and that my thought process relies mostly on verbal means. However, I remember being extremely visual at an early age, scoring quite well on visual aptitude tests, and these days I can sometimes visualize complex things. Yet, I fail to use visualization in every day life because I understand Buddhism discourages mental fabrication. I am thus very focused on exterior reality, either sensing reality or thinking abstractly.
I'm wondering if visualization meditation would help me with memory and conceptualizing. I must also mention that I have a mood disorder, and though I doubt visualizing could affect this, I am still worried of the possibility. Thus, my questions are:

Is intentionally visualizing something very different from fantasies discouraged in Buddhism?
Is visualizing generally different from engaging in visualization in meditation?
Are there any risks involved in visualization practices, in visualization as a general trait of mind?
Would visualizing improve memory, retention, or modelling?
Could visualizing in a free and unrestricted way liberate or affect emotions, undo repression?

I am thankful for any replies.

I'm familiar with visualization meditation, in the context of Tibetan Buddhist meditation.
Those specific meditations were good for my mood as well as a training in concentration. For me it was a very useful start into meditation, though I have stopped doing it for now.
I think it's a mistake to avoid something you're good at, just because you heard that the Buddha is against mental fabrication. I have studied Buddhism quite extensively (though not exhaustively) and I have not heard that one before.
It is a Buddhist truth that thoughts can be misleading, but that should not stop you from thinking. It is merely a useful hint that not all your thoughts are true.
One difference between fantasy and visualization is that in visualization you take control of your mental processes and visualize what YOU want to visualize (or what the instruction is).
Fantasies are basically day-dreams: you let your mind go where it will. Observing those thoughts can also be meditation - but then it becomes mindfulness.
What makes it meditation is that it is deliberate.
So if you are doing visualization meditation - you focus on (in two steps)

making the image clear
concentrating on that image.

If you're doing mindfulness meditation, you will simply note you are fantasizing when you are in fact fantasizing. The noting itself will take you out of the fantasy for a bit, by the way.
There is also Buddhist analytical meditation: it means analyzing a Buddhist truth from all sides. It does go back all the way to the Buddha. And if that is a good thing, then surely ordinary analysis ought to be OK too. It falls under the heading of seeking wisdom.
More about Buddhist meditation: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/thought.htm

Yet, I fail to use visualization in everyday life because I understand Buddhism discourages mental fabrication.

Verbal fabrication are not limited to metal verbalisation or subvebalisation. It includes anything to do with thinking which includes visualisations. Thinking is not only verbal fabrication, also provides nutriment, give rise to volition for karma.
Use of visualisation, verbalisations, sub verbalisations, imagination, conceptualization leads to fabrication, nutriments, pannatti1 (more particularly nama pannatti when using labelling with verbalisation or sub verbalisation and nimitta pannatti2 in Samatha), etc. The meditation exercise is to understand the ultimate realities and the universal laws of nature (dhamma), penetrating beyond concepts. So this (self create verbalisation or sub verbalisation or metal image) cannot be used for Satipaṭṭhāna meditation, if a concept spontaneously arise let it be, and be aware of the sensations / feeling this bring about; this (Verbalisation, visualisation, conceptualisation, thinking and pondering, etc.) also leads to fabrications (more particularly verbal) and nutriment (Āhāra - more particularly Manosañcetanā Āhāro). Samma Ditthi Sutta mentions the end of fabrication and also nutriment is the right way. More on pannatti on this site see this search. A related concept is nirutti, more this see this search.
I.e. this visualisation, results in:

verbal fabrication generally based on unwholesome root of ignorance, since concepts are not ultimate realities, which can lead to undesired future experiences
nutriment to keep existance which can lead to future unwholesome experiences
use of concepts than ultimate realities which has the basis of the unwholesome root of ignorance, where as ignorance is displaced when you meditate with ultimate realities as the object of meditation
concept proliferation, though controlled, is not in touch with ultimate realities, but uses a stream of repetitive concepts objects ("thoughts, thoughts, thoughts, ...", "sounds, sounds, sounds, ...", ..., etc.)

One justification of using the labeling is use of controlled vocabulary which relates or close to the ultimate realities:

4 elements: earth, air, heat, water or equivalent names / labels like motion, highness, etc.
function of 6 sense organs: seeing, smelling, touching, hearing, tasting, thinking
5 aggregates: conscious, perceiving, feeling, etc.

But as iterated before labeling is conceptual and not ultimate realities.
Samatha meditation like Kasina uses nimitta (nimitta pannatti2). This also be avoided and to prefer the framework of the body (4 sathipattana) as the object of meditation. Reason for this is many meditators get attached to the Sukha this bring and it is not possible to see the impermanence of the Nimita, the unsatisfactoriness of the feeling the Nimita bring when it ends and the fact the Ninita is not fully in one's control and also it brings unsatisfactoriness hence should not be identified as me or mine. Generally, a Samantha practitioner will miss identify the Nimita as permanent, satisfactory and controllable (as controlling and manipulating the nimita part of the excecise) which leads to the unwholesome root of ignorance. This is one of the Adinava of the Samatha practice. Jhana should be developed using the 4 Foundations of mindfulness or 4 Brahmavihara.
Also some quotes by Meditation Master S.N.Goenka on this:

Some meditators start with walking, even mentally repeating "walking", "itching", or whatever. There is no paññā: but at least the practice concentrates the mind.

Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka

But you are required to observe bare respiration, as it naturally is, without regulating it; no word or imagined form may be added.
...
Similarly visualization—mentally picturing a shape or form—can become a barrier to progress. The technique leads to the dissolving of apparent truth in order to reach ultimate truth. Apparent, integrated truth is always full of illusions, because at this level saññ± operates, perception, which is distorted by past reactions. This conditioned perception differentiates and discriminates, giving rise to preferences and prejudices, to fresh reactions. But by disintegrating apparent reality, one gradually comes to experience the ultimate reality of the mental-physical-structure: nothing but vibrations arising and passing away every moment. At this stage no differentiation is possible, and therefore no preferences or prejudices can arise, no reactions. The technique gradually weakens the conditioned saññ± and hence weakens reactions, leading to the stage in which perception and sensation cease, that is, the experience of nibb±na. But by deliberately giving attention to a shape, form, or vision, one remains at the level of apparent, composed reality and cannot advance beyond it. For this reason, there should be neither visualization nor verbalization.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

1) Is intentionally visualizing something very different from fantasies discouraged in Buddhism?

Thinking, verbalisation, imagination are all verbal fabrications which intern is accompanied by initial and sustained application (Vitakka - Vicara)

2) Is visualizing generally different from engaging in visualization in meditation?

In meditation, say Kasina, you visualise a coloured disk. This is the same as any imagination unless you are aware of its impermanence.
Any imagination if there is a perception that it is permanent, pleasurable and controlled by self then it becomes unwholesome.
You are not fully in control of your image. When practicing in meditation or otherwise, when you bring about a visualisation you get the notion I created this, I control this, this appeared as I wanted it to be. You might think abiding in these meditation states is Sukka or imagination of by liking or some beautiful object of imagination. Also the imagined object may seem real, solid and permanent.
Similarly you lose touch that it is dependently arisen, sustained by nutriment, etc.
Also there is Paramattha Dhammas (Citta, Chethesika, Rupa, Nirvana) and Pannatti (Kala, Nama, etc.) which represent totality dhamma according to the Abhidhamma. Visualisation is Nama Pannatti which is not an ultimate reality.
This leads to future pleasant, unpleasant and neutral experiences.

3) Are there any risks involved in visualization practices, in visualization as a general trait of mind?

What ever that creates a future experience, the experiences fall into 3 categories (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), but if the experiences were created with the unwholesome roots it will be unpleasant or neutral.
When visualising you cannot be fully in touch with reality hence ignorance is present. Also verbal fabrications are created. In addition, there is thinking and pondering which gives nutriment for future existence. All this created with unwholesome base will result in future experiences. Even Jhanic attainments give result in certain planes of existence. When higher fetters break then desire for such exitance also goes away.

4) Would visualizing improve memory, retention, or modelling?

Yes. I might. Any training now will have a future consequence. Some of the practices (perhaps not all) may lead to a future existence with improved memory and modelling capabilities.
This is also temporary and any future existence ends in unsatisfactoriness.

5) Could visualizing in a free and unrestricted way liberate or affect emotions, undo repression?

Many of the Kammaṭṭhāna has visualisation of imagination as a basis. Practicing them the right way leads to existence in higher planes. These are part of the higher fetters (uddhambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni). Unless you realise this is conditioned, dependently arisen, sustained by nutriment, etc. cannot liberate you.
Vipassana is the best way to deal with emotions: vipassana meditation experience, vipassana meditation testimonial

1

The Atthasalini uses different synonyms for nama pannatti (concepts that are names). It is an interpretation, an expression that renders the meaning of something in language (nirutti). A name is a distinctive sign that shows the meaning of something (vyancana). There are sounds which people utter, letters combined as words which express the meaning of something (abhilapa). These synonyms explain the meaning of nama pannatti, a name or term. A term makes the meaning of something known. The idea or notion that is made known can also be called a concept. Thus, there are, generally speaking, two kinds of pannatti:

That which is made known (pannapiyatta or atthapannatti).
That which makes known (pannapanato), the name or term (sadda pannatti or namapannatti) which makes known the meaning of things. If we remember these two classes of concepts it will be easier to understand what a concept is. There are many kinds of concepts and they can be classified in different ways. One way of classifying them is the following (see Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch. VIII, section 4, on pannattis):

i) concept of continuity: (santana pannatti), corresponding to the continuity of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which concept is based on the rapid succession of the elements.
ii) collective concept: (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a vehicle or a chariot.
iii) conventional concept: (sammutti pannatti), such as person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas.
iv) local concept: (disa pannatti), a notion or idea derived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of east or west.
v) concept of time: (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening.
vi) concept of season: (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha.
vii) concept of space: (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space that is not contacted by the four Great Elements.
viii) nimitta pannatti: the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina.
We read in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha:

All such different things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense,
become objects of thought in the form of shadows of ultimate things.
They are called pannatti
because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed,
and made known on account of, in consideration of,
and with respect to, this or that mode.
This 'pannatti' is so called because it is made known.
As it makes known, it is called 'pannatti'.
It is described as 'name', 'name-made', etc.

Source: Concepts II - Pannatti

Question: When there is seeing through the eyes and we know that it is a pen, it shows that we know the word pen through the mind-door. Is that right?
Sujin: Before we can think of the word pen, we already know a concept. A pannatti is not merely sadda pannatti (a concept of sound) a word or name.
Question: After seeing I remember what was seen. Is the object then already a concept?
Sujin: The Pali term pannatti means: it makes something known (derived from pannapeti).
Question: Must each of the sense-door processes be followed by a mind-door process so that the meaning of things can be known?
Sujin: The five sense objects which are visible object, sound, odour, flavour, and tangible object appear through two door-ways. Thus, visible object appears through the eye-door and then, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between, it appears through the mind- door. In the same way, sound, odour, flavour, and tangible object appear through the corresponding sense-doors and then through the mind-door.

Source: Concepts II - It makes something known

Question: You said that concepts could be known through the mind-door. Therefore, I am inclined to think that if there is awareness through the mind-door, concepts can be the object of satipatthana.
Sujin: In order to have more understanding of satipatthana we should begin with this very moment. Is there a concept while you hear sound now? Sound is a paramattha dhamma. When citta knows the meaning of the sounds it knows a concept and it knows this through the mind-door. Citta thinks about different words. Sati can follow and be aware of that citta, so that it can be realised as just a type of citta that thinks of words.
Question: Thus, satipatthana can know the reality that is thinking, but it cannot know concepts. As far as I understand, each of the sense-door processes has to be followed by a mind-door process, it cannot be otherwise. When there is seeing there is an eye- door process, and after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between, there is a mind-door process of cittas which experience visible object. Is that right?
Sujin: The víthi-cittas of the mind-door process, which follow víthi-cittas of a sense-door process, have to experience the same rupa. If the javana-cittas of the sense-door process are lobha-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in attachment), the javana-cittas of the first mind-door process after that sense-door process have to be the same types of lobha-mula-citta. The mind-door process follows extremely rapidly upon the sense-door process. With respect to this there is a simile of a bird perching on a branch. As soon as the bird perches on the branch its shadow appears on the ground. Even so, when the object has been experienced through the sense-door and there have been many bhavanga-cittas in between, arising and falling away very rapidly, it is immediately afterwards experienced through the mind-door. Since cittas succeed one another so rapidly one does not know that visible object which is experienced through the eyes is only a paramattha dhamma that can appear because it has impinged on the eyesense.

Source: Concepts II - Can a concept be an object of satipatthana? II
Also see: The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa
2

nimitta pannatti: the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina.

I hope there's an alternative to copying the same large block[s] of text into several answers. One way, in a new answer, is to reference and link to the text of a previous answer, for example, "see the description of the pannatti, nimitta pannatti etc. in this answer".

Things seems to be more useful and easy for the reader to keep self contained. I have done this before and noticed one answer refers another which goes on to more than 3 or 4 levels deep. It also becomes unclear which parts expand on the other and is hard to navigate back and forth when the referred part ferest to another. End of the day the user will not understand and will be a waste of my and user time. Also quality of the experience and content will be low. One there a few loner thorough content I plan to do this but periodically having a full / self contained answer.

the result of perception is not always verbal fabrication, sometimes that verbosity is muted, especially when the source is stale (desensitized)...otherwise no end to this yapping...

I can't answer but (in case you don't already know this, and in case it helps you to research further if you want to) there are some forms of Buddhist visualization meditation, from different schools, including kasiṇa and  mandalas.
Another example of a harmless (perhaps even recommended) form of "visualization" might be the wheel of life. Apparently the pictorial representation of it isn't used in Theravada (I don't know why). I think it's an example of a picture being worth a thousand words (i.e. learning the picture and its symbolism is a way to memorize those doctrines).
I think the suttas mention other forms of meditation too, which involve visualization or imagination. Devices in Meditation says,

In kammattana, it is permissible to use certain devices, such as the earth or color kasina, as focal points for the attention. A candle flame, a hole in the wall, or some metal object can also be used, and the method of using them is found in the Pali texts and the Visuddhi-magga. In the texts themselves it is to be noted that the Buddha gave objects of meditation to disciples in accordance with their individual characteristics, and his unerring knowledge of the right technique for each came from his insight into their previous births. Similarly with recursive meditation, a subject would be given which was easily comprehensible to the pupil, or which served to counteract some strong, unwholesome tendency in his nature. Thus, to one attracted by sensual indulgence, the Buddha would recommend meditation on the impurity of the body, or the "cemetery meditation." Here the object is to counterbalance attraction by repulsion, but it is only a "skillful means" to reach the final state, in which attraction and repulsion both cease to exist. In the arahant there is neither liking nor disliking: he regards all things with perfect equanimity, as did Thera Maha Moggallana when he accepted a handful of rice from a leper.

The Visuddhimagga has about 300 pages on various "objects of meditation": including kasinas. They're categorized as Samadhi (Concentration) meditations. Another example is Metta-Bhavana, which can involve your visualizing various types of person (e.g. people who are dear to you).


text:
Am I approaching samadhi properly?
The problem: I've encountered some confusion about the differences between samadhi and vipassana, as would seem to be a frequent problem amongst beginners. This confusion was only worsened by my having a Zen master tell me that my practice was vipassana, and that I should just continuously count my breaths up to ten and then back down instead. I don't think she realized that I was striving for samadhi, and I don't think she really knew what she was talking about. I find Theravada to be the path for me, and have stopped visiting that zen center, but am still confused nonetheless.
So, in the absence of a formal teacher, I figured I could ask here to see if someone can provide me with some guidance.
My meditation practice: Concentrate on the sensation of the breath and nothing else, no numbers, thoughts, or words for as long as I can or unless I feel like they would help me.
Some thoughts I use, for example, are, "Let go of it", "Become one with the breath in the present moment", "I am looking for my thoughts; I should be looking for my breath", and other thoughts of a similar nature.
--
So basically, does this kind of practice generate samadhi, or vipassana? I'm not looking for insight while meditating. Just looking for the breath and focusing on it.
Thanks in advance.

Clarification regarding Zen master and center: I've been interested in Theravada from the get go, but figured I would check out the Zen center as a form of sangha. It didn't go very well.

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn10 for the classical method!

Yes, concentrate on the sensation of the breath and nothing else.
This will develop samadhi & but also vipassana because the breath is impermanent.
While samadhi is developed, seeing clearly the impermanence (appearance, disappearance, appearance, disappearance) of each breath is vipassana.
Thus the primary goal is to develop samadhi but a side effect can be vipassana.

There's nothing wrong with what that Zen teacher told you.  She was starting you out small.  Just as you wouldn't walk into the gym and start squatting 500 lbs. immediately, likewise you have to grow into your practice gradually.  Counting the breath is effective for a number of reasons.  For one, it gives you an anchor - your breath - for your attention to focus on.  Second and less widely discussed is that your are using that voice inside your head for single, limited purpose.  Rather than watching your breath and saying things like "let go" or "become one with the breath", your interior dialogue is limited to "one", "two", "three".  That's it.  Any more than that is superfluous.  Over time, your concentration will strengthen.  Eventually, you will be able to drop the counting and just work with the breath itself.
And like Dhammadhatu suggested - samadhi practice is the basis for vipassana practice.  You can't have one without the other.  Moreover, Buddhism itself IS an insight tradition.  It IS vipassana.  Concentration is only a means.  Some traditions really push the envelope and develop that means - concentration - to the point of the immaterial attainments while others only touch on the border of jhana.  Different practices work for different people.  But it all begins with "one", "two", "three"...

The 1st Jhana is achieved due to the efforts you put into keeping your breath on the object, essentially the effort on keeping the object in focus is Vitakka & Vicara (initial and sustained application).
There are times your mind may stick to the object of focus. Even then periodically check and bring back re affirm your focus.
Also when it comes to what you focus keep it on one subject of either the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness of 4 Brahmavihara and also note everything is conditioned hence subjected to the 3 characteristics. [Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta]
When you let go of distraction, you have to do it properly. A distraction becomes a distraction because the sensation if gives if it is bodily. Even memories and through that pop up has a sensation associated with it. If there is a notable sensation have a look at it, and wait a little while with it - about 3 breaths maximum, and then come back to your meditation object. This may have a damping effect on subsequent distractions.
So you seem to be applying the effort hence you seem to be doing the right thing.

You should refer to the Satipattana sutta. While it contains advice on breath meditation, it also guides you about the objective of meditation.
Falling short, you may encounter but a momentary bliss, which, since is something that is arisen, will perish.
If you do chose to comment on this answer, I'll dig out more material for you from the original sutta versions.


text:
Did the Buddha state that there is only one way, and state/imply that any other path (such as those practiced by yogis) was futile?
This question mainly came up to my mind as I thought about how interconnected some concepts and practices of Buddhism are with other spiritual practices, such as meditation, and the concept of letting go.
Was the Buddha ever questioned about something of this nature, and did he ever make this clear at any point in his teachings?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn11 for the Buddha's statement that there are no true recluses beyond the Sangha.

“Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse,
  only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines
  of others are devoid of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar
  your lion’s roar."

The Buddha is careful not to deny the achievements of others, but framing achievement through the understanding of the four kinds of clinging, he implies that others may reach a very close goal, yet through having wrong view with regards to Self, through not penetrating anatta, are still clung to it, and hence have not cut off clinging (and therefore craving, which correlates directly with suffering) at the root, when declaring so.

"Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging
  to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and
  observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.
Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full
  understanding of all kinds of clinging, they do not completely
  describe the full understanding of all kinds of clinging. They
  describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures
  without describing the full understanding of clinging to views,
  clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.
  Why is that? Those good recluses and brahmins do not understand these
  three instances of clinging as they actually are. Therefore, though
  they claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of
  clinging, they describe only the full understanding of clinging to
  sensual pleasures without describing the full understanding of
  clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to
  a doctrine of self.
Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full
  understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures and clinging to views
  without describing the full understanding of clinging to rules and
  observances and clinging to a doctrine of self. Why is that? They do
  not understand two instances…therefore they describe only the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures and clinging to views
  without describing the full understanding of clinging to rules and
  observances and clinging to a doctrine of self.
Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full
  understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and
  clinging to rules and observances without describing the full
  understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not
  understand one instance…therefore they describe only the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and
  clinging to rules and observances without describing the full
  understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self."

With regards to the way to the goal, since the purpose of recluseship at the time was to comprehend experience (stress/suffering) as it actually is, with direct insight, there will only be one correct answer. In a world of anicca, anatta follows naturally, unless one relies on a transcendental (beyond experience) notion of Self. Therefore, the above quote is a fair statement.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn26 The Buddha himself had two teachers to whom he went to before his enlightenment, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, who came very close to cessation in meditation, but not having the insight into impermanence, could not arrive at the true cessation of suffering.
Patanjali states that 'The restraint of the modifications of the mind-stuff is Yoga.', which is the cessation the Buddha practiced (the ceasing of mental fermentations). However, Patanjali then infers a transcendental notion of Self (I assume it is implied that once modifications to the mind cease, the True Self is said to be left), which, if it is to Be, is logically beyond conditioned experience as it is an independent entity, and hence not verifiable in the here and now. Such a position naturally creates doubt and does not lead to final release.
The only path within Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path, which encompasses right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. Yogis may be accomplished in many of these and that would be a great attainment for them and their students, but all other than the Buddha stumbled at right-view - the first step, because they conceived of their notions of Self.

As the phrasing is stated, no, he avoided such a general remark. In fact, he criticized those who think that way through a common phrase found in the pali canon: "Only this is true, anything else is wrong".
For example, in MN 95, we read him saying:

it is not proper for a wise man who preserves truth to come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’”

On specifics, however, he did criticize things like methods against goals, causes against effects and whether things are a certain way or not.

“When he says thus: ‘It seems that one who kills living beings… has wrong view, will always, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell,’ I do not concede that to him.
...
“Now when a monk or brahman says thus: ‘It seems that there are no evil kammas, there is no result of misconduct,’ I do not concede that to him.
-- MN 126

He's also known for having taught other people's doctrines. For example, in one of the suttas, he taught a brahmin the practice that leads to meeting the Brahma (I can't really find the reference right now, sorry).
That comes as someone who is evaluating whether what people are doing produces the results that they claim will happen, and not for someone who is criticizing others for not looking for what he looked for.
In this case, it appears that if all brahmins want is to join Brahma, and if the Buddha recognizes that what they are doing indeed would make that happen, it seems unlikely that he would be that critical. By what is shown in the suttas, I guess he would let the brahmins be or just point out to his own disciples that, as far as suffering goes, they are not free from suffering.
Therefore, this also means that if someone claims that something leads to cessation of suffering when it doesn't (by the Buddha's understanding), he could decide to say so (and I'm fairly certain he did so a few times).
Also, he does state that all paths that lead to cessation of suffering have the eightfold path within them (in maha parinibbana sutta if IIRC).

Now, there's some minor controversies of wording in some suttas, related to mindfulness, which is referred to as the "the one-way path". Some people interpret it as the Buddha saying "this is a way that only leads to / directly leads to nirvana" while others might read as "this is the only way that leads to nirvana".

Are you quoting "Only this is true, anything else is wrong" out of context? Wasn't this a phrased used by the Brahmans and the Buddha replied this phrase shouldn't be used without evidence?

@Dhammadhatu i wrote that that phrasing can be found at many places, and illustrated one of them. The context is available thru the link, and i presume one can then search around the canon and see how that phrase comes about when spoke by the buddha and make their own judgement. My opinion is stated at the beginning: i think he wasn't keen on declaring statements like this

The Dhammapada states the Buddha's path is the only path to complete purification. This is obviously the truth since it is the only path that completely seeks to uproot all self-identity.

273. Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
  passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
  best.
274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.

However, Buddhism does not deny other spiritual paths may provide lesser positive benefits.

In short, the Buddha said, there is one path for the purification of beings. Some meditation techniques the objective is blissful states. Buddhism does not say there is one path for this. Some of that the Yogis teach might very well work for this but if you are looking for the Buddhist goal of Nirvana there is only one path. What a Yogi teachers you may take you to some other goal like birth in Deve or Brahma realm but this is not the Buddhist goal. For the Buddhist goal of Nirvana there is only one and only path.
The path of the Yogis is futile in trying to achieve the Buddhist goal through they may achieve what the goal of the technique is supposed to achieve.