text:
What is the meaning of “becoming, birth, old age & death” in the 12 links?
Finding resources to better understand the meaning of the 12 links of dependent origination has been challenging for me.
The best resource I've been able to find to decipher the meaning thus far is this dharma talk.
2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination
In it, the first 9 links are described in a fashion that makes sense and rings true but the last 3 are still fuzzy to me.
1: ignorance
the choice to ignore that which is uncomfortable
(i.e The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect. It contains a wrong view about the world which leads to unskillful movements in the world. This wrong view should be investigated and replaced with a more skillful view which makes more skillful movements in the world possible. e.g. You burn your hand on the stove. Within this context, the choice to IGNORE the discomfort, to cling to views, gives rise to suffering. Suffering is the persistent pressure by the sensory motor brain to pay attention to the feedback and correct the wrong view in its sensory-motor predictive model of the world.)
ignorance is the condition for
2: unwise intention
is the condition for
3: unwise attention
is the condition for
4: unwise mobilization of body and mind
is the condition for
5: the 6 sense bases
directed to receive and interpret sensory input (perhaps unwisely)
is the condition for
6: contact
the sensory experience. which may be interpreted unwisely
is the condition for
7: feeling tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral)
is the condition for
8: craving (to pull towards or push away)
is the condition for
9: clinging
is the condition for
10: becoming
is the condition for
11: birth
is the condition for
12: old age and death
The speaker suggests that “birth and becoming” refer to the creation of an identity
associated with suffering and that “old age and death” is a synonym for suffering.
This is too fuzzy for my liking and I desire a clearer and more precise understanding.
I think this means
The wrong view that “happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience”, when clung to, gives BIRTH to an identity whose mission is to attain that sensory experience by BECOMING the identity required to attain it.
So “birth and becoming” kind of make sense to me, though I am still somewhat uncertain if this is the meaning the Buddha intended.
“Old age and death” however does not make sense to me.
If this is just a synonym for suffering, why didn't the Buddha just say “suffering”.
My impression is that he chose his words very carefully.

Aging & death are defined as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various
beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness
of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality,
degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away
of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their
perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of
time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass:
this is called death. Thus this aging and this death are together
called aging-and-death.
SN 12.2

The most important word in the above definition is "beings" ("satta"). "A being" is merely a "view" or "convention" (SN 5.10) founded in "strong clinging" (SN 23.2).
For example, "aging" in SN 12.2 above is not the greying of the hair and the wrinkling of the skin. Instead, "aging" above is when you look into the mirror and start to lament: "My hair is greying; my skin is wrinkling; I am getting old". "Aging" is the aging of "a being" rather than only the aging of a physical body.
Aging & death are a type of suffering, as follows:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering.
SN 56.11
‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by
aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering, what is its
origin, from what is it born and produced? When what exists does
aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does
aging-and-death not come to be?’
As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
aging-and-death does not come to be.’
SN 12.66
And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as
condition, formations come to be; with formations as condition,
consciousness; with consciousness as condition, mind-and-body; with
mind-and-body as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense
bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with
feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging;
with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition,
birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death plus/and sorrow, lamentation,
pain, displeasure and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent
origination.
SN 12.1

In short, when aging & death occurs, suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair) will inevitably/simultaneously occur.
For example, if you have craving (ordinary love), attachment and identification with five aggregates you call "my mother"; when the aggregates of "my mother" end, this is the "death" of the "mother" identity. Due to the craving & attachment, causing the sense of "loss", there will simultaneously be suffering. This is most simply explained in SN 22.1.
For example, if you watch TV and see some lifeless bodies on the TV news in an earthquake in Iran, you do not suffer at all or, otherwise, suffer much less than seeing the lifeless body of "my mother". Why? Because there is no attachment to those lifeless bodies in the Iranian earthquake.
In summary, the word "death" means the death of "an attached to being" or "identity". As SN 12.66 says, the cause of the suffering of aging & death is "acquisition" ("upadhi"; "attachment"). Thus, the idea of "death" will always simultaneously cause suffering.

“When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.” Eureka! This seems to fit precisely: So long as the choice to pursue the sense-desire via birth and becoming is rewarded with acquisition, ignorance is rewarded, clinging to “wrong view” is rewarded and we remain trapped in the cycle of suffering.

Only when the unskillful choice of ignorance is not rewarded by acquisition does the mind feel forced to search for an alternative way to alleviate the suffering. Only then will it feel compelled to think more deeply about its unskillful choice to ignore the discomfort which is feedback to be investigated for insight. An insight the mind desperately needs to find to break the cycle of suffering. Thank you. This sounds exactly correct. The op was satisfied and delighted in the blessed one words. ;)

The speaker suggests that “birth and becoming” refer to the creation of an identity associated with suffering and that “old age and death” is a synonym for suffering. This is too fuzzy for my liking and I desire a clearer and more precise understanding.
I think there's some truth in that (i.e. what you say the speaker suggested), and  that the specific type of suffering that the Buddha tried to find a cure for was death.

Consider the devadutas (loss of youth, health, life) -- which we're told are what caused Siddhattha to leave home

More canonically there's MN 26:

Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too, being liable to be reborn, sought what is also liable to be reborn. Myself liable to grow old, fall sick, die, sorrow, and become corrupted, I sought what is also liable to these things.
Then it occurred to me:
‘Why do I, being liable to be reborn, grow old, fall sick, sorrow, die, and become corrupted, seek things that have the same nature?
Why don’t I seek the unborn, unaging, unailing, undying, sorrowless, uncorrupted supreme sanctuary, extinguishment?’

One of the synonyms of nibbana is "undying" or "deathless"

The story of Kisa Gotami seems to me typical of how people suffer from death.

And I like this comment from MatthewMartin (talking about lay people):

"People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk."

It is the last of the 12 nidanas (like the "QED" in a proof)

So “birth and becoming” kind of make sense to me, though I am still somewhat uncertain if this is the meaning the Buddha intended.
“Old age and death” however does not make sense to me.
If this is just a synonym for suffering, why didn't the Buddha just say “suffering”.
So I think that death is meant fairly literally -- it's not a synonym for suffering but it's an important occasion for suffering.
The proof of that I think is that there may be (at least in theory) death without suffering, or non-suffering even though there is death.
To the extent that it's a synonym perhaps it can be understood as a synonym for "loss" -- e.g. "death" of a loved one generalizes to "loss" of some familiar experience.
And so I think the question is, "Given that death and suffering exist, what causes death, and what causes the suffering associated with death?"


text:
What's the ordering of 6 realms of rebirth?
I've just started learning Buddhism, and currently investigating 6 realms of rebirth. What confuses me is that it seems different sources give inconsistent ordering of the realms.
For example, in the book Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction the 6 realms of rebirth is ordered (from highest to lowest) as follows:

Gods
Humans
Titans
Ghosts
Animals
Hell

However, in wikipedia article of Saṃsāra it presents the following order:

Gods
Human
Demi-god
Animal
Hungry ghost
Hell

I also checked wikipedia for 六道 and some other Chinese online articles (since I can read Chinese). It seems they prefer to order demi-god realm above human realm.
So in summary, there seems to be inconsistency of relative ordering of two pairs of realms among various sources, namely the relative ordering between human realm and demi-god realm, and between animal realm and ghost realm.
I'm wondering which is right? Is there a definitive ordering? Maybe different branches of Buddhism define them differently?

The Pali scriptures say:

Mendicants, there are five destinations. What five? Hell, the animal
realm, the ghost realm, humanity and the gods. Nirayo, tiracchānayoni,
pettivisayo, manussā, devā—
AN 9.68
And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced
in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
AN 6.63

Other examples of the above ordering are here.
Therefore, the ordering of the five realms in descending order is:

Gods
Humans
Ghosts
Animals
Hell

However, it appears one sutta, from thousands, namely, Iti 93, includes a separate asura realm and places asura below hungry ghosts.

Being unaware of these three fires, humankind (pajā = people) delights in personal
existence.
Unfree from the bonds of Māra They swell the ranks of hell, existence
in the animal realm, asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts.
Iti 93

Therefore, based on Iti 93, the descending order is:

Deva gods
Humans
Hungry ghosts
Asura gods
Animals
Hell

Asuras are mentioned in Iti 93.

Thanks so much for your answer. Both yours and Chris's answers are very informative. I'm accepting yours as it gives scriptural source for ordering. But to be honest I find it weird to order animals below ghosts.

thank you however it appears ChrisW threw a spanner in the works with Iti 93, which appears to place asuras lower than hungry ghosts. regards

I suspect that both the ones you quoted are correct -- the thing is that, you're assuming that "titan" and "demi-god" are the same, but I don't think they are -- according to this reference to The Thirty-one Planes of Existence, a "demi-god" is presumable a Deva (above human) whereas a "titan" is presumably an Asura (below human).
As for the ordering of Animal versus Ghost, this reference agrees with Dhammadhatu's answer (based on Pali scriptures). The Wikipedia article you cited explains its reasoning (i.e. that the contrary ordering has an origin in the Tibetan tradition):

According to McClelland, this realm is the mildest of the three evil realms. According to Yangsi Rinpoche, in contrast, the suffering of the beings born in the realm of the hungry ghosts is far more intense than those born in the animal realm.

Even then I'm not sure what criteria people use to order them -- for example "hungry ghost" might be closer to (more similar to and more akin to, more closely related to) human than the animal realm is, therefore higher in that sense -- even if the suffering of that state is greater, therefore lower in that sense.

Thanks so much for your answer. Now I think maybe definitive ordering doesn't make much sense to begin with. They just represents results of different kinds of karma. If one is always craving and insatiable, he might turn out to be a hungry ghost. If one is always ignorant and acting by animal instinct, he might turn out to be an animal. It's just different kinds of suffering. Maybe it's best to understand it metaphorically.

Are they even "ordered"? I mean, apart from the fact that they are necessarily listed in some-or-other sequence, not all at once, in the text, and hell is maybe portrayed as the worse or most intense... but rebirth in the animal state might be unpleasant too, and long-lasting (SN 56.48). I suppose they correspond to the "three poisons" -- i.e. ghosts suffer because of desire, animals ignorance, and hell-beings aversion. I'm not sure where Asuras fit into that classification.

So apparently Asuras suffer because of Envy rather than Want, which maybe puts them a step above Ghosts -- and they're more powerful. More powerful (so perhaps arguably "higher") than humans even, so arguably above, except perhaps more evil than a good or Buddhist human, so arguably below. That and maybe some of them are kings of hell (another argument for theirs being a lower realm). See also Iti 93; and this definition of Asura lists several suttas in which they're mentioned.

I'm also inclined to think that they are actually not ordered. Thanks for the info and insight! Really appreciated.

On terms of the second order, I see it a lot in East Asian Mahāyāna as well, with asuras right beneath humans, so it might not be Tibetan. I will take a look at some sources when I can.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does the path according to Sheng-yen compare with scholastic Buddhism?
Sheng-yen was an important Taiwanese Buddhist, with I believe Rinzai and Soto tranmission.
When describing the Buddhist path, he says that the 10 faiths are reached only after extensive success with koans, and adds that this is equivalent to stream entry. All very reasonable. However, I think it shows relative humility, compared to zen, about Theravada Buddhism.
I also believe that the formless realms are essential for advance to the 10 abodes in the Tientai model of the "complete" teaching.
So I wondered:

when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize
non-attachment within the formless realms?
and is the stage of dry wisdom - form the Surangama Sutra - the same as
the 5 grades in Tientai?

when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize
non-attachment within the formless realms?

Sheng-yen taught Chan which is a synonym for Zen meaning something like meditative mind. This is comparable to meditative absorption in Theravada.
Juxtaposing how the two traditions fragment their understanding of those states is a little tricky, because Theravada shreds the meditative absorptions into miniscule details even going as far as detailing step-by-step the precise instructions needed to attain meditative absorption. Not my forte, but the Theravadins seems to like it!
Chan on the other hand takes on a more natural and organic approach. Flexibility, suppleness and malleability come to mind. In my view, this approach is much more in-keeping with suchness. There is little to no emphasis on moving through the jhanas and the arupa ayatanas. The exertion to reach those states is generally seen as a hindrance. The aim - if we can call it an aim - is that Zen realises meditative absorption in every waking moment; it is not seen as a practice confined to a zafu cushion which is more favoured in Theravada.
I know this doesn't answer your question, but instead points out how it is difficult to level the two schools such that they meet harmoniously.

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


text:
Definition of Dukkha
What is the precise meaning of the word "dukkha", often translated as "suffering" in Buddhism?
Is it correct to say that Buddhism gives a method to get rid of all sufferings, including the most basic physical suffering (=illness/pain etc.)? So in that case even if some disease has no cure with our current medicine, Buddhism somehow has a way to free us from the pain of this disease?
Please if possible provide a precise reference.

There is no such thing as "physical suffering". All suffering is mental. There is physical pain but physical pain is not suffering.

i answered your question at What is the most accurate translation of the word 'dukkha'?

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, [...]"
"And what is pain? Whatever is experienced as bodily pain, bodily discomfort, pain or discomfort born of bodily contact, that is called pain."
That's what the link of SarathW says. So physical pain is suffering according to this reference.

The Buddha summarised all dukkha as attachment. "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." The words "in short" or "in summary" (Pali: "saṃkhittena") means all dukkha is attachment. You should learn the literal meaning of the teachings rather than impute your own misinterpretations upon them. The scriptures say in many places "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair" are caused by attachment; such as in SN 12.2: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

Okay let me copy/paste two citations, from the Buddha himself (I am assuming the english translation is accurate):

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha;"
"Whatever is experienced as bodily pain, bodily discomfort, pain or discomfort born of bodily contact, that is called pain."

Okay, so then 1) and 2) combined give the implication: "bodily pain is Dukkha". Where am I interpreting anything?

yes, the noble truth ends with the words:  "IN SHORT, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

So do we agree that pain is part of Dukkha? Hence cessation of Dukkha implies cessation of physical suffering?

there is no such thing as physical suffering. only the unenlightened believe in physical suffering. buddha said all suffering is attachment

Then why does the buddha talk explicitely about "bodily pain, bodily discomfort"?

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html

Great, this answers the first question. What about the other two questions?


text:
Why do I rock/sway when people pass me meditating outdoors, and stop when they're gone?
When I meditate outside/outdoors, when my body becomes super relaxed, I notice my upper body starts to rock/sway forwards and backwards whenever anyone passes by, or when I am being observed from a distance. Sometimes, the rocking is fast, sometimes it is slow. Sometimes it is very soft and barely perceptible, sometimes it feels like one of those bobbers on the counter of a Chinese restaurant. It stops when the person/people go past, or observations stop.
It also stops if I telephatically make a request for it to stop. And restarts if I ask it to continue (while the people are still walking by).
Does anyone have any idea of what/why is happening?

{Edit for people who get triggered on the 'why' above in my former question: Has anyone else experienced anything like this, or know what is happening}?

(Note: When I'm deep in trance, I do not consciously observe anything or anyone - my mind is still -, yet I'm aware of everyone and everything around me, almost like I'm everywhere at once. The only thing I examine, if I get so inclined, is myself).

@xxandra. Your question is good and perfectly valid. Let me know if you have any questions to my answer.

@Tranquility. Thank you! I have added a question to your answer.. I only seek to understand; although understanding is not necessary, it would be nice. And thank you very much for the links. I shall study them.

Rocking and swaying is caused by the arising of Rapture (Pīti) which is one of the 10 Imperfections of Insight and one of the 5 Jhana Factors.
If practicing Vipassana meditation just note it until it passes away. If it doesn't stop after a long time, make the resolution to make it stop by saying "stop" in your mind. It will then stop either after the first resolution or after a couple of them.
If practicing Samatha meditation just return to the primary meditation object, ie. the breath at the anapana-spot. Don't take either of the Jhana factors as an meditation object. It will not strengthen them but instead weaken them, thereby not leading to Jhana.

I understand that, and it does stop if it gets uncomfortable/distracting, and I say "stop". But over several occurrences, I have learnt to accept it, and just return to the primary meditation object. However, the last two times, I have meditated close to a path, and I noticed now it happens only when someone walks by on the path, and ceases when they are gone? I find it strange...? It suggests to me that perhaps the cause of the rocking might be external to my constitution?

@xxandra: I don't think we need to reach for externalities. The energy arises when you feel you are being observed; that speaks to an attachment around social evaluation. Is the energy joy that people appreciate your spiritual depth? Is it relief that they do not mock you for doing something different? It might help to track down that thought (whatever it is) so that you're conscious of it when it arises, or it may be enough to note it as a social evaluation so that you can bring that part of your attention back.

@TedWrigley I do not reach for anything in this state. I am just aware. I merely observe. Also it starts before I become aware I am being observed. It is some form of energy, for it sets my physical body into motion.. Unfortunately I can't track the thought, because there is none in that moment. My mind at that point is like the still surface of a lake in moonlight. I only observe. This is difficult to explain... In truth, my only thought when it happens is "stop", "continue", and a sense of inexplicable wonderment. I "feel", without the need for thought - until afterwards.

@xxandra - seems like a description of second jhana.

@xxandra: The stillness of moonlight on water belies movement in the depths. Attachments are pre-linguistic mental forms. Beginners (generally) can only see them in terms of coarse, conscious, mental 'grasping after', but you're not a beginner. So you're aware of someone approaching before you're consciously aware; so you're aware of the attachment arising before it enters the conscious mind as a thought. That's good. But don't convince yourself it isn't an attachment merely because it manifests differently.

@xxandra. I wouldn't worry too much about the cause. It's more important to observe the minds reaction to the rocking and swaying and also the movement itself.

There is a sutta called Dutiyaanuruddha Sutta in which Sariputra's exceptional wisdom is pitched against the siddhi abilities of Anuruddha who was probably flexing some showmanship about his spiritual attainments. The outcome should be quite obvious: Sariputra won him over with his wisdom. Consequently, Anuruddha stopped playing games with these things, knuckled-down and applied himself with yoniso manasankhara (wise attention). He later went on to become one of the liberated ones.
Sujato translates Sariputra's key phrase as: "It would be good to give up these three things. Instead of focusing on them, apply your mind to the deathless.”

I appreciate your response, and thank you for it. But I sincerely do not feel it applies to me. For one, I do not believe this to be a siddhi, certainly it is not one of them. Merely an effect of meditation that I do not fully understand as of yet. You presume I focus on it. I do not. There is a difference between focusing and observing (awareness). Also, the phenomena comes first, before my reaction to it... Before that, I am thoughtless, I am nowhere, and everywhere... If that makes sense.

My apologies. Your question read like it held the premise and enquiry of siddhis. Nothing really wrong with that, but undue focus on siddhis it can become quite problematic for some people. I will read your question again and factor out the siddhi references.

Perhaps what I describe as "awareness" is what you call "wise attention"? But yet, 'attention' would imply a form of focus. Awareness = it is there, I notice it, feel it, but I do not dwell on it, returning to the primary object of meditation. And yet "returning is not the right word, because I never left the primary object of meditation. Everything happens within it. I wonder... If I do focus on it, will it reveal it's true nature to me? I shall try this next time...

If you get there again, ever-so-gently let go of the meditation object like you would untie a boat from its mooring. See what is there.

True, siddhis will come in their own time. If you do not mind my asking, which references do you perceive as siddhis? I never considered being able to feel energy, or awareness during meditation as a Sidhhi.. Siddhis are like, clairvoyance, clairaudience, lévitation, etc...?

I will. If I remember lol. Thank you very much.

@xxandra - in retrospect, it looks like I was unnecessarily reactive with one of your other answers to a different question. Flagging isn't my usual way of responding to disagreements in other people's practices. I had only noticed last night that it seemed to have caused a fair bit of upset. It might be helpful for you to know that my response was a knee-jerk reaction and not carefully thought-out. A better approach would have been for me to enquire further about your practice. There's no need to respond. Kind regards.


text:
Dwelling Upon Seeming Levels of Emptiness?
Note: the term sunyata here is being used from the Mahayana context.
Not too long ago, I asked this question about concentration and openness where I suggested that concentration was a hindrance to my practice. I received an answer which informed my intuitive understanding by @Andrei Volkov, in which he recommended a book called The Relaxed Mind by Dza Kilung Rinpoche. This changed my practice and opened up a new discernment concerning space, time and consciousness - essentially the aggregates and their ever subtle perceptions. It also led me to the Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa who also adopts this same openness method.
Thus, shifting my practice to openness (as opposed to strict focus on a single object) I've been noticing a different kind of "not-there-ness". To put this another way: the perception of body as it is normally known is no longer there, but I am still able to function perfectly fine - actually better in terms of how worldly things normally affect me.
It's most noticeable when sitting with people and when they are talking to me. There's a part of my mind that thinks, "who is this person talking to?" because, even though they are looking at me, it is like they are speaking into empty space, like they are in the room by themselves.
Please be clear: what I have described above is NOT the negation of suffering which should become clearer from the following.
I'm not able to reference the aggregates as they usually operate, but I discern that there is the perception of "not-there-ness" which presents as an extremely fine notion of space. However, that space-perception seems to have a definitive location situated where the body was previously and conventionally seen as solid matter giving rise to some sort of here-ness, and thus it's opposite: there-ness.
The form aggregate has taken another blow, but the feeling/perception aggregate has just dropped into a more refined level and thus is still able to create clinging to the idea of "space-body" because space-body has a very subtle pleasantness. In Theravada this might be known as arūpa-rāga: craving for immaterial existence thus perpetuating the consciousness aggregate in its entirety. It took me a while to see this, and I could only see it by opening my practice from where I was able to gain situational understanding or a bigger picture.
Here in these regions, it seems the motions of samsara cleverly uses indirect methods to sustain the samsaric body. I guess it can only operate at its current level of awareness, and if that level of awareness is largely formless then its movements should naturally reflect the subtleties of formlessness. Therefore, from a Mahayana perspective, I cannot see this as form is emptiness and emptiness is form. I cannot see this as sunyata. However, it may offer promise, but in ways that are now counter-intuitive.
My question is a little obscure, but I think it has some relevance:

Having studied sutta after sutta and read various works of the
masters, I'm making a reasoned observation that the enlightened mind
knows it is liberated, that it knows sunyata, but to what extent is that knowing not of the self such that one can know sunyata?
There always appears to be a claimant to the ever emerging subtleties
of emptiness rendering the idea of ending suffering a fallacy.

After nearly five years of intensive lay practice I'm getting quite tired of it all and find myself practising less and less. Although this is more helpful than a hindrance.
NOTE: I'm not sure if the term space-body is associated with any school. I've just used it spontaneously and completely impromptu. If it does have such an association, it may not share the same conceptual understanding with regard to the context of this question.

Your understanding is standing in the way of your progress.
In “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form” for example, the word “emptiness” has two different referents. The first one points to the direct meditative insight of the emptiness of all manifested form. The second refers to your understanding that the insight provokes. It is the discriminating mind getting in the way, extruding the direct meditative experience through your conceptual understanding, so to speak.
Please note that I am not saying that the normal understanding of that expression showing an equivalence between form and emptiness is wrong. I am pointing out that there is a subtler meaning at the juncture you’ve reached.

In addition, [the instructions] on clarifying doubt and subduing hinderances are as follows. While maintaining the continuity of the great, indwelling fundamental nature, if one thinks that the nature of this awareness is empty, the one ascribing emptiness to this is the intellect, which has a focal point. The way the meditative concentration with a focal point does not produce Buddhahood is as stated in the “Perfected Skill of the Lion” tantra: “The meaning of the nature of phenomena cannot be seen through meditation with concentration. The samādhi of one’s own appearances eludes the direction of concentration. Free from elaboration, the nature of phenomena is equal to the limits of space. All mental considerations are devoid of conceptual fixation with objects. The dharmakāya Buddha free from the four extremes, such as existing or not, is one's own awareness.” (“The Yeshe Lama,” by Jigme Lingpa, translated by Lama Chönam and Sangye Khandro, 2008, page 57)

To which I will add: ... in leaving behind the idea of independent inherent natures in all things, we must not lose sight of the fact that reality is nondual, and thus, the appearances are not something separate and apart from the naturing and its essential cognitive role, i.e., knowing is the activity of manifesting, not understanding what is manifested.
Accomplishing this through a direct insight is the threshold of full enlightenment, and thus, this is the final step in the direct and universal path to enlightenment. However, the difficulty in this last step is that all mental formations must be left behind, all impulses to do anything whatever must be left behind, all perception and apperception must be left behind, so that all limitations are sublimated into absolute freedom.
In practice, this is a state in which there is just spaciousness. No thought of a meditator meditating, or of accomplishment, enlightenment, wisdom, perfection, nor anything else. No thoughts arise. Sensations are no longer attended to, not because one stops attending to them, but because that discriminating response is simply no longer functioning. If you turn your mind toward such a sensation, it will be actively apperceived as a sensation of a particular type, so the mind must rest as it is: spaciousness —but not just empty dead space. Instead, one reaches a stage where there is just clear lucidity, in the sense of reflexive knowing that we can also call clarity. This means our normal perspective evaporates. Time no longer passes. There is not even a need for the concept of "now." Just illumination without limit. Beyond this, there can be only poetry.
One final suggestion. Ok, a few... You have to stop looking for answers in texts, because that just provides conceptual understanding, and as I said, that is no longer helping you. You have to have faith (or trust, which is the same thing) in your path. Stop knowing what everything is in that limiting way and realize the necessarily true meaning of knowing. Perhaps look into where that “claimant” you mention is. You might be truly surprised.

I agree with everything in your answer, and your last paragraph nailed it.

Impermanence is unsatisfactory. Chasing impermanence leads to suffering. What then should be known as known?
To this point, the Venerable Sariputta teaches:

DN34:1.3.23: What two things should be produced?
DN34:1.3.24: Two knowledges:
DN34:1.3.25: knowledge of ending, and knowledge of non-arising.
DN34:1.3.27: What two things should be directly known?
DN34:1.3.28: Two elements:
DN34:1.3.29: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

The conditioned and unconditioned elements are known by their characteristics:

AN3.47:0.3: 47. Characteristics of the Conditioned
AN3.47:1.1: “Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:1.2: What three?
AN3.47:1.3: Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:1.4: These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”
AN3.47:2.0: Characteristics of the Unconditioned
AN3.47:2.1: “Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:2.2: What three?
AN3.47:2.3: No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:2.4: These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.”

These characteristics guide the knowing.
Knowing is informed by perception. Perceiving the form of a cup, one perceives simultaneously the emptiness within. They are one and the same. By relinquishing form, emptiness necessarily grows as described in MN121:

MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.

Are not the unconditioned and the conditioned reflections of each other? Where lies the knowing of that?

Thanks for the feedback. The element characteristics are now described above.

Thanks for your valued input. In the unification of unconditioned and conditioned as described thus: Form is empty. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness. Where lies the knowing there? Or have I gone too far?

Thanks for the additional question. MN121 may be of help here.

Yes, MN 121 seems to be like the whack-a-mole game for me recently, showing up here, there, and everywhere. I'll spend some time with MN 121 again and see what occurs. Great answer! ;-)

Consider listening to MN121. That listening is in the moment and will require relinquishing  the skittering of thoughts. Listen to Pali along with English. The restlessness of the mind becomes apparent and can, as a result, be relinquished. Relinquish to insight.

self is a thought
emptiness begins to be known by consciousness when the self thought is dissolved by openness samadhi
knowing emptiness is wisdom
consciousness knows emptiness with wisdom

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


text:
Vajrayana, Mahayana, Theravada, "Magic", Using breath control as an anchor to meditation? Where are the boundaries of Bhuddism that merit down votes?
Let us rock the boat for a moment, in intellectual detached discourse, free of the emotions, if this is possible?
My question:
Is this a group tailored and friendly only to Theravada /Pali Canon?
Are Vajrayana / Mahayana (or any other paths) not accepted here as paths of Bhuddism? When I look at the link/title, I saw, and see "Bhuddism", not "Theravada"?
As an example, on a question about the possibility of the breath ceasing during meditation, I gave an affirmative answer to help increase the understanding of the OP (the person asking) based on my own personal experiences of observing my breath stopping for a while at some points during my meditation. In sharing, I mentioned (on the side) that I use breathing techniques (from Vajrayana?) (i.e. I control my breath) as an anchor to still my mind (I find it very effective and expedient in attaining 2nd - 4th Jhana if I do short sessions [anything less than an hour], and I prefer it to concentration or mantras as my anchor [I find them slower and not often effective]). Does it matter what means one uses to attain 4th Jhana? Is the attainment not the desired goal?
Someone said controlling my breath to deepen meditation is extreme? Let's us assume for a moment it is so. Which is more significant? To attain Jhana and all that it entails, or to stick to "accepted breathing"?
In answering or asking questions, I have been accused of magic (simply because I ask about some of the side effects of my meditations I do not fully understand (like swaying or complete awareness of surroundings from all directions in the same moment), of yoga (I do not consider myself a yogi - I am not young or flexible (is watching the breath or controlling the breath considered yoga?))
I talk about Sidhhis, which some find offensive as not part of Bhuddism. Let me then rephrase them as "side effects" of meditation or of exploring the nature of the mind. Do not all who meditate notice certain side effects at some point into their practice? Is this offensive to Theravada?
I mentioned "spirit" (i.e. the astral form), and people said, "this is not Bhuddism". What does Bhuddism call the state of being in meditation when one loses sense of the physical body, senses unfold, and one is no longer restricted to the physical body? Does such a word exist, and is the employment of it not within the scope of Bhuddism?
My practice is about compassion and love, my goal is enlightenment, and service to all beings. I embrace the four noble truths, and follow the eightfold path. Obviously my path passes through attaining direct insight into the nature of mind, emptiness, attachments, emotions etc.
Wikipedia
As expressed in the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, the goal of Buddhism is to overcome suffering (duḥkha) caused by desire or craving (taṇhā), attachment to a static self, and ignorance (avidya) of the true nature of reality.[7] Most Buddhist traditions emphasize transcending the individual self through the attainment of Nirvana or by following the path of Buddhahood, ending the cycle of death and rebirth.[8][9][10] Buddhist schools vary in their interpretation of the path to liberation,
The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').
Judging from the down votes or antagonism that I'm very surprised to see, would I be wrong in forming the conclusion that people here down-vote on the basis of Theravada, or more specifically, on their own interpretation of their own path to liberation? Would this not make them no different from Islam which teaches that all others are infidels, or Christianity, which forcibly claims that all unbelievers will go to hell??? Or the Pharisees (Jews) (who stick to their own dogma i.e. their own interpretation of their own path, and persecute all who deviate?).
I thought Bhuddism embraces that there are many paths which lead to the same place? Am I wrong in saying that Buddha taught different paths to different people, each according to their measure, based on what sacrifices there were prepared to make to seek enlightenment? If one finally attains enlightenment, and forgoes nirvana to become a Bhudda, does it matter by what means/path one got there, whether one lengthened or shortened one's breath to meditate, or how long (or otherwise) it took one to get there (enlightenment)?
What are your thoughts?

Xxandra, I responded to the original comment thread that triggered this reaction. You are right and I fully support you. Everyone, let's try and not pour more oil in the flame by turning this into an argument of whose Buddhism is better. I recommend we freeze this question and let everyone cool down for a day or two.


text:
How does one hold themself in full awareness during new complicated and complex learning?
In one of Eckhart Tolle talks (can't find the exact one yet) he mentions how most people "loose themselves" at/during "work". i.e. - lose awareness of body, emotions and thoughts.
For me this seems to be true - "digging deep", my consciousness becomes completely enmeshed in the academic or work at hand.
Although similar to this question, I see this answer of mindfulness as a general way of working.
But more specifically, is it possible for those fewer moments of very new, complex and complicated learning, to be like this?
I cannot see how they can coexist.
What would that look like and how is it done/practiced specifically?

Similar questions: here and here.

Also, this and this.

Awareness is your most natural or primary form of existence, and it is always in existence effortlessly throughout your experience.
When you are deep in work that is familiar to you, you get immersed or in a "flow" state because your mind agrees with the work for one reason or another, and therefore it is at ease being identified with the work. This clears the way for you to fully take the seat of your natural state of awareness and experience its effortlessness. Any relevant thought flows freely out of this pure awareness. Your mind and awareness are at one with the work.
When the work is new, surprising, or complicated, your mind takes the lead and begins to identify with the challenge, trouble, or effort it is experiencing. This identity is cemented through conscious or subconscious thoughts like "I have to figure this out!" or "I can't figure this out!".  This creates an energy of effortful strain that blocks the feeling of flow that you experience when you are fully in the seat of your awareness.
In order to fully take the seat of your effortless awareness while doing complicated work, you need to see that the work has nothing to do with your true, purest identity, which is the awareness itself. The attachment to "having to figure it out" must be let go so that you can relax, be open, and in acceptance of any possible outcome whether or not it may be deemed favorable.
While this may seem simple conceptually, it's not necessarily easy because of the habitual nature of the mind to create or attach to an identity that is not awareness. It often does this when it is taken off guard by high-contrast / reactive situations.
Meditation is a great way to confirm through experience that you are not your mind, thoughts or effort, and to build your mind's trust that it can detach from any other false identity. This will allow you to fully take the seat of your most pure identity, awareness.
Occasionally try looking directly at your awareness - become aware of your awareness - and try being aware of it in the context of your thoughts and identification tendencies.
This direct experience or "seeing" will gradually (and sometimes quickly) change the mind's habitual nature so that it won't react because of its identification position relative to the work. This trust within the mind will eventually draw you fully into the seat of awareness without a meditative exercise. This will enable you to undertake the thought process with great clarity and without a strenuous feeling, no matter the complexity of the work or situation.

Very helpful thank you. Im trying to do it now as I write this comment, it is weird, like I ma here and not here? haha, will have to practice.

I cannot see how they can coexist.

That's true. They can't coexist. Studying, doing academic work etc. is a mental activity. Practicing mindfulness meditation is also a mental activity. They can't coexist. One can be mindful of e.g. reading or thinking but that happens after the phenomena took place, not during.
The general advice is to try to take breaks during long hours of e.g. studying and practice mindfulness meditation during those breaks.

Being exclusively task-focused can be improper:

AN10.61:2.13: I say that lack of mindfulness and situational awareness is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled.
AN10.61:2.14: And what is the fuel for lack of mindfulness and situational awareness?
AN10.61:2.15: You should say: ‘Improper attention.’

A clear example of this is thinking about a math problem while walking into a lamppost. Ouch!
Yet even if we are thinking deeply about the Dhamma while walking, we should not run into lampposts. We need to be situationally aware, and not obsessed. In particular:

DN34:1.6.73: ‘This immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression.’
DN34:1.6.74: ‘I mindfully enter into and emerge from this immersion.’

A key benefit of walking meditation is its cultivation of situational awareness.
So where mindfulness inclines to task, situational awareness inclines to context. Getting stuck at either end or even in the middle isn't advisable:

AN6.61:11.1: ‘The sage has known both ends, and is not stuck in the middle. He is a great man, I declare, he has escaped the seamstress here.’Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.”
AN6.61:12.2: “Yes, sir,” they replied.
AN6.61:12.3: The Buddha said this:
AN6.61:12.4: “Contact, mendicants, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves one to being reborn in one state of existence or another.

In summary, pay appropriate attention and don't consume anything larger than your head. Learn incrementally, gently and in harmony with the rest of your life.
For those uncomfortable with the term "situational awareness", please substitute the Wikipedia definition of Sampajañña.

Situational awareness as in the widening of the visual field? Is situational awareness dependent on the senses, does it need form to occur?

@NeuroMax mindfulness and situational awareness relate to contacts and their origin. Grasping at either or both is suffering.

Situational awareness is a ridiculous translation of sampajjana

@Dhammadhatu, thank you. I've updated answer with Wikipedia link. Please restrain your negativity. Your feedback is valuable, but divisive.

"don't consume anything larger than your head" - I think that would be womderful, but it seems to survive in the academic and business world this is the normal...or drinking from the fire hose as they say. How do we work with that reality ? Push back, like in Zen Programming?

@P.S. skim the stream and don't face it full on.  I've spent half a century as a software engineer keeping up with technology.  Don't chase the wave. Don't fight the wave. Surf the wave. The only way to survive is to abandon preconceptions, learn quickly and stay connected with the world. Mindfulness and situational awareness on the cushion and off the cushion.

Eckhart Tolle is not a Buddhist therefore his teachings are not related to Buddhism.
Buddhism instructs to have mindfulness & clear comprehension with whatever task you are doing.
If the task is immoral or wrong, mindfulness & clear comprehension will abandon doing the task.
The term 'clear-comprehension' ('sampajanna') means to understand how what you are doing fits or does not fit into the Buddhist Path. 'Sampajjana' is a factor of wisdom rather than a factor of zombie concentration. This video by a senior and intelligent Buddhist monk explains mindfulness & clear comprehension clearly.
Therefore, if your complex learning task is about creating new Green technologies that help the world, it can be done with mindfulness & clear comprehension, because it is clearly comprehended the task is not immoral & the task is beneficial.
But if your complex learning task is about creating new Nuclear or Drone Weapon technologies, it cannot be done with mindfulness & clear comprehension, because it should be clearly comprehended the task is immoral & should not be done.

hmmm, that is interesting on the how it fits...Im not sure if all of s sudden very complex material would be easier to stay mindful with if it was for only good, but perhaps there is something to that...

the word "mindful" does not mean what you are inferring

okay, probably not the right word, not sure how to describe it...maybe just the opposite of getting in flow state, but without strain

Lord Buddha applied only one way to hold himself in full awareness during new Complicated and complex learning. That is Called "Vibaggawada".  Throughout all his teaching he explained this.  That is break into parts and understand the parts. Check all the sutta what has he done.  Lord buddha break all complicated issues into parts and direct all them into Nirvana by replacing them one after the other according to their preferences. Learning Nibbana Is complicated issue but if we learn four Noble truths, Patichchasamuppada, Eight forld path, Abhidharma, It is not that much complicated and you can keep the awareness during the learning of small small parts of the said complicated One.
Learn his Bodhisaththa autobiography stories.  Who he questioned all complicated issues by breaking them into parts.  How he made arguments by make them into fight each other meaning to say questioning opposite directions in similar answers. So wonderful and beautiful. How he questioned himself to find Nirwana alone without any guidance.
May Triple Gem Bless You!!!


text:
How do Mahayana Buddhists perceive the world?
One Mahayana Buddhist said, "we act as if each person has his or her own consciousness, sensation, and thoughts."

Does everyone Mahayana Buddhist believe that he lives in a world in which all people have their own consciousness, sensations, and thoughts?
Following the Buddha, we act as if each person each person has his or her own consciousness, sensation, and thoughts. We encourage each person to become fully aware of his or her own sensations (both physical and emotional), impulses, feelings, and thoughts. This awareness, combined with diligent, common-sense effort to stop doing things that create suffering and do and improve thoughts, actions, and feelings that create healthy vitality, joyful works, and peace of mind in action and stillness lead to Awakening.
But we do not engage in philosophical speculation or take philosophical stances. The question, as stated, is not accurate because it would imply that Mahayana Buddhism holds an individualist philosophy.
We invite each and every individual to stop creating suffering and confusion, to cut off the roots of harm and evil. We do these efforts ourselves and share the work with others. We realize that, functionally, each person has awareness and makes choices. But we do not assert ideas about the meaning of words like, “person,” “people,” or “self.”

This means that every Mahayana Buddhist believes that he lives in a world in which all people do not have consciousness, sensation and emotion and he thinks that all other people are just a projection of his mind, but he treats them as conscious sentient beings?
Thank you.

There are endless questions about solipsistic views on here. Just search solipsism. Also, can you supply a source for the quote because it looks like you've misunderstood.

https://www.quora.com/Does-everyone-Mahayana-Buddhist-believe-that-he-lives-in-a-world-in-which-all-people-have-their-own-consciousness-sensations-and-thoughts/answer/Sid-Kemp?filter=all&nsrc=1&sncid=13007579360&snid3=18505051095

Solipsism is a kind of neurotic madness built around the centralization and specialisation of an egoic worldview. It's the ultimate grandiose superiority of I am special, so special that I have created this world and the people in it. The quote in your question does not accord with this view.

I have seen answers about solipsism here, but they do not answer my question
For example, in my world, you and all other people are philosophical zombies, but I believe that somewhere there is a parallel world in which you have consciousness, sensations and thoughts, but I and all other people are just philosophical zombies

@NeuroMax I expect the statement may be about emptiness and non-self on the one hand, but agency and compassion on the other -- not solipsism.

@Stephan, your conclusion is not supported by the statement you quote. “We act” does not support your conclusion that “every Mahayana Buddhist believes.” For example, Descartes, who acknowledged that he couldn’t know if others were like himself, still granted that others that were also human probably were like him, but he wouldn't do the same for non-humans, who he believed were not conscious. So he acted as if others were conscious beings like himself and believed that this was true. The use of the verb “to act” was in response to his inability to have direct proof of what he believed.

Thank you sir. My question is whether Mahayana Buddhists believe that they live in a world in which all people have consciousness, sensations and thoughts, or do they believe that each person lives in his own world, where he is conscious, and all people - just imagination. (philosophical zombies without consciousness, sensations and thoughts)

@ChrisW - it looks like Stephen has ascribed a solipsistic meaning to the Mahayana quote, but what you are saying is that I'm missing the broader interpretation of the question?

@NeuroMax I guess there are two ways to answer the question -- one is to explain why the quote IS an accurate description of Buddhism, but ISN'T meant to imply (and shouldn't be understood as) solipsism. Or another way might be to explain why the quote is NOT a good description of Buddhism. But instead of only saying, "You're wrong and the topic is boring, the quote isn't meant to imply solipsism", it would be more interesting (or relevant to this site and topic) to explain what the quote does mean (or what Buddhist doctrine actually is).

The OP may interpret the quote as solipsism because they don't know any better than to interpret it that way -- but I think it's not the best way to explain the topic.

@ChrisW - my apologies, I see where the question points now. Thanks.

Can you explain what the quote does mean?

I'll try to but it'll take me a bit of time (which should mean "in a few days" because I don't have much spare time per day).

No problems. Thank you

The quoted question/answer on Quora is not representative of Mahayana IMO.

Related: Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?, What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?

From my current understanding this is how I see it.
Firstly, I need to explain the average run-of-the-mill mind...
In Mahayana what defines a person is ego. In its most simplistic terms ego is a collection of thoughts and feelings that cause one to lurch aimlessly towards various degrees of pleasure and retract from various degrees of pain. It is a reactive measure that aims to create a sense of safety and security. These very acts of aversion and attraction give the sense that we are in control, that the decisions we are making are individualized, personal and contribute to our wellbeing.
The truth is that all those feelings, thoughts, aversions and attractions centre around the characterization of worldly perceptions shrunk into a singularity called [insert name here]. That is to say, they have arisen in dependence upon whatever has been perceived, but then mistaken itself as existing in conflict to the world it lives within; the very world ego gathered its characterization from. By isolating oneself from the world in this way, suffering endures. This is called ignorance or to use a more user-friendly term not seeing clearly.
With the above in mind, when we act as if each person has his or her own consciousness, sensation, and thoughts, there are two things happening...

That they are actually already free from ego and suffering. They have Buddha nature right now. Sunyata.

But yet they are ignorant: not seeing what is right before them. The recognition of this is a recognition of an independent consciousness or ignorance. You cannot ignore ignorance or else there would be no compassion, and thus you couldn't give a teaching or help in other ways.

Just to make this somewhat paradoxical point more prominent, chapter 17 of the Diamond Sutra might help neutralize the dissonance that occurs from that paradox, but understand that the teaching is the recognition of ignorance and where it points is sunyata; they are seemingly one and the same.

“Subhuti, it is just the same when a disciple speaks of liberating
numberless sentient beings. If they have in mind any arbitrary
conception of sentient beings or of definite numbers, then they are
unworthy of being called a disciple. Subhuti, my teachings reveal that
even such a thing as is called a ‘disciple’ is non-existent.
Furthermore, there is really nothing for a disciple to liberate.”
“A true disciple knows that there is no such thing as a self, a
person, a living being, or a universal self. A true disciple knows
that all things are devoid of selfhood, devoid of any separate
individuality.”

This moves us nicely onto your last point: it is not that Mahayana believes that all is a projection of mind, but that all perceptions operate in unison with the world and that there cannot be personal decisions made on the basis of the incalculable processes currently at play. There is no special character in the middle of it all. All is what is.
If you had said, "but I made a decision to upload this question". That is absurd! Think about all the necessary requirements that were needed for you to type and upload this question: the computer and it's components, electricity, internet, your mother and father... You made no decision, it just happened in dependence on other factors.
In this way, sunyata is how we come to understand the emptiness of how we erroneously characterize ourselves, and we see the sheer complexity and utter simplicity of it all in a single moment called the here-and-now.

You could look into recorded sayings if you want to know how Mahayana Buddhists see the world.

There are also descriptions of celestial bodhisattvas in e.g. Santideva's Bodhicaryavatara (A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life").
If you mean specifically how do Mahayana Buddhists think about "the universe", that's more of a scholastic question, that will depends on which sutra your interlocutor bases their answer on. Tendai talks about the 3,000 worlds in a single thought,  Hua-Yen says that 10,000 Buddhas can be seen preaching the dharma on the tip of one hair; both represent different interpretations of how reality is like a dream.
But no Mahayana Buddhists are not solipsists, though your quote seems more a statement of "self power" than it is 'solipsism'

Jiriki (自力, one's own strength1) is the Japanese Buddhist term for
self power, the ability to achieve liberation or enlightenment (in
other words, to reach nirvana) through one's own efforts. Jiriki and
tariki (他力 meaning "other power", "outside help") are two terms in
Japanese Buddhist schools that classify how one becomes spiritually
enlightened.2 Jiriki is commonly practiced in Zen Buddhism. In Pure
Land Buddhism, tariki often refers to the power of Amitābha Buddha.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiriki_and_tariki

This means that every Mahayana Buddhist believes that he lives in a
world in which all people do not have consciousness, sensation and
emotion and he thinks that all other people are just a projection of
his mind, but he treats them as conscious sentient beings?

This is incorrect and the answer on Quora to this question is not representative. The Mahayana is a broad vehicle and followers of the Mahayana are at many different stages of the path. Beginners in the Mahayana path naturally have much different beliefs than those who are approaching the perfection of the path. The very question itself is much too simplistic to get any kind of rewarding or satisfying answer.
If you have a specific question about a specific doctrine/person of the very many who belong to or ascribe to the Mahayana path, then please go ahead and ask such a question. However, I would advise that a more efficient way to get a glimpse into what Mahayana believes is to pick a specific school and study. You could also look at numerous beginner books. This is the one I would suggest. That should give you an overview of the various schools in Buddhism and what they generally believe and where they disagree.

Buddhist doctrine includes the idea of a "middle way between extremes" -- which is used in various contexts. In general one meaning of "middle way" is, "neither extreme", or, "avoiding to the two extremes". And philosophically or logically, I see it as meaning to beware of dilemmas or false dichotomies.
I think that the question (to which that quote is a reply) is slightly tricky to answer, and wants a careful answer. It's tricky because it invites "extreme" answers, e.g. either "yes" or "no".
But the two extreme answers are possibly too extreme -- either might be untrue, or have harmful consequence.
And so the quote is trying to provide a careful answer which is neither exactly "yes" nor "no" (not careful enough perhaps, if you didn't understand the answer; but it may require a lengthy explanation).
I think there are several fundamentals of Buddhist doctrine which are important to understand. If I can invent a simile, these fundamentals are like rocks -- and the answer is like a ship, which must steer a course which takes into account and doesn't hit (doesn't contradict) any of these rocks.

Non-self
One of the fundamental elements of doctrine is "non-self". That means (very briefly) that there's nothing which deserves to be called "myself", furthermore that a "self-view" (e.g. "this is I, this is me, this is mine") is a dissatisfactory view and gives rise to suffering.
Examples of self-views being an occasion for suffering include, "I am sick", "I am healthy now but I will be sick", "I want something I don't have", "I want to keep something I can't keep", "I'm better than you are", "I'm not as good as you are", and so on.
There's a simile here (not Mahayana but perhaps all forms of Buddhism agree on this kind of topic):

Suppose a dog on a leash was tethered to a strong post or pillar. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, it stays right beside that post or pillar.
In the same way, an uneducated ordinary person regards form like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ They regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ When walking, they walk right beside the five grasping aggregates. When standing … sitting … lying down, they lie down right beside the five grasping aggregates.

I'm not sure what solipsism is, something like "I exist and you don't", or, "I'm sure I exist and I don't know about you". And I think that those views are not Buddhist doctrine for various reasons, and one of those reasons is the "non-self" doctrine.
I don't know if Descartes' "I think therefore I am" might be an example of solipsism. I think that according to Buddhism, proving that oneself exists is just reinforcing an unfortunate view. Possibly a more accurate formulation is, "A thought is perceived which gives rise to a (perhaps transient) sense of self".
Also classical grammar (a.k.a. "logic") implies nouns and subjects -- "If a thought is perceived therefore a 'thinker' exists". This isn't necessarily true -- "unicorns" don't "really" exist even though there are words that describe them; and some languages (e.g. Chinese) aren't as strict as Western languages at requiring subjects and nouns in every sentence.

Emptiness
There's a doctrine of "emptiness" which I feel I ought to mention if only because it's one of the more specifically Mahayana doctrines.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think its method is to look at the components of a thing -- to observe that what one might have thought was "a thing" is just a collection of other things -- and its purpose is to see things as they really are and perhaps to not get too infatuated with or attached to things (because attachment is associated with suffering), and to "unbind".
Like, I don't know, "I think therefore I am" is just a thought, a transient thought -- and not an especially worthy thought in my opinion, and contrary to Buddhist doctrine which recommends against self-views.
I think the practice of emptiness applies to everything -- to things you're attracted to or may be addicted to; to things you dislike; even to mental states (not "things" at all) for example anger etc.
So perhaps that's a reason NOT to say dogmatically "I exist" or "other people exist" -- because the non-self and emptiness doctrines are seen as beneficial, and as true or axiomatic. And so you get the circumlocution in the quote, i.e. "'we act as if' each person...".

Nihilism
It's explicitly wrong (a so-called wrong view) to interpret "emptiness" as "nothing".

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

Instead we're taught there is, if not exactly "good and bad", and least "skilful and unskilful", "suffering and non-suffering", and "consequences of actions".
That's another explanation or reason for, "We act as if ...".

Sentient beings
There's a concept of "sentient beings" in Buddhism, which might be more central to Mahayana Buddhism, which I don't know so much about. According to me that term has two meanings.

One is that it refers to, broadly, anyone with feelings. So includes all people, and also animals (and possibly beings of other worlds too, including gods and ghosts). A characteristic of a sentient being is that they're able to feel hurt (able to suffer), and as good Buddhists it's our duty and desire to at least avoid inflicting hurt (with what's called in the West "the Golden Rule" in its "negative or prohibitive form" i.e. "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated " being used as an argument).
Perhaps you'd agree that the quoted statement is better than its opposite, i.e. "We DON'T act as if etc.", which might be sociopathic.
So if you're a sentient being for example then I don't want to kill you, steal from you, make you lose your family, nor lie to you -- that's basic ethical behaviour.

Another interpretation, and I don't know if this is a mainstream view, is that a "sentient being" is (whether by definition or axiomatically or evidently, I don't know) "self-aware" or having a "self-view". Remembering what I wrote earlier, a self-view makes a being vulnerable to suffering: "I hurt", "I want", "I have lost", etc.
With enlightenment perhaps "self-views" and the notion of being "a being" are discarded. See for example SN 5.10 where Vajira refuses to see herself as a being.
Incidentally this whole topic is described as a "thicket" that's not worth thinking about.
But that touches on your question again: perhaps a relatively "enlightened" being is not a "sentient" being in the usual sense, and being enlightened is relatively immune to any grief. EVEN SO I expect that most of us should probably act "as if" they were sentient, vulnerable.

Compassion
Compassion is important in Buddhism. Perhaps it's fundamental in Mahayana Buddhism.
It seems to me that compassion is an antidote to being self-centred (where, if you remember, being "self-centred" is a cause of suffering).
Compassion isn't "pity", note: pity implies comparison, being better-off than someone else.

A lot of what I wrote here is -- due to my unfortunate ignorance of Mahayana -- based on (possibly earlier) suttas. Maybe that's alright, because the quote says "Following the Buddha" etc. implying the earlier doctrines (the buddha-vacana, "words of the Buddha") are on-topic.
I'll conclude with a quote from the current Dalai Lama (who I suppose is as much an authority on Mahayana as anyone). There was a video where he says, I paraphrase, "If I think of myself as special -- as "His Holiness" or a "the Nobel Prize Winner" -- then I'm trapped, imprisoned [in an identity-view]. Instead I see myself as being just like everyone else."
I think that's compatible or inline with the quote you asked about, and unrelated to solipsism.


text:
How can I change my perception to overcome reification?
Reification is a way of conceptualization or objectification or mental modeling through which we form ideas, beliefs, and make an understanding of our surroundings. However, I saw a youtube video which explains that we have to overcome reification and/or social conditioning for spiritual enlightenment. But, the video does not explain the 'how'.
So, my question is, how can we change/work-on our perception of the surrounding/ environment/society/beliefs, etc so that we see things as they are, like 'yathabhutam'?

Brilliant video, agreed. (The first 9 minutes are really great, then he gets distracted and starts rambling.)
He answers your question right there in the video. He says, reifications are overcome by questioning them.
Let me explain in my own words.
Reifications is the substance the ego is made from. Since ego is a conglomerate of reifications, by overcoming the ego you overcome reifications and vice versa.
And how do you overcome the ego? By letting go of attachments, biases, prejudices, overgeneralizations.
How? Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions these states in you.
Then try and notice how in these situations the ego is trying to defend itself. The conglomerate of reifications is trying to defend itself by convincing itself that its reifications are right. It's a kind of feeding, upadana, the ego is feeding itself by cycling over these thoughts, by holding onto these reifications, prejudices, overgeneralizations and so on.
The more you watch it the better you see it, and then you should make a resolve to not allow the ego to keep on feeding and defending itself. You make a promise to yourself that every time you see your ego justify itself, you will challenge it.
For example, if you have a prejudice against dark-skinned people, you catch your ego holding on to it. You catch yourself feeding onto the thought "I'm better because my skin is lighter. I am more civilized." You notice how your ego tries to convince itself that it is better than someone else. As soon as you notice that, you stop it. You tell your ego: "not so fast, this is a reification. There are plenty of horrible people with white skin and plenty of highly evolved people with dark skin". Then you force yourself to behave in accordance with this understanding. You go and talk with dark-skinned people with  friendly love and friendly respect. Most importantly, you change your attitude.
Similarly in other situations, whenever you feel "it must be this way only and not another", "only this is good - the rest is bad", "only my opinion is valid, the other is not". All of these are reifications the ego feeds on. By systematically stalking and catching the ego in the middle of real life situations, social situations, especially the ones where you get emotional - you can recognize and overcome your reifications.
Once you develop the habit of doing this, your mind will automatically challenge its stereotypes and generalizations.
The most important point to understand, you don't need to be in a monastery in order to practice prajnaparamita. You must practice right in the middle of Samsara, because reifications are the very building blocks of Samsara itself. By working with reifications as they manifest in your emotional reactions in your everyday life you're not just learning to see things as they are - you are walking the real path to real Enlightenment.
P.S.
By the way, when the speaker in that video says that animals do not reify nor suffer, with all respect he is not well-informed on this detail. Animals do engage in semiosis and as all semiosis is essentially reification therefore animals do reify. For example when a bear smells honey and assumes that means food (an example of primitive semiosis), if he or she climbs a tree and finds an empty hive the bear's assumptions fail and there's arising of dukkha, of course! It's just not as deep and convoluted a tangle as it is with humans but animals absolutely do reify and suffer.

You must practice right in the middle of Samsara - this short sentence is extremely illuminating, the meaning of which is overlooked by many.

First off, it’s a brilliant video.
Normally, spiritual teachings don’t explain what meditation practices are doing, focusing instead on how to do them. That is, we engage in a practice, following instructions, with a goal in mind, which must, sooner or later, itself be let go of, but we never question how the meditation does its magic, nor even what—in general—spiritual insights are an instantiation of.
Well, the speaker in that video does explain what they are—a lifting of the veil of reifications of things, concepts, identities, qualities, even of time and space positioning, that we take to be real in, and of, themselves, and to which we are attached. And the one very important point he makes, is that the work of meditation—its magic—is to strip us bare of everything we hold dear—and that will offend us, possibly even harm us temporarily, which is why it’s never pointed out to beginning meditators. Only the end goal is spoken of.
So, with that foreshadowing, my answer is that the “how” that you are looking for is a meditative practice—any meditative practice that appeals to you, so long as it goes beyond mere “mindfulness.”
And as you should see by that answer, the “how” is long and involved, so other than someone telling you what vocabulary to use to denote its various stages and aspects, in your language of choice, you won’t find a simple answer.
However, I can point you to two articles that go into significant detail about what these reifications that we hypostatize are, and what we are trying to overcome with meditation—the first article—and then, how the process is universally found in all spiritual traditions, using four examples, showing what the ‘moves’ are in plain English (these are articles that I published):
Understanding Experience
What is a meditative experience? Well, first, what is an experience?
A Universal Direct Path to Enlightenment
Showing how Plotinus, Jigme Lingpa, Xu Yun, Avalokitasvara & the Buddha described the same necessary meditation moves to reach enlightenment.
I hope this helps you.

For sutta references, reification can be understood as "name and form".

SN22.28:1.2: “Mendicants, if there were no gratification in form, sentient beings wouldn’t love it.
SN22.28:1.3: But since there is gratification in form, sentient beings do love it.
SN22.28:1.4: If form had no drawback, sentient beings wouldn’t grow disillusioned with it.
SN22.28:1.5: But since form has a drawback, sentient beings do grow disillusioned with it.

The escape from reification is meditation on the formless:

DN34:1.4.27: Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures. The formless is the escape from form. Cessation is the escape from whatever is created, conditioned, and dependently originated.

But meditation on the formless is a huge leap. We have to start somewhere concrete. The first part of mindfulness meditation is:

MN10:3.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

With even the first step we can count breaths to loosen the grip on reification. Reification is deeply embedded in our day-to-day life. It takes a lot of practice. The Buddha recommends mindfulness meditation (MN10). And as the wonderful video says, it will take quite some time.

The Buddha calls the process of reification "papañca" and points it out as the source of all conflicts in the world both internal and external which is a really profound yet difficult point for us to reflect on.
I would recommend The Ball of Honey Sutta MN 18 and the introduction to it by Thanissaro Bikkhu where he expands on the process of papañca and how to overcome it - also worth looking at the other suttas mentioned there: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN18.html
The Ball of Honey is really worth multiple multiple reads!

Hello and welcome to BSE. Please use one account if possible, it helps both other users and moderators.


text:
Anatta and the question of motivation
I am a layperson of protestant Christian background interested in buddhist thought and trying to clarify some of the basic concepts for myself. One of the stumbling blocks is understanding the motivation of a person to renounce the temptations of temporary happiness in this life, if the concept of anatta is true. If sacrificing family, children, wealth etc. only leads to another person being born maybe in some heavenly realm or in better circumstances of this world (with a lot of more things to renounce) without your consciousness, your memories, your "soul", what is the point? And do not use the easy explanation that the worldly happines pales in comparison of enlightment. A person not experiencing the enlightment in his/her lifetime would not know.

(Edit to add)
Thank you for the explanation. I just have one comment. I am not saying that I am not interested in enlightment, I am just confused about its attainability. I have understood - to put it bluntly - that the highway to enlightment is meditative life in a monastic community and the best that most laypeople can hope is a better rebirth.
And that brings back my original question. Suppose that you are a layperson struggling with the limitations of everyday life. You resign to the fact that you cannot escape the committments that have been heaped upon you, you cannot invest much of your time to meditation and contemplation, and that at prsent the enlightment is an unreachable ideal. You do, however, your best to to pursue right conduct and hope that your chances are better in the next rebirth.
However, the individual who is then reborn carrying the consequences of your karma, does not identify with you, does not have memories of your life, is not able to make logical conclusions of the consequences of your present actions, you in fact are a total stranger to him. In what sense are you then reborn.
Or, in another way round. Suppose that I am tempted to actions that would ensure my temporary happiness but would load me with negative karma and would lead to a bad rebirth. If the person that is reborn carrying the negative consequences of my actions does not really identify him/herself with me and is for all practical purposes stranger to me, why should I care for a bad rebirth?
Please, be patient. I am not making these questions for being flippant, but these are really difficult points in the buddhist doctrine for me to understand.
(Edit to add)
Thank you again for your answers. However, I think they somewhat miss my point. That is probably due to the fact that English is not my native tongue and expressing rather abstract ideas is a challenge for me. But I try to clarify my problem using myself as an example.
I have had a relatively happy life and was born in good circumstances in an affluent country and got a good education. If the doctrine of rebirth is true, someone in the past accumulated some good karma that I inherited in my birth. I, however, do not have any information of that individual, I do not know his/her life, do not share  his/her memories and experiences, and certainly do not have any feeling that I personally have lived his/her life and carry still in my present existence its consequnces. And the same holds true regarding the individual who will be born after my death experiencing the consequences of the karma I have accumulated. I do not have any real connection to that future person. And if after maybe one hundred future rebirths this chain of beings finally ends with an individual, who reaches the enlightment and enters the nirvana, it is certainly not me who finally obtains this achievment. So, it might be my duty to live in a way that some total stranger after my death might fare somewhat better than I. And if I am tempted to behave badly (and escape the temporal punishments) I might feel that there will be a future rebirth and a person suffering from my actions, but he/she does not know me, is not able to pinpoint the guilt to me and certainly does not feel that he/she is actually me and rightly suffering because because thr bad things I have done.
Once again, this problem is related to the concept of the lack of a "soul" or "real self" that journeys through this samsara to enlightment, maybe through a thousand of rebirths. According to my understanding this "anatta" leads to a situation where the consequences of my actions are just heaped to some total stranger that is borne after my death, and it does not sound just. Of course it still might be true, but it sounds to me almost as dismal a doctrin as the Calvinistic predestination.

Anatta is a difficult and often misunderstood concept. When Buddhists talk about no-self, they mean it in the context of self-conceptualization: a mental object that is identified as the 'self'. In other words, we construct a mental object that we identify as ourself, and fall into the trap of thinking that mental construct is the reality, not a creation. 'Being attached' to some outcome or thing merely means that we have incorporated that outcome or thing into that mental definition of ourself, such that (say) we feel frustration if we don't have it in reality, anger if we're prevented form getting it, joy if we achieve it, sadness if we lose it...
It's an open question what might be left when all attachments are finally stripped away. Some Mahayana sects talk about the difference between 'big mind' and 'little mind', where the latter is the identified self and the former is... that. But the former isn't 'personal' in quite the way we normally think of selves, and it's hard to get a grip on it without experiencing it. At any rate, Buddhism mainly aims at the realization that these cognitive structures (those that make up that mental self-object) aren't exactly true or real. They may be functional and pragmatic within a social context — it would be extremely hard to navigate a social world in which no one had a name or title or role — but such selves should be held lightly, as useful fictions.
The concerns about death and rebirth (and I hope you'll excuse my somewhat mystical perspective) come from a solidified understanding of the self. People believe that some particular aspect of that self-object is 'real', and it's that aspect of themselves that persists on into the next life, (hopefully) learning and advancing over the course of lives. I'll make no judgement on that one way or another, except to note that it can sometimes lead to a personalized notion of karma, in which karma takes on the anthropomorphic role of punishing wrongdoing and rewarding goodness. Karma is not personal; karma is cause and effect. Every step we take in the world — every act, every word, even our mere presence — has an impact on the world and the people around us. It's like dropping a stone in a pool of water: the stone (the act or word) might disappear immediately, but it creates a wave that propagates, and what is a propagating wave but a movement that recreates itself over and over.
One doesn't need to go beyond death to see rebirth. People who suffer cruelty become hard and cruel; people who are given love give love. Not always (because the interactions of karma in the world are more complicated than that), but often enough that we can see how our attitudes — our inner mental constructs — are adopted by others. However, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone down the road (past our death) might suffer from the same attachments, attitudes, and fixations that plague us, precisely because we put those attachments, attitudes, and fixations into motion in the world. Is it us, is that reincarnation? Well... it's certainly the reinvention of the fabrication we call ourselves; whether it's more than that is beyond my pay grade.
We can think of Buddhist practice as prophylactic. While it's not wrong to think about prophylaxis is selfish terms — as something that serves and protects the individual — the real goal of prophylaxis is to prevent a disease from spreading to and through others.

This is a very impressive answer.  The prophylactic is not an analogy I’ve heard before and it’s a good one.  Cheers!

One of the stumbling blocks is understanding the motivation of a
person to renounce the temptations of temporary happiness in this
life, if the concept of anatta is true.

Generally, the best of renunciates don't have any significant worldly temptations. For example, you can read the Buddha's experience in AN 3.38. This picture of the Buddha is far more rational and logical than the renunciation found in the New Testment, where Jesus said to give up wife, brother, sisters, children, family, etc, "for His sake"

If sacrificing family, children, wealth etc. only leads to another
person being born maybe in some heavenly realm or in better
circumstances of this world (with a lot of more things to renounce)
without your consciousness, your memories, your "soul", what is the
point?

The above is wrong understanding of Buddhism and merely represents later ideas of puthujjana philosophers such as Buddhaghosa, Nagarjuna, etc. The original Buddhists teachings never mix the doctrines of 'anatta' and 'kamma & rebirth' together. In the original Buddhist teachings, it is always the same 'being' that is 'reborn'. As for anatta, the Buddha rarely taught it to laypeople.

And do not use the easy explanation that the worldly happiness pales
in comparison of enlightenment. A person not experiencing the
enlightenment in his/her lifetime would not know.

The above may be true. However, as originally said, the best renunciates come to Buddhism already disillusioned with the types of happiness the world has to offer them. Thus, they have no choice but to take it on faith enlightenment is better than sexual or reproductive happiness.
Since you say you are interested in Buddhism but not in enlightenment, possibly the teachings at the following link for Buddhist laypeople may interest you and help you with your life: A constitution for living : Buddhist principles for a fruitful and harmonious life.

I think for a lay-follower, renunciation in the fullest extent of its religious meaning is an unrealistic idea which can often be fraught with what I call orthodoxy-gone-mad. Far too much emphasis is poured into its ancient meaning and moulded into a manual of strict adherence for the lay-follower. This goes contrary to modern-day living. It's not that it isn't a practical approach in and of itself, but it needs to be synergized within a compatible contextual environment for the fruits to be realized. Trying to adopt this kind of renunciation into lay-life can be like chewing rubber: progress is painfully and unnecessarily slow due to its incompatibility. A monastic-type approach cannot accommodate for the dynamism found in real-life situations. It's far too artificial, whereas life is much more real, organic and congruent. If you can think largely outside these religious ideas, and not crystallize them into some definitive goal, you'll go far.
Furthermore, for the lay-follower there is another type of renunciation that is much more suited: it is renunciation through here-and-now living. It's not that we go directly for the renunciation, but that, through practice, the renunciation happens quite of its own tender and over a long period. The Eightfold Path might help you understand this further.
In this respect I guess you might be wondering what it is that is renounced? We simply renounce our beliefs, ideas, reactions, and how we place our identity amongst the myriad of situations we find ourselves in.
Just to be clear: one doesn't need to sacrifice any physical objects or people, although objects and people may dwindle from your life if they are not helpful to you - that happens quite naturally. As a personal example, most of my friends don't speak to me any more because I'm not able to help them uphold their identity. A person only feels like a person through the eyes of someone else. If they cannot identify themselves through you, they tire of you and move on. The friends I do have say they cannot place me anywhere in their mind. I have no category; there's no identifiable theme to my interactions. When my son wants to play, I play with him like a child; when someone needs a listening ear, I listen with openness; if someone wants help with writing a letter, or a DIY job, I attend in that way. If there are none of these things, then there is just that. I give myself to those moments of doing or not doing. In other words, whenever there is a situation, at that moment that situation becomes the enlightenment.
So, for lay-followers renunciation can go quite deep, taking many unintentional forms, and practice can be rich - richer than that of a monastic life. In its raw form this is love and understanding of the highest order because there is no self demanding that conditions should be imposed upon other people and situations.
The journey often has a bitter flavour for which an acquired taste must be developed. I'll be strictly honest with you, it can get very lonely at times. This is later replaced by something much more fulfilling but ordinary and simple.
When you ask "what's the point?" There isn't a point that can be defined in conventional terms. You come to understand this in your own way.

One of the stumbling blocks is understanding the motivation of a person to renounce the temptations of temporary happiness in this life, if the concept of anatta is true.
For a start maybe note that a majority of Buddhists are not ordained, not renunciates -- they're house-holders, lay-people (though the very first Buddhists or followers of the Buddha were renunciates, like the Apostles).
Most of the suttas (doctrine) and almost all the vinaya (discipline) is addressed to monks.
But the doctrine if not the discipline may be true and helpful to everyone, whether or not they're a renunciate.
To answer the question, I think the traditional hagiography of the Buddha himself portrays him as (originally) a prince married and living in luxury -- not just "tempted" by happiness as already "possessing" all that a house-holder might want. But then he was introduced to the fact of sickness, old age, death -- realised that the possessions really are (only) temporary -- and "went forth" (to live as a renunciate) to discover the solution to the problem (of death and loss and so on).
If sacrificing family, children, wealth etc. only leads to another person being born maybe in some heavenly realm or in better circumstances of this world (with a lot of more things to renounce) without your consciousness, your memories, your "soul", what is the point?
Well, several points:

I think that Buddhism is interested in mental, and subjective (as well as physical) phenomena. The Dhammapada starts, something like,

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness (sukha) follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.

So more so (or at least as much as) "wealth", what people are invited or recommended to "sacrifice" are unskilful mental states and habits -- avarice, anger, conceit, ignorance.

Buddhism recommends good family relationships -- good social relationships in general.
There are some who live as hermits but that's one option, not the only way.
Even monks I think may be encouraged to stay on good terms with (to behave correctly towards) their family i.e. their own parents (though I think there's also a sense in which the sangha is their adoptive family).

I think that the anatta doctrine implies there's no especial or permanent self even within "this life". There are memories but not "my" memories, and so on. There's a sense in which rebirth is happening, beings are reborn, day-to-day and moment-to-moment.
And people learn to do things to benefit other people, and to benefit your "future self".

Even if you want to be a parent, perhaps it's better for everyone if you're not too self-centred. And if you want wealth, to earn it well and handle it wisely.

The idea that what you do "only leads to being reborn in a heavenly realm or better circumstances" seems to me:

The doctrine of a specific form of Buddhism -- i.e. "Pure Land" -- not all forms
Perhaps inline with the aspirations of lay people in general -- not the Buddha's
Difficult to distinguish from a naïve understanding of Christianity (being rewarded in heaven)

I think another view (or Buddhist doctrine) is that even life in heaven may be only temporary (though a very long time); that it's hard to acquire merit while in heaven, so after your store of merit is spent you're reborn again in a lower realm; and that liberation is when you learn to stop being permanently self-centred and to stop the habits which perpetuate that.
I think even the Pure Land doctrine is something like that -- the idea isn't to live in heaven forever, it's that it's too difficult to properly practice Buddhism in this life (this realm), so the ambition is to be able to -- in future -- live in a more propitious environment where it will be possible to learn from or practice with the Buddha himself.

And do not use the easy explanation that the worldly happines pales in comparison of enlightment.
Not to be a kill-joy but it might be worth mentioning that so-called worldly happiness isn't a sure thing.
For example, "money doesn't buy happiness" (is partially true), and "store up your treasure in heaven" is plain canonical Christian doctrine (Mathew 6:20).
Marriages (whether happy or otherwise) end, with divorce or with death.
I think I once read some Muslim doctrine, something like: "Some people worship anything -- stones, or gold, or children -- subsequently learn to worship God."
In Buddhist parlance there are "three jewels" -- i.e. the Buddha, the Buddhist doctrine, and the community/[ies] of Buddhists.
And perhaps that isn't wholly unlike the motivation of the Christian Church.