text:
Is rebirth/reincarnation central to Buddhism?
Would you characterize belief in rebirth as a central component of Buddhism?
Are there Buddhists who do not believe in it?
How is this concept understood, i.e., what does rebirth mean (in as much detail as possible) to a Buddhist?

I mean rebirth after death, if that wasn't clear.

I do not believe death is a single moment in time. A person has many levels of death. Career Death, Social Death, Physical Death. As we age we go through different levels of death in a sociological view. Cognitive death is also something that can be addressed as a process and not a single instance. Zen Buddhism describes death has happening all the time (Along with birth happening all the time). Thus there is a circle or cycle of death happening throughout each moment. So to conclude, the term "death" has many different meanings that should probably be clarified.

Possible duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1456/is-a-belief-in-rebirth-a-necessity-for-buddhist-practice

Christopher - While I appreciate your deconstructionist viewpoint, I think and hope we all know with sufficient clarity what I mean by death.  If you can give me a specific concern by which the specificities of the definition become relevant, then I would be able to give a meaningful response.

"Zen Buddhism describes death has happening all the time" is a 'specific concern'. It matches e.g. Suminda's answer which says, "We pass away every moment and arise every minute". The doctrine of not-self is central to Buddhism, and affects belief in 'rebirth': who or what is 'reborn', if we can't ascertain who or what the 'self' is even in this life?

user2429920 -- I think Christopher is making a valid point- some Buddhist believe in reincarnation literally and they literally hope to stop the recincarnation by achieving nirvana. Those who don't buy into reincarnation can't easily go tell their teachers and Buddhist friends that reincarnation is bunk, so it gets reinterpreted in a manner that Christopher stated. This is a common pattern in the evolution of Buddhism where old ideas are kept and reinterpreted, (in all sorts of directions, not just towards skepticism)

OK, I was responding to the request to clarify the notion of death, which seems unnecessary to me.  It doesn't seem to me that he is talking about not-self, since he doesn't mention it, and does mention different kinds of death that a person has.  In terms of not-self, it makes more sense to me (which is not to say I find it the best viewpoint), but then the stuff about different kinds of death don't seem relevant to me.  I'd prefer for him to explain what he meant himself, no offence (your comments are valuable, too).

Possible duplicate of Is rebirth essential to Buddhist philosophy?

Great question, although I feel like the inclusion of rebirth confounded the issue,in that the question really seems to be about the idea of reincarnation.

There are two concepts here. We pass away every moment and arise every minutes. Other is rebirth after death. Rebirth is partly a belief but much of the Dhamma should be realised at experiential level. What is much needed is that at the last moment is that you maintain equanimity so you do not take a new birth. The level of stillness can be achived only by a fully accomplished person who has complete mastery over the mind and cognitive process. The aim is to develop this. Generally Buddhist take rebirth at face value but belief in this is not necessary to practice Buddhism as the emphasis is to realise the truth through ones own experience. Your experience re-enforces your belief.

I mean rebirth after death, if that wasn't clear.  Also "main equanimity" -> maintain?

I would not characterize belief in rebirth as central to Buddhism, but I would characterize rebirth as central in Buddhism. This may require some qualifications, and I'll try to be comprehensive answering the specifics along the way:
I think...

... individual buddhists who do not take rebirth as fact (those individuals exist) are not, in anyway,  misguided.

The opposite might just as well happen: some buddhists may regard rebirth as true in some misguided way; eg. talking about it, assertively even, without really understanding it.
The Buddha insisted on avoiding speculative views and looking for a much deeper kind of knowledge than mere belief or reasoning detached from reality. I think whatever one's provisional thoughts on this matter, it probably won't affect him at all, except, perhaps, until much, much later.

... rebirth does not play a central role in the teachings themselves or in the practice.

I know of no practice that deals wth rebirth with the exception for recollecting past lives. Pragmatically, understanding many of the key doctrines and practices  -- four noble truths, dependent origination, meditation, etc -- does not seem to require a position on rebirth. Say, until one is prepared and decide to actually try to recollect previous lives (well, dependent origination might have manifold lives involved in some interpretations).
On the other hand, rebirth does paint a more complete and consistent picture of the doctrine and provide a much broader perspective for our existential condition. Consequently, it makes painfully evident the critical importance of Nibbāna (without rebirth, the significance for Nibbāna and Buddhism itself can be put into question). Additionally, this existential condition of "round of births / mass of suffering with no discernible beginning" can be a key to inspire people to walk the buddhist path:

"The tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — [is greater than] the water in the four great oceans.
-- Assu Sutta SN 15.3

...buddhists who assert there is no rebirth (e.g. Secular Buddhism) definitely face a lot of challenges.

First, if buddhist literature (e.g. pali canon) are taken generally "as is", by their standard, clinging to a "no rebirth" position is wrong-view.
Having said that, if these texts are to be taken as our primary source of what the Buddha taught, there's the fact that a huge number of them are immersed in this topic.
One common temptation then is to claim that rebirth ideas were brought to buddhist thought, and literature after the fact -- that the texts got corrupted. However seriously justifying and showing how this happened is a huge undertaking. No easier than showing that a great number of texts were composed later, or that these ideas got mixed in at a very early stage.
Another temptation is to justify the no-rebirth position saying there is no empirical evidence of rebirth, but that is an unsound statement (see "Argument from ignorance" fallacy).
Putting the argument aside, if that turns out to be true, the implication of this outcome is that either the Buddha got it wrong or that the Buddha lied (or, again, the texts got corrupted). None of these are easier to show than the "rebirth passages got added later" theory -- though some buddhists do believe that the Buddha lied as means to an end (even though it's widely accepted, by the texts and common sense that an arahant has no motivation to lie).
Note I'm not saying that any of these are impossible. I'm but laying out some of the possibilities and what may be some of the consequences (and burdens of proof) of each.

...buddhists who claim rebirth is not important in Buddhism in general will have even a harder time.

This is a corollary to the last point. I don't think one can strip off rebirth from buddhism and claim the result represents Buddha's words, integrally, as we know them. Rebirth is intertwined in a large amount of the discourses and cutting it off requires nothing short of a complex plastic surgery.

As to the question about the concept of rebirth: in summary, rebirth is the continuous "reappearing" in some realm after "the break up of the body". The result of ignorance (see Nidana Vagga — The Section on Causations). It's described in general in suttas such as The Shorter Exposition of Kamma (MN 135) and  The Great Exposition of Kamma (MN 136).
I would also refer to this answer from @yuttadhammo posted to a similar question.

I wholeheartedly agree and resound what is said in this answer with the following comment:
rebirth as a concept is pivotal to Right View, the first step of the central concept in Buddhism, The Eightfold Path. From my own point-of-view, the "belief" (I see it more a principled extrapolatory common sense) in rebirth is crucial to self-motivation to become a Buddha. Thus, one is liberated from ignorant rebirth in this moment, this life, and all lives... forever! Then, one freely decides one's fate, compassionately helping beings instead of being a tragic character in this drama of incarnations.

I tend to wonder if it's not a factor of how knowledge changes reality.  At the time when Buddhism came into being, the understanding of reality was vastly different.  The core of most religions seems to be compassion, but in earlier eras, it would have been difficult to divorce this concept from religion.  But recently, the Dalai Lama has written about the need to divorce ethics from religion, which, to my mind, makes Buddhist philosophy even more relevant, b/c the practice of compassion has immediate and tangible benefits, regardless of the truth or falsity of any mythology.

Would you characterize belief in rebirth as a central component of Buddhism?

In short, I personally don't. I think the central component depends on what you want to achieve and what is the best approach for you to practice Buddhism.
As a Buddhist of Chinese Mahayana influence, I personally do not consider belief in rebirth (in the context of rebirth after death, as you have further commented) as a central component of my practice. I am more aspired to practice compassion and cultivate wisdom. I chose the Pureland practice, as I believe this is the most suitable for my circumstances, to efficiently resolve my immediate 'problems' (mastery over desires, cessation of Dukkha, helping others, and eventually enlightenment).
Buddhist customs are practised very differently in every culture. The teaching is flexible, it respects and adapts to endemic culture to optimise learning for those who wish to practice.
In Chinese Buddhism, for example, is predominately Mahayana teaching. Chinese Buddhists firstly build foundation in endemic teachings in Confucianism (to cultivate humility) and Daoism (to understand cause and effect), before focusing their preferred Mahayana school. Tibetan Buddhism, as another example, sometimes referred as 'Lamaism', focuses their study in the esoteric schools and chant mantras as a common practice.
Despite different customs, in essence, every school do not deviate from Buddha's teachings. Important teachings such as the 'Four Noble Truths', Tri-drsti-namitta-mudrā (loosely transliterated as 'Three Dharma Seals', which evaluates whether or not a particular teaching is proper Buddhism), Buddha's final words before Nirvana and so forth, are core and shared amongst all Buddhist schools.

Are there Buddhists who do not believe in it?

Yes, I have encountered Buddhists who do not fully believe in rebirth after death.
The notion of 'believe' is quite loose. If we take the context of 'believing something' as accepting an idea, then I think most Buddhist 'accepts' this idea.
On the other hand, if we take the definition of 'believe' further so one needs to be able to fully understand and comprehend rebirth, then I do not think many Buddhists would fit into this category.
Take Einstein's Theory of Relativity as an example. Most of us today 'accepts' Einstein's theory and believe it is a true fact about our universe. However, how many of us choose to believe in the Theory of Relativity because we have a good understand of how it works, or do we simply believe it because of Einstein's reputation, it is taught in school, or simply because everyone believe Einstein's right so we think it must be right?
How many Buddhists truly believe in rebirth so they understand and are mindful of it? Buddha warns us of horrible consequences from our unwholesome actions. Teachings such as the Ksitigarbha Sutra depicts the intensity and length (years counted in astronomical numbers) of torment beyond imagination if one were to reborn to the Naraka realms (the underworld). Nonetheless, we still witness serious misconduct happening today, and in this context of 'believe' I do not consider one to believe in rebirth.

How is this concept understood, i.e., what does rebirth mean (in as much detail as possible) to a Buddhist?

Rebirth is an illusionary phenomenon where one being goes through a cycle of beginning (born), to end (death), and then it repeats the cycle indefinitely. This is an endless grinding process of suffering. One objective of practising Buddhism is to see through and let go of all the illusions, and achieve the utmost joy in enlightenment.
Humans are not the only beings that goes through the rebirth process, all sentient beings go through birth, ageing, sickness and death. Worlds go through birth, habitable, decaying and void stages, non-sentient beings (such as plants and minerals) go through a similar birthing and dying process.
The impermanence of all things is an important concept to be mindful of. It reminds us to truly cherish something (or someone) when we are in its presence, and when it ends we can let go gracefully and do not hold onto something that doesn't belong. The desire to 'own' something (and the illusionary idea that you can actually 'own' something) leads to suffering, as the inability to do so causes internal stress and unsatisfactoriness. Such desire may further exacerbate and motivate greed and/or hatred, leading one to commit unwholesome deeds (violence, stealing, adultery, distortion etc) that harms other and spread suffering. Although one receives a quick relief, the casualties have already been done, and the end outcome brings dire consequences to those who misconducted. The cost of such relief, because of an illusionary initiative, is truly pitiful.
The universe is 'blinking' according to Buddhist speculations on the universe's physic construct. In Ninnō-kyō, Maitreya Bodhisattva, said within flicking of a finger 32 billion-hundred-thousand thoughts has occurred. The universe goes through instantaneous rebirth processes, like film frames at such a high frequency, that only the most enlightened Bodhisattvas (in the final stages of development) is able to observe such phenomenon.

Anyway, I hope any of the above information from my studies is helpful to you. These are my learnings which are nowhere near perfect. I would greatly appreciate anyone's kind feedback and my apologies in advance if I have made any mistakes above.

On a practical level, see Ven. Thanissaro's excellent introduction to MN 60: A Safe Bet.
On a conceptual level, see Ven. Bodhi's excellent analysis in his essay: Does Rebirth Make Sense?

Would you characterize belief in rebirth as a central component of Buddhism?

I notice that "rebirth" isn't listed among the answers to, What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? ... so, to the extent that Buddhism has a centre, perhaps that belief isn't "central".

How is this concept understood, i.e., what does rebirth mean (in as much detail as possible) to a Buddhist?

There were several good (long) answers to that in this topic.

The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Which question[s] do you intend this as an answer to: does it answer "Is belief in rebirth central?", or "What does rebirth mean?"?

From here:

§ When I first went to practice meditation with Ajaan Fuang, I asked
  him if people really were reborn after death. He answered, "When you
  start out practicing, the Buddha asks you to believe in only one
  thing: karma. As for things aside from that, whether or not you
  believe them isn't really important."

There is no single word for "rebirth" in the Pali suttas. There are around a dozen different terms that are translated as "rebirth". "Rebirth" is merely an interpretation of these terms.
Ultimately, "birth" ("jati") refers to the generation of the view or idea of "beings ("satta") and "self" (refer to SN 12.2; SN 23.2; SN 5.10 & SN 22.81). What is loosely translated as "rebirth" refers to the continuation or re-arising of "self" view.
For example, good kamma is done & the mind celebrates: "I have done good". Bad kamma is done & the mind regrets: "I have done bad".
Both good & bad kamma keep the mind trapped in suffering due to egoism.
What is "core" to Buddhism is what the Pali suttas state are "core", namely:

The six elements (AN 3.61)
The six sense spheres. (AN 3.61)
The eighteen applications of mindfulness in relation to the eighteen feelings. (AN 3.61)
The four noble truths. (AN 3.61; SN 56.31)
Dependent origination (which does not explain life after death; MN 28).
Three-characteristics (AN 3.134)
Emptiness (SN 20.7).

MN 38 states the dependent origination taught by the Buddha is visible in the here-&-now.
The Pali scriptures state what the Buddha taught: "leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Nibbana".
Where as believing in "rebirth/reincarnation" does not lead to Nibbana & especially leads to passion, which is why MN 117 explains ideas about 'rebirth' are polluted teachings that side with morality only; which is confirmed by MN 60, which states believing in rebirth only leads to morality (the three skilful actions).
AN 3.61 states believing 'past lives cause suffering' is easily refuted & is not the Buddha's teaching.

"Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This
  Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification,
  pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in
  reference to this that it was said.
MN 38

~~~

These, bhikkhus, are the three sectarian tenets which, when questioned, interrogated, and cross-examined by the wise, and taken to
  their conclusion, will eventuate in non-doing.
But, bhikkhus, this Dhamma taught by me is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. And what
  is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled,
  irreproachable and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins?
‘These are the six elements’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
  ‘These are the six bases for contact’ … ‘These are the eighteen mental
  examinations’ … ‘These are the four noble truths’: this, bhikkhus, is
  the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable,
  and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
AN 3.61

~~~

'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with
  emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping
  & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.
SN 20.7

~~~

All processes are inconstant. All processes are unsatisfactory. ll phenomena are not-self. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks
  through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he
  declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it,
  explains it & makes it plain:
AN 3.134

~~

Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising."
  And these things — the five clung-to-aggregates — are dependently
  co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping & holding-on to these five
  clung-to-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of
  desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five
  clung-to-aggregates is the cessation of stress.'
MN 28

~~~

And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
  taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
  with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
  disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
  knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
  them.
SN 56.31

~~~

What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
MN 22

Can you provide a broader discussion of the passages that are usually taken as describing rebirth? For example, there are many passages in the format "break up of the body / after death / reappear at" -- do you think they are corruptions, or you have alternative interpretations? Also, if rebirth as tradition takes it is incorrect, it's natural to see dying as a escape from kamma fruits -- can you comment on that as well?

Any reference to a more careful work on the literature showing that there's an alternative reading then the traditional one on rebirth passages is also welcome.

These passage can be interpreted differently.  "Kaya" means "group" or "collection" of five aggregates, such as in the term "sakkhaya ditthi". "Marana" is defined in D.O., which means the ego death of "beings" & "various orders of beings" (rather than physical death). "Beings" (satta) is defined in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 as a state of attachment, as a view. The entire supramundane view revolves around the meaning of the word "satta" (beings). Regardless, these passages about kamma are not relevant to the question since the Buddha never ever declared kamma-vipaka was His unique teaching. Regards.

The most common word in the Pali used for "rebirth" is "upapajjati". Here is "upapajjati" in MN 148: "Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjati. Cakkhussa uppādopi vayopi paññāyati. “If anyone says, ‘The eye is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the eye are discerned, "

Sorry, I meant providing a little more backing up in your answer -- not in comments. I particularly don't find it convincing as it is, but if there were a more thorough analysis, say of the pali canon, that you could reference which advocate this perspective, then at least the answer would be contextualized and readers could go through detailed arguments and make their own mind.

My answer is fine. It is not myself that needs to do the work. It is not the duty of the explainers of knowable things to prove something in relation to the unknowable position. For example, it is not the duty of atheists to prove there is no god. "Birth" (jati) means the generation of "satta" ("beings"). "Marana" means aging & death occurring to a "satta" rather than mere physical aging & death. The word "satta" was defined by the Lord Buddha in SN 23.2, SN 5.10, etc. This jati & marana in relation to the "satta" the Lord Buddha explained is knowable. Where as your "rebirth" is unknowable.

In short, I am not engaged in false or ignoble speech because what I post is real, knowable & experienceable. The Lord Buddha said to speak of things one does not really know is ignoble speech (AN 8.67 & 68). The practise of the noble eightfold path includes the factor of Right Speech, which includes honest/true speech. Kind regards.

I'm just trying to get as much information on answers (specially of different points of view) as possible for the readers that come here looking to get informed. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

@ThiagoSilva for a broader discussion, you are welcome to read my thread, here, & discuss on the other forum: https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?6671-Exploring-rebirth-in-the-Pali-suttas. Regards


text:
How can you translate nibbida?
How can you translate or define nibbida in English?

This is turning away from the worldliness with a view to attain Nibbana.
When you get input fro your sense door you are equanimous towards the sensation that arise knowing their impermanence. Reacting creates the conditioned existance.

The Pali Text Society Dictionary defines nibbidā as "weariness, disgust with worldly life, tedium, aversion, indifference, disenchantment."
Nibbidā occurs when one achieves yathābhūtañānadassana or "knowledge and vision of things as they are". By "things" we mean dhammas as the objects of mental activity. One sees sense experience as it is and becomes fed up with it (nibbidā). This in turn leads to virāga.
PTSD defines virāga as "absence of rāga, dispassionateness, indifference towards, disgust, absence of desire, destruction of passions; waning, fading away cleansing, purifying; emancipation, Arahantship."
Normally, we are intoxicated with sense experience. Once we have knowledge and vision, we sober up. Being fed up with sense experience, one is disenchanted and loses interest in it. And this leads to liberation (vimutti).
This sequence occurs very often in the Pāli suttas. It is also associated with the so-called Spiral Path which shows how paṭiccasamuppāda works to free us from suffering (See for example Aṅguttara Nikāya, Chp 10, suttas 1-5). For a survey of the Spiral Path texts in Pāḷi see The Spiral Path or Lokuttara Paṭiccasamuppāda, Western Buddhist Review. For the Chinese counterparts in the Madhymaāgama see Chinese Spiral Path Texts from the Madhyamāgama. The latter are also now available in professional translations: The Madhyama Āgama (Middle Length Discourses: Taishō 2 no.26) Editor in Chief Marcus Bingenheimer. Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai America Inc. 2013.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Meaning of Gotrabhu in plain English
How you can explain in plain English the change of focus (from puthujjana to ariya) that takes place in this stage of insight?

There're a few different interpretations of the word Gotrabhu, which Ven. Bodhi commented to AN 9.10 in his "Numerical Discourses":

"Gotrabhu. In his translation of Vism, where the word is used in a technical sense, Nanamoli renders it “change-of-lineage” (see Vism 672–75, Ppn 22.1–14). Mp explains this person—in accordance with the exegetical scheme of the commentaries—as “one with a mind of powerful insight that has reached the peak, the immediate condition for the path of stream-entry.” Mp is here referring to the gotrabhu mind-moment in the cognitive process (cittavithi) of the path, the mental event that immediately precedes sotapattimaggacitta, the mind-moment of the path of stream-entry. Since this scheme is relatively late and presupposes the Abhidhamma theory of the cognitive process, it is unlikely to reveal the original meaning of gotrabhu. In the Nikayas, the word occurs infrequently. In the present sutta it seems to mean simply a virtuous monk or nun who has not reached the path of stream-entry. We find the plural form at MN 142.8, III 255,6–7: “But in the future, Ananda, there will be clan members, with ochre [robes around] their necks, immoral people, of bad character” (bhavissanti kho pan’ananda, anagatamaddhanam gotrabhuno kasavakAttha dussila papadhamma). In the latter passage it has a pejorative sense, referring to those who show merely the outer marks of a monastic without worthy inner qualities."

How we can translate this text in plain English? Does it means the automatic and spontaneous change of focus (after the 6 Purifications) in the knowing & seeing of the meditator (from a worldly 'sensorial' view to the transcendental view, after which he reaches path entry; i.c. becomes 'sotapanna')?

But what you just defined doesn't sound as "plain" as the Mp's definition in Ven. Bodhi's note above although it seems to point to the same direction..

Anyway, it's not easy. I'm sure you have to 'experience' it. Thanks.

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


text:
Translation of 'ekayano maggo'
In the Mahasatipatthana (DN 22) sutra the Buddha speaks about ekayano maggo. What is the exact translation in English: is it: 'direct way' or 'only way'?

Following are some interpretations any translation should consider:

This is the way does not branch off (Direct way, single way)
This is the way as taught by the Buddha (The way of the One)
This is the way that one should practice alone. Any body else practice will not help.
This is the way leading to one destination
This is the only way leading to the destination. There is no other way.

(Source: The Four Foundations of Mindfulness by Sayadaw U Silananda)
The best translation may be "the way"

The analysis quoted here says that, literally, it could be either; but that, looking at various places in which it's used in context, it makes more sense if it means 'direct'.
The people on that site seemed to agree that that's the best analysis.
And, this article makes a similar argument to explain why 'direct' is a more fitting meaning than 'only'.

"Direct" would make more sense than "only" because there are many other meditation methods prescribed by the Buddha and bodhisattvas which he also said lead to cessation. But then again "direct" isn't totally accurate either..

Chris, the argument in the mentioned 'article' makes sense. Thanks.

According to my understanding "Ekayano Maggo" means "sure path" or  in Sinhala "Ekanthayenma ya haki Margayak"


text:
How does Buddhism refute the inherent existence of sub-atomic particles?
(1) According to Rob Burbea in Seeing That Frees, "both the neither-one-nor-many reasoning and the sevenfold reasoning are among the practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels."
Regarding the neither-one-nor-many practice, he goes on to say:
"Even if we imagine down to the level of subatomic particles, these will necessarily have parts facing in different directions, or interacting with other particles in this or that direction. Anything that occupies space must have parts.
Postulating the existence of a partless particle that would be truly singular will not work. It would be impossible to arrange or amass such particles in order to form any thing from them. Having no differentiable sides, other particles could not be arranged either side of it. Such a particle would not be able to bond or interact with other particles in any direction. All the surrounding particles would contact the central particle at the same point, and all effectively occupy the same space. Nothing with any extension could ever come to be."
When I imagine a partless particle, I simply think of a sphere. I can't see how the reasons he states refute that possibility. He seems to think that a partless particle could not possess mass, or would just be an infinitely small point. Why could it not just be a sphere that can't be divided any further?
(2) Two of the quotations he uses:
"The element of earth has no nature of its own." (Prajnaparamita Sutra)
"Matter itself is void. Voidness does not result from the destruction of matter, but the nature of matter is itself voidness." (Vimalkirtinirdesa Sutra)
What are the other "practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels?" Specifically this belief in the inherent existence of the "element of earth", i.e. sub-atomic particles.

I am mostly here to learn and don't have a major background, so I won't put this in an answer, but I think your first thought is missing the other half of what he says - that even if it can't break down further, it has to connect to something else, and when it does, it then has variation where it does.

I simply think of a sphere I think he's claiming that because a sphere has sides (e.g. top, bottom, left, right, front, back) then each such 'side' is a different 'part'. He's also claiming that a 'partless' i.e. dimensionless point particle which occupies no space could not be aggregated with other such particles to form a space-occupying aggregate.

Actually, I think this is off topic. I know there are books that try to say subatomic physics supports Buddhism or Taoism or whatever and I think they are a special sort of bunk. If you think you understand, you don't understand quantum physics : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman#.22If_you_think_you_understand_quantum_mechanics.2C_you_don.27t_understand_quantum_mechanics..22  Ditto on if Buddhism supports or refutes the efficacy of antibiotics, the boiling point of water, the nature of black holes, etc.

In this paragraph:

Postulating the existence of a partless particle that would be truly
  singular will not work. It would be impossible to ... Having no
  differentiable sides, ... Such a particle would not be able to ... All
  the surrounding particles would ... Nothing with any extension could
  ever come to be.

The author is, in my estimation (I have no familiarity with the book or the author), doing one of two things:

Confusing Buddhism with Physics. Whether this particle is this or that particle is that, it won't help you become a better person and understand your mental reality any better. Although the above quoted paragraph would make an interesting question on physics.stackexchange.com.
Speaking poetically in order to help the reader become absorbed with the idea. Perhaps this is the case.

During an course I attended under the name "Introduction to Asian Philosophy", my professor explained emptiness as a flashy way of reminding us that we only define things in relation to what they are not. Nirvana is defined as everything Samsara is not, therefore Nirvana is "empty of essential qualities". Similarly, Samsara is meaningless without a Nirvana to compare it to. This logic can be extended to all entities and concepts: Without night there can be no day, without a whole there can't be parts, etc.
You may or may or not you agree with this reasoning, but for me it's a practical interpretation of the doctrine of emptiness that helps us to not cling to our perceptions of what things are.
In other words, as R. Barzell says in the comment below, Is emptiness ontology, or a way of seeing to free us from the bondage of concepts? Is treating emptiness as ontology missing the point?
Lastly,

What are the other "practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels?" Specifically this belief in the inherent existence of the "element of earth", i.e. sub-atomic particles.

Meditation will probably help, as it gradually helps the practitioner become free from the limitations of language, thoughts, and concepts. The better we understand the way our minds work, the less we can be obstructed by our minds.

Great answer!  Is the original question a case of emptiness run amok? Is emptiness ontology, or a way of seeing to free us from the bondage of concepts?  Is treating emptiness as ontology missing the point?  Is our view of subatomic particles relevant to our suffering?  On the other hand, if our problem is an all-encompassing conceptualization, then is an all-encompassing emptiness the solution?  Is there such a thing as a harmless concept?

Thanks. It looks like you're summarizing my answer; I might try to incorporate it.

I think you're saying that the author isn't very helpful. I wonder whether there's any more helpful explanation in the (or of the) original Prajnaparamita Sutra and/or Vimalkirtinirdesa Sutra which the author used as a basis/reference ... do these contain better explanations of (or 'practices capable of revealing') emptiness?

Well, my ignorance of Mahayana may be showing. I'm only versed in Theravada concepts. The professor showed us the mula-madhyamaka-karika, IIRC.

Kalapas are sub atomic particles in Buddhism. Also there is a space element between the particles.


text:
Bodhipakkhiya: Panca Indriya versus Panca Bala
In the Bodhipakkhiya (the 37 factors of enlightenment) are mentioned the Panca Indriya and the Panca Bala. Both sets have the same factors: saddha; virya; sati; samadhi and panna. Why are those sets separately mentioned?

You use the faculty (Indriya) to exert the strength (Bala). Say you are a person generally strong in saddha you can use this fact to apply saddha for your spiritual development.

Maurice Walshe's note in his "Long Discourses" says:

"[note 1150]..These five ‘faculties’ (faith, etc. as 6 (vi)) become powers (i.e. unshakeable by their opposites) from First Path (Stream Entry) onwards.."


text:
Lotus position right knee floating?
This isn't a Buddhist question per se, maybe better placed in a yoga or Taoist thread but anywhere here I go:
When I am in the lotus position (classic right leg over left leg as instructed in all Buddhist guides) for the past 10 years, my right knee has always floated a quarter of an inch off the ground, even if I try to adjust my position by sitting offset on my mat.
Anatomically speaking, I don't see how anyone can have both of their knees on the floor..
Although I feel energetically blissful whilst maintaining the posture, the posture feels uneven, imbalances my torso, and I feel uneven pressure on my right thigh and must end my lotus posture in about 10 to 20 minutes due to the pressure on my right thigh...
Sometimes I switch reverse full lotus and that makes me feel more balanced.
Am I doing something wrong or is this something all advanced lotus meditators must deal with?
How can I remedy, deal with, compensate (et cetera) my lotus posture?
Also, this is a separate question but are there any passages in the canon that speak about posture?
Any suggestions in any realm, physical, environmental, or even mental are welcome.

I tried lotus and half lotus for a while, and all I got was knee pain. I do sitting meditation with one leg in front of the other, and that's just fine.

Thanks i like that idea that leg in front of the other is painless and i can maintain and grow my flexibility instead of going to crosslegged and also focus on the more important feature of meditation instead.

The position is something that your should choose to help in meditation, i.e., being able to be in the position for a long time without issue. Dwelling too much on what is the right posture is leaving the main task at hand and concentrating on auxiliary tasks. The danger in this is that this can lead to trying rights or ritual like practices which has been case in some schools of Buddhism and in India.
Also any your posture can be taken into practice of the 4 frames of mindfulness. The posture it self (sense through the outline of sensations) and the pain that results from being in it for a long time.

Wrong view of holding to ritual ... Ok then! I understand it is missing the point but it isnt pure ritualism though because lotus posture is from my experience energetically totally different (you feel a great rush and clarity during and after high) and from infinite sources the best posture. I also know forcing it cant be good on the knees.. heard bad stories. Thank you for the reemphasis though.

The fact that you can meditate while sitting, walking, laying, running, sitting on the toilet, standing on one leg......i hope you can see my point. Meditation and being mindful isn't about any correct position, it is about increasing your focus and awareness of each and every moment, and investigating why the mind has an inclination to one thing, but an aversion to another.
Your question highlights the root problem with humanity, ignorance. You are more obsessed with the pointless details than you are of the important details.
Be more focused on what the mind is doing and reacting to, than whether or not you have the correct position.
Good luck my friend.
Metta

Yes you are correct this is a unimportant dwelling but.. Many teachers and masters have reccommended lotus if possible and from my experience it is a very pleasurable blissful pose to be in. The high and clarity enhancement i get lasts for like half an hour. The chi channels connect better in that position for samadhi apparently.. Please see my other comment.

If you read your own comments, you are clearly becoming attached to the lotus position (pleasurable, high,enhancement) which in turn is the reason you will suffer. I would personally, if i was you, not use the lotus position, and see how your mind reacts, by the sound of things, you will not like a different position because of the pleasurable high you get from the lotus position. This is the whole point of the meditative practice. But without a doubt, you have become very attached and are clinging to the highs which the lotus brings, so when you're not in that position, you will suffer!!

Yes, my postural fascination must come to an end no matter what along with similar false thoughts. It is disruptive to the all-important 3 trainings.
Nonetheless, you seem to think pleasureable and high states are bad? They are not. They are only bad if you have acquired them through intoxicants or similar dependencies.
Jhana itself, the primary Buddhist training, would not be possible were it not for its extremely pleasureable feeling it brings on the mind--so much so that the mind immediately lets go of the afflictions!
There is a similar ultimate development with lotus, the goal of yoga.


text:
What does delusion feel like?
In his book Breath by Breath Larry Rosenberg writes about meditating on the three kleshas directly i.e. meditating on craving, aversion and delusion. He is talking in the context of the Anapanasati Sutta. I can understand how one could recognise aspects their own hatred or craving. But how could someone recognise their own delusion in that moment of meditation?
Specifically, I can see that anger would be very obvious and one would become very familiar with the burning, energetic, dominating quality of this. In the same way, one's own craving and desire could become recognisable - we are familiar with what wanting actually feels like. However what does delusion actually feel like. What bodily sensations are associated with it. What does the mental quality actually feel like.
I can imagine looking back and with hindsight been able to see that at that point in time I was very deluded and thinking some very strange things. But how can the deluded mind see itself as deluded in that moment? How can we meditate on this? What does delusion feel like and how can we learn to recognise it?

a part of we would or wants to suggest that all thought is deluded.

It sort of feels like various gradients of "ouch!"

Feelings associated with formations of the 3 more poison:

Ignorance - Neutral feeling
Attachment - Blissful, joy, fluid, cooling
Aversion - Burning, solid, gaseous vibrating (E.g. fear)

In breath meditation you should recognise delusion. The right for of breath mediation should include the following:

You should experience the whole breath from start to finish experiencing the effects of the whole breath and body for each in and out breath. If possible try to experience the heart beat and flow of oxygen in and out of the body. You should calm the body by looking intensely at any gross solidified sensations on distraction and bring the attention back to the breath or any thoughts which might increases the speed of the breath thus making the sensations related to formations more and more subtle as your old formations pass away.
You look at sensation in the body when any of you sense doors come in contact with any object as well as sensations due to formation and the sensation that follow through your metal reaction to it. For each such reaction note this and then bring your attention back to the breath. You should actively look at the sensation and how your perception causes a metal reaction creates sensation to which you cling. By practising non reaction and perhaps cultivating notions and perception which are opposite in your polarity of your perception to neutralise it. Also look at you sensation without reaction so the gross sensations pass away and more subtler and more subtler sensation arise. In this process your your mental fabrications will subside and feeling and perception will subside.
You should look at your mind jumping from one object to another. Note the sensation when it comes in contact followed by recognition and reaction. When you see something, you will get a sensation around your eyes and then around your head both which resonates through out your body. Always bring back to your attention to the break after noticing the object your mind runs to until the mind wonders away less and less thus reducing verbal fabrications and increasing concentration.
You should note sensations arising from contact and from formation arise and pass away. You are not in control of any such experience. Thus you cannot get ever lasing satisfaction from such experience. You should cultivate mental detachment from any experience as they are impermanent and not under your control. Any reaction to any sensations will lead to mental formations misery.

Since when you say breath meditation, teachers and practitioners emphasise on the breath alone but this is just the tip of the ice berg. Much of the practice is more than just the breath.

I think that 'aversion' and 'desire' are opposite/complementary extremes of each other.
Similarly I think that 'delusion' is (defined as) the opposite of 'truth' (sacca/satya, the four noble truths) and (I presume) other 'true dharmas' (for example, one delusion might be a wrong view about 'self').
So I guess that you can be 'aware of delusion' whenever (if ever) you're aware that you have forgotten 'right view' or 'right mindfulness'.
If it's the 'root' klesha, I suppose it has many manfestations, but one of those is presumably  any addictive behaviour: repeating the same harmful mistake.
You're right though that at the least the "The Four Frames of Reference" section of the Anapanasati Sutta only talks about "putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world". Maybe the parts of it after that i.e. "Awakening", "Knowing", and "Release" are describing the opposite of "ignorance".

Also, in The Taste of Freedom Bhikkhu Bodhi writes,

Three kinds of feelings have been pointed out by the Buddha: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling, i.e., feeling which is neither pleasant nor painful. These three classes exhaust the totality of feeling, and one feeling of one class must be present on any given occasion of experience. Again, three mental factors have been singled out by the Buddha as the subjective counterparts of the three classes of feeling and described by him as anusaya, latent tendencies which have been lying dormant in the subconscious mental continua of sentient beings since beginningless time, always ready to crop up into a state of manifestation when an appropriate stimulus is encountered, and to subside again into the state of dormancy when the impact of the stimulus has worn off.
These three mental factors are lust (raga), repugnance (patigha), and ignorance (avijja), psychological equivalents of the unwholesome roots of greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha). When a worldling, with a mind untrained in the higher course of mental discipline taught by the Buddha, experiences a pleasant feeling, then the latent tendency to lust springs up in response — a desire to possess and enjoy the object serving as stimulus for the pleasant feeling. When a worldling experiences a painful feeling, then the latent tendency to repugnance comes into play, an aversion toward the cause of the pain. And when a worldling experiences a neutral feeling, then the latent tendency to ignorance — present but recessive on occasions of lust and aversion — rises to prominence, shrouding the worldling's consciousness in a cloak of dull apathy.
[...]
Under the dominance of lust he is drawn to the pleasant, under the dominance of hate he is repelled by the painful, under the dominance of delusion he is confused by the neutral. He is bent up by happiness, bent down by sorrow, elated by gain, honor, and praise, dejected by loss, dishonor, and blame. Even though he perceives that a particular course of action can lead only to his harm, he is powerless to avoid it; even though he knows that an alternative course of action is clearly to his advantage, he is unable to pursue it. Swept on by the current of unabandoned defilements, he is driven from existence to existence through the ocean of samsara, with its waves of birth and death, its whirlpools of misery and despair.

So the three poisons (lust, anger, ignorance) correspond to three types of feeling (pleasant, painful, and neutral); and delusion therefore is associated with a "neutral" feeling, and "consciousness shrouded in a cloak of dull apathy" and "confusion".

Thinking is delusion. Understanding is delusion. Ideas are delusion. It just is. No idea behind it. But, just by saying it is, we create an idea and block it out. Anytime words form, we forget what it is.

Yes, the delusion is lie-based

Delusion can manifest as mental vagueness, blankness, the appearance that time is going by and nothing's changing, boredom. It's like a gauzy veil drawn over the reality of constant change, allowing you to believe that "nothing's happening" (which is never true).

It feels pretty painful, I cannot point to a sensation that would belie how it feels like, but it is pretty painful. There is a term used by the Buddha called "dukkha patipada", in one sense it used in reference to how people with "strong roots" experience progress that is more or less painful.
Cheers.

When you truly uproot all delusion, you are a complete Buddha. Don't think you'll get rid of delusion in one day, there are many stages of a bodhisattva (someone who has achieved initial Enlightenment). Even the brightest states of mind can be delusion (not that they shouldn't be cultivated!) as the Ten Corruptions of Insight would indicate. This is because delusion is the root of all three poisons including delusion itself. The whole chain of suffering (2nd Noble Truth) began with craving, which has ignorance as its first cause. Working towards Enlightenment is like working with delusion because you are finding states of being that are purer and purer (jhanas) and further and further away from delusion--yet still delusion until like the SNAP of a finger you can drop all the skandhas and rest in your true being that is beyond emptiness and existence. But this only happens after finding emptiness and living existence purely as well. Master Nan gave an example saying it's like taking two sticks, rubbing them together to make fire, and thus burning them away... fire is gone, stick is gone.
Don't label it as delusion. It is what it is. Hatred is not hatred, love is not love, delusion is not delusion. It is empty. Recognize the empty nature of it. The more you try to push away something, the stronger it will get. (see Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Nan)
During meditation. I feel delusion oftentimes as a clamping down SOMEWHERE in my body. By consciously remembering to relax it, I also remember to let go of certain delusions that caused the clamping. This delusion poison can mix with the other two poisons and cause mixed sensations. Also remember not to think about this too much and subconsciously create such feelings in the first place. Get back to your concentration practice as soon as you can. When I clear these tightenings up correctly, I feel like I am floating and all my muscles feel completely at ease. Attachment to the state can cause delusion again but ignorance of the imperative to be-relaxed-and-nakedly-aware-without-judgment-or-outcome can also increase delusion.
Read the Surangama mantra, it has some interesting puzzles to overcome the roots of our ignorance and delusion... especially meant for our "Dharma-ending age"

Many gross emotions are included in the category of 'delusion', such as confusion, fear, jealousy, envy, possessiveness, selfishness, egoism, etc. We can know what these emotions of delusion feel like because they are gross/coarse.
As for the subtle delusion of 'ignorance', where 'becoming' ('bhava') or 'self-existence' is created, we can only 'feel' this when becoming ceases. In knowing the absolutely clarity of non-becoming, the mind can sense or feel the pollution of becoming. But this is very subtle.

Anyone who is not at least a sotapanna experiences delusion. A sotapanna is someone with Right View. They understand the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and more. An unenlightened person has misconceptions about the Dhamma because if they didn't misconceive the Dhamma then by definition they would be enlightened.
Delusion is both cognitive and emotional. Emotional delusion is easier to recognize. It manifests as confusion, or doubt. But any ignorance of the core Dhamma is delusion. One way to remove this is by studying the suttas. By learning, analyzing, testing, and applying the teachings of the Buddha and his enlightened disciples you can clear up deluded thinking, wrong ideas, mistaken assumptions, and in general Wrong View.

Delusion is our normal state so we are all familiar with what it feels like. Delusion is this niave realist, rational, or materialist complacency. The world is absolutely nothing like we think it is.

"What does delusion feel like?": total fine, true, like a refuge and right for common folk, and as the origin of all pain for those with eyes.
How does this answer feel?
What ever feeling, it's to be regarded as a cancer. That hurt's right?

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


text:
Can lokuttara citta's be defined as the true knowing essence (yathabhuta nana dassana)?
Can lokuttara citta's be defined as the true knowing essence (yathabhuta nana dassana)?

See also a good definition of consciousness and What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta?

No, yathābhūtañāṇadassana is said to refer to early stages of Vipassana insight:

yathābhūtañāṇadassananti yathāsabhāvajānanasaṅkhātaṃ dassanaṃ. etena taruṇavipassanaṃ dasseti. taruṇavipassanā hi balavavipassanāya paccayo hoti.
yathābhūtañāṇadassana refers to that which is understood as knowing things according to existential characteristics (sabhāva). By this is meant weak (taruṇa) vipassana. And weak vipassana is a requisite for strong (balava) vipassana.
-- SN-a 2.1.3.3

The commentary here is explaining a passage showing the following progression:

avijjūpanisā saṅkhārā - formations have ignorance as a cause

saṅkhārūpanisaṃ viññāṇaṃ - consciousness has formations as a cause

viññāṇūpanisaṃ nāmarūpaṃ - mind and body have consciousness as a cause

nāmarūpūpanisaṃ saḷāyatanaṃ - the senses have mind and body as a cause

saḷāyatanūpaniso phasso - contact has the senses as a cause

phassūpanisā vedanā - sensations have contact as a cause

vedanūpanisā taṇhā - craving has sensations as a cause

taṇhūpanisaṃ upādānaṃ - clinging has craving as a cause

upādānūpaniso bhavo - becoming has clinging as a cause

bhavūpanisā jāti - birth has becoming as a cause

jātūpanisaṃ dukkhaṃ - suffering has birth as a cause

dukkhūpanisā saddhā - confidence has suffering as a cause

saddhūpanisaṃ pāmojjaṃ - delight has confidence as a cause

pāmojjūpanisā pīti - rapture has delight as a cause

pītūpanisā passaddhi - tranquillity has rapture as a cause

passaddhūpanisaṃ sukhaṃ - happiness has tranquillity as a cause

sukhūpaniso samādhi - concentration has happiness as a cause

samādhūpanisaṃ yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ - knowledge and vision of things as they are has concentration as a cause

yathābhūtañāṇadassanūpanisā nibbidā - disenchantment has knowledge and vision of things as they are as a cause

nibbidūpaniso virāgo - dispassion has disenchantment as a cause

virāgūpanisā vimutti - freedom has dispassion as a cause

vimuttūpanisaṃ khayeñāṇaṃ - knowledge of destruction (of the taints) has freedom as a cause.

-- Upanisa Sutta (SN 12.23)

Balava vipassana refers to nibbida. The lokuttara magga and phala cittas are equated with viraaga and vimutti respectively.

Bhante, how does confidence have suffering as a cause? Does it mean the understanding of the 1st noble truth causing Sadda in the 3rd and the 4th noble truths or in the Buddha himself who preached about suffering and the end of suffering?

@SankhaKulathantille it causes saddha in the triple gem; suffering shows that the Buddha was right. Without seeing suffering, beings tend to ignore/trivialize the Buddha's teaching.


text:
Being a monstery monk while training in career online?
Is it OK to be a monastery monk (eating community gruel, etc.) but using your laptop to study for your career during half the day (instead of meditation with all of it)? Would the administrator be OK with freeloaders like that?
I would help maintain the monastery, especially if it is related to my line of work (website development, etc.). Heck, I'd work full-time for free out of compassion.
I'm thinking of asking this at a local monastery, especially since I don't care to be stuck in the cycle of apartment paying and being stuck at low-ranked IT job and being crushed by loans. I would rather take time to master certain subjects while cultivating and then come back to the city when I can achieve a higher salary to match the high cost of living as a city-dweller these days... and pay off my weighty student loans.
My question pertains to monastery in California or the rest of the US. Especially those good with wifi connections. :-D

Are you referring to being an ordained monk or a steward for a monastery?

Ordained monk that is doing layman training online.. and also doing steward like chores.
In the Zen school it was never that differentiated. All monks would help out (gather sticks for fire and food for gruel) and also meditate together.

I think it is best to ask the monastery, instead on Stack Exchange.
IMHO, may I comment on a few things:
What is one's motivation to become a monastery monk?
Monks are messianic individuals who wish to vigorously study Buddha's teachings hoping one day to attain the highest level of wisdom to be able to deliver all beings from suffering.
Responsibility
Buddhist monks receive offerings from faithful lay people, seeking answers to solving their problems. These offerings are precious and sincere, and one should not take these offerings lightly.
There is a Chinese saying that loosely translates as: "A lay person offers a grain of rice, such offering is as heavy as Mount Sumeru, if one doesn't attain enlightenment in this life, repay wearing your hide and horn in your next life."
Monks do not only teach people, even Devas respect and learn from highly accomplished masters.
Ksitigarbha Sutra depicted the dire consequence of stealing from monasteries, which results in millions of aeons of endless torment in the deepest pits of Avici. This is because Buddhist monasteries are essential establishments to facilitate Buddhist teaching, they contain offerings from realms in all 10 directions, from beings desperately yearning to liberate from the eternal agonies of Samsara.
A monastic life isn't necessary to attain enlightenment. In today's society lays are more likely to accomplish because today's monks have more complicated problems to help lays to solve. Furthermore, leading a monastic lifestyle isn't enough, one needs to embrace the purpose of monastic life at heart, and let go of worldly attachments and eventually leave Samsara.
Turn challenges into opportunities
Buddhists do not ask Buddha to alleviate our lives' problems. We brave hardship. We do not cut off our problems from our lives, we turn challenges into opportunities to better ourselves, turn anxiety and stress into Bodhi, and gratefully thank life when it gives us lemons.
In closing, please do not take my words as criticisms. I genuinely thank you for this interesting question that allows me to contemplate on my practice and write out this submission to help bring more clarity to my thinking. If there is anything I could improve on please do not hesitate to share your feedback.

I totally agree with you about the ideals behind laymanship bodhisattva-ness and monastic life holiness. I don't think these ideals match how it is in actuality, I've seen Buddhist monks smoking and unable to answer questions questions about life in any way that a layman could. Being a layman is the ultimate test of everything. Nonetheless, laymanship easily falls into degradation for most people. Master Nan said though that it is the laymans and business people in this century that will attain Enlightenment not the monastery lurkers. Anyway, thanks for a great response, you did a good job!


text:
Why can't a Buddha's power just save us already? Like Jesus
I am a faithful believer in the Buddha's teachings and I even believe in the iddhi powers they all had and that show up in our day as well. I also believe in the various Bodhisattvas and Buddha's even within Taoism and contemplate and marvel at them every day, their mysteriousness, hard work and wisdom. Some of the scriptures have some astounding excerpts though of millions of bodhisattvas and deities...
Which is why I wonder why, if we are:

a bundle of skandhas with no central core;
quite subject to cause and effect;
crying for saving;
individuals the omnisicient, omnipresent, omnipotent (iddhis) buddhas and bodhisattvas have vowed to save from actual suffering and also awaken;

Then why don't the billions of bodhisattvas and buddhas just make manifestation bodies and march across the universe and pacify and awaken everything as the first Buddha vow states?
What is your opinion on this matter?

This answer suggests that they already have.

@GottfriedHelms I would like to know the Buddha's discourse on 'Discussions'...post it if you get hold of it.

@TheDarkKnight : You're welcome. I've found it in the (german) site of the "palicanon.com" at this adress : http://www.palikanon.com/angutt/a03_067-071.html#a_iii68 The "7. Kathāvatthu Sutta" but could still not locate it at accesstoinsight.com for the english version. I'm trying further... There are also more advices with which type of people a monk should share company/have talks, but I remembered most this one. If I come across one of the other texts I'll add some more link

@TheDarkKnight: Perhaps this is also a good resource, but I've not yet evaluated this fully for references into the canon: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversation.html

@TheDarkKnight: The english version seems to be this one http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.067.than.html

If you are "a faithful believer in Buddha's teachings" you have missed his point entirely.
You should not believe a single thing. Instead, your own experience should lead you to your own conclusions.
This is what Buddha left behind. Techniques for waking up, so that you may dissolve into pure experience, as did he and countless others.
Only you can save yourself.

True... good answer... reminds me of the story of Asanga who had Maitreya following him around but he could never see him. Only after he achieved a certain level (Divine Eye?) after doing a very meritorious act (feeding maggots) was Maitreya able to show himself to Asanga.
Anyway the Buddha did himself say not to see for ourselves by practicing... as did so many masters..

In response to your question, may I ask what are we saving ourselves from?
Samsara is an endless (and beginningless) grinding cycle where all beings are being agonized by myriad forms of suffering (Dukkha). However, Samsara, and even higher realms of existence are illusionary, how can one be saved from an illusion?
Here is an excellent analogy I read from the esoteric master Huang Nian-Zu: what is the best way to save a man being hunted by a vicious tiger in a nightmare?
The answer isn't trying to run away or defending yourself. The best solution is to simply wake up and end the dream. Our true self has always been safe asleep, and the tiger can not harm us.
In theory, the above sounds like a really simple solution. In reality, though, the difficulty to achieve this is parallel to the depth of one's delusion and attachment.
Every being is one with Buddha. We are all capable and deserve the perfect wisdom, fortuity and abilities that Buddha possess. To seek help from Buddha and Bodhisattvas we need to awaken the Buddha within ourselves.
Hope this helps. If there is anything I could improve on with my reply please kindly share your views :)

Main cause of your problems are when you come in contact a sensation arise and you react due to our delusional perceptions which proliferates other sedation to which we react. You liberation is being non reactive to the sensation and reducing pre conditioned reaction.
The Buddha cannot subdue perception of another being or indefinitely influence the sensations experienced by another being or influence indefinitely the reaction to sensation of another being. Hence we have to work on our own liberation.

Now why can't a Buddha just intercede?
From what the Enlightened Zen Master Huai-Chin Nan said... even the Buddha's cannot penetrate our ignorance and so that is why they provided all these mantras as a means of accessing their consciousness so that they can help us and help us out. It's like a "password" to enter into their system.
In my own words, they can only help us as much as our sincerity, purity and jhana allows them!
From another perspective, isn't it true that we each of us contain the power of gods, the power to become a Buddha?
So how can this god nature this buddha nature be brought out by anyone but itself?
If it was able to be brought out by an "other", this buddha nature that you have within you would not be buddha nature!
It would be "slave nature."
Similarly, you yourself cannot egoistically bring about this buddha nature. Because you (skandhas) are just ego. Everything you are, feel, think... is "false thought".
Just like a Buddha cannot save you, you can't effort yourself into enlightenment. All you as the egoic container can do... is prepare and wait... and even that is not enough.
As the diamond sutra states, it comes without coming... only then is it true coming.
Thus, use that understanding in your own cultivation of effortlessness, because the closer you are to effortlessness, the closer you are to It.
This Buddhism is becoming very Taoist, no?
Another speculations for why the Buddha's might just be "passive" in their universe-saving policies... how is this whole saving business even necessary. Karma is karma. Everyone deserves what they got.
What do you learn more from, hard experiences or easy experiences?
What are you more thankful for, difficulties and failures or easy-gimmes?
Karma is a wonderful educational system that the Buddha's have no need to intercede with.
(I really learned this concept through the Buddhist cosmological analyses given in Mind Experiment by Professor Bavo Lievens.)
They gave their education, it's time for you to play the game and cultivate your own Tao.
Look at some pictures of the Angry Hell Buddha (I forget what it's called).
Anyway, their help is always at your beck and all when you ask with focus, clarity and faith.

Interceding would unbalance the whole system, perhaps. It would make the results of the 'experiment' inauthentic.

Once you have reached that level of understanding, all your motivations would change. Perhaps they do not completely align with ours.

True true.. only a Buddha can see that far level of karma. So many times trying to help someone backfires in 100 ways and helps in 1. So many times I just watch and a person does exactly as they should, maybe a little later than I had hoped, minus the condescencion disturbance and karma if I had interceded..

It's a tough one to see people suffer, but sometimes they have to. It's usually best to be asked, if you intercede (imo). 100/1 is bad odds. :)

If the Buddha came to you today and offered the blue pill and the red pill like in the movie The Matrix, and by swallowing this blue pill, you will get instant Nirvana, would you accept it?
The answer is that 99.999% of serious Buddhists will not accept it, because they are not ready to let go of their attachments right now. Even if they accept the Buddha's teachings, they are not mentally prepared to leave everything that forms their reality. They don't want to be "saved" right now. They might ponder about their loved ones, material possessions, career etc. They won't be ready to let go of their personhood. But they may want to get there progressively.

Not me. I don't care for this reality.
And even if you doubt my existentinal apathy, I don't think you can doubt the apathy of the ones in Buddhist stories who cultivate and are still stuck in the plane of form and formless jhanas. There's something insanely difficult about the path that is beyond desire to get enlightened or non-desire.
Adyashanti talked about this in "The End of Your World" (a great listen). Some people that really want Enlightenment, never get it while some that never cared for Awakening, that don't know about it (6th Patriarch), got it even though they are illiterate!

Even those who are suicidal are really not ready to let go of their sorrows. Perhaps their sorrows define their identity and their minds are overwhelmed by the defilements (kleshas)

Suicidal is an extreme state of attachment to one's sorrows.
Detachment from the world of being yet FULLY enjoying it and living it is a characteristic of a bodhisattva/arhat.

You may be attached to your personhood. There is still a person ("I") who does not care for this reality.


text:
Supplication in buddhist practice
Does any Buddhist practice consists of supplication, or is there too much merit being exchanged for that?

Supplication (also known as petitioning) is a form of prayer, wherein
  one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something,
  either for the party who is doing the supplicating (e.g., "Please
  spare my life.") or on behalf of someone else (e.g., "Please spare my
  child's life.").

If there was a practice like that in Buddhism, it doesn't come from the Buddha's teachings. One practices loving-kindness by making a wish(not a prayer) such as "May I be happy" or "May the world be at peace" or "May my enemy be well" and so on. The purpose of this practice is to help negate states of anger in the practitioner thus benefiting everyone. No God, Buddha or anyone grants the wish. It all happens in our own minds. If one doesn't understand this then one might mistake practice for ritual as well. For example, one doesn't pray but pays homage to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha in mindful rememberance. This practice is for the benefit of the practitioner by way of building humble states of mind and when one is humble, that will benefit others as well.
All practices that come from the Buddha's teaching are like this: Benefiting both the practitioner and the beings the practitioner comes into contact with. We practice to build wholesome states for ourselves. The less we are unwholesome the less others will suffer because of us and the more they will be happy when they come into contact with us. We help others by helping ourselves. This is a good kind of selfishness :)

i upvoted but am a little skeptical that you're right now. just cos it's all driven by one's own merit doesn't mean that the buddha has no role to play in the process

Perhaps the Pure Land schools of Buddhism come closest to the notion of supplication. To quote wikipedia

it is one's faith in the salvific compassion of the Buddha Amitabha,
  [..] and the earnest wish to enter the Buddha's happy land, that is
  said to bring deliverance into Buddha Amitabha's Western Paradise

However i believe that even in these schools it isn't a simple matter of just giving oneself over to another power. For instance in Shin Buddhism (also know as True Pure Land School) the Nembutsu is chanted as an expression of gratitude rather than a request for divine assistance.
On the  flip side to this, even Zen practitioners bow to their cushions. So even in Zen, where the emphasis is very much on your own endeavors, recognition is regularly given to something outside of oneself. You could even say that this was almost supplication.

Supplication does appear in Buddhism, even though there is less emphasis on it than in Christian teachings: Buddhists are less likely to e.g. put their successes down to being blessed.
Just an example quote form scholarly research:

According to the general teachings [rather than Vajrayana] of Buddhism only the fully awakened
  one, the Buddha, can be the object of supplication, veneration and
  devotion.


text:
Eradication of the Five Hindrances
Is there any stage, along the 'supermundane paths' to enlightenment, where the Five Hindrances to meditation are destroyed forever?

by Supramundane Path, do you mean the Eightfold Noble Path?

As this question was unclear and received no responses to date; edited to (hopefully) clarify. Can be rolled back to original if I've misstated your question though.

I think that the answer is 'yes, progressively'.

When you say "supermundane paths", this says,

According to the Abhidhamma, 'supermundane path', or simply 'path' (magga), is a designation of the moment of entering into one of the 4 stages of holiness - Nibbāna being the object - produced by intuitional insight (vipassanā) into the impermanence, misery and impersonality of existence, flashing forth and forever transforming one's life and nature.

Therefore, 'supermundane path' means the same thing as Four stages of enlightenment.
In each of these stages, there's the corresponding abandoning of more and more of the various 'fetters'.
This link says that the five hindrances include the ten fetters, and there's a table that says at which supermundane stage each hindrance is eradicated.

That table in the last link would have sufficed for a precise, targeted answer to the question. I'll add it in if you don't mind.

Yes! This is the whole aim of the Arhat's path! This is the goal of the 3rd training!
Instead of the word "destroy" it is better to think of it as "transform" because that is what it actually is. (Read Heart Sutra to understand this concept. Keep it in mind. Read Diamond Sutra Explained after.) The hindrances are basic energy that once you transform to its positive form--even if you do it temporarily--will give you tremendous energy in all its positive forms!
Anyway, that was the answer to your question.
But may i ask...
How is this done?
The three trainings.
1st training, morality, does a very temporary, repressive hold on the hindrances and afflictions.
This is why success in the 2nd training is pivotal. Once jhana is attained, each of the 5 factors of jhana temporarily but completely quells the 5 hindrances! This releases a tremendous amount of mental and physical energy and one feels truly oneself finally.
Fun Exercise: Make a table and think for yourself which concentration factor attacks which hindrance??
This is crucial because the 3rd training, the training of wisdom, requires that tremendous energy and focus from jhana. The goal of (Theraveda) Buddhism is success in this "last" training because it brings permanent resolution of the 5 Hindrances.
Nonetheless, may I repeat, one will not succeed in this "permanent resolution of the 5 hindrances" unless one succeeds in a temporary cure of the 5 Hindrances (through mastering at least 1st jhana).
What are the medicine for each respective hindrance? Each respective factor of the 5 Faculties.
How does one train them? Through facility in jhana, the 2nd training.
Note: Some argue that jhana is not necessary, the "dry insight" people, that this is going directly against the original suttas which speak of the benefits of jhana repeatedly ad nauseum.
Note 2: In Mahayana Buddhism, we go one step further and achieve Buddhahood by going beyond the afflictions and hindrances. In Mahayana Buddhism, once the goal of mastering the hindrances is achieved (3rd training), we go back to the 1st training (morality) and save all beings before entering into Perfect Nirvana. This is true Buddahood.


text:
How we can develop metta for terrorists?
Metta is benevolence towards all beings, without any discrimination, free of attachment and free of hatred. How we can develop metta for terrorists?

I am going to try my reply, based on the assumption that by 'terrorists' you are referring to the recent events in Middle East, 'Sydney Siege', Charlie Hebdo and so forth.
Personally I would take the following approach:
Ensure my own 'safety' first
By 'safety' I mean to ensure I do not lose my own Metta. Within the eternal tides of Samsara, the wellness of my current physical body can not compare to my heart's purity. Terrorists attacks mainly originates from the hatred poison, and I must ensure I do not have delusions of justice which can subject myself to the same contamination.
In reality, I am a commoner with no political influence on international affairs. Therefore, as a son, father and husband, I am obliged to ensure my, and my families', safety so I can continue to fulfil my duties. I shall remain respectful to all parties, and always keep a graceful distance.
Repent my own poisons
Upon witnessing the aftermath of much hatred build-up, I shall reflect within myself, "am I still poisoned with the same or similar traces of hatred? if so, can I let go of them? if not, then I shall continue to diligently abstain from hatred."
Offer my merits to them
Buddhism teaches that we are one with every being in all realms. We all share the same essence, and the existence of 'me' and 'them' is an illusion.
Everyone in the cosmos is like the trillions of microscopic cells in a human body. When a body part is malfunctioning, the body proceeds to repair it, not avenge it. For example, if my teeth accidentally bites my tongue, would my tongue exact revenge on my teeth? If differently body parts start to turn against each other, the violence multiplies and we will all eventually perish together.
There is an African village that doesn't punish fellow villagers whom has committed misconduct. They consider 'bad people' are simply unfortunately confused, so they would band together, and sing and dance around the 'bad person'. They would sing to praise nice things about him, and remind him that he should return to being the wonderful person he has always been.
We may need to stay vigilant in the short term to protect our safety, but in spirit we must be mindful that anyone is capable of greatness, everyone can attain Buddha-hood, and work towards that goal.
As a Pureland Buddhist myself, I would ask Amitabha Buddha to help us and dedicate merits to the situation at the end of every practice.
Proper education
As a Chinese Buddhist I practise Confucian virtues as a core foundation before diving into Mahayana wisdom. An essential part of Chinese Buddhism (and Chinese culture, in general) is cultivating filial piety. By fulfilling our filial duties we focus our life on full and proper care for our parents, our first and most important benefactors, and then gradually expand that love to our direct family members, friends, community and, with Mahayana teaching, expand the love to all realms.
The confucian book 'Di Zi Gui' (sometimes known as 'Pupil's Guide') summarizes criteria of filial piety into 7 parts: filial to elders, care for juniors, exercise caution, trustworthiness, love all beings, get well acquainted with the wise, and study arts (e.g. literature, skills, music etc) once the former criteria have been well established. This is commonly thought to be taught to children, but has been highly encouraged for adults to practice and 'fill in the gaps'. After all, how can you be Buddha, if you can't even succeed at being a human being?
If we can promote education towards love and wisdom (Metta), then we can cultivate better empathy for others and work together to foster happier families, and better communities. The most efficient way to convince others is not to approach them, but to first practice Metta diligently, set a great example, and convince others with our actions.

I hope the above has been helpful. I must be honest to say that I am not the expert in global affairs, but I can act on what I know and try to be a better human being. Any feedback to my reply above would be very much appreciated.

A well known way of practicing metta is to start out by wishing that we ourselves will be well, happy, free from harm, etc. We then wish that someone we care deeply about will be well, happy, free from harm, etc. We then wish someone we feel neutrally about will be well, happy, free from harm, etc. We then wish for someone we dislike to be well, happy, free from harm, etc. And from there we may included good wishes for everyone in a small geographic area, then everyone in a larger geographic area, and eventually building up to everyone in the cosmos.
So it's a building process; you ease into it rather than starting out trying to summon up benevolence for someone who is very challenging for you to feel benevolent towards. This takes some time and regular practice. The benefit of metta is that it helps dissolve greed (jealousy), aversion (hatred), and ignorance in you, yourself.
We shouldn't think that any category of beings are outside of our capacity to "wish them well". When a person is acting with extreme hatred and delusion, they are not well mentally and wishing them well is a way of wishing for mental clarity for them so that they will not continue to act in hatred and delusion.
If there is any doubt that we should include those acting in hatred and delusion in our wishes for well being for all, there is the fascinating story of Angulimala, a serial killer back in the Buddha's day who became an Arahant.
Here is an audio link to the style of metta meditation described in this post.
https://soundcloud.com/bhikkhu-samahita/metta-meditation

You need to change your perspective of terrorists. Instead of seeing them as terrorists who are agents of evil, we need to see them as regular people like you and me, who, just like you and me, are afflicted with the defilements (kleshas) like hate, wrong views etc.

I do try to look at them in this way, but alas, I don't succeed...

Try to reflect on times when you were afflicted with these defilements and could not see through them. For e.g. if you are consumed with hatred, you cannot see otherwise.

One practical approach is to recognize that "terrorism" is a vastly over-inflated risk, especially in the US. And it's also (sometimes) such a complex moral area -- e.g. Nelson Mandela would have been called a terrorist by some people at one time -- that in some ways it's easier to have compassion and understanding (compared with, say, the damage done by ostensibly legal but raw greed and financial jiggery-pokery).
In other words, avoid singling out "terrorists" as being in some way especially challenging in the context of metta. Greed, aversion, and delusion afflict all of us, and we all need to express compassion because we all need to receive it.

Christianity has a famous motto, Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Similarly a preschool teacher might be taught to say, to a misbehaving child, "that's a hurtful action" not "you're a bad boy/girl": because you're supposed to love the child (unconditionally) and disapprove of bad behaviour.
So you might dislike terrorism.
You could wish that all sentient beings (including terrorists) might be free from the anger and ignorance associated with terrorism.
A sutta quoted in Wikiedia is,

May these beings be
  free from animosity,
  free from oppression,
  free from trouble,

I dodn't see why you wouldn't want to wish that terrorists were free of animosity and oppression etc.

There are the opening verses of the Dhammapada too, for example:

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Don't you believe that?

Once you give people that label are you without discrimination and attachment yourself?

This answer has potential, but a lot more detail would be most excellent.


text:
Question about mind control
How to develop strong mind?,
how to overcome lust which comes to mind again and again?,
I have tried meditating but failed.

possible duplicate of Lust - How Can it be Overcome?

When you have lust recognise you have lust. Mere having lust is not failing in meditation but not recognising it is a failure.
To overcome the lust (one of the 5 hindrances) the main issue is that you have not taming you senses. You cannot avoid contact so each time some lustful thought arise in your mind look at the sensation it creates in the body. Look at this at mere thought and look at the impermanence of the sensations fantasizing or actual contact brings.
Following links might be off some help:

5 hindrances
lust

Lust is the number one defilement that will likely destroy an otherwise good practice. There is a practice that specifically targets lust known as The Thirty-two Parts of the Body (Dvattimsakara).
One contemplates these 32 parts of the body: head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, intestinal tract, stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovium (oil lubricating the joints), urine, and  the brain. This will help free the mind of the illusion that there is something beautiful about the body. There is nothing ultimately beautiful or ugly about the body. One might turn lust into repulsion by contemplation of the body parts in a state of decay or by viewing real autopsy photos. This is a common practice for monks because they must keep the precept to be pure of any sexual activity and if they can't tame the lust they often have to go back to lay life.


text:
Meditation on floor vs bed
Before I would meditate on floor in Burmese position 30 min in morning, and 30 min at night. My mind was very busy, but when it would calm down, I would get few "Creative Attacks"
For the past week, I felt a supernatural force make me meditate sitting on bed with back straight, leaning against pillows and legs straight (right after I wake up and right before I go to sleep). While I meditate in this position I have noticed myself inhaling and exhaling most of the time. I could even feel my chest expand and contract. And I barely get any noisy thoughts compared to meditation while sitting on floor in Burmese position.
I am missing those "Creative Attacks", but the reason I started meditation is so I can have deepened awareness in my surroundings (I'm called Absent-Minded)
Is my approach ok. I mean, these "Creative Attacks" are helping me endure some rough patches right now (almost to the point that these patches are slightly dry skin).
Can I hear from novice and experienced meditators alike.

What is a "supernatural force" I don't understand, can you explain what that means.

It depends on why you are meditating. However, since you are posting to a Buddhist group, look at it from the Buddhist perspective.
Meditation supports the Buddhist way of viewing the world, with non-attachment, that sees the impermanence and lack of essence of all things, especially one's "self".  As such, "Creative Attacks" are not relevant to this practice.
Further, if you are going through rough patches (or creative attacks), then the application of meditation is to look into this rough patch (or creative attacks), to see the characteristics mentioned above, but especially the illusory nature of the "you" who is suffering these rough patches (or creative attacks).
That is, instead of trying to combat feeling with feeling, work on seeing the illusory nature of the source. When confronted with suffering, look for the one who suffers, and when that is seen to be an illusion, the suffering becomes a non-issue.
Having said that, the posture to adopt to meditation should be one in which you can be alert (nothing that will lull you to sleep) while minimizing your discomfort.  Certain postures may make some bodily sensations more noticeable than others, so I'd recommend the one that reduces those.  Beyond that, you're free to pick a posture.

That is, instead of trying to combat feeling with feeling, work on undermining the illusory source. When confronted with suffering, look for the one who suffers, and find relief in the suffering not by making it go away, but by making the sufferer go away. this is something I am pondering over ...... very deep!!!

Might i suggest, don't "make" the sufferer go away but let it go away, via inquiry such as: who is this sufferer? Can the sufferer be seen? (No, that's skin hair etc) can the sufferer be heard? (No that's breathing, heartbeat etc) and so on. Investigate the nature of entities.

@qweilun Good call; edited.

@Glowie: I appreciate the profundity of the words. But might I suggest, don't ponder too much. :D Lest it consume you :P

I'm going to posit two possibilities here.  The first is simple and fairly obvious - the posture you adopt on the bed is better for you as it appears to allow for better relaxation and seems removed of the danger of you falling asleep.  Your attention also seems more established.  As R. Barzell indicates, meditation is a tightrope walk between discomfort and pain on the one side and dullness and drowsiness on  the other.  You want to adopt a position where your body aids in concentration rather than detracts from it.
With that said, I personally think sitting that on the floor is actually doing you more good from a developmental standpoint.  Meditation is not about blissing out, taking tea with the gods, while the lot of you float around on white poofy clouds.  My own tradition (Rinzai Zen) likens meditation practice to ascending a mountain of swords; the bare skulls of those that have gone before litter the ground along the way.  This is not to say that practice should be painful, ascetic, or in any way masochistic.  The "goal" is still relaxed attention.  What that metaphor does mean, however, is that as your wrestle with your body and mind, you will come face to face with situations that may be difficult and uncomfortable both physically and psychically.  While the overwhelming temptation is to run, the only way to surmount these obstacles is to persist.
When we sit down on the cushion, establish our attention, and watch the breath, we are throwing open the door to our unconscious.  Memories both good and bad, agitation that seems to have no discernible source, ill will and anger, sleepiness, doubt, and even deeper unconscious forms will arise unbidden.  It's all part of the process.  In fact, when these things do come about, while the content of experience is generally not important (and you really should do your best to put these experiences aside), their appearance is usually an indication that your meditation is going well.
I don't know what your goals are.  If you are meditating for stress relief and relaxation - and there is nothing wrong with that! - I think your position on the bed is ideal.  But if you are looking to climb the mountain of swords and add your own skull to the bone heap, get on the floor!


text:
Emptiness of emptiness
Is the following idea of mine a good way to practice the emptiness of emptiness in my everyday non meditational etc., life?
Does anyone suggest something like this, in any Buddhist tradition?

realizing your past happiness is worthless and that no way of thinking about it has any worth, and being happy about that

If you're new to meditation find a teacher. It will save you a lot of time in the beginning.

no i'm not, really. also i DID ask about outside meditation :)

I assume your reply means "I'm not new"? Correct me if I'm wrong.

More on topic however, you seem to be asking two questions. It's implied that the second is related to the first, but far from obvious how it is related. If you read this material somewhere, can you source it for clarification, or somehow restate the question?

i r can't see two unrelated questions there !
i've seen meditation teachers i number of times... :)

It's interesting to begin to understand things about yourself, your actions, your motivations and about what is worthwhile, wholesome, beneficial, and what is not. Some types of meditation can help greatly with these understandings and some would say there should be no "non meditational" part of your day. Every waking moment has the potential to be a mindful moment of being aware of what you are doing and why you are doing it and this can facilitate further understanding of yourself, your actions, your motivations.
I'm not sure that one "practices" emptiness. One hopes to understand emptiness and understanding could come from mindfulness both inside and outside of formal meditation.
But as a disclaimer, in the tradition I practice, the concept is anatta, not emptiness, so there might be subtle differences with emptiness of which I am not familiar.