text:
Will an electronic gadget designed on reward/punishment mechanism of brain help improve meditation?
The most challenging part of meditation is to keep our wandering mind aware of persent moment and mindful of thoughts.
Our brain has some thing  called 'Default Mode Network' which is nothing but our ordinary mind full of worries and past and future etc. This mode is converted into something called as 'Executive Mode' in states of meditation and states of what people called flow.
Now, scientists for ages have trained animals to behave in certain way through reward/ punishment mechanism which gets our brain trained to do particular task or behave in particular way.
If I designed an electronic gadget, something similar to this. With an added mechanism that whenever your mind will wonder a small tingiling shock will be given to your skin and otherwise nothing will happen.
Using dry electrodes and signal processing techniques we can now detect when the mind wanders off.
My queation is,

Will this kind of technology be accepted by serious meditators or otherwise will it be helpful to people who are new to meditation.
Or will it prove to be nuisance.
Do you think we can train our brains to be mindful all the times through such reward/punishment exercise.

See also Computer Feedback in Meditation (one of the answers mentions using the "Muse" device).

I have a Muse. They are not serious meditation devices. There is simply too much noise and thus too many false negatives and false positives to make an actually useful meditation training aid. If such devices could be improved in the future to provide a higher quality signal without so much noise, then perhaps they could be useful. From my experience with the Muse the fidelity would need to be near 99.9999% to have a chance of helping though.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Perhaps others have had different experiences.

First only puthujjanas who are materialists care about the brain.
Second, the word mindful for sati or satipatthana  is really used by people lacking vocabulary.
Same situation for the word mind, but even worse, since is there no mind in pali, but a declination into 3 words. THere is ''citta'', there is ''mano'' and there are the 6 ''Vinnana'', ie the consciousness aggregate (viññāṇakkhandha).
THe wandering of the mind is the ''papanca'' of the mano.
Third, the way to be concentrated on something is to be relaxed and have joy,  piti. Once you are concentrated, you have joy and once you have joy your citta is not dispersed to the point of not being disturbed by little pains, sounds,  or worries . In other words, you cannot be concentrated without having joy.
Your fantasy of naggering the person filled with papanca and struggling to reduce the papanca has nothing to do with this joy.

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha... virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who dwells heedfully.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html
Since you care about papanca, here is the method to avoid it: first  you become a disciple, you do satipaṭṭhānaṃ , you have confidence in the buddha and when you are around people you do satipaṭṭhānaṃ , confidence in the buddha and you are ''nice guy'' which means you show''Khantiyā, avihiṃsāya, mettacittatāya, anudayatāya'' ie patience, harmlessness, friendliness and sympathy. https://suttacentral.net/sn47.19/en/bodhi
THen you go to a place alone. Then your mano has Pīti, then your body has passambhati, then has sukhaṃ vediyati, which is pleasant vedana, then the citta has sukhha, and once it has sukkha it has samādhi, which is centered or ''not dispersed''. Once you live like that, you are a person who ''lives diligently'' and ''knows phenomena when they manifest''.


text:
The Buddha's struggle with the first absorption
I need help reading the footnotes from the following passage in
the book Satipatthana, and finding the suttas which they reference.

in one instance at least, the Upakkilesa Sutta, the Buddha gave a detailed account of his own struggle to attain the first absorption.41 This passage leaves no doubt that the Buddha himself encountered considerable difficulty when he attempted to attain the first absorption, even though in his early youth he had already once experienced it.
Analayo. Satipatthana (Kindle Locations 1196-1199).

Footnote 41 says

M III 162, where only after having consecutively overcome a whole series of mental obstructions (cf. in detail page 199, footnote 73) he was able to attain the first jhāna. Cf. also A IV 439, which reports his struggle to overcome sensuality in order to be able to develop jhāna.

What sutta does M III 162 reference? (as Majjhima Nikaya contains 152)
And footnote 42 says

M I 246. Possibly his ability to enter the first jhāna so easily at this particular moment during his early youth was related to samatha practice undertaken in a previous life, an ability lost during his adolescence and later sensual indulgence as a young man, so that he had to develop it anew.

To what does M I 246 reference?

See also Tripitaka Section Numbering

How are you able to know that M I 246 is within MN 36 and M III 162 is within MN 128 ? Is there a rule you followed to deduce this?
Both number-systems (e.g. "MN 1" compared to MN i 1") are ordered and in the same sequence, i.e. increasing from lowest to highest.

This page lists from "MN 1" ("MN i 1") through "MN 50" ("MN i 332")
This page lists from "MN 51" ("MN i 339") through "MN 100" ("MN ii 209")
This page lists from "MN 101" ("MN ii 214") through "MN 152" ("MN iii 298")

If you're looking for "M I 246" for example, go to the first page and scan it (i.e. look at the ranges of numbers):

MN 36 starts with MN i 237
MN 37 starts with MN i 251

So M I 246 is somewhere inside MN 36.
246 is about half-way between 237 and 251: so I guess that it's half-way, in the middle, of MN 36.

Go to https://suttacentral.net/mn and follow the 2nd set of sutta references.

M I 246 is within MN 36.
M III 162 is within MN 128.

The above said, Analayo's ideas about MN 128 are probably wrong. MN 128 is about a certain dilemma of Venerable Anuruddha, who later was renowned for his psychic powers. The certain dilemma or subject matter of MN 128 is 'obhāsañceva sañjānāma dassanañca rūpānaṃ', namely, 'perception of light and seeing of forms'. MN 128 appears to be about the coming to be of a psychic power rather than about the 1st jhana. Here, the Buddha gives an account of his own struggle with what appears to be a naturally occurrence of a physic power (which will not occur with every meditator, such as Venerable Sariputta, who did not have any psychic powers). Therefore, MN 128 does not appear to be about the Buddha's struggle with the first absorption.

How are you able to know that M I 246 is within MN 36 and
M III 162 is within MN 128 ? Is there a rule you followed to deduce this?

There is no rule. You just follow the reference on the internet or in the book (see the answer for the book).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Practice of Dhamma and loss of masculinity
Since the practice of Dhamma, I have experienced a loss of masculine nature like I am almost becoming a woman. I have given up aggression, anger, I make sure I am polite, not indulge in harsh speech (yesterday somebody was rude to me, but I didn't hit back like a man, I let-go, like I am now powerless), withdraw from addictions, not to eat meat as far as possible, no participate in actions hurting others like any kind of physical aggression, give up gambling, don't find the activity of going to gym and pumping up muscles any meaningful, instead I sit and watch my thoughts.
Under this discipline, any form of adrenaline triggering activity becomes almost undesirable. It is like I am psychologically turning into a woman. I don't know if this is helpful but certainly screwing up my sense of being a man.
question is,
Is this what anybody else experiencing? Is there any workout around the problem?
Is it inevitable?

In this part of the world, being calm and collected under pressure, not getting easily upset are also considered masculine qualities apart from physical strength

The anger of my youth has (mercifully) faded, but I don't feel feminine because of that.

There are positive and negative female and male traits. Positive male traits include courage, goal-orientation, reliability, capacity for leadership. Negative male traits are f.e. violence, tyranny, coldness. Positive female traits include nurture and a sense of family. Negative female traits are f.e. fickleness and timidity.
I dont think buddhism is about becoming some genderless entity. It's about adopting the positive traits of each aspect, not to give up one to be (bad at) the other.
You can be assertive without being violent, you can be a leader without being a tyrant.
Likewise you can love a child without being overprotective.
You mentioned going to the gym. Sure, muscles can be used to hurt someone, but they can also be used to help someone move furniture, to rescue someone from a crashed vehicle or to carry a tired child.
Going to the gym also makes you feel good about your body, is good for your health and immune system and a myriad of other things, which I don't think Buddhism is opposed to. On a more technical note: Going to the gym and exercising increases testosterone. If you stop going to the gym after doing it for a while, it's  natural to feel less masculine as your testosterone level decreases compared to before.
If you are a pushover I dont think this will do you good nor your community. Have the capacity for violence but only use it when absolutely necessary. Be able to lead, but be able to follow, too. Be calm and collected, not angry. All these are positive male traits.
In his youth the Buddha was trained in swordsmanship and archery, by the way. He certainly had the capacity to protect people from harm and all the other advantages that come from being a warrior in a garden rather than a gardener in a war.
I'd say meditate on which traits (male and female) are positive and which are negative and then adapt the positive ones or try to shift your balance of good and bad traits towards the good ones. Accept your dark side, enhance the good side.

It is not about being much so genderless but being non-discriminating. In the way that basic libidal and aggressive drives are hindrances that aim to please Self and there isn’t any reason to stick to such concepts.

I believe @eluebke has it basically correct. Another way to look at it is that the path we should be following is one of the evolution of the self beyond limited definitions of male (in your case) as defined by traditional 'traits' like aggressiveness or brutishness. As he said, meditate on the best of Human traits and try to redefine yourself via those. These are the ones which will help you progress forward in your quest for enlightenment. IMHO.

"Have the capacity for violence" is not a Buddhist teaching or advice. One shouldn't attempt to meditate on male vs female traits but on doing good or bad in general. Both men or women can have sense of family - men don't have to hide behind labels to avoid responsibility. And lastly, yes, Buddha was taught archery but before he became The Blessed One, from which point he completely lost capacity for violence and that was his teaching. There are also some known myths from non-Buddhist perspective (scientific); for example long effect of exercising & spiking testosterone is negligible.

Even from Freudian perspective, man should be careful of animal and juvenile instincts (there "id" that stands for aggression and libidinal drives), by rational means of intellect and then self discipline as those are negative; meant to satisfy "me" in a fastest way possible without considering cause and effect factors. We are mindful in Buddhism to yield control applying ethics and rules and that is what we do to transform. If one feels non-masculine doing Buddhism - it means that this is progress stage of the path.

What is masculine and what is not is only the product of collective thought, consciousness, and superstition in a given culture. Note how this differs among animals, there, it (masculinity) is not a fixed, unilateral idea.
It is not worth to be caught up by fixed ideas and divide masculine and feminine, for they are one and cannot exist without each other as there wouldn't be continuity of human life as we know it.
Such clinging to polarity brings suffering.
Rather, perceive it in terms of human virtue and nature in general and transcend such limited notion. Such notions lead to generalisations, generalisations lead to prejudice, and prejudice leads to suffering, inequality.

It is difficult and challenging to be the target of danger, violence, hate, anger and abuse. These threats to self give rise to fear and dread, with a compulsion towards fight or flight as a solution to defend self. Is fight masculine? Let's say not. Is flight feminine? Let's say not. Is fight better than flight? Let's say not. Instead, let's take a look at what is said about fear and dread.
The Bhayabherava Sutta (Fear and Dread) states:
While I walked, the fear and dread came upon me; I neither
stood nor sat nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and
dread
This sutta discusses dealing with fear and dread in controlled situations: sitting, walking, etc. But what about when someone throws a punch at you? I've been in fights where things got nasty because the only alternatives I had at the time were fight or flight. Was that a choice of masculine/feminine? No. Basically I did not have any skillful means. I studied Aikido and Zen together and learned a lot. And the dojo was coed--we all learned a lot from each other. Was that enough? No.
To live the truth of the Bhayabherava Sutta is very difficult. It is difficult because we need to live it with every breath, and most certainly when a knife is pointed at us. It is necessary to live it because only when you are free of fear and dread can you apply skillful means.
...adrenaline...
Sitting on a cushion with friends in a familiar place meditating is problematic when trying to deal with fear and dread. And today's society with all its guardrails tends to prevent situations of fear and dread. You could try to meditate alone in a graveyard but would no doubt be arrested for trespassing. However, it is possible to meditate on the Dhamma and the Bhayabherava Sutta in some adrenaline sports, provided that the focus is on the Dhamma and not the adrenaline or the adventure or the attainment. Dangers in these sports are very real and so is the fear and dread you need to deal with. Meditating with real fear and dread in action has helped me much more than worrying about gender. Indeed, I've learned more from brave women than brave men.
Namaste.

Well, I think giving up meaningless stuff like gym and reacting is a good thing.
What we consider to be a man or a woman is based upon social and cultural conventions anyway. Meaning, it differs from society to society. So, why cling to those ideas when they're that changeable?
Not feeling 'like a man' is only a problem when one identifies with 'being a man'.
I myself don't feel like a woman. Most of the time I feel quite genderless, so to speak. I've ask a monk ones about this a while ago. Apparently it's something advanced meditators experience.
So, yeah. Letting go of identifications is part of the deal. And sooner or later you probably won't find it such an issue.
Hope this helps.

Sounds very familiar, I went through a similar phase. Whether you call it "feminine" or a "pushover", there is certainly the tendency to get exceedingly soft if one truly takes Buddhist practice to heart -- after all, you're supposed to eliminate ego with its defensiveness, aggression, and hard opinions. You're supposed to control your emotions, avoid harsh speech and other forms of violence, stay away from alcohol, guard your senses from violent and lustful experiences which are pretty much the cinematographical norm these days - and so on and so forth.
Leaving aside the question of masculine vs. feminine (which I think is irrelevant to this conversation), yes, I believe this phase is normal and almost inevitable. Luckily, this is not the final destination.
This phase is what my Zen Master called the "form is emptiness" phase, and what follows after can be broadly characterized as the "emptiness is form" phase.
"Form is emptiness" is when you work on destroying attachment to form. You start by giving up and destroying the crudest attachments, like coarse anger and desires. Then you destroy more subtle attachments, like e.g. the tendency to self-assert and judge others who don't follow the same path. Then you destroy even subtler attachments, like subconsciously basking in your own purity and sainthood. Then you destroy whatever remains after that. This process goes on until you pretty much lose any form; you destroy all clinging to any conceptual ground; you no longer identify with any position, especially the position of "goodness" or "purity".
This leaves you with no ground to stand on, nothing to protect you, no desires to provide a sense of direction, no values to give you purpose. This is the peak of losing form. At this point you are 100% vulnerable, way beyond losing masculinity. It's like, you are not even a person anymore. There is no personality, no individuality, nothing left - you are completely transparent with no desires, no opinions, no will of your own.
And then, once you get more or less comfortable with having no ground (you can't really get comfortable, but you can get used to it) -- you can start exploring the other side of nonduality, called "emptiness is form". This is when you realize that since nothing in life has absolute importance, you are free to declare new forms, and you have a right to assert your opinion. You can even manifest aggression when that's required by the circumstances.
So, to summarize the above: this phase is normal, keep letting go of progressively subtler attachments until you completely lose shape, and then some part of your aggressive masculinity that you're currently suppressing because of its inherent violence interfering with the Path, will be reintegrated back and you will no longer feel "feminine" or meek.

I wouldn't maybe say reintegrated back (in the same form) but transformed and made of something of very indifferent importance to dwell upon; worth a chuckle at best.

A lot of the things you describe are associated with an active way. For example, to develop your body versus listen to your thoughts, is a clear example of active and outward versus passive and inward. These dichotomies correspond with masculine and feminine in many cultures.

Is this what anybody else experiencing?

The dominant culture in much of the world today is excessively outward and active. It is natural that in seeking the middle way, one turns inward and becomes more passive to counter-balance. Much of Buddhism also teaches of and trains toward the importance and the benefits of passivity in the external world. There again, it is natural that a practitioner will turn inward and become more passive.

Is there any workout around the problem? Is it inevitable?

This is harder to answer. The above points give context one can operate it regarding activity and passivity in one's life, internal and external. Seek balance and clarity. Looking closely at one example, let's consider going to the gym. Are you clear about why you go? Try to gain as much clarity about it as possible (which will take both active seeking and passive listening). With clarity about the phenomenon or experience, try to seek balance about it in your life. Sometimes balance takes a "hands off" approach, and sometimes having a hands-off approach takes effort. Sometimes balance means finding the right amount of something (a passive process) and adjusting habits and ways accordingly (an active process). There are many layers to striking a balance, and there are more layers still to walking the path. Therefore it is hard to say what is inevitable or what appropriate workarounds are for a particular instance.

The real issue is you losing all those "addictions" you are describing. That, I believe, is the goal you are trying to reach, but I can remember talks from some western Buddhist monks who said that at some point some people get afraid that when you lose all that stuff - what do you keep in the end?
I would suggest to you that you should be happy - whatever you are doing seems to be working as intended.
Whether you label it manly or womanly is up to you and your level of, frankly, machismo - but irrelevant, at the end. Those more extrovert things you notice (getting angry, hitting back etc.) are simply something we maybe relate most with men (aggression), hence the psychological connection in your brain about that.

Physical aggression / gambling / going to gym / pumping up muscles / hit back / addictions / meat eating.....etc etc etc...
None of the above, are gender specific traits. Meaning, they are both a manly or womanly thing, it can happen on Men and Women.
In Buddhism perspective, there are only wholesome and unwholesome acts. Your best bet is to stick with the wholesome acts.

Dependence is a niche acquired through mental mutilation. Addictions being the best example. Mental conditioning is sadly a dying art.

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


text:
why can't we swap one desire for another and another?
We know that because of impermanence, that nothing is worth clinging to. But did the Buddha say any words on why we cannot swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another, and continue doing so?
For example, one might take drug A to induce euphoria, then when drug A wears off, replace it by drug B, and so on.

Even prescription drugs tend to lead to increased craving for more, and for this reason, even they are unreliable. But don't know if this is purely a mental phenomena, not unique to only drugs, and the same would be true for all objects of desire.

driven by endless greed, one would inevitably want for what cannot be given.

To put it simply: because "suffering" dukkha does not necessarily arise in the aspect of pleasant feeling. There is suffering in the aspect of pleasant feelings. It is called 'suffering of change' or 'contaminated happiness'.

"Why we cannot swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another, and continue doing so?"
The act of swapping one impermanent source for another... is also subject to impermanence. One can realize this with logic or simply look at the experience of those beings that have tried... ie., every sentient being in existence :)
Our very existence is a cause and condition for the suffering of others. The First Noble truth contains both coarse and subtle understandings of Dhukka. The most subtle is what is called the Sankhara-dukkha. This is an all pervasive unsatisfactoriness. Swapping from one impermanent source of satisfaction for another is itself unsatisfactory. To recognize this as Dhukka is wisdom.
"For example, one might take drug A to induce euphoria, then when drug A wears off, replace it by drug B, and so on."
What will that experience of it wearing off feel like? Satisfactory? What about when all the drugs run out? What will be the karma of someone acting in this manner? Look at the very real experiences of your fellow sentient beings that have tried this... do you find them satisfactory? If not, why not?
Ice cream is my favorite thing to eat. I now regard it as a form of suffering. To really understand the predicament we are in we have to see the Dhukka in those things we typically find "happiness" in. All of this, no manner how many drugs we take, is subject to aging, sickness and death. That's Dhukka.

MN 75 gives the analogy of a leper and shows that by swapping one desire for another, we would simply be making our craving and attachments progressively worse, which is a slippery slope to deepening our suffering.
The reason for this is that sensual pleasures are impermanent, and either their future absence will cause suffering, or their future side effects will cause suffering. They can't be sustained forever. And when you swap one desire for another, craving gets deepened and the "sensual fever" burns deeper. This will result in suffering becoming deeper.

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

For example, one might take drug A to induce euphoria, then when drug A wears off, replace it by drug B, and so on.

The problem with replacing a sensual object with another is that over time, the body system's sensual receptacles grow numb to the old stimuli and it'd require stronger and stronger stimuli to trigger the same level of pleasurable response. An analogy is when one drinks salt water to try to quench his thirst, it only makes his thirst more severe, and s/he'll keep drinking salt water to death.

But did the Buddha say any words on why we cannot swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another, and continue doing so?

The Buddha did say about a gradual process of replacing one gross/coarse source of satisfaction with other less coarse/more refined ones, and incrementally more and more refined ones, until a day when one's defilements are completely eradicated and one no longer craves any kind of stimuli coarse or subtle at all:

Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality. ~~ MN 14  ~~

'swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another'
Is this not exactly what we do all our lives?
did the Buddha say any words on why we cannot?
Is the first noble truth not exactly why we musn't even if we can?
There is no 'cannot' there is only awakening to folly.

In your own words of understanding the first noble truth, can you explain, exactly why we musn't 'swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another' even if we can?

For a simple reason that it brings an everlasting orgasmic joy.

Sarcasm aside, is lasting joy not possible as long as we continue to find something else that brings us joy?

@avatarKorra He he I am glad that you got the sarcasm...to tell you a scientific reason...there was an experiment done on rats where they were given a choice to stimulate their brains to get an orgasm...the rats go hooked but all of the experimental subjects died. Human brain is  designed that ways. It doesnot respond to permenant happiness inducing harmones the way u are visualising it. So, no...lasting joy is not possible by changing the object of pleasure. Not even with drugs. Neurochemistry also has a say as much as psychology and biology.

yes I think from the side of sense pleasures, laws of chemistry/physics/nature will not allow the body to find lasting satisfaction in this way. And to generalize beyond the senses to all things, it seems that at some point we will run out of options to find 'something else' to bring us joy, and at that time we'll see dukkha gain. In any mundane thing we try to find joy in, it carries either the danger of attachment, or the satisfaction doesn't last (e.g. we get bored of it).

We can not replace A by B by C by D and so on because the consumer is perishable. The euphoria which gets generated by coming together of body and drugs fails to get generated after some time as the body dies or becomes deseased. This applies to all the objects of satisfaction. For example imagine someone changing wife every year to enjoy sex. But after some time his sexual organ will fail to respond to sexual stimuli as he will become diseased or will leave his body. Therefore objects of satisfaction can not be replaced forever.

while the consumer is still alive, though, can he not continue to find satisfaction by finding a new drug? I suppose not, because there are only finitely many classes of drugs to induce euphoria. And finding a new drug does not guarantee that cravings for old drugs are removed.

Yes ,drugs are finite and life is also finite. End of life doesn't mean end of you. You will be reborn and you will again search for drugs. You will suffer if you do not get rid of drugs.  Police will remove the drugs or you will go mad when it will not be available. Therefore avoid to depend on replacement plan.

and what would you say to someone who doesn't believe in rebirth (as transmigration of human life), isn't in danger of the police, nor goes mad from taking drugs?

As long as there is craving ,Rebirth is a fact and can not be denied.

MN 54 describes how sensual pleasures cannot bring satisfaction and the more than are indulged in the more they bring chronic weariness.
The more pleasures are indulged in, the more craving grows, the more the capacity to obtain pleasure from sensual pleasures diminishes.
This is why people become addicts and reach a point where their objects of addiction cease to bring pleasure and bring suffering.

Householder, suppose a dog, overcome by hunger and weakness, was waiting by a butcher’s shop. Then a skilled butcher or his apprentice
  would toss the dog a well hacked, clean hacked skeleton of meatless
  bones smeared with blood. What do you think, householder? Would that
  dog get rid of his hunger and weakness by gnawing such a well hacked,
  clean hacked skeleton of meatless bones smeared with blood?”
“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because that was a skeleton of well hacked, clean hacked meatless bones smeared with blood. Eventually
  that dog would reap weariness and disappointment.”
“So too, householder, a noble disciple considers thus: ‘Sensual pleasures have been compared to a skeleton by the Blessed One; they
  provide much suffering and much despair, while the danger in them is
  great.’


text:
Was Gautama Buddha's wife Yesodhara in any way instrumental in Him becoming a Buddha?
Considering the story we know about the life of Buddha as Siddhartha and also considering that Yesodhara was Buddha's partner in His many previous lives, can we say that Yesodhara was somehow instrumental in Siddhartha becoming a Buddha?
OR
With or without Her being in His life He would have made it?
(Her pervious life with Buddha is in wiki article and here.)
I know this question is as such irrelevant to practice but I am trying to get around this idea called 'soul-mates' which is in pop-media.

It appears the stories in the question are not from the Pali suttas but are later commentary stories and Mahayana ideas probably created to salvage Gotama's misogynist reputation.
It appears Yasodharā is not mentioned in the Pali suttas, apart from supposedly as Bhaddakaccānā in AN 1.245. The Pali suttas appear silent on Yasodharā and only refer to Gotama's parents when Gotama left home.

So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and
while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down
their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and
went forth from the home life into homelessness.
MN 26

The Pali suttas do not report the traditional fables or children's stories about Gotama seeing a sick, old & dead man and secretly leaving home. Instead, the Pali suttas report Gotama unhappy with worldly life in his palaces and having an existential crisis (refer to Sukhamala Sutta).
Since Gotama left home after his son was born, it appears possible he made a deal with his father to bear an heir to the throne. In other words, his wife was probably unimportant, apart from her role of child bearing (breeding) for the family lineage.
Since Gotama was married for 13 years but childless, based on the above suttas mentioned, it appears obvious Gotama had little or no interest in sex. Obviously his family (clan), wife, child and royal status were a burden for him. This is probably why the Buddha taught in MN 26:

Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being
subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise
subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness...
death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is
likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to
birth.
And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves...
goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares...
gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death...
sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death...
sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

In conclusion, Gautama Buddha's wife Yesodhara was probably highly instrumental in Him becoming a Buddha because she showed Gautama she was incapable of bringing Gautama any real happiness but would only bring burdens & misery.

If Gotama and Yasodharā were childless, what about Rāhula?

i wrote childless for first 13 years of marriage. Then unmarried as soon as become a father. Abandoned his wife.

Thank you for this answer. If this version of stories is held correct I suppose my craving for the other to attain Nibbana ends. I am a Theravadin so  I will take this as the truth. So in effect, you don't need that perfect wife who has followed you life after life, to attain Nibbana. This helps.  Thanks again :).

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I am trying to get around this idea called 'soul-mates' which is in pop-media.
The term 'soul-mates' doesn't make sense in ultimate reality as there are no souls to begin with. But if you simply interpret it as being the perfect husband and wife, it has meaning in Buddhism.
With or without Her being in His life He would have made it?
Once the Buddha Deepankara gave the prediction that the Bodhisatta is going to be a Buddha, it was going to happen one way or the other.
Yashodara Theri herself answers this question in her last words before she passed away.
“me saranam atthano” (“I am my own refuge”).
Nevertheless, she was the perfect wife to the Bodhisatta.

The relationship between Yashodhara and Prince Siddhartha was long and
  deep-rooted. It had started many, many years ago at the time of the
  Dîpankara Buddha. At that time, the Prince (Bodhisatta) was born as an
  ascetic by the name of Sumedha. After an exceedingly long period of
  practicing the ten virtues, the Bodhisatta Sumedha had finally
  completed the eight requirements to receive the definite proclamation
  of Buddhahood from the Dîpankara Buddha. Yashodhara, at that time, was
  born as a noble lady by the name of Sumitta. She saw the Buddha
  Dîpankara give the Bodhisattva eight handfuls of white jasmine flowers
  and the definite proclamation that He would be a Buddha by the name of
  Gotama, of the Sakyan caste, in the distant future. Cutting off her
  hair, she aspired to be His consort and helpmate and to support Him
  actively in His quest for Buddhahood.

Since then she had been the wife of no other but him during the entire period(100,000 world cycles and four infinite periods).
Another example for a perfect couple is Nakula matha and Nakula pitha.

If this version is accepted then it means really they are soul mates as its defined in popular media. I understand that there is no soul so no question of having soul mates, but loosely defined it as the person you will meet life after life in each reincarnation is defined as soul mate then it makes sense to call them soul mate. Also if this part of the story be stressed ' be His consort and helpmate and to support Him actively in His quest for Buddhahood.' then it directly means she was instrumental for His Nibbana. As it literally indicates she supported Him, so her support was needed.

@FriedrickNietzsche it depends on what the term 'soul-mates' means to you. Buddhists do not have to protest against the usage of such terms. Especially if they are meant in a conceptual sense. If you are a married person, you will know that it's very useful to have a supportive wife, but it's not a necessity to succeed in life. It's the same case for the Bodhisatta. :)

Who we finally called Yashodhara was an integral part of who we now call Siddhartha Gautama's achievement. She not only was an integral part, she also achieved realization in that lifetime. Ignorantly claiming that the circumstances in which karma was dispelled are not necessary is counter-productive.  For instance, even in his last lifetime as the Buddha, Siddhartha stepped on a briar and hurt his foot. Ananda said, "How can this happen?" Gautama said, "It's the last little bit of karma that I had to dispel."
Yashodhara and Siddhartha made a pact in the time of the Later Dipankara Buddha - they would travel together through all of the subsequent lifetimes until enlightenment and if one achieved, they would come back for the other. We see undisputed (finally, sigh) stories of Yashodhara copying everything Siddhartha did as an Aesthetic. Shaving hair, doning yellow robes, eating once a day....while still in the palace waiting for him.  This is not the action of a distraught or angry wife. Let's think about it.
Male Chauvenistic tendancies aside (if we can bear it) Yashodhara was principle part of Siddhartha's history. If you believe that he was ACTUALLY omniscient and did ACTUALLY remember his lifetimes, you must assume he could tell stories about them.
Men who claim women are unequal practitioners, evidenced by the 8 extra rules that place women "below" men are right.  Men and women are unequal.  Women are superior Bodhissatvas. Naturally they give their bodies to others (carrying a child), Feed them from their own bodies, subjugate their own needs to take care of others.
More rules are always given to more serious practitioners. Ignorant beginners only have a few rules.  Let us think about this, too.

Welcome to the site! May I ask -- where do you find the stories, which you referenced in the 2nd paragraph? About the pact, and about what Yashodhara did while waiting in the palace?


text:
Isnt the illusion better? of a self?
Like the man in the matrix. Whats his name? Played by Keanu Reeves. Im wondering if its better to keep with the illusion? Non illusion is a lonely place> Isnt there something positive to it? Hope of a soul?

Loneliness is the memory of love. The memory of being selfless together, complete, without greed, hate or delusion. Chasing that memory into the Matrix, Neo-like, to escape dystopia can give you a simulation of love. But then you log out to loneliness. Did that work? No? How about do it again? No? How about a new perspective?
Unpeel the loneliness and look within, quietly, gently.
"In the middle of lonely is One"--Ven. Ajahn Brahm.

It is the place where you hoard things for Self and suffer greatly when they are gone.
It is the place where you cling to Self pleasures and suffer when inevitable downturn approaches.
It is the place where you take everything on Self, being hurt by everyone and everything at every step.
It is the place where perfecting Self never really ends and there is no end to madness of Self-loathing.
It is the place where you look at Self and weep day by day as you are losing your young Self.
It is the place where you hurt and destroy people close to you because of the animal Self.
It is the place where you close your Self to the others and regret it later in life.
It is the place of restlessness of Self with no sense of bliss that is not dependent on anything.
Its the illusion of Self - that lonely place you speak of. Not the other way around.

Is it better to have the illusion that the house is not on fire and stay in the house when the house is on fire? Actually, it is more like asking if it is better to believe that dying in a fire is actually happiness when in fact dying in a fire sucks?! If a dog is wound tight to a pole is it better for it to believe that no relief exists rather than unwinding itself?!
It's precisely our belief in the illusion of self that keeps us imprisoned in this world of dhukka. The key to escape from this prison is the direct realization of things as they actually are. Believing that realizing the truth will lead to suffering is a mistaken belief. That is not how things actually are.

Thanks for above. I'm still not convinced the awakened state is better.  But I have an open mind

Im wondering if its better to keep with the illusion? Non illusion is a lonely place> Isnt there something positive to it? Hope of a soul?

Non-illusion is apparently not for the faint of heart. But once one's crossed to the other side, there's no way one'd want to come back. In MN 75 the Buddha used quite a graphic simile about a leper finding pleasure by cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. But once cured of the disease, there'd be no way he could derive any pleasure by doing that again. One still sees non-illusion as boring, cold, lonely, etc. only because one's still subjected to the Four Perversions of Perception.


text:
In what ways the Way removes the craving?
Buddha says the Way of Eightfold path removes the craving. I am looking for a short summary of ways the Way removes the craving.
My question is : In which ways does the Way removes the craving ? How does the Way removes the craving ? ( For example if the answer is by holding right view then I would like to know How does holding right view removes craving ?)

For example if the answer is by holding right view then I would like to know How does holding right view removes craving ?

It's no coincidence that Right View is mentioned first in the Noble Eightfold Path (N8P).
We crave because of Wrong View: where one of its manifestation is the Four Perversions (seeing impermanent things as permanent, dukkha as pleasure, not-Self as self, and un-attractive as attractive).
But even with Right View, one still needs other limbs of the N8P to reinforce/strengthen one's practice toward a complete abandonment of craving, through the 3 gateways of moral virtues/mental discipline/wisdom (i.e. cultivate Sila/moral virtues thru Right Speech, Right Livelihood, etc.; cultivate mental discipline thru Right Effort, Right Concentration, etc.).
For a thorough analysis on the purpose of the N8P, see Ven. Bodhi's excellent "Noble Eightfold Path"

Ven. Bodhi's approach has been to uproot the ignorance. The way according to him teaches opposite of ignorance. I want an approach which uproots the craving. Please dont mind but I will wait for a better answer.

...How does the Way removes the craving ?...
The Sammaditthi Sutta promotes a detailed understanding of right view and craving:

When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view,...

...and discusses the arising of craving at length:

With the arising of feeling there is the arising of craving...There are three taints: the taint of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance

However, the Sammaditthi sutta is long and some find the following equivalent and useful for addressing craving:

Delight is the root of suffering...
Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words


text:
Where is DN.iii.106?
I have been trying to find a sutta DN.iii.106 on suttacentral.net but  couldn't find it. On suttacentral.net DN.iii.99 is given and after that DN.iii.117, DN.iii.106 is missing. I failed to find it on accesstoinsight.org as well.
I am looking for it because it talks about the 7 factors of enlightenment which is crucial for the destruction of craving.
Can anyone please give me the link to DN.iii.106 ?

See also Tripitaka Section Numbering (and the answers to this question).

According to suttacentral ...

DN 28 starts with DN iii 99
DN 29 starts with DN iii 117

... so I think that DN.iii.106 is near the middle of DN 28.

Long Discourses of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya)


text:
Do monks sneeze and cough?
Sneezing and coughing are voluntary reactions provoked by viruses in order to propagate and reach as many hosts as possible. If a person has a high sense of control of his or her own reactions, they can perfectly control both impulses.
Are monks encouraged to observe the rising and passing of the impulse to sneeze or cough, but not give in? Strictly speaking both are propagating disease and generate bad kamma, since you're infecting other people.

There are a couple of points here about how to be polite if the Buddha sneezes or a monk sneezes:

Now at that time the Lord, surrounded by a large assembly, sneezed while he was teaching dhamma. Monks, saying: “Lord, may the Lord live (long), may the wellfarer live (long),” made a loud noise, a great noise; the talk on dhamma was interrupted by this noise. Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: “Now, monks, when (the phrase) ‘Long life’ is spoken to one who has sneezed, can he for this reason live or die?”
“That is not so, Lord.”
“Monks, ‘Long life’ should not be said to one who has sneezed. Whoever should say it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Now at that time people said “May you live (long), honoured sirs” to monks who had sneezed. The monks, being scrupulous, did not respond. People … spread it about, saying: “How can these recluses, sons of the Sakyans not respond when (the phrase) ‘May you live (long), honoured sirs’ is being spoken to them?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, householders like lucky signs. I allow you, monks, when (the phrase) ‘May you live (long), honoured sirs’ is being spoken to you by householders to say, ‘Long life’ (to them).”

That's very interesting! Well, if the Buddha himself sneezes then it's clear it is something not to be worried about.

I think it's generally also considered polite, at least these days, not to sneeze on or at people. It's not even difficult, even young children are taught so. But I think that's a secular/cultural matter.

@QuantumBrick careful, the Buddha sneezed deliberately and with intention in order to help sentient beings. There is meaning in his sneeze.

Strictly speaking both are propagating disease and generate bad kamma, since you're infecting other people.
Kamma doesn't get generated by sneezing when you are ill. The 'intention' plays a very big part in ones Kamma. So no bad Kamma there.

Understood. The rest of the question remains valid, though.

Our very existence acts as a condition for the suffering of others. That said, I think you have a blinkered understanding of how karma works. As Friedrick said, intention plays a pinnacle role.
Also, the Buddha dharma teaches pacification of the mind and body. The correct way to control our body, speech and mind is taught by all Buddhist traditions and refraining from actively harming other sentient beings is crucial. However, controlling involuntary bodily reactions is pretty high hanging fruit.
I don't know whether Arya being's can control involuntary bodily reactions, but I suspect they can. When I become an Arya being I'll try and keep your question in mind and let you know somehow. Keep in mind, that not all monks and seekers on the path are at the same level. Some must content themselves with much lower hanging fruit for now :)

I like your answer, but physiologically speaking it is not correct. Sneezing and coughing are not involuntary... The beating of your heart, hearing, etc, are involuntary

Considering that advanced Buddhist meditators can control the beating of their heart and can shut out all external noise ... i'd say that sneezing and coughing wouldn't be too hard for them.


text:
How to develop energy, rapture, tranquility and immersion?
I am looking forward to develop 7 factors of enlightenment. The 7 factors of enlightenment are factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy (viriya), rapture (piti), tranquility (passaddi), immersion (samadhi), and equanimity.
I have understood how to develop factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles and equanimity.
However I am not sure how to develop the following:

Energy (viriya)
Rapture (piti)
Tranquility(passaddi)
Immersion (samadhi)

(I guess Tranquility can be developed by becoming independent. If the answer to samadhi is to enter the first Jhana then my question will be how to enter it?)
So my question is: How to develop energy, rapture, tranquility and immersion? If you know answer to only one or few of the above factors then please post that as an answer. I will combine them.

Are you especially (or only) interested in sutta references?

I am interested in suttas primarily. Something like MN 117 which explains the path.

There's a whole samyutta dedicated to the description and analysis of the Bojjhanga in the Connected Discourses (see Bojjhanga Samyutta). Also check out Ven. Piyadassi's great "Seven Factors of Enlightenment"

This is such a good question!
Each of these steps includes a further development of 'clarity', hence the first two steps - of mindfulness and investigation - to get this going.  An inspiring source, for some people, is in the essays of Ajahn Jeff, of Wat Metta.  These can be found in accesstoinsight.org.  His approach is so practical and sensible.
The sexual renunciation required for developing Steady Energy is just the gross aspect.  Steady Energy comes naturally out of constant practice when the mind becomes sufficiently calm.  Trying to develop this will only act against it.  This principle applies to all the remaining stages.

Thanks but I want to know whether Buddha showed how to develop Energy for example. I have found how to develop Rapture in language of Buddha. By developing strong faith in Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha one can develop Rapture. Viriya(energy) is a Sanskrit word  , it means sperm. Developing energy would mean conserving sperm and avoiding sex I guess.

Is Ajahn Jeff also known as Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff)? Are there any specific essays that you recommend, which address the OP's question?

Ajahn Jeff is indeed aka Thanissaro Bhikkhu, The best essay imho is "Wings to Awakening" but every thing else he does will develop the vital clarity needed to develop Right Understanding, from which the entire path develops.  One exception would be his essay on the Romantics, it didn't help me very much, though is interesting as a survey on Wrong View in western thought.

I meditated for over a decade and found energy, rapture, tranquility, and immersion elusive in the comforts of modern daily life. Dhukka ruled instead.
And then I encountered fear and terror. That gave immediate energy and required tranquility as a base from which rapture and immersion could apply to burn fear and terror thoroughly away. Traditionally, monks choose seclusion in forests with tigers, graveyards, etc. It is difficult to find situations in modern life that engender constant yet manageable fear and terror. The forests are dying and we live in Disneyland. And yet these opportunities still do exist. For example meditating on breath while rock climbing is effective. You do have to be immersed or you will bumble and kill yourself or your partner. There is energy from the real challenge. Death and injury cannot be ignored. And rapture and tranquility do also emerge from this. Breathing in. Breathing out. Excellent practice. Sometimes there are professions suited for this--consider if you are a surgeon or tuk-tuk driver, someone's life is in your hands, fear and terror easily found.
If you have the opportunity to do so, live the Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror. Breathe in. Breath out. Endure.


text:
How to regain Enlightenment?
I had the most profound experience after what felt like a near death experience. I believe I was having a heart attack, and after focusing on my body for 20-30 minutes I ceased being aware of signs of a heart attack for a moment after my body felt slightly better and less like I was dying. At this point what felt like a veil covering my perception was lifted, I had the most profound feeling. I can try to conceptualise what the feeling was like in words but it won't do it justice because that is not how it came to me. But suffice to say it was similar to many instances of 'enlightenment, satori, entering the kingdom of heaven, satchitananda etc etc etc.
Some of the attributes/things I experienced for the next 3 weeks were: non-duality, no judgement towards others or myself (no categorising things as good or bad), Falling in love with the present moment, falling in love with every person I met, Feeling the world was perfect, being able to face any fear, being indifferent(apathetic) to new stimuli (however I could turn it on, I was able to get happy about things if I wanted to, but bad news did not affect me). I was no longer looking for a future moment to fulfil me. I felt as if before this experience I was playing a character of myself, I still felt the same after it, however, much more connected to my self.
This state lasted for 3 weeks and did not lose any of these attributes the entire time, except for the 'non-judging of things' I noticed slightly lessened towards the end (I noticed a few  times me judging but could catch myself and stop it).
At the end of the 3 weeks, I drank at a party, Since that time I have not felt these effects.
Paradoxically I want nothing else but to get back to that perceptive state, however, it felt almost as if there was nothing to 'get back to' when I was in it, more so like I was always there but just blind to what was there. Some of the words that seemed to ring true after the event were 'nothing is hidden from me, enlightenment is the only constant, the present moment is the only constant, consciousness is all there is, you are everything, the world is perfect, the present moment is perfect'.
A part of me thinks that because it felt that by letting go of trying to control my awareness this view opened up to me, so I'm scared that now that I've lost it I will not get it back.
It has totally possessed me for the last 3 weeks (6 weeks ago the experience happened) I really would do anything to get back there. Does anybody have any advice on how I could regain and sustain that perception if any glimpses of it re-emerge?
Additional questions:
I have adhd and have been prescribed ritalin ( i have not taken yet) will this affect me getting back there.
This awakening happened during the night after drinking large amounts of alcohol, however losing it was from drinking alcohol.. I am oscillating between drinking a lot to try and get back there and never drinking again. (please note, my symptoms of ADHD go away the morning after drinking and im worried that I could only focus enough to view reality(awakening) because of that).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Ramana Marhashi's experience appears to be similiar to mine except for him expressing that he died but his physical body did not. Wherein my awakening appeared to me not from 'dying' but from the relief of not dying and giving up trying to control my intention/desire/awareness. Part of me is interested in Dzogchen for the phrase 'the self perfected state' as it felt during this period like it was nothing being 'added' to my experience that I was always enlightened but could not see it.
There's soooo many books on these topics, its hard for me to grasp. And I fear that I will spend the rest of my life trying to get back to a point i'll never re experience (like so many other people who have chased enlightenment).

I was no longer being a person being aware of awareness, i was just awareness.. it felt like the ego trying to control awareness had been lifted and what was left was just consciousness.
This bliss - is so important for me to get back.

It sounds like you had some kind of realization! Rejoice!
Now let it go. That's the only way to continue on the path.
Reflect on the moments leading up to where you, "ceased being aware of signs of a heart attack" and, "felt slightly better and less like I was dying." How did those moments feel? Did they feel something like:

"I want nothing else but to," ... stop feeling this heart attack and
to stop dying.
Were you, "scared that now that I've lost" my life and, "will not get it back"?
Did it feel like those moments where you felt like you were dying "totally possessed" you?
Would you have done, "anything to get back" your life?

You say that, "my awakening appeared to me not from 'dying' but from the relief of not dying." Is this true? Are you sure? Or did you give up at some point and let go to the inevitability of your dying? Did you give up the struggle to stay alive? And then discovered you were not dying after all ... and attributed the euphoria you felt to the not dying rather than that state of having given up?
Those quotes in the list above are from how you currently describe your mental state. How does your current predicament of wanting to get back to your euphoria so much that you'd "do anything" compare to your past predicament of wanting not to die? How are they different?
I'm just a Buddhist patzer, but I hope this advice helps: analyze in detail those moments before you had this euphoric experience and analyze your moments now. And just let go of this realization you've had. Develop your wisdom and your compassion for other sentient beings. Continue on the path. Slowly, slowly.

First thing you have to understand that enlightenment or awakening, as you have experienced is not a doing it is a happening. For e.g. in your story you didn't do any conscious effort it just happend to you, triggered by some deep releived state of your mind. The alcohol was not a direct trigger to it, may be it just functionaed as a catalyst in that moment when the time and conditions were right.
I would advise that don't resort to drinking alcohol, if anything it will sabotage any efforts of getting there.
From my undrrstanding of Buddhism in particular and life at large, I would say you had a good reserve of past life karma which gave you the glimpse of awakening.  Now that you have understood that there is nothing like it and as you said 'I really will do anything to get back there' then have courage and do it. Do whatever it takes to get back there.
Yes the literature is astronomical but trust your intuition, trust your life, trust existance.
I would say taking prescribed dose of ritalin wont matter. Get in right frame of mind. But don't resort to alcohol.
Remember one very important thing, don't crave for that experience it will do only suffering. If at all anything try to forget that you had it in the first place.
I dont know where are you but try spending some time in a Buddhist temple or a Zen monastry.
At your point, from buddhist point of view, I would suggest you read Ajahn Brahms book, 'Mindfulness bliss and beyond' thats it, no other book is required. To follow those instructions you don't even have to believe in anything.
You will learn to enter Jhnanas and from there back to the La-La land where you been.
Also if possible try to attend Ajahn Brahm's retreat, thats one man I know of, will get you back there.
Hope this makes sense.
God Speed.


text:
Is pīti physical and sukha emotional?
I always read piti: joy is mental happiness and sukha is physical. But lately i have been reading pīti is physical, sukha is emotional. At first i thought this didn't matter but now for Jhana training I'm reading move from the piti physical sensation to sukha emotional sensation, which completely throw me off. Any help?

Can't separate like that. Mental-emotional-somatical is a continuum, not discrete. Or, more precisely, they are layers of the same, like different frequencies that can be isolated within the same signal function - not separate.
Sukha is that mental/emotional state/feeling when everything is just right. Everything is just the way it should be. It feels peaceful, subtle and sweeeeeeet. It also has somatic component. The breath becomes fluid, the body feels light, the movements are spontaneous. It's like that feeling when you just woke up after wonderful sleep and you feel refreshed and blissful, gentle and peaceful.
Piti is a much more coarse condition. It is like that feeling when you listen to a very inspiring lecture or a song and suddenly realize - and feel - profound significance and gratitude, and then you may get goosebumps or the tears may start rolling. Somatically at that moment, you may feel being aflame or tingling or orgasm-like waves going through your body. Unlike sukha, piti is kinda taxing, one can get tired of it.
So yeah, piti is coarser of the two and sukha is subtler - in this sense you could say, piti has a stronger somatic component and sukha is more focused on the mental/emotional end of the spectrum.

I have experienced these feelings before, so i understand what you mean when you describe them. Truly something wonderful. So what your saying is they are one in the same not to much is different about them. I only ask cause as you progress in the jhana you have to eliminate these factors so i wish to understand them. So should i stop labeling and just try to eliminate the feeling describe in the jhana.

It is the opposite, you're supposed to generate them and wash your mind in them as much as possible. Elimination happens automatically when you had enough of it and are ready to get over it. Like having had enough sleep or having had enough cuddling or food etc., at some point you get over - but not before you had enough, cuz generating them helps eliminate even coarser dharmas. It's a progression, progressive refinement.

So from the second jhana onwards i don't have to do anything for the next Jhana, it will happen automatically once my mind is ready?

With this sutta, it is Vinnana which is secluded, which means fewer objects cognized, then it is mano which has piti and the kaya has passambhati then sukhaṃ vediyati, and the citta has sukhha then samadhi.
Here is the pali version.

The word "seclusion" means seclusion from the external & sensual world. As for your entire answer, you have quoted a relevant sutta (thus I scored your answer up) however, for this web site, please improve the quality of your answer presentation. Regards

@Dhammadhatu What change/improvement to the presentation do you recommend?

Sukha as well as piti are both mental factors.
The bodily unpleasant or pleasant sensations are domanassa and somanassa.
If you want to dive deeper into mental states and their accompanying factors you might want to read the Abhidhamma. A free pdf version can be downloaded here.

I guess i haven't learned much in my buddhism studies. I really should stop trying to classify things and go off what i feel. I just want to make sure i understand the jhanas. And thanks for the book. That is a BIG help i was searching for more information like this.

A few useful links that could help distinguishing the two: Piti definition; sukha definition; and detailed analysis at Vism Chapter IV.94

Thanks for your links but why don't you write a detailed answer (rather than post like the librarian Aloka who runs Buddhism Without Boundaries. Thanks

If not a detailed answer, it's good to add a summary in your own words, and/or a (relevant) quote from the page[s] you're referencing.

Let's wait for the original poster DeusIIXII to comment on the usefulness of people's posts.

My answer below is not definitive but mere consideration.
The 1st four jhanas are called "rupa" jhana however I have never read a compelling explanation for this. However, it is known via experience that rupa jhana arises from the calming of the physical processes (breath & physical body) that are stressed by mental formations (sankhara). Thus, as the physical body is purified of mental stress, the nerves of the physical body start to bliss out. Once the breathing completely calms and the physical body is purified of stress, all the mind can be conscious of is the bliss (which is jhana). It appears the bliss of jhana has its basis in the nervous system of the physical body and possibly is physical in its basis. MN 111 refers to two types of feelings in rupa jhana, bolded below. The 2nd feeling is part of "nama" (refer to SN 12.2) and is definitely mental in it basis (because it remains in the arupa jhana) but the piti and sukha of rupa jhana could be feelings arising from/towards the rupa sense base (kāyāyatanaṃ).

There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by
  directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the
  first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure,
  singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention,
  consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity,
  & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him
  they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He
  discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into
  play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled
  with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released,
  dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that
  'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for
  him.
Furthermore, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance,
  and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite
  space,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the
  infinitude of space. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of
  the infinitude of space — the perception of the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception,
  intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness,
  equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after another.
  Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they
  subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having
  been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained
  unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent,
  detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He
  discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there
  really was for him.

I think the right difference between pīti and sukha is that pīti is subjective. whereas sukha/dukha is objective.
pīti always caused by pamudita. as written many time in jhana definition.
here pamudita is also subjective.in fact all brahmavihara are subjective.

Responding to Andriy Volkov answer, which is partially correct but has a major error:
As part of 7 factors of awakening and 4 jhāna formula,
Pīti is mentally originated, sukha is physical.
The formula in SN 46.3, which occurs in slightly different variations at least 50 times in the suttas, says
Pīti-man-assa
(with) en-raptured mind,
kāyo-pi passambhati,
(the) body-also becomes-pacified,
cittam-pi passambhati
(the) mind-also becomes-pacified
And with body pacified, sukha (physical happiness) is experienced as part of samādhi awakening factor, a.k.a. four jhānas.
What makes pīti coarser is because it's an optional mental emotional response, and is not engaged in order to progress from second to third jhāna. Sukha is physical, linked to the pleasure chemicals of the brain. You can't turn it on or off at will like you can with pīti. Sukha automatically disappears and is replaced with neutral (neither sukha nor dukkha) sensations in fourth jhāna, when you put in enough time meditating and charging up your jhāna battery.  Similar to how when you each too much food, it stops tasting good.


text:
Mano and Citta possible translations?
Can Mano be translated as intellect, cognition, reason; and citta as emotions?
How then would the first verse in the Dhammapada be translated?

I think this is a duplicate of What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta?

No, manas is like the inner eye, and citta is the generic word for mind.


text:
How is negligence dealt with?
Negligence is unintentional, so at least for the first offence due to negligence, there should be no punishment or kammic results (imo). What of recurring negligence?

Content with that ...(see sutta)..., he does not exert himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedlessly, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in pain. When pained, the mind does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena do not become manifest. When phenomena are not manifest, he is reckoned simply as one who dwells heedlessly

See the whole chapter on Heedfulness (Dhp 21-32) on the danger of heedlessness and the benefit of heedfulness.


text:
What is the opinion of Buddhism on the caste system and untouchability of Hinduism?
The Varnashrama dharma (caste system) is the backbone of Brahminism (Hinduism), untouchability is a part of that social order. We all know that Gautama Buddha was against Varnashrama dharma, and rejected the Vedic religion. But unfortunately, we see caste system and untouchability in many 'Buddhist' countries. For example, the Burakumin/Eta in Japan, Baekjeong in Korea, Ragyabpa in Tibet, etc. As we know as Buddhists that the Buddha was no hindu, then why this system is also in the societies of Buddhist countries?

Actually, Gautama Buddha was not against the caste system in mainstream non-Buddhist Indian society however he did emphasize social status ('caste'/'jati') was dependent upon here-&-now kamma rather than on physical & social birth (refer to MN 93, MN 98 and other suttas in the Brāhmaṇa Vagga). For example, he often emphasized a Brahman priest or caste member that does not adhere to the five moral precepts is not a Brahmana or Holy Man.
The Pali suttas have the following examples:

It was declared the Buddha "does not seek any harm for the line of brahmins" (MN 95).
The Buddha criticised Brahmans who marry & have sex with non-Brahmans. (AN 5.191)
The Buddha said wives who are immoral are expelled or caste out from families (MN 37.30).

The Pali suttas show no opposition to the non-Buddhist Indian caste distinctions however the Pali suttas do explicitly say when a person joined the Buddhist Community (Sangha) they automatically lost their former caste status or name (AN 8.19).

(4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the
  great ocean, so too, when members of the four social
  classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas and suddas—go forth from the
  household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline
  proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans
  and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the
  fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this
  Dhamma and discipline….

As for contemporary Asian societies, many of these societies were previously or concurrently Hindu in relation to the arrival of Buddhism. Similar to when the Buddha was alive, Buddhist monks generally do not act to oppose & destroy other religions. Buddhism is not like Judaism or Christianity. Thailand is an excellent example, where most religious people still follow other religions, such as spirit, ancestor or Brahma worship (even though they consider themselves "Buddhist").

At least a dozen criticisms of the caste system by the Buddha claimed by and several referenced in http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=70

The most important idea in Buddhism with regards to caste is that regardless of which background one is from, if one is righteous, consummate in virtue, and earnestly seeks the path to the end of suffering, he would definitely find it.
As to why certain Buddhist majority countries have some kind of caste system - well, that does not come from Buddhism. It comes from the natural tendency of human societies to form socioeconomic clusters, which applies to all countries in the world, including the fully developed countries. Please see this article on inequality in the USA.
However, what is special in Hinduism is that the caste system is found in the religious scriptures and is part of the religion. A religion-enforced caste system is not found in Buddhism. Buddhism also does not comment on the political ideology of lay societies e.g. democracy, capitalism, monarchy, socialism, communism etc.
From the Gihi Sutta (AN 5.179):

In the same way,
  wherever one is born
  among human beings —
noble warriors, brahmans,
  merchants, workers,
  outcastes, or scavengers —
  if one is tame,
  with good practices,
  righteous,
  consummate in virtue,
  a speaker of truth,
  with conscience at heart,
  one who's abandoned birth & death,
  completed the holy life
  put down the burden,
  done the task
  fermentation-free,
  gone beyond all dhammas,
  through lack of clinging
  unbound:
  offerings to this spotless field
  bear an abundance of fruit.

From the Sundarika Sutta (SN 7.9):

Then Sundarika the brahmin went up to the Buddha, and said to him:
  “Sir, in what caste were you born?”

“Don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct.
    For any wood can surely generate fire.
    A steadfast sage, even though from a low class family,
    is a thoroughbred checked by conscience.

Thought, and food for such:
There is not really any evidence that the Buddha ever thought on such as "social reforms" and no where he actually denied the difference of peoples social status. He "only" explained it as a matter of kamma, deeds, whether one might be born in a good family or not, and that one to be called, become this or that, being a matter of ones deeds and not something inherent, gained by birth, or being given by someone.
People who believe in Kamma (even if not total understanding, not seeing escape), whould be the first to be accepted in his community. So it's merely unlikely that the good Dhamma, not corrupt, could ever appear in regions where people believe that all are equal by birth, have inherent equal capacities...
What ever region, society, has not fallen into the ideas that beings are equal, going after cutting all down to the lowest equal level (marxistic, pseudo-liberal), still has certain right view and respecting differences, will care certain casts on, an may it be between self-employers, professionals, workers... or what ever.
People of different social background, virtue... will always gather together according to their tendencies. Even there where it's different declared as "should be such and such". And it's naturally that the most wise are the first to disappear, or will be ever very small groups.
Or has one traced any society which has not it's "casts"? Even thought the Buddha told that the best dwelling would be accordingly to ones attainments, a sotapanna equal a sotapanna... Arahat equal an Arahat. Even his hierachy points out classes very clear, yet not by birth or as something given, of course.
What ever the Buddha had taught was never thought to use it as politics or to design worldily societies and at least it's a matter of Upanissaya, strong condition causes (vy kamma) where one appears, takes birth, tended to. If one seeks for change, then only ones own work, own sacrifices, will have long term effects. Nothing really gained when wishing to pull those in current better situation down to ones level.
So this path of liberation is open for everyone, everyone willing to leave house, his stand, which goes along with the lose of the low fetter of group(identification)view.
Becoming really Buddhist and holding on house, group ones society wouldn't really work. It's simply hypocritical if thinking to holding on both.
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment, what ever binds to this going on, but for liberation, encouragement for own skilfull work and letting go)

I cannot agree with the following i think everyone followed caste system it is because of westernization and modernization that they are disappeared and by the way division of society shall remain dalits also discriminate against mahadalit the only way to fight such inequalities is to follow sardar vallabhbhai patel

In your question, you have performed what is called the logical fallacy of 'False Equivalency'.
The caste system in Hinduism as practised in India and Nepal is a decree of the Hindu scriptures. It is mentioned in Hindoo scriptures like Gita and Manusmiriti. So the professions in India have originated from the Caste of a person. Moreover, the Hindoo caste system tells you that if you are a Dalit then you have to do good karma to first become a Brahmin and then you can attain the moksha (as per Manu Smriti).
In the examples you have given, it is more like a class system taken to an extream. That was originated as a discrimination in the society and not handed down by Buddhism. Buddhism as such has nothing to do with that inequality. All the people if Buddhist in these countries are on an equal footing of Dhamma and not discriminated by the Dhamma.
As we know as Buddhists that the Buddha was no hindoo, then why this system is also in the societies of Buddhist countries?
Again, if a hindoo follows their Dharma strictly then they have to adhere to the caste system.
And if a Buddhist will adhere to the Dhamma strictly then He/She will NOT adhere to any discrimination.
So, why is this still practised in some Buddhist countries?
Its because people are not well instructed in Dhamma. People there are Buddhist just for namesake because their parents are Buddhist or the society is Buddhist.
The Dhamma is not practised by them, that way.