text:
Asking about Parent-Child relationship karma. Is it bad if I don't wanna go visit my dad?
My parent seperated since I was young and I was rise by my mom.
Right now my dad is not in a good condition and unfortunately my aunt and uncle from my dad's side doesn't like me much. Too be honest I don't wanna face with my aunt. I know she loves him so much and she hates me because I choose to stay with my mom. I don't know what to do.
For example today I told my mom I will go visit my dad but mom said she needs me to have a dinner with her.so she told me to go visit my dad the other day...
If I don't go visit him.. Will it be bad ?
I know this is such a stupid question but it is hard for me to make up my mind. When I see my dad It is not so peaceful inside because of the people around him...

Do you mean your dad is ill and unable to go out of your aunt's house?

Your question is very important, but difficult to answer, since within Buddhism answers are not always what we want to hear.
Your father and his family members are experiencing there own karma, which in this case is not good for them or pleasant for others.
Within yourself you should try to find loving-kindness for their suffering. You can accomplish this by realizing that the bad manner that they use with you is a lesson in how not to behave. Try to find compassion. This will help your mind to accept, and realize that your visit with them is temporary...when it is over do not dwell on it.
In Tibetan buddhism all sentient beings were once our kind and loving mothers. We try to remember that in our dealings with others. It is not always easy, but you will be a better person if you have compassion for all others.

Just switch positions around and you'll know what to do. Imagine you were the father, you fell ill and your own son came to visit you. How would you feel? What if he didn't come? Don't worry about that uneasy feeling when seeing folks at your dad's house. You'll get a much greater kind of peace that comes from doing what's right and from seeing the joy in your dad's eyes upon seeing his son by his side. Furthermore, by not visiting your dad, that'd only deepen the animosity from your aunt for she'd think that you indeed didn't care about your dad at all. By showing up, you'd have fulfilled your part by showing that you care. Whether that'll change your aunt's attitude or not is not important for you have done the right thing and there's nothing to regret. Anyway, that's just my two cents..

Every thought is a manifestation of kamma being either kamma productive or kamma resultant.  The aversion toward seeing your dad is no exception. All aversion is rooted in hatred (patigha) and delusion (moha).  Is it bad?  Yes in that hatred and delusion are always accompanied by unpleasant feelings (domanassa/grief) and never with pleasant feelings (somanassa/joy).
In a perfect world we would disregard people's shortcomings and the wrongs they have done to us. But, we do not live in a perfect world so it's up to us to grow toward this ideal.  It isn't easy and it takes lots of work.
I too had a poor relationship with my father.  I tried to make it work but I didn't have the right understandings to get there.  He passed away long ago and I still feel guilt and remorse at times that I couldn't get past those things that kept us apart.  It was foolish of me to expect him to be something he wasn't when I couldn't live up to my own expectations for myself.
I'll end with a quote from Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Our actions are our longest lasting possessions."  This includes our failures to act too.

In the Sigalovada Sutta the Buddha does say that children should minister to their parents

"In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his
  parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them, duties, (iii) I shall keep the family tradition, (iv) I shall make
  myself worthy of my inheritance, (v) furthermore I shall offer alms in
  honor of my departed relatives.

Clearly though this was advice given a very long time ago in a culture very different to ours. However the advice of

Having supported me I shall support them,

does still seem relevant today and perhaps pertinent to your situation. Ultimately though I would hesitate to say do or don't visit difficult relatives but I personally felt a lot better when I re-established contact with some family members. I felt like a source of suffering had been alleviated somewhat even though in many ways they remained as difficult as ever. Just my own experience.

The Buddha taught (at SN 10.12) that family members should try to develop truthfulness, mental training, patience & sacrifice/generosity towards eachother.
Therefore, if your father wishes for you to visit him, you should try to train yourself to have patience and generosity towards him & his family.
You should also try to be honest & truthful and speak your concerns to your father & ask your father to ask his sister to stop being unfriendly towards you.
If your aunt is unpleasant to you, you should try to be truthful & patient towards her and tell her you wish to visit your father; you wish to do what is best for your father; so to please stop being unfriendly towards you.
If a family member is making you feel bad, you should try to truthfully communicate your feelings to them.
While your situation is difficult & challenging, you should always remember it is not you that is making bad karma but them.
As a child, you should never blame yourself of doing bad karma when it is your parents & your aunt & uncle that have done bad karma.
Your parents divorcing was bad karma done by them. Your aunt & uncle getting angry at you is bad karma being done by them.
You seem to care about your father, which is good karma done by you.
Try to see who is doing the bad karma & try to develop the goal of being better than your parents, aunt & uncle.
The Buddha taught some parents have children that are morally better than the parents. You should try to develop yourself to be morally better.


text:
Should a bikkhu avoid eating sashimi?
According to THIS, "The bhikkhu should also not eat raw or undercooked meat..."
Should a bhikkhu, then, not eat sashimi (raw fish, such as it used frequently in sushi)?

In this commentary on the Vinaya, on page 308, it says,

Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed
  by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat
  raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as
  steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar.
  Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the
  bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the
  purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14)

(copying from this answer)

Could you expand on "when one is possessed by non-human beings"?

@user3169 That question was asked in this topic: What is meant by “possessed by spirits” in Buddhism? I wonder whether, perhaps, in modern times, other people (i.e. not the one possessed) sometimes interpret the state of being possessed as a mental illness.

Or pretty much any non-conforming mental state, I suppose. But I wonder, in "suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus", how could one not "suspect" what happened? Was it deemed killed for others first? Seems like the end result is the same for the animal.

In a word, yes.  Bhikkhus and bhikkhunis are forbidden from accepting raw meat or live animals.  They are also forbidden from consuming fish or flesh that they suspect, heard or seen  has been slaughtered for their personal consumption.

How could you not suspect that it had been slaughtered for their personal consumption? Accidentally died?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does one become a "Māra"?
I am not asking for an explanation on the whole "What is a Mara?" question. What i'm asking about is the being mentioned in Buddhism who has the command over all normal beings, the one who came personally to challenge,frighten lord Buddha.
Is there an explanation to why or how a person become's a "Mara"?

Abhisankhāra-māra - The Karmic force
Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.
Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of
  birth and death.
Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned
  existence.
Devaputra-māra, or Māra the son of a deva (god), that is, Māra as an
  objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Apart from your internal mara and metaphysical maras. The Mara as existent beings are essentially gods with Wrong Views and Wrong Intentions. The Mara that tempted Buddha in particular, was a god from one of the highest heavens Paranimmita-vasavatti, the devas with the power over other's creations. That is not only can they create anything to fulfill their desires, but other create it for them to worship them. Seeing that the Desire Realm was so enjoyable and pleasurable, why should anyone seek to leave it and so try to oppose the Buddha.
So how did such a being came about? Through their former karmic merit. Like gods who attain heaven but then squander their merits, maras went further by obstructing others in their search for virtue and truth.
Unlike the Christian devil, Maras are not rulers of Hell. But in a sense they are 'fallen' in spirit, though not in power. Eventually such a being use up their good karma and fall possibly even the the hells themselves. Of course they are not unredeemable either, if they repent and support the truth, the label 'Mara' would not apply to them.
There is a saying in Chinese Buddhism, to cultivate karmic rewards without cultivating wisdom is the Way of Mara. That is your good karma could bring you high up in the the heaven or as a ruler (or someone in position of power), but without wisdom - and therefore ethics, you could easily abuse your powers, causing suffering on others and ultimately yourself.
So as you can see, you could be your own Mara, you could be a Mara to others and discourage them from doing good deeds.

A good explanation for the birth, But is there an explanation for the actions  taken afterwards? when he can watch the universe for centuries to see the reality, why such dumb choices from him? this is such a fascinating topic!

@Theravada Have you ever met or heard of someone who is drunk on power? Even Devadatta despite personally knowing the Buddha as his elder cousin and practicing under him became conceited from his meditative attainments and psychic powers, then after being rejected for the position of the leader of the Sangha became angry enough to harm the Buddha. Eventually landing himself in Avici Hell. Should he not have known better? Yet as the saying goes, pride goes before a fall.

Yes it might be the thing that's at work here

What sutta says that Mara is in the paranimmita-vasavatti realm?

The current Mara was Mara Dusi's nephew back in the days of Buddha Kakusandha. So it seems that there's a waiting list in the Paranimmita-vasavatti heaven.
There are some people in the world who do a lot of worldly good deeds, but they dislike and discourage meditation, listening to the Dhamma, getting ordained or anything that has to do with ending of Samsara. I would imagine such people might be born in the Mara-clan of the Paranimmita-vasavatti realm, if they can amass enough good Karma. Among them, whoever is the most powerful, takes up the title.

Still i can't find a reason why such a powerful being who is only second to a Buddha do such foolish things when he himsself  can see reality unfold throughout centuries, This is very strange, why does a new one accept the "Post of Mara" when the fate of the previous us apparent?

A Pacceka Buddha is the one second to a Buddha. Not a Mara. Why do many people still drink liquor and smoke cigars, even though the consequences are apparent? It's because of defilements.

You are right, and when i said only second to a buddha, i meant a single Buddha era. In a single era of a Buddha (While that Buddha Shasana exists) the next one in powers and capabilities is the mara. Am i correct?

Not! Brahmas are more powerful than any god. Venerable Moggallana is the one most capable in magical powers, after the Buddha.

What about Lord Buddha's own saying "All the normal (Pruthakjana) are under the influence of the mara. No other being is so capable or manipulative as the Mara. this is a power unheard of among any other kind of beings. "

Which Sutta are you referring to?

I'm sorry i can't recall the name. But it can be found in the pali texts. In it Mara is portrayed as the one who has dominion over all normal mortals who are yet to reach the fruits of the path.

But he's still lesser in power than Brahmas

But how?, Brahma's aren't with the power to influence all living beings, Only a Mara alone has such power at all normal beings. Isn't it?

Brahmas are not sensual beings. So they do not desire to influence beings in that way

indeed but they do not have the influence of a Mara even if they wanted to do that,

@Theravada How do you know? :)

There is a statement from Lord Buddha clearly mentioning that Mara has unique influence over beings who have not met the ends of the path. Sadly i do not remember the suttra.

Unique power doesn't mean the most powerful

No debate needed brother, I only mentioned what i've learnt from dhamma. Try to find the sutta and you will see.

As answered by Yinxu, the term 'Mara' is used in many ways in Buddhism.
I think to develop theories about Mara the Tempter, it is useful to understand 'gods' ('deva'), who include human beings with psychic powers, that Judeo-Christianity calls 'angels'. In Judeo-Christianity, the Bible reports angels & also prophets such as Moses & Jesus that displayed supernormal (psychic) powers.
These angels & prophets are created (by nature) to rule & guide ordinary people. These angels & prophets teach people to believe in 'God' & 'self'.
These angels & prophets with psychic powers exist today within Christianity. Yet they are not interested in or believe in Buddhism because they believe Christianity is best for ordinary people.
Hindus are similar, often strongly opposed to Buddhism because of its teaching of anatta & atheism.
Therefore, Mara does not necessarily have to be an intrinsically evil being that is tempting people to do evil in the way Christians depict. Satan does not exist in the Old Testament apart from in the Book of Job, as an angel in heaven with God. The Christian idea of Satan is obviously very similar to that in Buddhism but their own version.
My point is Mara can be any being with supernormal powers that opposes the Buddhist teachings because Buddhism teaches anatta (nots-self). Such a Mara does not necessarily need to be intrinsically evil. Karmically, they simply need to act with the good intention that the Buddhist teachings of anatta are not beneficial to the majority of people. Therefore, their karma will not necessarily result in a loss of their supernormal powers since opposing Buddhism is not inherently bad karma for them.
Or less insidiously, such Mara may simply be testing the Buddhas & arahants.

This is very interesting although I am not sure if it is doctrinally accurate since it's rather speculative. Interestingly in fact from the Mahayana standpoint they equate the Dharma, that is the Truth, Law and Teachings of the Cosmos to be equivalent to the Celestial Buddha, that is the true Body (Dharmakaya) of the Buddha (and everyone else). That is more or less very similar to the concept of God, but one that is utterly impartial.

What was referred to as 'doctrine' is also speculative. Also, as it was inferred, the gods of Judea-Christianity are not exactly impartial. Strange how Mahayana equates Buddha with God when the Buddha did not.

Well 'doctrine' as espoused by a religious community? If one person has a religious concept but that is not shared by a group of like minded thinkers then they can be labeled 'heretical'.

Since when were 'communities' the truth? There are many communities or sects that claim to represent Buddhism; each with different ideas.

"Strange how Mahayana equates Buddha with God when the Buddha did not" Actually I think it's more like everyone is an aspect of the ultimate reality. The Dhammadhatu so to speak.

pardon me if i got this wrong, Lord Buddha never said the Anatta is bad for anyone or that it is useless for some. Lord Buddha said that only some are  capable of seeing it and therefore Buddhism is for the ones who are wise enough to understand it's value

"...the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered..." SN 44.10

SN 55.53 " Sir exhort us for our benefit"...:"Dhammadinna, dwell upon emptiness (sunnata)"..."But sir, it is not easy for us dwelling in a home crowded with children, enjoying sensual pleasures,, to dwell upon emptiness"..."Then, Dhammadinna, you should train yourself to possess faith in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha, well possessed in virtue (sila) leading to concentration"...

There are no stories within the Pāli canon that I know that describe how one becomes a Mara though there are accounts of others who have been maras in a previous life (Moggallana being one of them. See MN 50).  There is also a sutta in which the Buddha declares that it is impossible for a woman to become a Māra (See MN 115 § 15).  The Buddha does explain how one can become a deva [of the gandhabba order] in SN 31.2. I don't know that the doing the opposite would direct one to becoming a Mara.

Hi @Rks1157 "it is impossible for a woman to become a Māra" is not properly phrased I believe.  The proper phrasing would be "Mara cannot arise in female form" or a "Mara cannot be born as a female".

Kaveenga is correct. Sometimes Potato is not potato

Mara is the most powerful being in all the sensual realms, He resides in the highest sensual adobe called paranimmita-vasavatti. where one day is equal to 1600 earth years.
It is not easy to become Mara, Through shear will power one has to observe the precepts well & practice generosity .
 Mara being the highest sensual being surpasses all the other devas in the heavenly realms in the following ways (Exceeds in Life-span, exceeds in beauty, exceeds in sensual pleasures, exceeds in glory, Exceeds in power).
Mara surpasses all devas with respect to Life-span, unmatched beauty etc... due to the fact that in the previous lives he has abstained from killing, Stealing & sexual misconduct & Drinking. All Unwholesome actions done involving the body.
This is the reason he surpasses all other devas in life, beauty, power etc..
There is one sutta in Tibetan Buddhism,  says - That Mara has the  most largest & most powerful demonic army in the 31 planes of existence at his command.
This army consists of 10 regiments with powerful/hideous demons,
it is said that this army weighs 10x times the weight of the earth.
It was because that some one has observed the precepts & practiced generosity**(wholesome karamic effects)** in a massive scale but haven't listened & thought about dharma (wisdom), this is the reason to become mara.

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

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


text:
Why is the Heart Sutra so important in Mahayana Buddhism?
So the Heart Sutra is one of the most popular sutra in Mahayana Buddhism, said to be the summary and heart of the Prajna Paramita Sutra. It was popularized by the famous monk Xuanzang. It was said that he chanted this sutra when he was lost in the Taklamakan Desert on the way from China to India.
Apart from its terse nature and convenience for chanting. Why is this Heart Sutra so important to Mahayana Buddhism?
Some people even describe the sutra as a kind of 'crazy wisdom' that seems to intentionally tear down all purposeful cultivation.
http://www.lionsroar.com/the-heart-sutra-will-change-you-forever/
It was even jokingly described as the 'heart attack' sutra.

"Also, there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of
the cessation of suffering or of the path. There is no wisdom, and
there is no attainment whatsoever"

Why would this sutra be helpful or useful - when it basically denies the fundamental teachings of the Buddha on the Four Noble Truth?
Presumably the message of the Heart Sutra was so troubling that Thich Nhat Hanh had to 're-translate' the sutra into something that fit in with his own conception of Buddhism:
http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/
What is the purpose of this sutra? Is it just sheerly for the shock factor? Maybe like a Zen Master whacking a student with a stick? I find other Prajna Paramita sutras such as the Diamond Sutra just as troubling.
Note: I do enjoy some of the messages of Mahayana Sutras such as Amitabha Sutra and Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra and is from a Chinese Mahayana Chan organization.

The Heart Sutra points to the absolute, which is a non-experience; hence, no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body nor mind.

Maybe because Clinging/Upadana is such a powerful destructive force, even advanced practitioners still have a tough time dealing with. So the non-clinging theme reflected through insight into Emptiness/Sunyata throughout the sutra would be a great way to remind us about it. That's why in many Mahayana temples this sutra is usually recited at the end of any session, after other sutras have been recited, reminding the practitioner of the Clinging elephant in the room.
Anyway, don't worry too much about why it's the most popular or most important. It's a pretty common stock phrase in Mahayana to say this or that sutra is the most popular or most important. You'll see the same thing being said in the Lotus Sutra, the Amitabha Sutras series, etc. After all, the spirit of the sutra doesn't seem to deviate from the Buddha's teaching about the 3 characteristics inherent in all conditioned dhammas: impermanence/anicca, unsatisfactory/dukkha, and non-self/anatta.
The sutra simply reminds us that it indeed holds true for all "conditioned dhammas", including the Five Aggregates, the Twelve Ayatanas, the Eighteen Dhatus, the Twelve Nidanas, and even the Four Noble Truths!

I thought that the Flower Sermon was the most important. It certainly is the best one.

So I posed this question to my teacher at the temple yesterday, and the answer floored me!
I asked her what is the meaning of "No suffering, origination, cessation of suffering, path" in the Heart Sutra, and if it was some kind of crazy wisdom. She replied:
"No, this is an understanding of emptiness, that is an understanding that things are caused through causes and conditions (dependent origination). Like a cup of coffee implies the existence of coffee beans, although coffee beans by themselves do not necessarily result in coffee because you require other conditions such as the sun or farmers. When the seed is removed, the fruit does not exist.  When a person attained peace and happiness and resolved their suffering, the suffering they had is in the past and no longer exist in the present. Because of the awareness of this, a Boddhisattva can work to liberate beings with no fear of suffering in Samsara because he knows that ultimately suffering is impermanent."
And as the sutra goes:
"He passes far beyond all confused imagination and reaches Ultimate Nirvana"
Mind blown. I can understand why Xuanzang put so much emphasis on this sutra based on his difficult experiences on his journey now.

You might like to Google for "three dharma seals" as opposed to "four dharma seals", I don't know where it's explained further but for example there's a brief introduction here on Wikipedia: "As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals."

Also notice "suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence..." is a personal opinion by Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh as mentioned in the footnote of the wiki page. The Dhammapada clearly mentions Dukkha in verses 277-279 (ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html )

Venerable Thích Nhất Hạnh's version of the Dharma seals comes from Saṁyuktāgama Sūtra No. 262: "All activities are inconstant. All phenomena are selfless. Nirvāṇa is peace" (T99.66b12 Chandakasūtra).
It doesn't include "all activities are suffering" like in some other versions (i.e. those found in the Pāli Canon).

The Heart Sutra is of utmost importance in Mahayana because it declares the key realization that makes Mahayana distinct from a superficial "Sutra-Yana":
That in the ultimate sense all concepts are arbitrary, including even the concepts comprising Buddha-Dharma, that ontological reality behind concepts is by itself free from any discriminations, that freedom of mind from the clashes induced by conceptual discriminations is the very freedom from suffering that Buddha taught.
Heart Sutra is the Mahayana's Declaration of Independence in that it proclaims the heart of the teaching, the transcendental wisdom, the wisdom that goes to the end of the realm of thought, the limits of conceptualization.
It's not written for a shocking effect. The reason it emphasizes emptiness of even the most fundamental Buddhist concepts is to drive home the idea that everything is just a mental overlay, and if that's removed then behind it we find no dirt and no need for cleansing, no entrapment and no need for liberation. Our only problem is entanglement in the illusion that these things are real and important.
All past, present, and future Buddhas attain Buddhahood through their realization of this freedom from conceptual discrimination. This realization is not something external to the Canon but is the real meaning of the liberation as taught by the Buddha in the Canon. Every progression of Jhana states described in the Canon culminates in the very same realization. The parable of the raft, the concept of tathata, the numerous Canonical descriptions of Nibbana - all refer to the same realization.
This proclamation is the heart of Mahayana and that's what makes this Sutra the crown jewel of all the teaching.

that freedom of mind from the clashes induced by conceptual discriminations is the very freedom from suffering that Buddha taught. -》 can explain what is conceptual discrimination? Thanks

If you have concept of "living organism" you have concept of "final death" vs "continued life". In reality there's continuous transformation, but you are discriminating as living vs dead. This induces a clash experienced as suffering.

Or, you have a concept of "chinese" and "american", while in reality not every Chinese is the same, and not every American is alike. You are discriminating based on a generalization, a made-up category. This induces a clash experienced as suffering.

got it.  Thank You.

Perhaps

its terse nature and convenience for chanting
  (quote from your question)

is the exact reason that it is popular. I believe all the Prajnaparamita sutras point to the same thing in the same kind of way. Why wade through the perfection of wisdom in 8,000, 25,000 or even 100,000 lines when you can pop the Heart sutra in your pocket and off you go. It's why I know it and haven't read any of the others.

If you don't know where you are going, any Rose will get you there. (It is a reassuring thought.)

Given that all the sutras are skillful means, one would imagine the heart sutra is popular because it works, or at least gives the impression of doing so.
I like it.
Buddhist philosophy isn't, and doesn't need to be, an analytic argument, because it is there to be realised in meditation, not (just) studied and unpacked.
So instead of trying to unpack it, why not ask what the rest of the canon has that it lacks? Given that it mentions, as you say, the basic terms of buddhism (emptiness, the noble truths), perhaps it can encapsulate those teachings, by denying them.
I think the key phrases are

There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever... The
  Buddhas... Have Attained Supreme Enlightenment

Which suggests (to me) that enlightenment is void, form.
Whether or not that means that it is anything beside (fearless) verbal quiescence, I really don't know.

We take up a set of concepts because they are useful. So with Buddhism, we use the concepts to develop our awareness. But the concepts in themselves are not significant, any more than you eat the knife you used to make a sandwich. When the Heart Sutra denies the reality of the basic Buddhist ideas, this is what is being said. Years ago I read Julia Cameron's poem at the beginning of her book "Walking in This World" and I did not get it. Then came the experience in and writing of Zulaikha Mahmud's Pop Poem, and I happened across Cameron's poem again, and there was unity.

First I'm not expert, this is my personal opinion based on what I have read, and things that I been told by people that study the Dharma, the field in enormous and require lots of study, reader is advice that I could be wrong.I will add a short list or my resources at the end.
I believe the reason of its importance is because it includes the complete teachings of the Vajrayana Buddhisms in it. Emptiness and Wisdom.
As well give a concrete explanation based on logic and prove that everything is empty of the essential nature.
I pass to explain why I think this, but first a little bit of context.
Where the Heart Sutra comes from?
The short answer is that it comes from the Buda, or at least the Buddha is giving the teaching with out giving it. (Emptiness)
Since, start with the phrase “ Thus i heard on one occasion...”. Is believe that confirm authenticity as was used to prove this since earlier text.
Also there is Tibetan lineages with proven unbroken lineage that have the Heart Sutra as teaching since their origins (some old as 1000 years old, Sakya linage).
Beside commonly believed to be an oral tradition from the Buddhas times, hard copies have been discovered, some old as around 1400 year in what we known today as China. The work stand by itself, as its use logic for the demonstration of the of emptiness, although we still need faith to believe that comes from the Buddha's time.
To understand better, probably is necessary to have certain understanding of the “frame of work”, which is the human body. The definition of a human body was a bit different as is today, and the text refers to this when mention:
“...who wishes to practice  the profound perfection of discriminating insight should discern in this way: They should correctly view those five aggregates also as empty of essential nature.”
The five aggregates are: Five senses Organs, Feelings, Perception, Conditioning factors, consciousness.
They are a “part” of the enumeration of the phenomena and
Enumeration of phenomena is kind of the definition of the human experience, or a human, but keep in mind that this is a way to break down what can not be broken down.
  Form
    |---Eye and the object to see
    |---Ear and the object to hear
    |---Nose, Odor
    |---Tongue, Flavor
    |---Body, Object of touch
    |---It also considers the imperceptible
 Feelings
    |--- Positive
    |--- Negative
    |--- Neutral
 Perception
    |
 Conditioning Factors
    |
 Consciousness

The reason that Avalokiteshvara (Chanrezi) is a figure in the Heart Sutra is because while practicing compassion, we see others as our-self or our-self as others and that is very helpful when we are trying to understand emptiness.
Also emptiness is represented as a illusory lady in the same text she is called prajnaparamita.
Please forgive any typo and this is just my personal opinion. Gracias!
Bibliography

Abhidharmakosabhasyam
volume I
English version by Leo M. Pruden
Asian Humanity press
1988-1990

A praice of the twelve exemplary deeds of Buddha-The Heart Sutra-A non- sectarian prayer.
Sakya Monastery of Tibetan Buddhism
English Translation Cyrus Stearns
edited by Jeffrey Schoening
Sakya Monastery 2000

https://84000.co/insights-from-a-teacher-an-interview-with-dilgo-yangsi-khyentse-rinpoche

I like this short answer, but sometimes short answers are not helpful to someone who wishes to delve into a network of words. Please consider adding more details to your answer. Welcome to BuddhismSE. :-)

Actually it explains the breakdown of form and emptiness.  Emptiness is all well and good, but without its convergence with form, it is limited.  Form, by itself, is devoid of essence.  When the Buddha holds up a flower, the flower is form. Mahakasyapa is sitting in emptiness.  What he sees is the reconciliation of the two.  At that moment, form is emptiness and emptiness is form.

Welcome to the site. I added empty lines, which is how to format the text into paragraphs. You can get other types of formatting (lists, links, etc.) using the editor toolbar or https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/editing-help

Thanks, Chris! I will look into.

In my opinion, the sutra has no hidden or mysterious purpose. Instead, in my opinion, the sutra is a product of 'bright delusion' or 'white darkness'.
The sun provides light to enable people to see. But if people look directly at the sun, their eyes become 'blinded by the light'. Similarly, certain states of samadhi or concentration give rise to 'bright delusion' or 'white darkness'
The temporary liberation of the illusion of 'non-conceptuality' gives rise to the conception that non-conception is liberation; similar to how, before his enlightenment, teachers of the Buddha regarded the sphere of 'nothingness' as Nibbana.
In my opinion, there is no such thing as non-perception or non-conception (unless in nirodha sampatti, which is a state of samadhi induced unconsciousness). If something can be experienced & described, it has been perceived & conceived. In MN 43, it is said: "wisdom & consciousness are co-joined". Yet the Heart Sutra declares there is 'no cognition'. If there was 'no cognition', such 'non-cognition' must be cognised for there to be the cognition that there is 'no cognition'.
The Pali version of Buddha defines sunnata as 'empty of self'. Yet Nargujana appears to have defined shunyata as 'empty of inherent existence'. Nargujana regarded Nirvana & samsara as the same, thus appearing to negate both.
Therefore, in my opinion, the sutra has no hidden purpose. Instead, the sutra is an idiosyncratic conception about (a 'non-existent') enlightenment since it appears to conform with the conceptualizations (philosophy) of Nargajuna.

Perhaps the Mahayanists got carried away.

The Sutra is rather famous instead of important because it was mentioned in one of the most popular Chinese Novel and Movie making, The Journey to the West.

In the centuries following the historical Xuanzang, an extended
tradition of literature fictionalizing the life of Xuanzang and
glorifying his special relationship with the Heart Sūtra arose, of
particular note being the Journey to the West

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

Several terms have been used to refer to the novels and various
subgroupings of them. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Journey to the
West, Water Margin, and Dream of the Red Chamber are most commonly
grouped as the Four Great Classic Novels (Chinese: 四大名著; pinyin: sì dà
míngzhù; lit.: 'four great masterpieces').[6][7] Another term used is
Classical Novels (simplified Chinese: 古典小说; traditional Chinese: 古典小說;
pinyin: gǔdiǎn xiǎoshuō).[8][9] Prior to the composition of Unofficial
History of the Scholars and the Dream of the Red Chamber, the earlier
four began to be referred to as the Four Great Masterworks (四大奇书;
四大奇書; sì dà qíshū; 'four extraordinary books').[10]

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

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


text:
Peculiar Experience of Shamatha / Vipassana
I'm currently attempting to do shamatha and vipassana meditations in alternation, even though I'm unsure this is the best way to proceed. I noticed that generally, as a person, I am somewhat repressed in the sense that few thoughts, images or sensations seem to emerge.
There are a few other peculiarities I experience, and I'm unsure if people could help me with that. I remember vaguely as a child having odd sensations / visions which arose without reason, in mandala form usually. And since a while now, I seem to be gaining insight randomly, sporadically. I've been happy for years, not in a strong pleasant sensation but in experiencing equanimity generally or lack of attachments.
Yet, I'm feeling stuck in my practice because I don't seem to realize where I'm at. I don't know whether I have good or bad concentration, or whatever else. I seem to be unaware of my own mental states. Since I feel repressed and few images or feelings arise, I think perhaps vipassana would help, but ultimately, I dunno.
Any kind of help on what I'm experiencing would aid me greatly, and I'd be willing to supply more details if necessary.

Your question gives the impression that you have not developed meditation within a certain teaching/practise tradition for a prolonged period but have been learning theory from different random sources. If that is true, your question thus gives the impression the various theories of meditation have confused you.
In the West, there is a popular form of 'meditation' from Burma that is erroneously called 'vipassana', where practitioners are preoccupied with noting thoughts, images or sensations. This is so because practitioners have many distractions so this method accommodates & attracts those kinds of practitioners.
In formal Buddhist theory (such as in the old scriptures) having few thoughts, images or sensations is a good thing. In formal Buddhist theory, samatha & vipassana are developed in tandem (concurrently), with samatha predominating in the beginning & vipassana developing naturally as samatha deepens.
In formal Buddhist theory, 'vipassana' does not mean noting thoughts, images or sensations. 'Vipassana' means 'seeing clearing' the impermanence & selflessness of phenomena.
For example, on a very basic level, the mind can develop samatha by continuously observing the breathing in a balanced equanimous way. As the mind is continuously observing breathing, it will naturally notice the breathing is impermanent; in that the breathing comes & goes; that it becomes short & long; that the various breaths have different textures & qualities, such as being smooth, rough, agitating, soothing, etc; ultimately to the point of seeing clearly it is the body that breathes (rather than "I" or the "self" that breathes). Seeing clearly the impermanence & selflessness of the various breathing ins & breathing outs is real vipassana.
Then as samatha develops & deepens, certain feelings of rapture & joy will predominate in the mind. When these feelings predominate, they will also be objects of vipassana, in that the rapture & joy will be seen as dependently arising, impermanent & selfless.
Then as samatha deepens, more profound vipassana will occur in different ways.
Therefore, in my opinion, you should consider developing samatha more because this leads to calmness & non-confusion. You should forget about thoughts & images because these are actually hindrances to meditation.
The 'sensations' that are ideally observed are the subtle sensations within the breathing; the sensations of the breathing being smooth, rough, etc. Then later, as samatha is profoundly developed, the mind observes the sensations of rapture & joy that arise from the calming of the breathing.
After this, the mind will be very clear & can discern the 'dependent origination' of thoughts, consciousness, other mentality & sense objects.
The classic original Buddhist path is based on developing samatha. Further, based in what you described in your question, the impression is your mind is predisposed or inclined to develop samatha, since it has equanimity & few attachments.

[And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
Maha-salayatanika Sutta

My guess (from the brief description, which somewhat resonates with my previous experiences) is that your mind is in a partially frozen or disconnected/dissociated state. Equanimity is a netural feeling (from the set +/0/-), not absence of feelings. It can be a happy state in some sense, but it is not alive. Sometimes people don't realize that they are in such a state until they get out and feel the difference. One way of describing depression is that it is a state of disconnection (rather than a state of unhappy feeling); I am not diagnosing you, but it might be something in that direction (you say "repressed").
My recommendation is to do vipassana. Do vipassana which only involves very little concentration ("dry vipassana"), otherwise your mind will be using concentration (fake calmness and equanimity) to hide stuff; you want to see it and release it as much as possible. I have a very good experience with Ajahn Tong's tradition, which is Mahasi with some Thai influences; they have a set "basic course" of 2-3 weeks and use noting to help develop mindfulness. Noting is useful, because it forces you to note something all the time (even if "disconnected", "frozen", "equanimous", "nothing", "unconcentrated", "confused"), thus making it more difficult for the mind to hide somewhere and develop attachment to some states. Do the full course if you can, it is very powerful.
To connect with the theory a bit, you are seeing one of the roots of suffering, namely ignorance -- not knowing what is happening. It is tough to see (tougher than greed and hatred, the other 2) because one literally does not know that one does not know. Something like curved space making light go around something, but it can only be identified indirectly and it looks like "nothing".
If you locate yourself, I can help you find centers in your area (they have in Thailand, Europe, Central America; and occasionally courses here and there).

Hi Eudoxos. I edited your post to remove the impression you were replying to me. Regards.

I think your recommendation is spot on, and I have been considering vipassana as a means, without concentration, to undo the 'equanimity' I believe I had attained. I was wondering, considering your accurate recommendation (in my opinion) if there was a way to message you upon this site, as I'd like further informations.


text:
Should a Buddhist lay-practitioner schedule his/her daily life
I'm currently considering making schedules for my daily life in order to counteract boredom and restlessness. Does anyone has experience with doing this and maybe can give me some tips? Is it beneficial and if yes, how strict should you schedule your day?

Routine is a good thing to have for a Buddhist, I believe. While this will vary person to person based on their circumstances, these are my suggestions to incorporate in a daily routine of a lay Buddhist.
Throughout the day continue to

maintain and develop the 10 skillful deeds.
efface and prevent the 10 unskillful deeds.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html
These 2 items were recommended by the Buddha as daily contemplations, almost must haves in any schedule.

Recollect the 5 daily subjects of contemplation as part of the morning, afternoon or evening ritual
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html
Perform this check in the evening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html

Once a week keep the Uposatha practice:

The Buddha's strong recommendation of this practice is found
here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.046.than.html
Details of the practice is found here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.070.than.html

There are many other beneficial contemplations and practices that can be incorporated into a routine.
Do share your routine once you have compiled it.
May you be happy -/\-

A monk's daily routine requires the minimum of morning and evening chanting. In the Theravada tradition this also includes going for daily alms.
So I would suggest the following schedule:
Morning
Morning meditation
Morning chants
Lunch
Lunch break meditation
Evening
Evening meditation
Evening chants
Try to make use of free time to study the Dharma. You can also practice sutra calligraphy if that exist in your tradition but that is more time consuming.

I try to make sure I follow one curiosity a day regarding the dharma. Then I make sure 3 times a day I sit outside and take it all in. I close my eyes and try to hear the furthest sounds that I can all the way back to the closest and identify them. Then the smells followed by the sensations on my skin.
I offer this because so often we sacrifice the enjoyment around us for more order. For this reason I often purposefully shun order and focus on enjoying the world around me as it comes. It could be cold, or raining, or noisy, or smelly. Yet I enjoy the sensations. The simplicity and innocence.
Order and discipline certainly have their place, but dont forget to schedule or not even schedule some disorder and simple pleasures. balance. damyata datta dayadhvam.


text:
Is low self-esteem a Western phenomenon?
I while ago I read a story about the Dalai Lama and the metta bhavana practice. Someone was talking to him about the difficulty in practicing the first stage (wishing well for oneself) and was observing that low self-esteem was hindering the practice at that stage. The Dalai Lama was apparently baffled and it transpired that in Tibetan culture there is no such concept as low self-esteem.
More generally it occurs to me that the first stage of the metta bhavana practice is meant to be an easier on-ramp to the practice and the practice becomes more challenging as it goes on culminating in wishing well to the difficult person. But I have spoken to many people who have difficulties with the first stage practice because of low self-esteem. The easy on-ramp is more like a rocky cliff for the modern (or maybe Western) mind.
So the main questions is

Is low self-esteem a Western (sorry for the term I don't know a
better one) or modern phenomenon and does it not trouble people from
other places or in other times?

Also related to this I have a couple of supplementary questions

Am I right - is the first stage meant to be an easy start or have I
completely misinterpreted that?
Also if anyone has a reference for the Dalai Lama story - could you pop it in? I would be really interested to know the details or even if I have just imagined the story (I don't think I
have).

I read somewhere that Chogyam Trungpa was surprised at people in the US having self-loathing. He had no concept of that in his experience. It seems to arise for Western people due to parenting.

depression / sadness manifests itself differently in different cultures, it is well known that in china depression is more somatic e.g. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18489206

also worth adding, if not "answering", that self esteem so low that you can't wish well for yourself, is quite extreme! i'd guess that the lama is covertly complaining about the emphasis on individualism, outside tibet etc.

1- You are right. The first stage is meant to be (if not easy) at least easier than the others. It is why it is the first, because it is supposed to be what we can do from where we are.
3- It is true. I do not remember the instance, but it happened a long time ago. More recently, I was translating (actually interpreting) Kyabje Ahbay Rinpoche interview with lay disciples, and at some point, he was visited by a young girl in her twenties. She said to him that she suffered from low self-esteem and the like... and it came to him as a big surprise. He said, I quote, "it's not possible, it doesn't exist!"
Self-deprecation does exist since it is listed as the third type of laziness in the Mahayana abhidharma. It seems that for Tibetan, though, stepping from "I can't do it, I'm not presently capable" to "I'm worthless, it's me" is not just a step but a leap  they don't seem to take.

I recall around 20 years ago an Australian university psychology professor wrote a local newspaper article about what he regarded as superior self-esteem in Thai children. I have lived in traditional (provincial/village) Thai culture & I can attest to this.
I would suggest, at least for Thailand, this is obviously a combination of cultural factors, including: (1) the loving-kindness of the Thai monks in Thailand; (2) the traditional strong maternal culture in Thailand & the amazing lovingness of Thai mothers (3) the traditional material simplicity of the culture; and (4) the general morality of the culture.
For example, with the recent huge growth of commercial (Western) materialism in Thailand and cultural focus upon the accumulation of wealth, being physically beautiful, having social status, etc, I would imagine the lack of self-esteem issues would be growing.
The Buddha taught self-respect (including lack of regret) comes from the practise of morality & generosity. I would suggest Western self-esteem issues arise from judgmental religious culture, patriarchal culture, unloving parenting, childhood abuse, narcissistic media/commercial/entertainment expectations &/or unskillful behavioral conduct, particularly sexual.
In women this can be most prevalent, as seen in body-image issues, but also in men, particularly with expectation of sexual bravado. Traditional Thai culture, for example (contrary to the sex-tourism stereotype) has a matriarchal bent & men are raised to not be sexually aggressive & women are raised to be assertive.
British culture in particular is traditionally authoritarian towards children whereas in Thailand, for example, children do not stand up for adults on a crowded bus. It is the opposite. Adults give children the seats on crowded buses. Traditionally in Balinese culture, the children were considered to be the 'gods'.
This Thai video is an interesting insight because we would not expect children visiting a western religious institution to behave as free, without fear & uninhibited as shown in the video.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yaTT7nUAxE

I wonder what Buddhism would have to accomplish if the culture is so positive? If people already feel happy and have self-esteem, what is the point?

'Self-esteem' is ordinary psychology. It does not end suffering. People with self-esteem still get angry, remain enslaved to lust, have social quarrels & suffer over loss. A lack of self-esteem is a form of self-hatred. Freedom from self-hatred does not infer spiritual awakening. Regards

I suppose what I was really saying - I said it wrongly - is that I wonder why people with self-esteem who are happy would ever bother with Buddhism? They might experience some suffering, but I can't believe it would be sufficient to drive them to seek relief. From my point of view, I was motivated partly by depression and unhappiness, so the very things that the Dalai Lama was surprised at led me to seek a better life. I also had "positive" reasons but the motivating factor was unhappiness. Why would happy people seek relief from suffering? I don't get it.

There are many kinds of dissatisfaction. Some people with self-esteem lose interest in sensual pleasures, marriage, etc, which creates an existential dilemma. They look for an independent inner peace or happiness. As I said, 'self-esteem' is psychological normalcy but not freedom & total peace.

Excellent answer, I'd say India was much the same. Kids growing up in today's urban India though are less emotionally stable. We never needed drugs or alcohol while in school. It wasn't cool, the one or two rogues in class might drink, that's all.

That's fine. Where I live, very very few people seek out any kind of 'transcendent' understanding. Those that do find the many churches to be sufficient. I have been co-leading a Self Inquiry group in a medium-sized city for 2 years, and only about 20 people have ever come to a meeting. A few come every time and that is about it. So a 1:1000 ratio seems reasonable to me. Perhaps Buddhism is popular in some areas as churches are here. Perhaps it offers a more understandable and broad road to transcendence. Churches seem to have a ceiling, and the people bumping against it are confused.

I suppose the key point here is that, from Buddhist perspective, low self-esteem is considered high self-esteem in disguise -- I've heard numerous gurus' statement's to that regard.
If you look up Buddhist definition for "conceit" (if I remember correctly), it says it means considering oneself better, worse, or equal to others. The way Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained this very well is, any image of self is a drastic over-generalization, an abstraction we reify and then obsess over.
The healthy Buddhist attitude is to not get stuck on one particular abstraction, but to see abstractions as mere tools and work with things as they are in all their multifaceted complexity. Practically speaking, this means you focus on getting things done, not on worrying about your image or worth.
The nature of Samsara is the opposite of suchness. This inherent wrongness is based on perceptual mistakes and wrong generalizations - and this is the state we begin with. Whether we consider ourselves awesome and the world horrible, or the world awesome and ourselves horrible, a reality we thus create is not a pleasant one to be in. The first step is then to accept (get at peace with) our closest observable phenomena - the immediate "this" accessible via meditation - and then expand to the rest of the post-meditation existence, including one's entourage, the frequent encounters, and gradually, the rest of life.
And again, in my experience, this acceptance requires breaking through the ice of abstractions (=attachments to ideas!) and into the real world.
From this perspective, I'm not surprised that Dalai Lama was baffled. From ancient times thousands of outcasts including such figures as Angulimala have joined the Buddhist order and all must have faced the similar difficulty: getting at peace with themselves (=their difficult past) and restarting their interactions with the world from the fresh perspective of fundamental sanity, instead of continuing to be defined by their past. How are the people in Western society fundamentally different?

Outcasts who succeed probably believe strongly in themselves. Ordinary people who fail, probably do not. If one is depressed or hopeless, it is hard to get started at all. This might be conceit, but potentially harder to work with than the conceit of believing in yourself.

There are some excellent answers already, so this is only in addition. Excessive individuality automatically produces self esteem issues. Modern Western culture largely prevalent everywhere today is very individualistic.
All beings struggle with wanting freedom and also wanting society. One cannot be had without sacrificing the other. Little insects like bees and ants are at one end of the spectrum who know they can't afford individuality. Survival is impossible if they don't work their roles faithfully. As the animals get larger, individuality arises. Bull elephants are notorious loners during musth, their annual hormonal phase. Once they work off their desire to be alone which they can afford to indulge in because they are big and strong, they join the herd again. This is a kind of suffering.
Humans began as social animals, building pyramids as a civilization. As technology advanced enough, the desire to be independent of society could be easily supported. To be in solitude is one thing, which monks are, to be lonely is another.
Society increasingly doesn't see the value in inter being. Thus loneliness.
This creates a lot of brooding and disappointment, because one blames oneself for everything that goes wrong. In a materialistic society where value is placed on youth, wealth and success, a lot of things will go wrong for lots of people. However society will often not support the losers, denying them promotions, health care and pensions, reinforcing their loser status mentally and socially through such social signals.
For a long time in Asia and traditional European cultures, success wasn't something to boast about. A boastful person is even now looked upon as highly disrespectful in many parts of the world. Low self esteem is the twin of pride.
An individualistic society will have both pride and low self esteem in abundance.

Yet it seems that only 'individualistic' people start movements aimed at bettering the world. Some of these people are even attacked by society. It would be like a herd animal that wandered off, found lots more food and tried to tell the others, but was pushed away. Bees go in search of food and tell the others. Perhaps we should be more like them? But who goes in search of transcendence? It doesn't sell.

@Buddho -  But also: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

Individualism that arises from ignorant selfishness is not as good as one that arises from wise self interest. The latter is less common. Most modern individualism arises from changing social protocols, a passive shift towards feeling more freedom without knowing the value of freedom. One of the truths that following the Buddha's path unfolds is the realization that freedom is in being integrated, in inter being with others. Our happiness and success truly arise only with the success and happiness of all. Being one's brother's keeper is not very popular but necessary.

My answer as a non westerner is:
No, low self esteem and insecurity can affect people of all cultures and races throughout history. In fact in Buddhism, the Asuras are gods who despite being quite high up in terms of power in the cosmic scale, are intensely jealous of their inferior status in comparisons to the Devas resulting in a lot of conflicts. They effectively suffer from 'inferiority complex' compared to the Devas.
The Asuras symbolized the attachment to the sense of Self in Buddhism. This should be a clear indication that Buddhists identify the issue of Self as a source of misery since ancient times in India, and continue to find applications in other cultures.
As someone with Chinese ancestry, I can attest to the cultural feelings of superiority complex with respect to other neighboring cultures being historically one of the largest and most powerful nation in East Asia (other societies are often degraded as barbarians), while exhibiting intense inferiority complexes after experiencing military and technological defeats from western powers. This was what resulted in communist ideas taking root, they were desperate to try anything, and were willing to destroy their own culture during the Cultural Revolution, perceiving it as the cause of their inferior status.
As China grew in power in the modern day, other form of psychological compensating through conspicuous consumption emerged in the rich and powerful class. But in fact this behavior goes back to ancient times.
All the East Asian nations are highly competitive hierachical nations where status often have powerful affect of people's sense of self worth. Resulting in the phenomenon of Hikikomori where people who feel they are unable to cope with society's expectation of a successful person drop out of society and become a recluse.
I also live in Thailand, and they too have a term to describe inferiority complex - ปมด้อย literally 'inferior knot'. Searching on Google I see over 360,000 results return for this word. So it's not exactly a rare pheonomenon.
As you can see, the feeling of inferiority complex can result in a whole society mobilized to compensate for it often through a projected superiority complex, as seen in Nazi Germany after it's defeat in the first world war. Japan in numerous period of history including the Imjin war attempt to invade Korea, China and India to wipe off their feelings of inferiority (in relations to cultures they learned from).
Finally, are the Tibetans special in this regard, having interacted with the exiles I would say no. Because they were understandably sore about being forcefully incorporated into China, they often point out that it was the Tibetan Empire who invaded Tang China and occupied it's capital Chang'an. You can see that they make up for the feeling of inferiority through historical achievements.
The question should perhaps be, is low self esteem more prevalent in western societies? I would say not necessarily, however I notice that Americans (including Asian Americans) being in a consumption, image based society often fret about their sexual desirability, and on the flip side of inferiority complex - the superiority complex, often brag about their sexual conquests when they do. I can only imagine that their psychological well being suffers when their sense of self worth is so strongly tied to external factors.
One of the goal of Buddhism is to realign your sense of self worth towards one which is tied to our practice of morality:
As Thanissaro Bhikku stated:

After several years of teaching and practicing meditation as therapy,
  however, many of us have found that meditation on its own is not
  enough. In my own experience, I have found that Western meditators
  tend to be afflicted more with a certain grimness and lack of
  self-esteem than any Asians I have ever taught. Their psyches are so
  wounded by modern civilization that they lack the resilience and
  persistence needed before concentration and insight practices can be
  genuinely therapeutic. Other teachers have noted this problem as well
  and, as a result, many of them have decided that the Buddhist path is
  insufficient for our particular needs. To make up for this
  insufficiency they have experimented with ways of supplementing
  meditation practice, combining it with such things as myth, poetry,
  psychotherapy, social activism, sweat lodges, mourning rituals, and
  even drumming. The problem, though, may not be that there is anything
  lacking in the Buddhist path, but that we simply haven't been
  following the Buddha's full course of therapy.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/precepts.html

I like the quote, I think that this hits the mark. I am always surprised at the strong emphasis people place on sexuality - both to prop up self-esteem, as you say, and also that it is disdained by most religious people. It is quite natural and unproblematic in most respects. It just happens to provoke some of the already existing ego-failings. Don't shoot the messenger!

Apparently, the Dalai Lama's original encounter with the concept of low self-esteem occurred at a psychology conference that he attended as related by Sharon Salzberg:

“What do you think about self-hatred?” I asked when it was my turn to bring up an issue for discussion. I was eager to get directly to the suffering I had seen so often in my students, a suffering I was familiar with myself. The room went quiet as all of us awaited the answer of the Dalai Lama, revered leader of Tibetan Buddhism. Looking startled, he turned to his translator and asked pointedly in Tibetan again and again for an explanation. Finally, turning back to me, the Dalai Lama tilted his head, his eyes narrowed in confusion. “Self-hatred?” he repeated in English. “What is that?”
All of us gathered at that 1990 conference in Dharmsala, India-philosophers, psychologists, scientists, and meditators-were from Western countries, and self-hatred was something we immediately understood. That this man, whom we all recognized as having a profound psychological and spiritual grasp of the human mind, found the concept of self-hatred incomprehensible made us aware of how many of us found it all but unavoidable. During the remainder of the session, the Dalai Lama repeatedly attempted to explore the contours of self-hatred with us. At the end he said, “I thought I had a very good acquaintance with the mind, but now I feel quite ignorant. I find this very, very strange.”

However, tracing it back to the article you read may be difficult as the story has been written about or spoken of by others: Dr Alexander
Berzin, Edward Tolle, Steven A. Alper, K. Chandarami, Jack Kornfield, Jetsuma Palmo, to name a few. It is a very popular story, so giving you the article that you read is difficult, but Salzberg's is the one with the most detail.

Maybe you could add the tag "reference request" so my day can continue to be pleasant??

I'm not sure this answer is on-topic but I guess that "self-esteem" might be an ambiguous word or difficult to translate.
For example I think that "thinking that I'm important" or "having self-love" or "wanting to care for oneself" (or just "being selfish" or a bit self-centric) is almost axiomatic even in Buddhism (see for example the opening lines of the Dhammapada's Violence chapter) -- if that's what "self-esteem" means (and is perhaps what it ought to mean in a metta bhavana context) then maybe that's what the Dalai Lama was thinking: "what do you mean by saying that you don't love yourself or don't have compassion for yourself? Of course you do, everyone does!"
On the other hand, meanings of "self-esteem" in Western psychology (or "pop psychology") include thoughts such as, "I am capable" and "I am powerful" and also "I am deserving" and "I am able to give to or to take care of myself" (not to mention "I am worthy" and "parents and society teach me to value myself"). Maybe that's what the person was talking of when they said they felt that low self-esteem was hindering their practice.

Slightly off-topic but as a maybe-interesting aside, somebody English was talking to a French lady, last week, I didn't catch the conversation but as I walked past the English person asked me to translate "to forgive oneself" because they were trying to say that but the French lady they were talking to didn't understand it. So I told her the word meant, not pardonner but the reflexive, se pardonner, and she replied, "But that's archaic! In the old days the (Catholic) church would talk about God and guilt and sin etc. Now (in a secular society) there's just us (people), we might forgive each other but there's no such thing as 'forgiving oneself'."
So I don't know, there are psychological phenomena or models that aren't even universal in the West: one person might think "There's a word for it: e.g. 'low self-esteem' or 'lack of self-forgiveness'; but someone else might say, 'There's no such thing'."

No, it definitely isn't a Western phenomenon. Perhaps the term may be 'Western,' but the phenomenon certainly isn't. Low self-esteem is especially common among people on the fringes of society, whatever and wherever that society may be.
Judging from my personal experience, at least, this seems to be especially common in cultures which have long been subjected to the rule of other cultures, especially when that rule was often brutal and totalitarian. However, to avoid bringing up issues to which some readers may be quite sensitive, I'd prefer not to elaborate on contemporary examples and will instead provide some historical non-Western examples.
Moses
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Moses was born in Egypt and lived around 1,500 BC. When asked to go before the Egyptian Pharaoh, he repeatedly tried to find reasons why he wasn't up to the task (see Genesis chapter 3 and chapter 4.) That is pretty much the essence of low self-esteem and predates even the existence of 'Western' culture.
Gideon

Then the Lord turned to him [Gideon] and said, “Go in this might of yours, and you shall save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. Have I not sent you?”
So he [Gideon] said to Him, “O my Lord, how can I save Israel? Indeed my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”

Judges 6:14-15 NKJV
'Woman at the Well'
An example from around 30 AD (in Israel, not 'the West') is the Biblical story of the 'woman at the well.' While you can read the whole story in John 4, the relevant part here is that the woman had such a low view of herself that she didn't even understand why a Jewish man (Jesus in this case) would even speak to her.

A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?”

John 4:7-9 NKJV

Disclaimer, in case this isn't clear:
Of course, I don't expect the Bible to be taken as authoritative on the Buddhism SE. These examples were just chosen because they're historical and non-Western (even predating the concept of 'Western culture' in some cases.) Whether you believe the events in question actually happened or not is irrelevant, as it is rather beyond dispute that the writings in question are not of Western origin and, at least for the first two, are over 2 millennia old. The examples are provided only to show that the phenomenon of low self-esteem isn't limited to the West (or even of Western origin.)

Is this a type of "low self-esteem" which would prevent one from "wishing well for oneself"? The "metta bhavana practice" (a.k.a. "cultivation of compassion") being talked about is a practice of saying "may I be free from suffering" as a practice/precursor for saying, "may others, may everyone else, be free from suffering." Can you understand why anyone's "low self-esteem" might make it difficult to practice compassion, to the extent of aspiring to be free of suffering?

One possible example in the style of the above from the canon is in a story where the Buddha with the sangha arrive at a river and an "untouchable" ran out of the way. (Of course the Buddha called him and resolved the problem in some way which I do not actuallly remember)


text:
What is the best introductory (but comprehensive) book on SECULAR Buddhism?
There is already a question on the best overall books, but many readers/newcomers may be put off (as I have been) by books that discuss for instance rebirth and karma in a literal sense.
So what is the best introductory (but still comprehensive) book on Buddhism as a way of life?

In my opinion, 'Secular Buddhism' can be problematic since often adherents to this new group (such as Stephen Batchelor, who believes purity of mind is not possible) often misrepresent the Buddhist teachings due to no aspiration to practise Buddhism at a high level. They are like Protestant Christians that seek to modify the Buddhist teachings to suit themselves.
While there is nothing wrong with not believing in post-mortem rebirth, there is an understanding of karma & 'rebirth' that does not involve believing in an afterlife. To write-off 'karmic inheritance' is not particularly wise since there is such thing as karmic inheritance (such as when a murderer ends up in prison for their actions).
I would recommend books by monks such as Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, etc, because these demonstrate both a proper understanding of Buddhism & the 'here-&-now' approach you are interested in.
It is important to understand the Buddha himself taught his teachings are about the 'here-&-now', what in Pali is called: "Sanditthiko, Akaliko, Ehipassiko, Opanayiko and Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhi". Therefore, being 'secular' is not contrary to the true Buddhist teachings.
However, if you are interested in a 'watered-down' Buddhism that may help you with ordinary life then 'Secular Buddhism' might be suitable.
I personally would recommend the following books if you want to learn about true Buddhism while not interested in 'post-mortem' rebirth & other unverifiable belief systems:
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Buddhadassa_Bhikkhu_Buddha_Dhamma_for_University_Students.pdf
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Two_Kinds_of_Language.htm
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn_Sumedho_Cittaviveka.htm
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
more books by these authors are here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/
You are also welcome to read my posts or ask me questions on this chatsite since these are always 'secular'. There is a here-&-now interpretation for the majority of the vast teachings attributable to the Buddha, including those about 'rebirth'.

Quite true my friend, good answer. The path of all the wise ones is the same. Inquire deeply into the truth of existence and discover the Buddha nature within. That is the true way of a seeker of truth. One can discover Buddhism from the mountains, from the river, from life itself far better than one can from the words of egotic intellect.

I would then recommend reading the Suttas at www.accesstoinsight.org .


text:
Would a skin condition stop someone becoming a monk?
I am asking this behalf of my friend. He was gonna commit suicide. But I managed to calm him down by taking him to a Buddhist temple. He had a really fun life, movies, friends, night outs, girls, cars, everything. But suddenly he got to know that he has a skin condition called herpes. Something like a pimple. But it seems he regret a lot a lot as it has no cure. But it is a very common all over the world. He doesn't understand and tried to suicide. He has given up life.
Luckily I brought him to this Buddhist temple and managed to save his life. Now he is very interest in becoming a Theravada monk and spend the life in a temple meditating, learning and practicing Buddhism. I decided to support him as he was a good person, help others, donate etc. I am wondering if his conditions and previous life style matters to become a monk. Thanks.

Previous lifestyle & herpes should not prevent a person from becoming a monk. If your friend wants to become a monk, he should talk to a monk at the temple.

The commentary on page 195 of this document, The
Buddhist
Monastic
Code II, implies that it depends on the type of skin condition, where it is, how severe it is, and whether it's likely to spread. I don't know to what extent it applies to herpes.
This answer to a related question starts with,

The degree of strict interpretation of such rules largely depends on the monastery, tradition and abbot under whom one ordains. Most monastic orders I know adapt these rules to suit their circumstance in practice.

I am glad you managed to save your friend's life.
I suggest that both of you google "Thai monk with neurofibromatosis" and become aware that his 'problem' isn't a real problem.

look up Jivaka Kumar Bhaccha (Buddha's physician).  He also treated other monks during Buddha's time.  One day he noticed that many lay men in the market had their head shaved.  He realized that many people ordained just to get free health care and would dis-rope and went back to normal lay person life after their illness was cured.  So he asked Buddha not to ordain people with certain illness or conditions.
This has to be clear, if your friend's condition does not meet the perquisite to be a monk, it doesn't mean he wont make progress in Dhamma.
Here are quotes and referecences
Jīvaka's fame as a physician brought him more work than he could cope with, but he never neglected his duties to the Sangha. Many people, afflicted with disease and unable to pay for treatment, joined the Order in order that they might receive that treatment. On discovering that the Order was thus being made a convenience of, he asked the Buddha to lay down a rule that men afflicted with certain diseases should be refused entry into the Order (Vin.i.71ff). Jīvaka was declared by the Buddha chief among his lay followers loved by the people (aggam puggalappasannānam) (A.i.26). He is included in a list of good men who have been assured of the realisation of deathlessness (A.iii.451; DhA.i.244, 247; J.i.116f).

YUK! This rule sounds made up. What if the man with a disease is rich and obviously isn't out to get free healthcare? This rule sounds unnecessarily heartless and not in harmony with the Dhamma. What's wrong with people getting medical care regardless of they're monastic sincerity?

i added reference to my answer.  I believe these rules were made to prevent people come in to take advantage of Sangha without sincerity.  I believe Buddha set things out of kindness for all beings.  Perhaps, people inflict with certain illness may have made a greater progress as lay person.


text:
How integral is the synergetic aspect of buddhism?
I remember reading, in the 1st book I picked up on Buddhism, that it was a synergetic religion, literally, that it combines with (I suppose indigenous) traditions, such as the tao, and bon.
Did the Buddha ever talk about this aspect of (what has ended up as) his teachings?
Are there any interesting studies or way of thinking about Buddhism in those terms, general to all that it has taken up and made its own?

The Buddha clearly identified his dharma as something that both transcends and complements religion, including teachers, rules, lifestyles, and ethics. He specifically invites his hearers to remain associated with whatever religion they have inherited, and implies that the dharma is perfectly compatible with all of this. See, for example,

"…you may think: ‘the ascetic Gotama says this in order to get
  disciples.’ But you should not regard it like that. Let him who is
  your teacher remain your teacher. Or you may think: ‘He wants us to
  abandon our rules.’ Let your rules remain as they are. Or you may
  think: ‘He wants us to abandon our way of life.’ But you should not
  regard it like that. Let your way of life remain as it was. Or you may
  think: ‘He wants to establish us in the doing of things that according
  to our teaching was wrong, and are so considered among us.’ But you
  should not regard it like that. Let those things you consider wrong
  continue to be so considered. Or you may think: ‘He wants to draw us
  away from things that according to our teaching are good, and are so
  considered among us.’ But you should not regard it like that. Let
  whatever you consider right continue to be so considered. Nigrodha, I
  do not speak for any of these reasons." (Digha Nikaya, sutta 25, para. 23; iii 56)

Elsewhere he tells a disciple who has converted from Jainism to continue to support the Jains with alms, and he disparages ethics, rules, and mere mechanical observances as inferior matters. He even warns against dogmatism, pointing out that dharma is beyond linguistic and rational categories.

The Buddha's teaching was originally pure & unique. The synergism occurred when Buddhism traveled from India to China, Tibet, etc. In India, Buddhism also synergised with Hinduism, until it disappeared.
When I use the word "unique"; I am referring to the Four Noble Truths and other supra-mundane teachings such as The Three Characteristics, Dependent Origination & Emptiness.
Of the Four Noble Truths ,the Buddha said: "These were things he had never before" and called them: "The special teachings of the Buddhas" (MN 56 ).

Then the Blessed One discoursed to him a graduated sermon, that is to say, he spoke on the subjects of liberality, virtue, the heavens, on
  the evil consequences, the vanity and the depravity of sensual
  pleasures, and on the advantages of renunciation.
When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and
  lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted [special]
  doctrine of the Buddhas, viz. Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and
  the Path.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn56

~~~

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

~~~

And the Blessed One spoke, saying: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path,
  neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or
  fourth degree of saintliness....Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers.
Maha-parinibbana Sutta

~~~

"Thus you should train yourselves: '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."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

well, by definition, to an extent, at least to the extent that you have elaborated on. what did the buddha say about the "uniqueness" of his teachings? that doesn't seem to be strictly identical to his realisation, but could perhaps be so

"Never heard before" is presumably from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. What is the source of the other quote, from where are you quoting, "the special teachings of the Buddhas"?

The Buddha was honest & not thief. When the scriptures say: "I teach this" I have never seen topics such as good & bad karma, generosity, metta, etc, mentioned because these were taught previously by other teachers. In AN 3.61, it is said: "This is what is taught by me - the six elements [including consciousness element]; the six sense spheres; the eighteen explorations of feelings; & the four noble truths".

Did the Buddha ever talk about this aspect of (what has ended up as) his teachings?

Historically, "the Buddha" lived in what's now northern India (e.g. Varanasi) in maybe the 4th century BCE.
Buddhism migrated into China starting in about 100 BCE, which is where it met with Taoism.
And, according to Wikipedia, Bon started in the 11th century.
So I'm not sure it makes sense to ask whether "the Buddha talked about" Buddhism merging with Taoism and Bon, given that this meeting occured centuries after his life.
So I'm answering that, in my opinion, the Buddha didn't talk about it. The idea of his talking about it would be anachronistic.
If you want to know what the Buddha did talk about, I suspect our best rcord of that is what's recorded in the Pali suttas (and the Vinaya), which are e.g. as published on accesstoinsight.org and on other sites including these.
The Buddha did talk about or reference religious beliefs and traditions that were contemporary to his time and place (maybe Vedism, Brahmanism, and so on); sometimes implying some commonality between Buddhism and other schools or non-Buddhists (e.g. IIRC he says somewhere that he agrees with what the wise agree with), but more often pointing out some difference or distinction.
The question (of what the Buddha talked about) is complicated by Buddhavacana recorded after his death.
If you want to ask about, for example, the influence of Taoism on Buddhism, then I think you ought to ask a slightly different question: e.g. ask about the influence on a specific school of buddhism (e.g. Chan Buddhism) ... and maybe don't ask what the Buddha said about it.

By synergy if you mean that you cannot do it alone, and God has to be with you or the universe should approve of you or whatever, then the Supreme Buddha’s Dhamma is not synergetic. The formlessness of the God, Yehovah and Allah has resulted in banning idol worshipping and making statues or drawing pictures of the "unmanifested" being forbidden. There are these do’s and don’ts in other aspects too of these religions.
That said in Buddhism, one needs the assistance of fellow Dhamma-farers who are fully established in the path, and the Devas, (at least up until you yourself is fully established in the path as a stream entrant) if one is to succeed in this path.
If the continuance of the round of rebirths occurs due to Dependent Origination, the latter must cease for the round of rebirths to cease occurring. The way to make that happen is to follow the Noble Eight-fold Path. To fulfil that process, one needs to association of noble friends, hearing the Doctrine and keep company with righteous people. He would also need a rebirth conducive to fulfil the process of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Now, that is where merit plays its part.
A rebirth in worlds of the Brahmas and Devas becomes a very helpful asset to one who searches for the goal of Nibbana. Such rebirths are the results of merits. So we must understand the true worth of merit. Those who spend the time arguing "We do not need merit but only wholesome deeds" unfortunately may end up getting neither.
Whoever is in the Noble Eight Fold Path – the road less travelled, need the company of Noble Friends who would encourage you in this path. When Ven. Ananda told The Buddha that 50% of the path depends on the association of Noble Friends, The Buddha corrected him, saying that it is depended 100% in the association of Noble Friends.
Sadly in the present day and age there are many so-called-Buddhists that bear misguided and false views harming themselves and many around them.  In Sri Lanka specially, there are many who carry false beliefs while taking refuge in auspicious times according to asterism, auspicious signs, horoscopes, planetary objects, and the twelve houses of astrology. None of these have anything to do with Buddha’s teachings.
We live in an unfortunate time where the Asura Forces are far greater and stronger. One would only make one’s refuge in the Triple Gem impure by believing in horoscopes, following auspicious times etc. etc... Tell me how many of us ‘Buddhists’ have made the Sutta & Vinaya Pitaka (the Doctrine) of the Buddha, their teacher? It’s only a handful. We may say that we seek the blessings of the Triple Gem to protect and guide us, but what we go behind and look up to are the politics, the horoscopes, the auspicious times, the Asuras that we call ‘Gods’, and other ‘a’dhammas.  So to overcome these we need the assistance of Davas who are well established in this path. In this way, the Supreme Buddha’s Dhamma is synergetic.
Many Buddhists in the present day may believe that beings in the worlds of Devas cannot accumulate merits. This view is contrary to the discourses of the Buddha. In the Doctrine, there is a meditation called the 'Contemplation of Devas'. In it the Buddha spoke about The World of the Four, The World of the Thirty Three, Yama, Tusita, Nimmanarati, and Paramimmita Vasavarti. These are all Deva Worlds.
A disciple who has developed the powers of a Noble learner such as faith, virtue, learning, liberality and wisdom, has the qualities to receive a rebirth in those Deva Worlds. Such a disciple with the powers of a Noble learner could contemplate: "Devas too have noble qualities that I possess. After my death in this world, I can receive rebirth among the Devas". Thus the disciple with the powers of a Noble learner does the meditation called 'Contemplation of the Devas.'
If one cannot lead a life of virtue and Dhamma in the worlds of Devas, The Buddha would not have taught His disciples how to meditate on the 'Contemplation of the Devas'. Another thing we know is that when the Buddha preached 'The Motion of the Wheel of Truth' (Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta) only one person in the world of human beings reached fruition of the path, while Devas in twenty two worlds of Devas reached fruition of the path.
In Samyukta Nikaya there are discourses called Devata Samyukta and Devaduta Samyukta. When these discourses were spoken by the Buddha, there were many beings from the world of Devas who reached the fruition of the Path. Sakkapanha Sutta in Digha Nikaya (collection of long discourses) shows that Sakra, the Lord of the Deva world of the Thirty Three had reached fruition of the Path.


text:
Is this a passable translation of Dogen's "without thinking"?
His, Dogen's, Fukanzazengi, says

Think of not-thinking. How do you think of not-thinking? Be before
  thinking. These are the basics of zazen.

I haven't, I think, been formally taught zazen. But how does this sound, as a paraphrase:

think of thinking which is no longer thought

Because, taken literally, I feel that it is a very good way of looking at our relationship to history, when we cannot do anything about it.

It reminds me of the unrelated quote: "Behind nothing, before nothing, worship it, the Zero."

Think of not-thinking. How do you think of not-thinking? Be before thinking. These are the basics of zazen.

When one's perceptional faculties are acutely developed and on the cusp of awakening, logical perception will begin to occur before emotional perception.
For example, if there is a loud bang, the first perception in the mind will be, just a loud bang, nothing to fear. The very next nano second, the emotional perception will arise, suggesting fear and panic. However this emotional message will have no relevance because the event has already been cognized logically.
In modern scientific terms, one could describe it as the speeding up of the logical brain over the pre-brain.
By intently examining every moment in zazen we cause the evolution of the response time of the brain's logical faculties.
To be before thinking is indeed a very literal action.
The pre-brain, or animal-brain, or Amygdala evolved in human evolution as a primtive information processor, only emitting a binary response - fear or pleasure. It is very stupid but very quick. It keeps one alive, uses very little energy, but is useless for day to day human activity. The pre-frontal cortex is a far more sophisticated organ, whose response to inputs includes no emotion, only logic, but takes more calories, and has a slower response time.
In a normal unenlightened brain, the amygdala responds faster than the PFC. By the time the PFC gets event data it is already meddled with by the Amygdala and has been characterized as positive or negative.
To attain being before thought we train in faster response and intelligent reponse.
When we do long hours of zazen, by choice-less-ly observing events, we strengthen the nervous system leading to the pre-frontal cortex, and weaken the nervous system leading to the amygdala. Exactly like strengthening a muscle with use, and atrophying another muscle with disuse. In time the PFC reacts faster than the Amygdala to everything leading to a very logical person who's not swayed by the emotional ups and downs of life.
However, this is a physical modification, and can change with age or injury.
The real permanent change is when we also train our logical faculties to learn to recognize and discard the emotional meddling of the amygdala if and when it arrives before the PFC.
Thus even if an event is characterized as fearful or anger inducing by the Amygdala, by realizing no-self we can discard animalistic habit patterns, and utilizing the energy of mindfulness and wisdom we decide on the moment on its merits.
Eventually after practicing this until it becomes second nature, and by discarding identification and habit patterns we are finally before thought, and the turbid waters of the mind become still and clear.
CAVEAT: I am not a neural expert, this theory is solely based on personal inquiry, a little experience and a little hypothesis. YMMV.

While this is very interesting, it doesn't really answer the question, and is not suggested in the actual text. Further more, given that the text was meant to be a universal recommendation, it would imply that the text was directed at general audiences, who do not have the necessary background in meditation.

To me the English phrase, "think of thinking which is no longer thought" implies that it used to be thought, that it was previously thought, but is no longer thought i.e. it is not thought any more. In other words it's something to do with after thought, not before thought.
The way I understand "before thought" is, for example, if I see a tree then what I'm seeing is light reflected off a tree: I'm seeing light after it's reflected (instead of seeing the tree itself). If I wanted to know the tree (i.e. reality) and not just know the reflected light (i.e. thoughts), then I ought to consider what's happening before the light is reflected.

well, is one way to "be" to think of thinking??

Additionally if I wanted to know the tree may be "seeing" or considering the source of the reflected light isn't enough. Furthermore hearing, touching, smelling the tree can help to experience it. With this in mind the pure thinking can play a smaller role.

I had a look at translations of Dogen's essay "Universally Recommended
Instructions for Zazen":

Think of not thinking. Not thinking-what kind of thinking is that?
  Nonthinking. This is the essential art of zazen.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html
I did further research on the text and came across the archaic Japanese original as well as the modern Japanese translation.
Dogen's Original Passage

箇（こ）の不思量底を思量せよ。不思量底、如何（いかん）が思量せん。非思量。これ乃（すなわ）ち坐禅の要術なり。

Modern Japanese

不思量に止（とど）まり居る処のみを任運に、そのまま不思量底であるところ、本来の相としての非思量に在る。これが、まさに坐禅の要術である。

http://www.geocities.jp/sybrma/235.5hukanzazengi.yaku2.html
Now I am not a Japanese speaker, however the Chinese characters (Kanji) used in both passage are 不思量 and 非思量 which would roughly translates as 'not thinking' and 'non thinking'. Suggesting that 'be before thinking' is not a good translation.
Further research indicates the context that the phrase was used:

These words appear in a dialogue that Dogen makes the subject of SBGZ
  Zazenshin: A monk asked Yueh-shan, "What does one think of when
  sitting motionlessly in zanen?" Yueh-shan replied, "You think of
  not-thinking." "How do you think of not-thinking?" asked the monk.
  "Nonthinking," answered Yueh-shan.

http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60478.pdf
This would suggest that the intent of his message was not about some kind of 'prescience' (the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge) as the word be before thinking or before thought would suggest, but the single pointed concentration that result in the falling away of thoughts.
This corresponds with the mental factors of the Jhana, which the the Pali root word for Chan/ Zen.

First Jhāna — the five hindrances have completely disappeared and
  intense unified bliss remains. Only the subtlest of mental movement
  remains, perceivable in its absence by those who have entered the
  second jhāna. The ability to form unwholesome intentions ceases. The
  remaining qualities are: "directed thought, evaluation, rapture,
  pleasure, unification of mind, contact, feeling, perception,
  intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness,
  equanimity & attention"
Second Jhāna — all mental movement utterly ceases. There is only
  bliss. The ability to form wholesome intentions ceases as well. The
  remaining qualities are: "internal assurance, rapture, pleasure,
  unification of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention,
  consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity,
  & attention"

As noted, by the second Jhana all thoughts have ceased, only awareness of bliss and other Jhanic factors remains.
A poster here suggested that it could be to do with:

When one's perceptional faculties are acutely developed and on the
  cusp of awakening, logical perception will begin to occur before
  emotional perception.

While this could possibly occur in meditation, it is not suggested in the actual text. Further more, given that the text was meant to be a universal recommendation, it would imply that the text was directed at general audiences, who do not have the necessary background in meditation. Who might be wondering what they are supposed to think during sitting meditation, the answer being not think of anything in particular. (A more systematic way is to direct your thoughts to an object of focus, for example your breathing).

@Adamokkha Thanks for trying to edit my post. I did meant prescience not presence the first time round.