text:
Does Vipassana arise from Samatha/Anapanasati meditation? or is it another trap of monkey mind?
I'm novice to meditation and Buddhism. Apologies if this is silly question
I've been practicing antipasti meditation for few months. While I watch/understand my breath, when a thought arise I use 6 Rs and let it go and come back to breath.
However when meditation gets bit deep while the mind is somewhat still, I come to a deep realization. It's like everything's zoomed in. - Is this an early levels of Vipassana?
Then I get confused that this is a call from my monkey mind so I go back to 6Rs.
Is my practice correct? Bit confused over my approach. Also I don't have a meditation teacher.
Appreciate your feedback :)

The word 'vipassana' means 'to see clearly'. It refers to seeing clearly the liberating truths of Buddhism, such as:

Craving & attachment cause stress/suffering.
Non-craving & non-attachment cause de-stressing/peace.
Conditioned things are impermanent therefore cannot be attached to.
Things are not-self, i.e., they are natural phenomena or elements.

Therefore, if in Anapanasati practise, the mind clearly sees the above, this is vipassana.
For example, if the mind clearly sees 'the body breathes' rather than the 'self' breathes, this is vipassana.
Or if the mind clearly sees craving, attachment & other monkey-mindedness cause disturbing agitated vibrations in the breathing, this is vipassana.
Or if the mind clearly sees equanimity of mind causes the breathing to become calm and the body to feel relaxed, this is vipassana.
Or if the mind clearly sees each breath appears, stays, then disappears, this is vipassana.

Thanks so much for the clarification. Does that mean tranquility (samatha) and vipassana happens concurrently?
Should I look closely when the deep realisation happens? Or should I go back to breath?
Also is there any good source regarding early Buddha’s teaching of meditation that I can refer to?

When the mind (concentration) is balanced, tranquility (samatha) and vipassana happens concurrently.

There is no need to "look closely". When the deep realisation happens (as you have experienced) it happens by itself. If you make an effort to look more closely, that very effort & ambition will probably result in a loss of mental clarity. Just sit back and watch the view. Keep the mind as equanimous as possible. Kind regards

OP: Is my practice correct? Bit confused over my approach. Also I don't have a meditation teacher.

The 6Rs seams like a valid technique to develop vitakka-vicāra.
It is similar to:

When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should train yourself thus:
“I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,
observing [contemplating] [body | feeling | mind | dhamma] the in the [body | feeling | mind | dhamma],
removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world.”
Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.
When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,
THE 1 ST DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;
THE 2 ND DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi with zest;
THE 3RD DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;
should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;
THE 4 TH DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity.

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta

OP: Then I get confused that this is a call from my monkey mind so I go back to 6Rs.

6Rs will help you keep focus.

OP: However when meditation gets bit deep while the mind is somewhat still, I come to a deep realization. It's like everything's zoomed in. - Is this an early levels of Vipassana?

This can be actually happening in which cases it is Vipassana. Many practitioners tend to imagine things by giving meaning to experiances which can be wrong. If this is the case it is not. One has to check one's condition of the mind to determine but having said that do not dwell on this too much and continue the practice.
Following is an interesting sutta to highlight something similar:

"Suppose that there is a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry: mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He does not take note of[1] his master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry, or he praises that curry. Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master likes mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet curry... alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a result, he is not rewarded with clothing or wages or gifts. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook does not pick up on the theme of his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not take note of his own mind.[4]
"Now suppose that there is a wise, experienced, skillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry: mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He takes note of his master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry or he praises that curry. Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master likes mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet curry... alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a result, he is rewarded with clothing, wages, & gifts. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful cook picks up on the theme of his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a wise, experienced, skillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself... feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind becomes concentrated, his defilements are abandoned. He takes note of that fact. As a result, he is rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, together with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful monk picks up on the theme of his own mind."

Lit.: "pick up on the theme of."

Comy: the five Hindrances (niivara.na).

Or: "does not pick up on that theme."

Or: "does not pick up on the theme of his own mind."

Suda Sutta: The Cook

Thanks so much for this. Really appreciate

The 6rs come from banthe Vimalaramsi  who claims that craving means there is a physical contraction at the top of the head, more precisely the meninges,  and letting go means relaxing this contraction, which is a unsual claim, but the 6rs themselves are harmless.
Anyway the usual way to get into samadhi is through ''pāmojjaṃ'', ie joy, https://suttacentral.net/an11.4/en/sujato  and this stuff comes from ''yoniso anucintaya'', ie cultivating what the buddha calls a good behavior all the time https://suttacentral.net/sn9.11/en/sujato and this is hard.
To live ''diligently'' means this https://suttacentral.net/sn35.97/en/sujato
and of course the condition for joy is faith https://suttacentral.net/sn12.23/en/sujato and having faith in the buddha when there is no buddha is hard.


text:
Are the Skandhas reborn from moment-to-moment?
Imagine a human being born in 1982 weighing a few pounds at birth and labeled 'Melinda' by her parents. This little human being grows up - as little human beings tend to do - and by 2020 we imagine her as an adult no longer called 'Melinda', but rather change her name to 'Abigail.' If we examine the bodies of Melinda and Abigail down to the atom and perform a thorough and exact accounting we find that Melinda and Abigail do not share even one atom in common. Their brains are composed of entirely different atoms.
Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different? Has it been reborn? What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur? How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020? Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn? Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?
Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated? Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?
How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

Imagine a camp fire that started in 1982. The original fuel has burned down but new fuel is regularly added. The overall shape and configuration of the fire in 2020 is somewhat reminiscent of the original 1982 fire but of course none of the material is the same.
Now if we were to analytically separate the fire into several categories (skandhas) we would find wood, ash, heat, light, oxygen, and smoke - all playing their roles in the maintenance (upadana) of fire.
Is it the same fire staying or is the fire "reborn" moment to moment? It's neither and both, these are just concepts to explain the working of causal continuity.
One important mistake in the worldview underlying your original question:  it assumes that "the fire" starts when a new human is born. But this is not so. The fire has been continuously burning through generations. "The beginning point is not evident". A new human is just another tongue of flame.

Is the rupa skhanda of Melinda and Abigail the same or different?

The teachings say the khandhas alter, change (SN 22.1), are impermanent (SN 22.59).

Has it been reborn?

No. The Pali words translated as 'reborn' are associated with "kamma" or "volition". The change & alteration of the rupa khandha over the lifetime is not related to volition (apart from volitionally produced change, such as from eating too much or having plastic surgery).

What was the manner of its rebirth?

Its not reborn. Only identity towards the rupa khandha is 'reborn'.

Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical
  laws or some combination?

Reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I'

Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated?

Yes, it seems so. In the Pali suttas (DN 1; Iti 49; etc) the term "annihilation" refers to the annihilation of a "self-view" or "existent being".

Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?

Yes. But not from nothing. Abligail was born from ignorance & craving.

How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In
  what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

SN 12.2 defines "jati" or "birth" as a "category of beings produced by the manifestation of their aggregates and the acquisition of their sense bases (of identification)".
For example, Abigail craves to be attractive, manifests her aggregates by wearing make up and sex clothing and mental behaving in certain seductive ways. She identifies herself within the category of "sexy women". If men don't pay attention to her, sorrow arises. If other sexy women look more sexy than her, despair arises. Sorrow & despair arise with the "aging & death" of her fragile identity. Despite these setbacks, her repetition of such sexualising behaviour is "rebirthing" or "upapajjati".
The word "upapatti/upapajjati" ("rebirth/reborn") appears not related to the word "jati" ("birth"). 'Upapajjati' is 'upa + pad + ya'; where the root 'pad' appears to mean 'to walk; to move' and the suffix 'upa' means 'close to' or 'near'. 'Jati' appears to be a noun from the verb root 'jan'; which appears to mean "bring forth'.
Therefore, "jati" appears to mean "bring forth" and "upapajjati" appears to mean "to continue/be in a similar manner as before".
For example, SN 12.10, includes both "jati" & "upapajjati", where the word "jayati" is the "verb" for the noun "jati", as follows:

Mendicants, before my awakening — when I was still unawakened but
  intent on awakening— I thought:
Pubbeva me, bhikkhave, sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva
  sato etadahosi:
‘Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It is born, grows old, dies,
  passes away, and is reborn [continues in the same manner as before]...
‘kicchaṃ vatāyaṃ loko āpanno jāyati ca jīyati ca mīyati ca cavati ca
  upapajjati ca.

OP: Are the Skandha's reborn from moment-to-moment?

Yes.

Viññāṇapaccayā nāma-rūpaṃ, “dependent on consciousness arises mentality-materiality.” The term nāma here stands for the mental states (cetasika), in other words, the three mental groups: namely, feeling (vedanākkhandha), perception (saññākkhandha), and volitional or mental formations (saṅkhārakkhandha).
The so called “being” (satta, Skt. sattva) is composed of five aggregates or groups (pañcakkhandha); namely, physical body, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness (rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāṇa). If consciousness is taken as the mind, then feeling, perceptions and volitional formations are the concomitants or factors of that mind. Now when we say dependent on consciousness arises nāma-rūpa, mentality-materiality, materiality means the physical body, its organs, faculties, and functions. Mentality means the factors of the mind mentioned above. In other words, viññāṇa-paccayā nāma-rūpaṃ means dependent on consciousness arise the three mental concomitants (feeling, perception, and volitional formations) that compose mentality, along with the conascent material body in its first embryonic stage.
Consciousness and its factors (citta-cetasika) are always interrelated and interdependent. Consciousness cannot arise and function independently of its factors, nor can the factors arise and function without consciousness. They arise simultaneously (sahajāta-paccaya) and have no independent existence.
The function of viññāṇa, consciousness, is varied. The third factor of the chain is made known to us as viññāṇa; now here again we hear of a sixth base, manāyatana, which is identical with consciousness. But here by manāyatana different types of consciousness are meant. It should be borne in mind that consciousness is not something that is permanent and everlasting. It undergoes change, not remaining the same for two consecutive moments; it comes into being and immediately passes away yielding place to a new consciousness. “These mental phenomena are, as it were, only the different aspects of those units of consciousness which like lightning every moment flash up and immediately thereafter disappear forever.”

Source: Dependent Origination (Paṭicca Samuppāda) by Piyadassi Thera

OP: Is the rupa skhanda of Melinda and Abigail the same or different?

This is neither the same nor different. There is not core which is transmitted but each series of Skandas are a product of same DO process.

OP: Has it been reborn?

Yes. They die and recreated as the wheel of DO roles forward.

There are three kinds of death: death as
  cutting off, momentary death, and conventional death. Death as cutting off belongs
  to those whose cankers are exhausted (and are Arahants). Momentary death is
  that of each consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with life-continuum
  consciousness, which arise each immediately on the cessation of the one preceding.
  Conventional death is that of all (so-called) living beings. Mine will be conventional
  death.

Introduction to The Path of Purification Visuddhimagga

OP: What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur?

Past conditioning gives rise to the consciousness, mind and matter and 6 sense bases for the monetary experience. The craving towards the feelings is the fuel which keeps the cycle going.

OP: How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020?

Rūpa also arises and dissolves at a tremendous rate of more
than 58 billion times per second. So for such a long period, it is difficult to say.

The Life-Time of Citta
Citta (consciousness) arises and dissolves in a person at a
  tremendous rate of more than a thousand billion times per eye-wink
  and there are about 250 eye-winks in a second. So, the life-time of a
  citta is less than one-thousand billionth of a second.
The life-time or duration of a citta is measured by three short
  instants, characterising the distinct features in the arising and passing
  of the citta. These are: (i) uppāda- the arising instant, (ii) ṭhiti- the
  presence or existing instant and (iii) bhanga- the dissolving instant.
  These three short instants (khaṇas) are said to be “one moment of
  consciousness” or “one conscious moment” (cittakkhaṇa). So, the lifetime of a citta is equal to the three short instants of arising, existing
  and dissolving of citta, i.e. it is equal to one conscious moment
  (cittakkhaṇa).
The Life-Time of Matter-Rūpa
The life-time of matter or Rūpa is 17 times longer than that of
  citta. So, we can say that the life-time of rūpa is equal to 17
  cittakkhaṇas, or 17 conscious moments, or 51 short instants (17X3 =
  51); as there are 3 short instants in a moment of consciousness.
Thus, rūpa also arises and dissolves at a tremendous rate of more
  than 58 billion times per second. The difference between citta and
  rūpa is as follows: citta arise one after another, whereas rūpa arise by
  manifesting as thousands of units in a small instant and it goes on
  constantly arising at every small instant in time. Therefore, rūpa may
  accumulate to become large masses that are visible to the naked eye,
  whereas the fleeting stream of consciousnesses is invisible to the
  naked eye.

Process of Consciousness and Matter by Rewata Dhamma

OP: Is the same true of the other skhandas... have they been reborn?

Yes.

OP: Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?

This is due to conditioning fueled by craving. Self-identification leads to craving. See this, this and this answer.

After looking at all the answers - many of which are noble - I think the best answer is a synthesis of the answers proffered here with a few minor tweaks.
I think Andrei comes very close to a complete answer and there is nothing per se that I find disagreeable, but I think more can and should be said. Likewise, Suminda's answer is straightforward and seems largely correct to me and I appreciate how direct it is.
Some of the answers dwell on the word 'reborn' which exists only by convention without one iota of inherent meaning. I don't think dwelling on the particular translation of the words in the Pali having to do with 'birth' and 'rebirth' and 'reborn' is revealing in this case. Often times I think dwelling on the translations of suttas and getting attached to and wrapped in the meaning of words as if they have inherent meaning can act as a hindrance to true understanding of the Dharma. It is not that definitions of words or accuracy in translation is unimportant - indeed it often is crucial! - but getting hung up on them can also be problematic in some contexts.
So here goes an attempted synthesis...
Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different?
Different! But only conventionally so. It is stated right in the hypothetical that no two atoms are the same. Insofar as you believe in the quantum theory of matter, then you have to grant that they are different. However, this is only conventionally so because both utterly lack inherent existence.
Has it been reborn?
Sure! That's an applicable use of the word 'reborn' in this context in that I think it is useful and conveys meaning as both Andrei and Suminda similarly attest. What do we mean?
That the skhanda is in a state of constant change and flux. The body is ever changing. You can not find any two moments - of any duration whatosever - where no distinction can be made between them. In this sense, the body is 'reborn' continuously from moment-to-moment.
Of course, you could object and say that we don't normally use the word 'reborn' in this context, ie, that it is not conventionally used this way... and sure I'd grant that, but the fact that both Andrei and Suminda understood leads me to believe this convention is of course subject to change ;)
What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur?
It was reborn due to being impermanent and in a state of constant flux. All conditioned things are such and the manner is such and occurs because of the utter lack of inherent being in these phenomena.
How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020?
It is impossible to find two moments - of any duration whatsoever - where no distinction can be made between the rupa skandha of one and the other.
Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn?
Yes.
Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?
They are inanimate and not sentient and have no capacity for 'identification' with an 'I' no more than fire does as Andrei rightly points out. It is our identification with them and ignorance of them - as sentient beings - that mistakes these phenomena that exist only by convention and mistakes them for real and substantial phenomena. They utterly are not.
Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated?
No! We don't say conventionally that 'Melinda' died, but rather say that she changed her name to 'Abigail'. Of course, we could change the convention to say that someone 'dies' when there name is changed. That's up to us as shared creators of our conventions.
However, to think that she was utterly annihilated is to posit that 'Melinda' existed in some real and substantial way when she utterly did not. 'Melinda' was just a label that we attached by convention and we simply changed it to 'Abigail'... This is really, really, important to understand. Thinking that anything was utterly annihilated is making the error in assuming that there was something real and substantial before! There never was!!
Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?
Nope! All that happened was we changed the entirely conventional label 'Melinda' to 'Abigail' and we don't call this being 'born' ... although if we all got together and started to do this ... ie, change the convention ... we could! In other words, there is nothing inherently existing about the word 'born' here that would preclude it from being used affirmatively in this situation. We just don't happen to do that as a convention. But conventions change of course. Can anyone guess why conventions can change? Because they don't have one iota of inherent existence of course! :)
It is entirely another thing to think that something real and substantial would miraculously pop into existence with the simple act of changing a name. It is entirely because there is nothing real and substantial about a name that allows us to change it. It is just a mere convention. Like all phenomena.
How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent?
In the exact same way and in the exact same manner as Melinda/Abigail's rupa skandha and in the exact same way and exact same manner as all phenomena: due to the utter lack of inherent existence in any existing thing. Because all things only exist conventionally without one bit of inherent being whatsoever. If things had even a small piece of inherent being, then change would be impossible and these things would not be 'reborn.' Fortunately, this is an impossible mode of existence and hence things are reborn from moment-to-moment aka they change and are in a constant state of flux.

My interpretation, is that when Buddha stated, "birth is ended," he meant that the physical act of birth is ended.  No matter what.  If you experience birth again, then birth is not ended.  I don't mean moment-to-moment rebirth.  I mean physical birth.

I think that "birth" is part of the doctrine on Dependent Origination.
DO includes "contact" and I don't think it's applicable to a single skandha.
The doctrine about skandhas are a way to deconstruct a being -- they're mentioned in the first two suttas, i.e. as "aggregates of attachment" in the second noble truth, and in the  Anatta-lakkhana Sutta -- whereas DO is a deconstruction (analysis) of becoming.
Instead the question, about the identity of the body (and further deconstructing it into atoms), reminds me more of what (little) I know of the sunyata doctrine.
I don't remember a lot of doctrine about "moment-to-moment" in the suttas, except maybe being calm and heedful. But the Abhidhamma has doctrine about "thought-moments", cetasikas.
If you're wondering how rebirth continues across the death of the body, apparently that like was a frequently-asked question -- and one (at least one) early Buddhist school developed the "store-house consciousness" doctrine to explain that.

Rebirth requires craving.

SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Continued existence.’ I say that continued existence has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Grasping.’ I say that grasping has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Craving.’

If Melinda wishes to be called Abigail, then after some time she gradually becomes known as Abigail. Then Abigail dies. Oddly, others will eventually also wish to name and be named "Abigail." The wish perpetuates, but who is Abigail?
Stepping back from wishes, we can also understand that there are conditions that are connected in arising.

SN12.21:1.8: When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.

And we can understand that there are conditions connected in cessation.

SN12.21:1.9: When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.

So if Melinda wishes to be Abigail, Abigail arises. Then Abigail dies. Or Melinda could study the Noble Eightfold Path and be done with rebirth. Wishes are conditioned. And so is the Noble Eightfold Path. Perhaps Melinda should consider what Melinda wishes for...

SN12.21:1.13: When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.  When choices cease, consciousness ceases. …  That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”

Jati does not mean rebirth. The translation is wrong. Kind regards

Please discuss this point with Bhante Sujato. It is not good that we should disagree on the Dhamma. Your disagreement also extends to the New Pali English Concise Dictionary, which is concerning.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Dependent Origination, 'here-&-now' & 11th & 12th link
On this site there are some users who claim that birth & death are mental phenomena, while other people argue that it's something physical.
Contextually, the Buddha lived in a time where other sects believed in some sort of an afterlife and/or 'soul transmigration', so perhaps Buddhism borrowed these principles as well, due to social & cultural conditioning?
Today, 'Atheists' & 'secular Buddhists' read the suttas with their modern 21st century understanding, which is not open for speculative, unverifiable things.They don't put the Buddha's context into account, where these things might have been quite important.
On the other hand, the Buddha invites us to see for ourselves & to experience the teachings in the here-&-now.
Since DO is about the origination of dukkha, how do we both see & stop literal birth, death & aging? Wouldn't this be completely in conflict with the here-&-now principle mentioned above?
The aging & death part in the sutta is straightforward. To quote:

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

In the quote above I cannot see any 'self-views' are subject to aging & death. Instead, I extrapolate from that quote that indeed something physical is happening (aging, decreptitude, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty).
So my question is: How do we really reconcile "Here-&-now" teachings with speculative, unverifiable theories, such as repeated rebirths, agings & deaths?

I'm voting to close this question because this topic has been covered many times.

Here-and-now-view is one of the wrong views, DN1

Isn't this question -- How do we really reconcile ... with speculative, unverifiable theories, such as repeated rebirths, agings & deaths? -- a duplicate of Is rebirth a delusional belief?

In the quote above I cannot see any 'self-views' are subject to aging
  & death.

The quote about 'aging-&-death' only includes one word in common with the definition of 'birth' ('jati'). This one common word is "beings" or "satta". A "satta" is literally defined in the suttas as a "self-view", as follows:

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
  be 'a being'? Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there (visatta), one is said to be 'a
  being.'... Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling...
  perception... fabrications... consciousness... when one is caught up
  there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' SN 23.2
visatta: adjective: strongly attached; entangled.

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering
  ceases.
SN 5.10

This answer to the question is not 'atheist' & 'secular'. It is what the Buddha literally taught.

For those struggling to read accurately, the quote says:

Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness,
  graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties
  of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called
  aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance,
  dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting
  off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various
  beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

The quote is not:

Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness,
  graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties; that is called
  aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance,
  dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting
  off of the body, interruption in the life faculty; that is called death.

What is born dies. What is born according to the Buddha and what dies, is as follows:

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
  subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
  subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
  is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
  them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
"And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves...
  goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares...
  gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
  them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
  subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
  illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.
MN 26

MN 26 does not refer to birth & death as pertaining to the physical body. MN 26 refers to birth & death as pertaining to "acquisitions". These acquisitions includes "beings" that cause sorrow, such as spouses & children. That "gold & silver" are included shows "birth" & "death" refer to things attached to; that are lost or stolen; causing suffering.

Dependent origination is about the origin of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair and the whole mass of suffering.
Sorrow & grief do not arise from a physical corpse.
Sorrow & grief arise from the physical corpse of "my mother", "my father", "my son", "my daughter, "my guru", etc, as described numerous times in the suttas.
There must be "a being" loved/attached to that dies for sorrow & grief to arise.

"Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."
"Lord, how could there not be an aberration in my faculties? My dear & beloved little son, my only child, has died. Because of his death, I
  have no desire to work or to eat. I keep going to the cemetery and
  crying out, 'Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you
  gone, my only little child?'"
"That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who
  is dear, come springing from one who is dear."
MN 87

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


text:
How come enlightened people don't have any laziness?
I just heard that enlightened people have zero laziness. How is it possible? What is "laziness" ? What is the connection between laziness and ego/desire?
Edit: Also that monk said: "Laziness is caused by ignorance."

They have nothing further to do for this world, good householder.

@Samana , In buddhism, laziness means laziness to the meditaion/path , not every day life. Am I right ? , but how can I recognize laziness in day to day life ? What are the mental factors according to the Lord Buddha ?

Lazyness here means being busy with others than the path. Lack of samvega is the main reason for lazyness to act kusala, even path kusala: to work.Feeling secure in the decaying, one falls lacy.

@Samana, "Feeling secure in the decaying" is answered my question.  Thanks. I suggest you to post the comment as a answer. Thanks again :)

If some one knows the real danger of sansara, he will give up every thing to achive enlighment.

The needed Goad, seeing Dukkha

The fetter, btw, falls with the No-Returner attainment and loses any ground at Arahatship.

Speaking from the first hand experience, laziness comes from attachment, fear, or ignorance. No attachment, no fear, and no ignorance - translates to no laziness.
And how does attachment cause laziness? Someone is attached to what they think is a pleasant pastime, taking delight and enjoying that experience. For such person, anything apart from that experience is unpleasant, hence they will have inner resistance and avoidance: laziness.
And how does fear cause laziness? Someone is afraid of failure or is afraid of judgement or is afraid of difficulties, or is afraid of all three. For such person, doing anything that has a risk of the three looks dangerous, hence they will have inner resistance and avoidance: laziness.
And how does ignorance cause laziness? Someone is confused about what is important, confused about what's good and what's bad for oneself and others, confused what actions lead to what outcome. For such person there's no understanding: "this needs to be done". Having no understanding, they have no motivation. Having no motivation, they are lazy.
An enlightened one, having no attachment, taking no delight in pleasant experiences, having overcome the sign of "pleasant", having no fear, having no resistance to difficult experiences, having transcended the notion of "difficult" - does not have a basis for the arising of inner resistance and avoidance, therefore laziness can't arise. Having the perfect understanding of what's good and what's bad, knowing what is important, an enlightened one acts with wisdom and compassion.

How do you transcend difficult experiences? isn't that utopic at some level

The key is, you don't have to see them as "difficult" - that interpretation is up to you, and you can learn to see through it.

A remarkable explanation. Namo Buddhaya. May The Noble Triple gem bless you _/_

Once enlightened one does not have the 5 Hindrances including Thīna-Middha which makes us lazy.

I observed bodily feelings in myself with which I identified or at least liked. Especially in the sexual arena. They "made" me lazy. I had diffuculty to let go of these and really get going. I can see enlightened people to not have these problems. They are probably feeling much more alive from within and feeling good. There is probably no need for all the comfort stuff for them.
Hopefully that helped. Blessings!

Laziness often is due to a lack of desire or motivation. This is due to ignorance, i.e., not knowing what is necessarily for oneself.
Enlightened people have zero laziness because their body & mind is without mental pollution & blockages thus their energy flows optimally & freely.


text:
Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1?
I read the following on the internet:

Here-and-now-view is one of the wrong views, DN1

Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1?
Please kindly provide some quotes about this.

There are five wrong "here-and-now" views listed in DN1. These five views are part of the "net of views" that prevent progress. Here is the first:

DN1:3.20.2: ‘When this self amuses itself, supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation, that’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’

This view is a trap because it asserts that there can be a self entangled in hedonism and perpetual gratification via the senses. Those who have gained more wealth than one could spend in a life would get trapped in this view.
The other four "here-and-now" views attempt to escape the first wrong view and its successors. But in each of these five wrong views, there is an assertion of and clinging to self that tempt one to stop in the Noble Eight-fold Path.

So, based on your analysis, it appears the "here & now" views are wrong views, not because they are about the here & now, but because they are self-views. Is this correct? Thank you

That is my current understanding. And that understanding has helped me relinquish more.

Perhaps that's a reference to the paragraphs whose title is ...

The Self’s Unbinding in the Here-&-Now

... in this translation by Ven. Thanissaro.
Those (same) paragraphs are titled ...

Doctrines of Nibbāna Here and Now (Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavāda): Views 58–62

... in this translation by Ven. Bodhi.
Piya Tan published two documents about DN 1, i.e. an annotated translation and A Commentarial Guide to the Brahma,jāla Sutta
This quote from the latter may be a summary:

Dhammapāla goes on to ask why is the doctrine of nirvana here and now included under eternalism
  rather than annihilationism, when it proclaims the absolute extinction (accanta,nibbāna)
  199 of the self?
  This is so because they teach the persistence of the purified self in its own form (saka,rpe) when it is
  freed from bondage when it finds any kind of happiness. (DA 1:232)

The first, which proclaims nibbāna here and now through the enjoyment of all sense pleasures, is
    the position of the hedonist. This doctrine might also apply to the more sophisticated and pernicious school of religious thought, flowing as a dark undercurrent beneath most of the major spiritual movements of the world, that the way to be liberated from passion is to indulge in the
    passions. (Bodhi 1978:33)

The other four grounds are held by attainers of the four dhyanas, who mistake the zest, happiness and
  peace of their attainments for the highest good. From the Buddhist perspective, the dhyanas are merely a
  temporary suspension of mental hindrances, and not final liberation in themselves. Nirvana cannot be
  realized merely through the dhyanas, but through the destruction of defilements by insight wisdom.

According to the commentary, all the five doctrines of nibbāna here and now are comprised within eternalism. But if the first position is a form of hedonism, which sees man’s highest good in
    sensual indulgence, it would seem more appropriate to classify it under annihilationism. Perhaps,
    though, its classification under eternalism indicates that it is the antinomian type of spirituality
    that is intended. The four doctrines based on the jhānas are all appropriately categorized, for such
    doctrines invariably recognize a purified self persisting in its own nature following the dissolution
    of the body. (Bodhi 1978:34)

I marked this answer down because the attached commentaries made it too confusing.


text:
Is lazyness a killer?
If so, in how far is it a killer, a quality that harms?
How does it arises, when arising? How does it vanish?
[Note that this isn't given/asked for trade, exchange, stakes or other layziness supporting means but for liberation]

There are some topics on this site already, it's more commonly called "sloth" -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=sloth+is%3Aquestion

Also I think it's not one of the ten fetters but is one of the five hindrances (so  I edited that tag).

You seemed disappointed that this answer didn't quote the Buddha's words, so I guess you intend this as a "reference request" question (i.e. where the answer is required to include references). And, your using the abhidhamma tag means, I suppose, that you might be looking for references from the abhidhamma and not only from suttas.

Once the Exalted One spoke to the Venerable Maha-Moggallana thus: "Are you drowsy, Moggallana? Are you drowsy, Moggallana?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
(1) "Well then, Moggallana, at whatever thought torpor has befallen you, to that thought you should not give attention, you should not dwell on it frequently. Then it is possible that, by so doing, torpor will disappear......................
AN7.58
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

In Buddhism, this is called Sloth and torpor (Thina Middha). The fifth Mara.
It arises as a result of the first four Mara is subdued.
Buddha has given many ways to overcome this.
==============
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35806&p=543234&hilit=

The linked reference or discussion doesn't mention how to overcome it -- it doesn't say anything else about it either -- except that it gives the Pali translation thinamiddha, and the list of all "ten Maras".

Laziness arises due to lack of true knowledge or false knowledge. False knowledge can also demand mental alertness. Laziness is a definite killer. It destroys mental health necessary for liberation. Laziness encourages ignorance. One should be alert all the time if possible even in dreams.
One way to kill Laziness is to realize the true knowledge. A person who knows he is going to drown soon if he doesn't mend his ways will definitely try to save himself and become alert of the direction he is going on. He will mindfully change his direction and put himself on the righteous path of mental alertness.

Laziness is a killer.
For example, if seeing a destination on the other side of a road but are too lazy to look down the road for motor cars, this laziness is a killer.
Or if seeing a destination on the other side of a stream but are too lazy to look into the stream for crocodiles, this laziness is a killer.
Similarly, if reading in DN 1 about "here-&-now" but are too lazy to also read the words "existent being" & "self", laziness leads to thinking "here-&-now" is wrong view rather than "extinct being's self in the here-&-now" is wrong view.
Here, there is wrongly believing "Nibbana here-&-now" is wrong view rather than correctly understanding "self attaining Nibbana in the here-&-now" is wrong view.
Therefore, the mind never overcomes self-view, which the Buddha said was the "killer".

Yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's
  son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in
  a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even
  then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder
  or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"
"Yes, my friend."
"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
  regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
  Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or
  disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self,
  or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as
  in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
SN 22.85

DN 1 doesn't only warn against self-view. The end of it seems to me to be saying that the Tathagata doesn't attach to the "standpoint" i.e. the "basis of a view" i.e. diṭṭhiṭṭhānā -- by not grasping (misapprehending) even the superior understanding. Also I'm not sure why you think that's related to "laziness".

The Buddha never said "here & now" is a wrong view. There are countless suttas about here-&-now Dhamma and Nibbana. As for your comment, you are probably misinterpreting the sutta. In fact, it appears you are misreading the sutta.

A lazy does not know when his head has already been cut off, right?


text:
Can being a vegetarian actually be a temporary hindrance for some?
I am Buddhist, but not a strict vegetarian. When new acquaintances discover this they are often shocked and wonder, "How can this be??!!"
I'm going to try and explain my answer and see what others think. I contend that being a vegetarian can often act as a temporary hindrance for some Buddhists. They miss the forest for the trees.
One of my own preceding factors for learning about the Dharma was a decision to look deeply at my own consumption of meat and to explore the ethical and moral implications thereof in an honest and heartfelt way that I had never done before. I made a choice not to eat meat and became a vegetarian for five years more or less in parallel to my discovering and contemplating the Buddha Dharma, but to be clear I became a vegetarian strictly BEFORE I became a Buddhist or began practicing Buddha Dharma in earnest.
Over the ensuing years since then I have abandoned being a strict vegetarian and have continued and strengthened in my practice of the Buddha Dharma.
At first, the two seemed to coincide completely, but over time I found myself dwelling on being a vegetarian and being greatly disturbed to find other Buddhists who were not. Upon hearing that another member of the Sangha ate meat I would tend to distrust them and look at them as hypocrites at worst and misguided or lower than me in their ethical understanding of Buddha Dharma at best. I was a proselytizer for becoming a vegetarian to my buddhist/ non-buddhist friends alike and worried about what more I could do to convince others.
I grew despondent and anxious over my inability to convince others and suffered thinking about and empathizing with all the animals that were being killed on a daily/hourly/second-by-second basis merely to provide the flesh for the insatiable human demand for meat. When I looked at the scale of the problem, billions of animals dying and billions of people consuming their flesh in this carnivorous world I became hopeless that it would ever stop. I thought all of these thoughts indicated progress on the path as my heart opened up with compassion for all these animals.
But there was this nagging thought that I was actually not at all happy and was actually suffering thinking about all this in a repetitive way day after day. It occurred to me that this seemed inconsistent with what my teachers said that progress on the path - on a coarse level - is seen commensurate with an increase in happiness and a decrease in suffering.
Finally, it got bad enough that I more or less confessed all the above to my teacher and his response shocked me. He laughed with a deep and merry belly laugh and advised that I should get over being a vegetarian and the best way to do this was to eat a little meat.
He asked me how many animals I had saved today suffering at being a vegetarian and how many I would save tomorrow. He contended that my choice of being a vegetarian had not helped even one animal to escape from samsara and that I had yet to even begin to reconcile with the scale of the problem of samsara as opposed to the nearly insignificant in comparison problem of the human market for meat.
He told me I needed to let go of this attachment to being a vegetarian and congratulating myself on how ethical and moral I was compared to all those who were not and to get busy doing the actual work of becoming enlightened so that I may actually help all those animals.
When I look back I think my teacher was entirely correct. Being a vegetarian had become a hindrance for me. And since that time I think of all the people (including fellow Buddhists) who react with outrage at the idea that I am not a strict vegetarian and wonder if they are not all on a similar path that will require them to put down this hindrance in the future in order to make progress.
Of course, it is my responsibility to overcome this hindrance and make it temporary. No one can do this for me. It simply isn’t the case that being a vegetarian is necessarily a hindrance for some like there is some property of being a vegetarian that makes it impossible for some to progress. There is nothing inherent to being a vegetarian that makes one fall into the trap that I fell into. Rather, it was my own karma and ego that made it so and it is my responsibility to overcome this so that being a vegetarian will no longer be a hindrance for me just as it is not for OyaMist who has the most wonderful answer I could imagine and one I aspire to.
So there you have it... a question I've been meaning to ask for awhile and inspired by activity in this related post and some of the excellent answers and discussion within.
Can being a vegetarian actually be a temporary hindrance for some?

I have been vegetarian since 1/1/2000. It was originally a New Years Resolution, but it became a New Millenia Resolution. I figured that given impermanence it would not be too hard to keep. :D
That resolution arose out of an understanding that the mindless consumption of meat causes harm and death to many animals. Basically the resolution was simply to exercise restraint and not require the killing of sentient beings.
Only much later did I encounter the suttas, so I started reading about and keeping precepts much later. And at that point the following made perfect sense, since I had already decided it was good principle:

AN10.172:12.4: Not killing living creatures is a good principle.

I agree that being vegetarian can be a hindrance. Being "vegetarian" is a bit peculiar in that it has for some become a proclamation of virtue and merit that has somehow evolved into an obnoxious and contentious self-righteousness. And that would certainly be a hindrance.

MN8:12.33: ‘Others will be stubborn, but here we will not be stubborn.’

I have found that gentle restraint suffices in body, mind and speech. A quiet explanation that "I avoid eating meat" is enough. And if asked why, I just reply, "it seems kinder."
As my Zen Roshi used to say, "Road kill is acceptable".

Wonderful answer. It does not appear that being vegetarian is any kind of hindrance for you :)

It was recently explained to me the the ethical precepts aren't vows so..

A vow - I will never do X again as long as I live
A precept - I am working towards this. I might slip up. I might not be
  there yet. I might never get all the way. But I'm really trying

So regarding the first precept 'no killing' - You (we all) are working towards it. It might be you are vegetarian and trying to eat less dairy. It might be that you are a vegan and are trying not to harm insects. It might be that you are a meat eater and are trying to eat a bit less red meat. We are all working towards it and doing our best with it and going from where we are. But to rigidly and militantly be a vegetarian/vegan and feel very very fixed that that is who you are - well maybe that is a hindrance in some way. Certainly your sense of self might be quite strong around that.
That said I really don't think you should kill animals for food. However I'm quite happy to bend the 5th precept and have a glass of wine of the sofa some evenings. Go figure.

This question made me wonder about the doctrine around vows and self-views, and I found this -- Which are the Buddhist vows? --  which agrees with your answer. As it happens it is essentially a vow for me, as well as a habit, i.e. my wife asked me to remain vegetarian -- which is something else I often see, i.e. people influenced by their family or girlfriend etc. When she first became vegetarian she told me, "I've decided; but you can keep eating meat if you want to", but I felt she was was right, wasn't wrong.

@ChrisW. Funnily enough I became a vegetarian because I married a vegetarian. But as soon as I'd made that decision it felt like a real sense of ethical dissonance had been removed. A weight had lifted. So for me as well it's a vow. Right now I'm trying to move towards veganism but that really is a precept. I might not get all the way there but I want to move in that direction

Upon hearing that another member of the Sangha ate meat I would tend to distrust them and look at them as hypocrites at worst and misguided or lower than me in their ethical understanding of Buddha Dharma at best. I was a proselytizer for becoming a vegetarian to my buddhist/non-buddhist friends alike and worried about what more I could do to convince others.

IMO that's typical, a stereotype, of what you might call "a baby vegetarian": a "recent convert", a militant.
Seeing or describing other people as hypocrites seems like an obvious form of conceit (Māna).
Improving your own practice to behave like a better person is also conceit but of a more useful sort (as described in the Bhikkhuni Sutta).

I thought all of these thoughts indicated progress on the path as my heart opened up with compassion for all these animals.

I think that Theravada teaches that samvega may be the proper reaction.

He laughed with a deep and merry belly laugh and advised that I should get over being a vegetarian and the best way to do this was to eat a little meat.

Serves you right for confessing that. :-)
I assume that's vajrayana-like.

He told me I needed to let go of this attachment to being a vegetarian and congratulating myself on how ethical and moral I was compared to all those who were not and to get busy doing the actual work of becoming enlightened so that I may actually help all those animals.

I guess I see it as an attempt to be harmless -- which is good (i.e. permitted and not necessarily a vice to be abandoned) -- but just normal and not something which makes one better than other people. Given Dandavagga (Dhp X): Violence I like to assume that the sentiment is fairly universal.
If it's a practice which causes no remorse, then why not.

And since that time I think of all the people (including fellow Buddhists) who react with outrage at the idea that I am not a strict vegetarian and wonder if they are not all on a similar path that will require them to put down this hindrance in the future in order to make progress.

The little I remember of preaching vegetarianism is that it "benefits neither self nor others" (I may be a relatively ineffectual preacher, or maybe there's a more proper venue for it, so YMMV) -- it never occurs to me to try now, I see it as "not my business" when I eat with other people -- and I assume that people have heard the arguments already.
Some people as you may know call themselves "flexitarian" now -- e.g. they're vegetarian by choice or personal habit, and/but eat meat when that's convenient e.g. when they're a guest at someone else's house.
One young man I've met, for example, orders vegetarian for himself in a restaurant but might finish uneaten food (meat) off his father's plate if there are remains -- which I think is a bit like the Theravada doctrine.

"I assume that's vajrayana-like." -- I have no idea as I am not now nor have I ever been a student of the Vajrayana... rather, I've only studied Sutrayana in this lifetime anyway :)

See e.g. the paragraph of this answer which mentions "breaking taboos", or more in-depth in the last reference of this answer.

Ah, I can see where you might draw that inference, but the fact is that I have not taken any Vajrayana vows nor entered into such a guru-disciple relationship. The advice my teacher gave me I think was heartfelt and personally proscribed to help me, but I can imagine Theravada teachers giving the same advice. In other words, I don't think there was anything particularly tantric about it. Maybe Andrei will have a different perspective...

Well I said "-like", I didn't mean anything formal; it was just the idea of having a little bit as an antidote -- like a "don't beat them, join them" sort of idea. I think Andrei might have said once that a lot of Mahayana is skilful means for overcoming aversion .

The question presupposes that vegetarianism has some property that would be a hindrance to practice. Since it accords with the practice (see OyaMist's references) it would be strange if it was also a hindrance.
More importantly, what is this property? If you look can you find it? The whole point of Buddhism is to change the way you view the world, not change the world so that you may do what pleases you. That's why you are the focus of the practice.
When I first started along the path I would judge myself as superior because I'd found the right way. I told people they should meditate and looked down on those who didn't because they didn't control their minds - does this make meditation a hindrance? Should I then give up meditation? How many people had I led out of Samsara through my meditation? Not even myself!
That seems to be laying responsibility in the wrong place. It would be better if I continued to practice, to watch my thoughts and understand, than stop doing something of merit. In any specific context there may be a hindrance (you are starving and will die if you don't eat the frozen steak you found at the back of the freezer), that is why there is the concept of skilfulness (Buddhism is not a dogma) but in general, no, obviously meritorious actions that are in accord with the spirit and most basic reading of the precepts (don't kill, don't cause others to kill) are not a hindrance. It seems to me you're trying to justify and excuse something that is obviously not the case and I see no reason why you are the exception that proves the rule.

If someone grasps the water-snake in the wrong way -- "They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma." -- then perhaps it might be appropriate for their teacher to tell them to put it down again for a bit, to let go of it.

For what it is worth, I do think meditation can be a hindrance for some in pretty much the same way.

@ChrisW I agree, which is why I made the point about specifics, but as a general rule, no, Buddhist practice is not a hindrance to enlightenment or it wouldn't be part of the practice.

@YesheTenley If you knew the answer then why ask the question? Because the question isn't "is vegetarianism a hindrance" it's "is it a hindrance for some". You want your justification but you won't get it from me. Stop looking down on others, not eating meat has nothing to do with that. Where's the link?

I appreciate your perspective, thank you!

Feelings of superiority are always a problem, as are feelings of inferiority, but compassion for the suffering of our fellow sentient beings is always an indication of progress on the path (whichever you are on).
The Buddha taught the path to escape suffering: not desiring what you will not, or cannot have. This a dialectical formula, because even desiring to no longer desire things you cannot or will not have is a subtle desire that may not come to pass. In other words, you may slip up and fail at some time by desiring something you will not or cannot have, and then suffer because of that and more again because you have slipped up.
The compassion for the suffering of our fellow beings is not a desire. To want others to follow you is. Your teacher was correct to tell you to get over being a vegetarian because it was such an obstacle, but I doubt he said killing animals for their skin and flesh was cool all along the path. It was an expedient means to help you along your path.
I’ll leave you with this quote from the Surangama Sutra:

“The next important hindrance and allurement is the tendency of all sentient beings of all the six realms of existence to gratify their pride of egoism. To gain this one is prone to be unkind, to be unjust and cruel, to other sentient beings. This tendency lures them into the bondage of deaths and rebirth, but if this tendency can be controlled they will no longer be lured into this bondage for right control of mind will enable them to keep the Precept of kindness to all animate life. The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally, no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts dwell.
“There are three ranks of these ghosts: the highest are the mighty ghosts, the next are the Yaksha ghosts who fly in the air, and the lowest are the Raksha ghosts that live under the earth. Each of these ghosts has his double that disguises itself as having attained enlightenment. After my Parinirvana in the last kalpa these different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. But how can any faithful follower of the Lord Tathagata kill sentient life and eat the flesh?
“You of this great assembly ought to appreciate that those human beings who might become enlightened and attain Samadhi, because of eating meat, can only hope to attain the rank of a great Raksha and until the end of their enjoyment of it must sink into the never ceasing round of deaths and rebirths. They are not true disciples of Buddha. If they kill sentient beings and eat the flesh, they will not be able to escape from this triple world. Therefore, Ananda, next to teaching the people of the last kalpa to put away all sexual lust, you must teach them to put an end to all killing and brutal cruelty.
“If one is trying to practice dhyana and is still eating meat, he would be like a man closing his ears and shouting loudly and then asserting that he heard nothing. The more one conceals things, the more apparent they become. Pure and earnest bhikshus and Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas, when walking a narrow path, will never so much as tread on the growing grass beside the path. How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?
“Pure and earnest bhikshus, if they are true and sincere, will never wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather because it involves the taking of life. Neither will they indulge in eating milk or cheese because thereby they are depriving the young animals of that which rightly belongs to them. It is only such true and sincere bhikshus who have repaid their karmic debts of previous lives, who will attain true emancipation, and who will no more be bound to wander to this triple world. To wear anything, or partake of anything for self-comfort, deceiving one's self as to the suffering it causes others or other sentient life, is to set up an affinity with that lower life which will draw them toward it. So all bhikshus must be very careful to live in all sincerity, refraining from even the appearance of unkindness to other life. It is such true hearted bhikshus who will attain a true emancipation. Even in one's speech and especially in one's teaching, one must practice kindness for no teaching that is unkind can be the true teaching of Buddha. Unkindness is the murderer of the life of Wisdom. This is the second admonition of the Lord Buddha as to the keeping of the Precepts.”

Oh? Is that so? Why?

“Literally” is an interesting word to use, as if your ignorance of the moral standards of others is proof that your moral position must be true. Well, if that is your standard, I guess it must be so—for you. But you continue on by denigrating ‘blinkered vegans’ who apparently, in your opinion, have no moral insights, nor apparently moral standing themselves. They posses merely hyperbolic speech. Or, some do have moral insights, and their speech, which apparently you are aware of, undermines your position.

But doesn’t your acknowledgement that at least none-‘blinkered’ vegans do hold the view that eating animal flesh and killing animals is equivalent, undermine your ‘argument’ that ‘literally’ no one holds this view? If not, why not? And since you are literally pushing a self-undermining argument, aren’t you the one being hyperbolic? My dictionary says that your use of “literally” in this fashion “is common and not at all new but has been frequently criticized as an illogical misuse. It is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis.”

But here is what the Buddha said about eating flesh and killing animals, regardless of source: (From the Eighth Chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra)

“Bodhisattvas, who are committed to being compassionate towards all sentient beings, and whose inner nature is compassion itself, choose to refrain from eating animal flesh. For a Bodhisattva to keep good integrity with the Dharma, he or she should not make any exceptions to the eating of animal flesh. He or she is not to eat the flesh of dogs, donkeys, buffaloes, horses, bulls, humans, or any other sentient being whether or not such flesh is generally eaten by some humans in some culture or society. Nor should a Bodhisattva eat flesh sold by others for monetary profit.”

Was the Buddha being hyperbolic—in your opinion, that is?

Some ideas are not as brilliant as they may initially seem to us. Maggots… is that what you would reduce us all to? Human maggots? Maggots exist because things die. Why do humans exist? To kill? I have no problem with people eating roadkill, and dead relatives, but that’s not what is being discussed. The issue is ending the life of other sentient beings which entails prolonged and intense suffering. They are not dying naturally, nor accidentally, but intentionally. And the moral concern as Buddhists is to never involve ourselves in creating suffering for others. Not even maggots do that.

I am not arguing anything. You are the only one arguing. Incessantly, it seems. I thought SE wasn’t for discussions—just answers to questions. Why do you have the need to argue against others responses? And, if you use an analogy to argue a point, as you did, responding to the allegory isn’t a straw-man argument. It’s not an argument. It’s a response.

Ah, it seems my interlocuteur, Yeshe Tenley, has deleted her comments to me. Just for the record, I wasn’t talking to myself. (Or was I? )

Any behavior/habit is a hindrance based on the degree of upadana. Conversely, developing habits with a light hand (non-attachment) will likely be more kusala.
Also, being mindful about cetana, karma and vipaka one can determine whether a certain behavior is upadana or kusala.
Generally speaking, it is helpful to abstract habits to the principles above, instead of myopic dwelling on the literal behavior/habit.

Godd householder,
if one thinks that purification if attained by food, such developes huge hindrances.
If one thinks that desiring plants as food doesn't kill, such developes huge hindrances.
If one maintains the wish to do as less as possible harm, feeling such is possible in choosing to abstain from meat, feeling involved in harm, yet not (because not seeing for now) by desire after non-meat, without having developed foolish extreme views, than going after vegetarian meals might be even kusala, but for the most cases, if not "accepting of what is given or near, views on food are signs of not seeing the danger in the world, not speaking of the path for escape.
If one seriously likes to abstain from getting involved in harmful food organisation, the Sublime Buddha gave his reputations so that one could live from alms if joining his Sangha or going near after it.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding nourishment and trade, but for escape from a wheel of no end]

Yes. Dalai Lama developed a health condition after a period of adhering to a vegetarian diet, so he ceased it upon his doctor's advice. The Buddha himself allegedly wasn't vegetarian either, he ate whatever alms were given to him. Vegetarianism wasn't really a huge part of Buddhism; it's more of a Mahayana thing & typically a strict vegetarian Buddhist is keeping to the diet so as to not break vows (e.g. Bodhisattva vows etc.)
When you adopt a vegetarian diet, the intention should be one of compassion towards sentient beings, and this includes compassion towards yourself; taking care of your own body and health. If you're able to take care of this body, it'll be easier for you to practice dharma.
If you're able to keep a vegetarian diet without causing any issues then its good to do so though. Its a privilege to be in a position where you can choose to not kill -
Many beings, both people and animals, are not so fortunate and have to kill to survive.
Your teacher is also right, the best thing you can do is seek to become liberated yourself so you stop contributing to the suffering of others.

Since there was an “update” to this question, I am providing a second answer, one that specifically responds to the OP’s update.
There are two parts to this answer, the first is to the suggestion that her teacher’s instruction to her conflict should be applied generally to others. In Buddhism, it is not the case that all teachings are universal one-size-fits-all comprehensive doctrines. This is why the Buddha always spoke to a particular interlocutor and why there are 84,000 teachings. The OP’s particular issue should not be applied universally, and certainly not by her, to everyone. Below, the Buddha explains this:

The Buddha said, “Son of my lineage, my teaching is not like that of
the naked ascetics. I, the Tathagata, established rules of discipline
in relation to specific individuals. Consequently, with a certain
purpose in mind, I did give permission to eat meat regarded as
suitable for consumption after it has been subjected to threefold
examination. In other contexts, I have proscribed ten kinds of meat.
And yet again, with someone else in mind, I have declared that it is
improper to consume meat of any kind, even of animals that have died
of natural causes. But I have affirmed, O Kashyapa, that henceforth,
all those who are close to me should abstain from meat. (
Mahaparinirvana Sutra: Abstaining From Eating Meat and Fish, Even Died
by Natural Causes)

While I chose this quote because of it’s relation to eating meat, my point is the Buddha’s description of the crafting of his responses for different groups and individuals, i.e., skillful means.
My second point is that the OP seems to have missed the point of her teacher’s instructions. The problem wasn’t that she was a vegetarian, it was that she felt superior to others, evidenced by her stated need to proselytize, and she was suffering because preaching to others is a sure way to suffer, as no one will listen to you unless you have standing, such as her respected teacher has with her. But, this meaning was missed, as evidenced by her statement in her update that:

“It might be possible that the thrust of this question is also
applicable to some vegans, fruitarians, pescatarians,
lacto-vegetarians, ovo-vegetarians, lacto-ovo-vegetarians, or other
strict idiosyncratic diets based upon resolving abstract moral
dilemmas in various ways.” (My emphasis)

The issue, as I said above, was not resolving moral issues. But I point to the characterization of animal suffering in that statement as ‘abstract’ because only one who is not on the receiving end of being killed could call it that.
This characterization shows that the OP still hasn’t seen that she is again manifesting superiority based upon her teacher’s instructions. In a sense, she is now proselytizing that when challenged by a moral issue one should overcome it by choosing the path that is least bothersome (i.e., hindering) to the one who is challenged by the issue (not the one affected by the issue). That’s not the way this needs to go in any case, ever, as it leads to what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil.”
But in the context of the question: “will feeling an overwhelming need to convince others that you are right, be a hinderance?” the only correct answer is yes, and the solution is to stop trying. You are your own master, no one else can be. The same goes for everyone else. You can and should share what you know, but never assume that everyone will hold it in the same high regard as you do.
In relation to being vegetarian or even vegan, the best way—in my lifelong experience—to convince anyone of those cuisines’ merit is not to try convincing them, but rather, to give them great-tasting food, in a familiar form, but absent the animal. Serving others is always a pleasure, never a hinderance. And food can speak for itself ☺
I am not responding to convince the OP of anything. I am concerned that leaving her question update stand without response may lead others into harm thinking that they should not follow the Buddha’s explicit statements about not eating animals.

Answering this not from a Buddhist but as a cook:
You are not bothering me by being a vegetarian. Most cooks I know either love making people happy or don't care at all. If I can help you in a spiritual way that's just bonus points. You would give me a good excuse to try different things or new recipes.
If I'm cooking professionally then making sure everyone eats well is part of the reason I'm there. The Muslims will get a pork-free meal, the allergics will get a meal without nuts/gluten/pineapple/whatever. In any group you will get a few vegetarians so catering for them is just par for the course(s).
Now for how you deal with that inside your head, I'll leave that to you and your teacher.
But as a cook: please let me know any dietary preferences, the impact on me is minimal either way.

Absolutely. I took a one-week vow of not eating meat to honor the unexpected death of my vegetarian/Buddhist friend. My avidly carnivorous husband, who does all the cooking around here, generously and enthusiastically cooked all kinds of new and tasty vegan and vegetarian meals.

I think being a vegetarian for the wrong reasons is definitely a problem.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is always a problem because conditions change and the behavior is not adjusted properly.
eg
A protection dog can be trained with underground fencing and it will stop wandering. The dog will display the desired behavior. However that dog is now delusional and not expected to protect the owner outside of the boundary even if there is no electricity and he is asked to come. Further training would be needed to overcome this.
One can have two very different systems occasionally giving you the same value.
There are countless ways of making a person do some particular behavior on an occasion, like being in a particular place at a particular time for some reason but if you then want to make him do something else many of the methods that produced the first result will no longer be able to produce the second result.
Being a vegetarian is imo a moderate lifestyle adjustment and requires moderately strong convictions. If the convictions are strong and misplaced then one is expected to do moderately stupid things quite often as this is expressed even in things like his diet.

Good answer I think.

This was a great discussion, I am pleased to have stumbled on it quite late as  a new user.
The answer history (and original question) does a great job of pointing out that vegetarian practice can create negative karma if the practitioner is judgy about it.
I wish there was an easy way to measure karma, because we generate so much negative karma both individually and collectively. The entire population of currently living humans, especially those in highly industrialized societies, are generating massive amounts of negative karma from "killing living creatures" through climate change and environmental destruction. This is one of the few things that may be different now as compared to in Buddha's time.
Purify furiously.


text:
How do mahayana Buddhist sutras describe a realized bodhisattvas?
My question is how do the Mahayana sutras describe the behavioral characteristics of a realized bodhisattva? How does he behave? For example an Arahant is described as having “characteristics that please the noble ones”. Or something like that. Is there something similar in mahayana Buddhist sutras?

I'm afraid this question is too vague and unspecific to be useful. There are many sutras and I'm not aware of any of them that describe an 'average' Buddha. Perhaps you could narrow down the question or make it more specific by considering what your motivation is for the question? What are you hoping to get out of it?

I changed it to just “realized Buddha” so that people know I’m talking about every Buddha.

Thanks for the edit. Perhaps adding a "For example, xxx?" might make the question clearer still.

I've seen Mahayana suttas describing realized Bodhisattvas, but Buddha almost always appears as The Buddha. You may want to rewrite the question to ask about realized Bodhisattvas.

From Vimalakirti Sutra:

At that time, there lived in the great city of Vaisali a certain Licchavi, Vimalakirti by name. Having served the ancient Buddhas, he had generated the roots of virtue by honoring them and making offerings to them. He had attained tolerance as well as eloquence. He played with the great superknowledges. He had attained the power of incantations and the fearlessnesses. He had conquered all demons and opponents. He had penetrated the profound way of the Dharma. He was liberated through the transcendence of wisdom. Having integrated his realization with skill in liberative technique, he was expert in knowing the thoughts and actions of living beings. Knowing the strength or weakness of their faculties, and being gifted with unrivaled eloquence, he taught the Dharma appropriately to each. Having applied himself energetically to the Mahayana, he understood it and accomplished his tasks with great finesse. He lived with the deportment of a Buddha, and his superior intelligence was as wide as an ocean. He was praised, honored, and commended by all the Buddhas and was respected by Indra, Brahma, and all the Lokapalas. In order to develop living beings with his skill in liberative technique, he lived in the great city of Vaisali.
His wealth was inexhaustible for the purpose of sustaining the poor and the helpless. He observed a pure morality in order to protect the immoral. He maintained tolerance and self-control in order to reconcile beings who were angry, cruel, violent, and brutal. He blazed with energy in order to inspire people who were lazy. He maintained concentration, mindfulness, and meditation in order to sustain the mentally troubled. He attained decisive wisdom in order to sustain the foolish.
He wore the white clothes of the layman, yet lived impeccably like a religious devotee. He lived at home, but remained aloof from the realm of desire, the realm of pure matter, and the immaterial realm. He had a son, a wife, and female attendants, yet always maintained continence. He appeared to be surrounded by servants, yet lived in solitude. He appeared to be adorned with ornaments, yet always was endowed with the auspicious signs and marks. He seemed to eat and drink, yet always took nourishment from the taste of meditation. He made his appearance at the fields of sports and in the casinos, but his aim was always to mature those people who were attached to games and gambling. He visited the fashionable heterodox teachers, yet always kept unswerving loyalty to the Buddha. He understood the mundane and transcendental sciences and esoteric practices, yet always took pleasure in the delights of the Dharma. He mixed in all crowds, yet was respected as foremost of all.
In order to be in harmony with people, he associated with elders, with those of middle age, and with the young, yet always spoke in harmony with the Dharma. He engaged in all sorts of businesses, yet had no interest in profit or possessions. To train living beings, he would appear at crossroads and on street corners, and to protect them he participated in government. To turn people away from the Hinayana and to engage them in the Mahayana, he appeared among listeners and teachers of the Dharma. To develop children, he visited all the schools. To demonstrate the evils of desire, he even entered the brothels. To establish drunkards in correct mindfulness, he entered all the cabarets.
He was honored as the businessman among businessmen because he demonstrated the priority of the Dharma. He was honored as the landlord among landlords because he renounced the aggressiveness of ownership. He was honored as the warrior among warriors because he cultivated endurance, determination, and fortitude. He was honored as the aristocrat among aristocrats because he suppressed pride, vanity, and arrogance. He was honored as the official among officials because he regulated the functions of government according to the Dharma. He was honored as the prince of princes because he reversed their attachment to royal pleasures and sovereign power. He was honored as a eunuch in the royal harem because he taught the young ladies according to the Dharma.
He was compatible with ordinary people because he appreciated the excellence of ordinary merits. He was honored as the Indra among Indras because he showed them the temporality of their lordship. He was honored as the Brahma among Brahmas because he showed them the special excellence of gnosis. He was honored as the Lokapala among Lokapalas because he fostered the development of all living beings.
Thus lived the Licchavi Vimalakirti in the great city of Vaisali, endowed with an infinite knowledge of skill in liberative techniques.

I actually found a sutra that talks about qualities of bodhisattvas. Anyways thanks for replying.

Wanna share what you found?

Go to the YouTube account of “acalaacala” and search for the videos called “qualities of a bodhisattva” that series is a reading of that sutra.

Oops it’s called bodhisattva qualities

If you want to know all about realized Bodhisattvas, their way of life and what their minds are like, you can do no better than Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life.
Picture the most sublimely altruistic mind(s) imaginable without one bit of self-cherishing and devoted only to that which is beneficial for other sentient beings in a completely equaniminous and unbiased manner. Beings who have completely devoted all their countless future lives to practicing Dharma solely for the benefit of others.
For me, this quote from that work captures the feeling best and provides a vivid description of what the mind of a realized Bodhisattva must be like:

“For as long as space endures
  And for as long as living beings remain,
  Until then may I too abide
  To dispel the misery in the world.”

Imagine truly embodying that sentiment in every action of body, speech, and mind that one undertakes. For me, it is incredibly beautiful and awe inspiring.

Thanks for your time.


text:
How do you recognize the attainment of enlightenment?
In the Buddhist story of Ananda, Buddha's most devoted disciple, it's said that after Buddha's death the first Buddhist council was assembled to write down all of Buddha's teachings.
Only those that were enlightened could attending the council. As the person who was closest to the Buddha, Ananda knew best the teachings of the Buddha, but because he wasn't enlightened he could not attend.
So Ananda started an intense meditation and became enlightened just before the council took place.
How did he knew he became enlightened? How do you recognize when your practice finally brings you enlightenment?

The way to check the stage of enlightenment on or another person is in is by checking which fetters are broken and which are not. If all 10 are broken then you are fully enlightened. This should be done with utmost care as in many cases there is a chance one may overestimate.

well the sotapanna have these gains

"Monks, there are these six rewards in realizing the fruit of
  stream-entry. Which six? One is certain of the true Dhamma. One is not
  subject to falling back. There is no suffering over what has had a
  limit placed on it. [1] One is endowed with uncommon knowledge. [2]
  One rightly sees cause, along with causally-originated phenomena.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.097.than.html
the arahant has the special knowledge of destruction of the taints

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of
  the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it is actually
  present, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress...
  This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the
  cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the
  origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of
  fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of
  fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from
  the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the
  fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge,
  'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
  the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
same thing here

"Thus, monks, Ignorance is the supporting condition for the (kamma-)
  formations [etc. to] Birth. Birth for Suffering, Suffering for Faith,
  Faith for Joy, Joy for Delight, Delight for Tranquillity, Tranquillity
  for Happiness, Happiness for Concentration, Concentration for
  Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are,
  Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are for Disenchantment,
  Disenchantment for Dispassion, Dispassion for Liberation, Liberation
  for Knowledge of the destruction of the cankers."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023x.wlsh.html
for the intermediate case of non returner, those people know about the ''passion for the five strings of sensuality'', but they suck at knowing how dukkha are vinanna and namarupa,

"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be
  regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by
  which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this
  world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html

Let me count the ways ...
By seeing that there is there absolute freedom of mind (or heart);
absolute freedom of consciousness;
freedom from body;
complete absence of 'thirst' (desire, wanting);
complete absence of lust, anger and blindness;
by seeing that there is nothing there for you in the entire universe;
by being completely without ambitions, being empty of lust, anger and blindness, by not producing any signs of lust, anger and blindness;
by the complete absence of individuality-view; doubt and vascillation; the belief that good deeds, ethics and rituals can bring about the end of dukkha; wanting and wishing for pleasure; deviance (also translated: animosity, malevolance, hate, ill will); lust for material things; lust for the immaterial states; pride, fear and trembling; and blindness to the truth in the Four Truths;
By having reached freedom from things subject to time and in that freedom recognizing that this is the freedom one has been seeking and that the results will be the leaving behind of birth, seeing that one has lived the best of lives, seeing that one's duty has been done, seeing that there will be for you no more 'this side and that side' or any sort of being some sort of 'it' at some place of being 'at'.

and for a kicker (but by no means should this be understood that this is a complete list of the ways):
Here, a beggar has this perception:
'This is it!
This is the culmination!
That is, the calming of all own-making,
the resolution of all involvements,
the withering away of thirst,
dispassion,
extinction,
Nibbāna.'
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/11_elevens/an11.007.olds.bd.htm


text:
Can trying to control the mind also lead to attachment?
When we become attached to our body, we do workouts, wear make-up and do lots of other things to gain good looks.
When we become attached to our money, we work to get more and more money.
Similarly, we would like to gain a calm and pure mind. So we meditate. Isn't it a desire? (like wearing make-up for the mind?).
Here is my opinion: to understand advanced topics like "enlightenment", we have to have a workout for the mind. Is this workout a kind of attachment and if so is it a good thing? Isn't that a seeming contradiction since we are instructed to abandon attachments?

Yes, meditation can be an object that we become attached to, but it does not have to be. Unfortunately, it is possible to become attached to, or base our self-identity on, all manner of things so it is good to develop the skill of recognizing this tendency and observe when it happens. Best is to recognize the self-cherishing thought as it arises and to get familiar with this enemy in order to eventually banish it.
Imagine you were in an industrial kitchen standing next to many very hot pans cooking on many hot stove tops. A small child is standing next to you. Imagine this child had a nasty habit of reaching out and touching these hot pans. The child cries as it is burnt and tips over the pans and makes a huge mess that can cause others to slip and fall. You would be well advised to try and control this child from hurting itself and others, right?
In just the same way we should try and control our minds from causing suffering for our self and others with non-virtuous thoughts and train in being mindful.

Similarly, we would like to gain a calm and pure mind. So we meditate. Isn't it a desire? (like wearing make-up for the mind?).
Is this workout (for the mind) a kind of attachment and if so is it a good thing?
It depends upon your motivation. If you are trying to calm your mind so that others will think highly of you or to impress others with how awesome your mental discipline is and become attached to the praise you receive, then yes this can be a form of attachment and non-virtuous. However, if your motivation is to reduce or eliminate the suffering of yourself and others, then I would say this is beneficial and virtuous. Keep going!
Isn't that a seeming contradiction since we are instructed to abandon attachments?
It is only a seeming contradiction if you think of this in a very stilted and artificial way. Still, it is possible to get attached to even virtuous practices. The reality is that for us lowly beings all practices are likely stained - at least in part - with the self-cherishing thought and impure motivations. So the best thing to do is try and reduce these thoughts and try to work slowly, slowly to adopting more altruistic motivations. There are benefits to controlling the mind from non-virtuous thoughts and developing this habit regardless if we have partially stained motivation.
Hope this helps!

Thanks for the answer and the improvment of the question :)

OP: Simillary, All we are like to gain a calm and pure mind. So we meditate. Isn't it a desire ?

This is the case if you react with attachment and pleasure when the mind calms down and react with aversion and displease when it does not.
In meditating on should not get attached to the outcome. So regardless of your mind gets calm or not one should be equanimous.
But to meditate one needs the "desire to act" which is not desire per se.


text:
Deload weeks for meditation
I like to go to the gym and lift weights. If you do that you are recommended to take deload weeks where periodically you lift lighter weights or less frequently or both. It's meant to be very beneficial.
Could the same be said for meditation practice? Has any teacher / book recommended something similar? Could periodically taking it easy (less frequently or shorter sits) benefit the practice generally? The advice I've seen seems to be the opposite i.e. the answer to poor meditation is more meditation. That kind of thing hasn't worked for me in the past and has actually caused me to go from poor meditation to no meditation.
I do appreciate lifting weights and meditation are different though.

Tibetan lineage teachers usually say, meditation should be like spending time with a best friend. You meet joyfully, you spend time effortlessly, and you separate easily, knowing you can't lose each other and will meet again soon.
Don't try to squeeze too much value out of that meeting, because you don't want to burden your friendship and turn it into a job.
When you turn meditation into a job your mind will secretly hate it. Instead, turn it into a vacation from all neuroses.

If meditation is causing you stress, then you aren't doing it right.  Meditation is taking it easy.

Joshu asked Nansen, "What is the Way?"
"Ordinary mind is the Way," Nansen replied.
"Shall I try to seek after it?" Joshu asked.
"If you try for it, you will become separated from it," responded
  Nansen.
How can I know the Way unless I try for it?" persisted Joshu.
Nansen said, "The Way is not a matter of knowing or not knowing.
  Knowing is delusion; not knowing is confusion. When you have really
  reached the true Way beyond doubt, you will find it as vast and
  boundless as space. How can it be talked about on the level of right
  and wrong?"

That you're asking about "deloading" indicates to me that you are somehow loading your practice.  Meditation isn't like lifting weights.  You aren't doing something.  Meditation is not doing.  You aren't striving towards something.  Instead, you are acquainting yourself with what is.  The mind that sits down on the cushion should be the same as the mind that sits down to have a cup of tea.  You aren't trying to have the best "sit down and have some tea" that's possible for a human to have.  You are just drinking tea.  If it's a good cup of tea, great.  If not, whatever.  There will be other cups of tea.
If it helps you at all, stop meditating.  Instead, just sit down on the couch.  Don't watch your breath.  Don't recite any mantras or work with any koans.  Sometimes it's easier to learn how to "just sit" by just sitting.  When we sit down on the cushion, too often we can begin to expect the extraordinary.  That will destroy your practice.  Once you found the the gate between striving and non striving, return to the cushion.  Start again with the same lack of resolve you had on the couch.  You can then add your breath, but don't watch it - wait for it like you would wait for a bus at the station.
You can't burn out on this type of sitting.  And like Mumon says to end this koan, when you find the ordinary way...

春有百花秋有月    The spring flowers, the autumn moon;
  夏有涼風冬有雪    Summer breezes, winter snow.
  若無閑事挂心頭    If useless things do not clutter your mind,
  更是人間好時節    You have the best days of your life.

Get rid of the useless parts of your practice.  The more burdens (like expectation and resolve) you carry to the cushion, the heavier your meditation will feel.  Lighten your load and sit weightlessly.

"Meditation is not doing" - and yet if you read books by authors such as Daniel Ingram or Rob Burbea then the meditation practices outline there are very prescriptive. I appreciate that this is from a Zen perspective so  makes sense viewed from there

Zen is exactly the same as Theravada jhana practice.  The only difference is that zen doesn’t get bogged down in all of that perscriptiveness.  What works for one works for the other.