text:
How does higher virtue lead to sexier heavenly sensual rebirth?
It's said that gods/devas experience more superior sensual pleasures than human beings. Human beings who keep Buddhist five precepts will be able to take rebirth in heavenly realm. Sensual pleasure is associated with greed (lobha), superior sensual pleasure means high level of greed & lust. If one wants to take rebirth in heaven, does it mean one has to practice five precepts and he also has to have high degree of greed & lust? For example, a person who often visits prostitute has both the quality of keeping five precepts and high degree of lust/greed. Does that increase his chance to be reborn as deva?

Suppose, Māgandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich, with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with
  the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms
  cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with odours
  cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the tongue…with
  tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired,
  agreeable, and likeable, connected with sensual desire and provocative
  of lust. Having conducted himself well in body, speech and mind, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy
  destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the
  Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the
  Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of divine sensual pleasure. Suppose he saw a householder or
  a householder’s son enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of human sensual pleasure. What do you think, Māgandiya?
  Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana
  Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of
  divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder’s son
  for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he be enticed by
  human sensual pleasures?”
MN 75

A strange question coming from someone who does not believe in rebirth. It makes one wonder if answering this is worth the time :)

It's not meant as slander. Just wondering if this is a troll question. If that's the way you define rebirth, this question wouldn't arise:)

I read the question on another forum & thought it to be a very good question for Buddhism SE.

I'm not sure how much of your question was sarcastic (e.g. "higher virtue leads to sexier") or rhetorical: so I haven't tried to answer it literally? A depiction of Greek nymphs doesn't wholly clarify it for me either.

i found your question difficult to read, but would add that not all sensual pleasures are "sexy" -- think of a good meal

The one asked this question misunderstood what is "superior". Superior means finer, inferior coarser (vulgar). For instance, classical ballet is finer, Beyonce & Lady Gaga dances vulgar. All sensual pleasure are born by greed, finer pleasure with lesser greed whilst coarser with stronger greed. Therefore, "superior sensual pleasure means high level of greed & lust" a wrong analogy - from someone who doesn't have a clear mind or logic got his/er thinking entangled by words misleading himself/herself also others.
The Sutras (likely also found in the Pali canon) mention there six Celestial Realms of Desire. The lowest and Trayastriṃśa (Pali: Tāvatiṃsa) get their xxx pleasures like the humans (while humans shared part similar to the Animal Realm); the 3rd by embracing; in Tuṣita only by holding hands. The highest Desire Realm Parinirmita-vaśavartin gets supreme OGSM simply by looking at each other in the eyes, no physical contact at all.
If one doesn't abide in his/er sincerity to understand the Buddhavacana, but leashed to certain bias that pleased him/er, cherry-picking here there, likely s/he unable to interpret the teaching correctly. Vocalizing Anatta doesn't endorse one the realization of Anatta hence there none "Nibanna" to enter - so to speak; likewise one bolted unconsciously onto his/er pride of superiority even to the point fooled his/er very self - equanimity a far cry, how could this person enter any Jhana?

Postscript:
One who thinks there *sexier heavenly sensual rebirth*, sorry, no Beyonce for Devas, only the Flying Apsaras performance!
I wonder those masters need anyone to provide any answer; for those their minds already full, no room there! However, other readers may be interested. The question has already had the less undesired answer selected, my post merely for those descendants who got the genes for satire and capable of laugh ~ :D

Ballet is as insane as Beyonce.

yes. despite its sophistication and complexity, body is a "lower" creation, while the "Way" (Dao) going towards purity and simplicity. once i was in Thict Nhat Hanh Village, in lunch break a Bhikkhuni sitting next to me patting a mutilated dog with extraordinary compassion. finding chance for Zen conversation liked in the books :) i said, "having body is suffering." she, "kaskfj bekis zbuu... " (sorry i forgot what she said, but no "Koan" or Zen in her words). i just  wondered, the Dharma may have long gone from the Sangha. but, body is primary tool from here to there.

I would suggest looking at some of the narratives found in the Vimānavatthu of the Khuddakanikāya for some elucidation on this point. There the heavenly rewards granted to laypersons for positive ethical conduct are outlined. Laypersons who provide for the sangha with material requisites and observe the precepts are reborn in heavenly realms where they enjoy various sensual pleasures. These include, for example, having an exquisite golden complexions, dwelling in resplendent mansions, enjoying sweet scents, and hearing divine music, etc. These would all be reckoned as "deva-like sensual pleasures".
Note, however, how in these narratives sexual pleasure is entirely lacking. There are many "nymphs" spoken of in these narratives, but their contribution in affording sensual pleasure to heaven-dwellers is primarily through the use of song, dance, etc., not through sexual intercourse.

According to MN 75, it is the "having conducted himself well" that results in "a
happy destination".

sensuality + misconduct => unhappy destination
sensuality + good conduct => happy destination

Maybe see also What is effluent?

I am still baffled by your confusion of pleasure with sexy pleasure! Not all forms are sex, and if they were, then one would be in a pickle! Sometimes even good things can be pleasurable, such as cooking a good meal for someone else.

Until one reaches Awakening, there is a pull towards the specific realm that one has achieved in one's culivation.
Each realm has a gradient of corresponding rebirths.
Desire realms have increasingly subtle forms of pleasure until one pops out into the Form Realm.
Formless Realm
Form Realm
Desire Realm (devas, humans, ghosts, animals, etc.)
Most importantly: each realm has a downward pull.
These and more rules of Buddhist cosmological rebirth are explained in the brilliant Buddhist summary: "The Mind Experiment" by professor Bavo Lievens.

The problem with this question is the assumption that sensuality by itself always leads to bad outcomes. That's not entirely true. It leads to suffering, but suffering has both good and bad outcomes, which are temporary.
Sensuality combined with good conduct or virtue (sila) leads to good outcomes. This can be seen in AN5.43:

Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who
  delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously,
  the wise praise heedfulness in making merit.
The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this
  life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's
  called prudent, wise.

This theme is continued in DN31:

The wise endowed with virtue shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
  dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
  should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
  aside Against future misfortunes."

Enjoyment of wealth, beauty, status etc. are all sensual experiences that can be positive, if one pursues a meritorious and virtuous life. But of course, nothing is permanent. Suffering continues. All wealth, beauty, status, heavan etc. are not permanent.
After all, sensual desires (kāmachanda), one of the ten fetters, still applies to stream winners and once-returners. So it's not bad in itself.
We can say that sensuality (kāmachanda) combined with virtues (sila) is part of the middle way. To say all sensuality is bad, falls into over-asceticism, away from the middle way.

Sensuality (kāmachanda) combined with virtues (sila) certainly does not seem to be part of the Middle Way taught in the 1st sermon. Please do not defile the Noble Eightfold Path like this. The Middle-Way is the way that avoids sensuality & over-asceticism. The teachings quoted in this answer are obviously worldly dhamma for worldlings & unrelated to the Middle Way.


text:
Thai Theravada Buddhism
In the temple where I am going to ordain, they often sit on their heals with toes bent forward (which I am working on) and they also sit with their legs to the side in what they call "mermaid style" which is very difficult for me.  I am looking for suggestions on stretches and exercises to help me.  I am 60 so these old bones and ligaments are telling me that they don't like these positions...they are very stubborn !!!

Just try little by little, Nyom Wilkes Alexander, there is no fault if not possible now. Just give not up and bear as much pain, if arising, as possible 2 to five years later it will be no problem at all and you might "laught" at western or modern claiming "it's not possible". It's likely with Dana, Sila and meditation. It may need a time, don't forget 60 years was totally in the other direction: how to serve my feelings? How to gain more of what my feeling what? Having followed Maras (defilments cries) a long it's great to hear that Nyom Wilkes Alexander is willing to go into the real battle. Best wishes and much strengh for your most blessed undertaking.
Usual positions in gatherings, especially for lay people (sitting gross legged infront of venerable ones, is very impolite. Even monks would not do on all occations, eg. if not teaching Dhamma or take their meal in public):

"Sit on their heals" (crouch), while the whole ball of the feet touches the ground, might be not possible since western Achilles-sinew is simply to short, never used to. (But it's also a balance matter: putting the knees outside the body and arms is needed)

(required for asking and confession)
There is no problem usually, if "normal" kneeing like this:

(It's not wished here to give to much encouragement and access here, nor to give advices which give release, so my person end here)
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial use and other low exchange and trading purposes with wordly outcome.]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Dealing with food craving
During sleeping I experience strong food urges.. luckily I am most of the time aware of these acts but I still usually eat something but less (which is an accomplishment). It happened today again and before eating I rehearsed internally "I am the owner of my actions,heir to my actions..." which switched my focus more to a long term perspective because I knew that I would perpetuate a craving so I better tolerate the pain now then to go the old pathway which would maintain the kamma..
Now any recommendations what I could do? I think I have to meditate more on the disadvantages / short nature of food and even on the kamma thing (which is important anyways to keep in mind). Suggestions?

Please see this answer about a video talk by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
  observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
  insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
  entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I would say that the same technique could be applied to food craving as well.
The Donapaka Sutta may also be helpful for the case of gluttony:

Once when the Buddha was living at Savatthi, King Pasenadi of Kosala
  ate a whole bucketful of food, and then approached the Buddha,
  engorged and panting, and sat down to one side. The Buddha, discerning
  that King Pasenadi was engorged and panting, took the occasion to
  utter this verse:
When a person is constantly mindful,
  And knows when enough food has been taken,
  All their afflictions become more slender
  — They age more gradually, protecting their lives.
Now at that time the brahman youth Sudassana was standing nearby, and
  King Pasenadi of Kosala addressed him: "Come now, my dear Sudassana,
  and having thoroughly mastered this verse in the presence of the
  Buddha, recite it whenever food is brought to me. And I will set up
  for you a permanent offering of a hundred kahaapanas every day." "So
  be it, your majesty," the brahman youth Sudassana replied to the king.
Then King Pasenadi of Kosala gradually settled down to [eating] no
  more than a cup-full of rice. At a later time, when his body had
  become quite slim, King Pasenadi stroked his limbs with his hand and
  took the occasion to utter this utterance:
Indeed the Buddha has shown me
  Compassion in two different ways:
  For my welfare right here and now,
  and also for in the future.

You may be right but food is a special case, unlike other addictions -- a cure (or desirable outcome) for drug addiction, for example, is a complete abstinence, cutting off; whereas for food, it may be something more like, smaller portions, regular times, and healthier (e.g. lower-calorie) stuffs.

@ChrisW I've added the Donapaka Sutta which fits this (smaller portions).

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


text:
What does it mean by 'All beings have a Buddha nature'?
I have come across this phrase while studying Zen, in a Zen meditation center. It is Dogen's translation of Nirvan Sutra. That all beings by nature are Buddha. As I understand, we become Buddha when be are enlightened. We have to strive through Right Effort to become Buddha, isn't it?
What does this phrase mean to you?

It is not just Dogen's translation. The Nirvana Sutra states that all beings have Buddha Nature. You can also check Mark Blum or Yamamoto's translations.
However, Dogen played with the initial statement. He rephrased "All beings have Buddha Nature" in "All beings are Buddha Nature." I will not explain this point because you did not ask.
The meaning of "All sentient beings have Buddha Nature" is that all sentient beings have the potential to achieve full enlightenment. However, the entity of Buddha Nature is debatable. The following interpretations are traditional:

Buddha Nature as the suchness of the mind of a sentient being. From this viewpoint, a buddha does not possess Buddha Nature because he is not sentient.
Buddha Nature as the resultant dharmakaya. A buddha possesses it, a sentient being does not. You can think of "Buddha Nature" in this context as "What characterizes a Buddha".
Buddha Nature as the mind-basis-of-all (Alaya-Vijnana)
Buddha Nature as a seed in the mind-basis-of-all. From this viewpoint, we would have to water the seed for it to sprout.

When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra explains traditional presentations of Buddha Nature. It is a must read.
I cannot remember the passage, but Dogen despised the idea that "We are already buddhas but just don't know it". This idea is that of the original enlightenment doctrine. More importantly, In chapter Ten (On the Four Truths),   the Nirvana Sutra itself states:

A person might say: "I have already attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment! Why? Because I have the Buddha-Nature. Any person
  possessing the Buddha-Nature has assuredly attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment. Consequently, I attain Enlightenment." Then, one should
  know, such a person infringes the parajika. Why so? There surely is
  the Buddha-Nature. But not yet having practised the best expedient of
  the Way, the person has not yet seen it. Having not yet seen it, there
  can be no attaining of unsurpassed Enlightenment. O good man! On this
  account, the teaching of the Buddha is profound in its meaning and
  difficult to fathom.


text:
Best study tools on the net or books
I currently don't have a teacher and I'm looking for good study guides for the sutta's. I mean I'm reading them but when it comes to interpretation often I'm at a loss. Is there a source(s) or book(s) that can help with this? I know they're is no substitute for s teacher but until such time I'm working on my on.

See also English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon and Chronological or other sequence for beginners

Piya Tan at http://dharmafarer.org has translations and commentary of many of the suttas. Using the "sitemap" on the right or bottom of the page, you can find specific suttas (sorted by number), or, his "sutta discovery (SD) series" which is sorted thematically.
Some people disagree with [some of] his commentary (see e.g. this topic).

This website is the best study tool because if you ask about a certain sutta I can explain it for you.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "Wings to Awakening" (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/index.html) is a good interpretive guide to the suttas for practitioners. Also see the "Beginnings" material at this same site (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/).

"The Discourse on Right View: The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary" translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Ñanamoli, and edited and revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi, may be of interest to you.
Right View is said to be the forerunner of the Noble Eightfold Path.

This is a good website for early Buddhist texts : https://suttacentral.net/

It has translations of the suttas. Does it have "study guides" too?

You are right it does not , sorry about that!


text:
Did the Buddha die in absorption?
I thought I'd just ask here: did the Buddha die in absorption / any of the dhaynas?

From a Mahayana viewpoint, (1) a buddha constantly abides in a union of calm abiding and special insight on emptiness and varieties (2) Sakyamuni buddha was a supreme emanation body showing the aspect of dying. (3) a Buddha is not subject to death (hence he showed the aspect of dying).
Here, in a commentary to Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum, it says:

While in meditative equipoise on emptiness with a nonconceptual mind
  the Buddha can also perform deeds in accordance with the needs,
  capacities, interests and merits of each disciple. The buddhas can
  teach each disciple in a specific way while remaining in meditative
  equipoise on emptiness. That is inconceivable for us.

interesting reply, thanks. i've seen, i think,  the buddha called the conqueror or death, but not obvious what that means for us

From the same (Mahayana) text: When there is birth there is death. By eliminating the mental body, that is, by eliminating all forms of birth and death, we are free from arising and that is the perfection of highest bliss.
And
Buddha is continuously in meditative absorption on emptiness up to the end of samsara. This can only be attained once the process of death that is the hindrance has been eliminated.

strange, in that i don't associate that with the mahayana. thanks!

It does not mean that the continuum is severed when you become a buddha. From a Mahayana viewpoint, one's mental continuum is never severed, one never ceases to exist.

so do you mean that the nirmanakaya does not die, only appears to?

You could probably phrase it this ways, yes. We believe that the buddha was already enlightened, that he showed the aspect of being born, showed the aspect of undergoing austerities, showed the aspect of achieving enlightenment and showed the aspect of dying. Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya manifest. They are not subject to death and rebirth.

According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first
  jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he
  entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the
  fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he
  entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the
  sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the
  attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he
  attained to the cessation of perception and feeling.
And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away."
"No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has
  entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."
Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of
  nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness,
  he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the
  attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth
  jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he
  entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the
  first jhana.
Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from
  the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third
  jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana,
  the Blessed One immediately passed away.

Piya Tan's commentary here states:

Samanantarā. Samyutta Commentary: Here there are 2 kinds of
  samanantarā: immediately after dhyana and immediately after reviewing.
  In the former case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, descends into the
  life - continuum (bhavanga) and attains parinirvana. In the latter
  case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, reviews the dhyana-factors
  again, then descends into  the life-continuum and attains parinirvana,
  as in the case of the Buddha. But buddhas, pratyeka buddhas, noble
  disciples, and even ants and termites pass away by way of the noble
  truth that is suffering, with a karmically indeterminate bhavanga
  consciousness (SA 1:224)

Dhyana is jhana. The difference between jhana and bhavanga is explained in  this answer:

Jhana is more than just the giving up of the five senses. Each of the
  jhanas is the result of very strong samadhi, and has specific factors
  that go along with it. For example, the first jhana has five factors:
  rapture, pleasure, initial application of mind, sustained application
  of mind, and oneness of mind. As one goes deeper into the second
  jhana, one leaves behind initial application and sustained application
  of mind, and so on.
Bhavanga is very different than this however. Bhavanga is like a blank
  slate. All it has are the mental factors that are necessary for mind
  to be there and nothing else. It only occurs in the space between
  other kinds of mindstate. None of the jhana factors are present at
  all, and there isn't even any meaningful degree of awareness in it.

So, according to these commentaries, the Buddha did not actually pass away in the fourth jhana. Rather he passed away in bhavanga.

this is what i expected / etc., thanks!

this answer is wrong

@user3293056 It turns out that Dhammadhatu is right, although he did not support his statement with adequate references. I have updated the answer.

thanks @ruben2020 tho i've accepted another answer because it's more interesting to me

No. According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." Those were the Tathagata's last words.
Then the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Emerging from that he entered the second jhana. Emerging from that, he entered the third... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the cessation of perception & feeling.
Then Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Anuruddha, "Ven. Anuruddha,[9] the Blessed One is totally unbound."
"No, friend Ananda. The Blessed One isn't totally unbound. He has entered the cessation of perception & feeling."
Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound.

This distinction is important. One is supposed to not be able to do while in a jhana state. Also, emerging from a jhana means he migrated to that particular jhana realm (possibly for further cultivation/evolution) at least.

i mean, maybe... i would be disappointed if he did not. would be good to have a pali answer

i provided a pali answer. to pass away in jhana is contrary to enlightenment

no i just mean "in pali" cheers


text:
Is Sakyamuni a "higher power"?
Is Sakyamuni a "higher power"?
I know what I mean, by "higher power" but it may still be opaque, to you. I don't mean a substance, or all powerful personality. But something like that.
So, I mean to ask, is he like the Abrahamic God?

The Dharma is the higher power, not the Buddha Shakyamuni, who is a Nirmanakaya.
Out of the three treasures, Dharma is primary, because it remains operative regardless of appearance or not appearance of Buddha and Sangha.

i believe there's been debates as to whether Shakyamuni was also a bliss body, but i don't suppose it matters. thanks for the reply, i'll accept it in lieu of any others, at least

Yes, to some extent: I think this answer ("Homage to Amida Buddha") is an example of that.

Obviously there are (other) ways in which the Buddha is not "like the Abrahamic God".

I'm not sure that the term Higher Power was used before AA, in the 1930s (except in mathematics).
One of AA's definitions (exphasis mine), from Wikipedia:

In current twelve-step program usage a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, science, and Buddha. It is frequently stipulated that as long as a higher power is "greater" than the individual, then the only condition is that it should also be loving and caring.

I think that the Buddha's being a "spiritual friend", in person to his contemporaries, and more generally as an example (an exemplar) or role model, means that he may fit that kind of definition.

Yes. The Buddha is a higher power in Buddhism. He is a type of higher being that is the only one who is truly awake in this world AND is capable of teaching gods and men, guiding them towards the end of suffering.
Also, anyone who "sees" the Buddha, "sees" the Dhamma (his teachings). Anyone who "sees" the Dhamma, "sees" the Buddha. So, the Buddha's Dhamma too carries this higher power, even after he has passed away.
According to the Dona Sutta:

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
  deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
  am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
  brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
  answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
  are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
  would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
  like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
  destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
  not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
  Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
  stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
  future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
  the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
  in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
  overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
  brahman, as 'awakened.'
"The fermentations by which I would go
  to a deva-state,
  or become a gandhabba in the sky,
  or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:
  Those have been destroyed by me,
  ruined, their stems removed.
  Like a blue lotus, rising up,
  unsmeared by water,
  unsmeared am I by the world,
  and so, brahman,
I'm awake."

According to the Dhajagga Sutta:

'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely
  enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower
  of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men,
  the Buddha, the Blessed One.'

According to the Vakkali Sutta:

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."
"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."


text:
Are the physicists suffering?
Physicists are scientist who study the reality and draw conclusions about it scientifically. After studying what Buddha said it appears to me that Physicists are trapped in a wrong world. They believe in Newton's Law. They believe in Einstein's Universe. They believe in Quantum Mechanics. All the above laws fail to lead to any conclusion about Dhamma as taught by Buddha or other religions worldwide. They do not find any suffering inherent in the Universe because they failed to connect their theories with the beings. For physicists, non-conscious Universe can lead to the emergence of consciousness on its own. For physicists , something which feels Nothing can lead to emergence of feeling on its own. To illustrate imagine a piece of matter kept in the space. According to science that matter will become conscious over a period of time on its own because it will create a juggling of chemicals and that juggling of chemicals is called life and consciousness. That juggling of chemicals produces suffering in the Mankind and by giving appropriate chemicals the suffering can be removed. And that is what happening in the west.Similarly they believe that the mind is a result of chemical juggling and when the chemical juggling stops the mind ceases to exists.
My question is :
Due to the above wrong view , do you agree that Physicists are suffering or going to suffer? And briefly what can a Buddhist do to help them?

All unenlightened beings suffer including scientists. I suppose the real question is whether scientists will ever realize the four noble truths. Unless there's a radical change in how they approach reality, I do not see that happening any time soon.
The real issue is that mainstream science still does not acknowledge that there is a mental aspect to the universe. They think of the mind as a byproduct of the brain. Any scientific research done based on that hypothesis will never lead to the understanding of the four noble truths.

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

When I wrote this answer I was not assuming that a "physicist" is a "physicalist" or a "materialist" (see comments below this answer): if that is your assumption, then this isn't a good answer for you.

Due to the above wrong view , do you agree that Physicists are suffering or going to suffer?
IMO physicists suffer for the same reasons as other people -- it's not exactly because of physics (scientific theories) that they suffer.
Their knowledge of physics doesn't contribute to their suffering -- like (I guess) neither does a farmer's knowledge of agriculture, nor a linguist's knowledge of grammar, etc.
But physics doesn't address (explain) the cause of human suffering, and so it doesn't offer much solution IMO. For that reason a suffering physicist may find physics unsatisfactory, and appreciate the Dhamma for its insights into phenomena (e.g. feelings) which are outside the scope of physics.
Is one good thing about physics, that it might be a preliminary training in emptiness?

And briefly what can a Buddhist do to help them?
As for whether you can teach (or help) a physicist, I don't think it's easy to help anyone (physicists included) -- see also How to explain what Buddhism is?
On this site, people ask questions: so they're active participants in their own learning. More generally I suppose you might help a physicist learn dhamma but maybe not if they're not interested and won't participate.
My personal opinion is that attempts to mix Buddhism and Physics sound like nonsense, by the way -- e.g. explaining Buddhist cosmology using modern cosmology, quantum mechanics with consciousness, atoms with kalapas and so on -- so don't try to do that, i.e. it's more helpful to give good explanations of Buddhism than bad explanations of Physics.

Also, I doubt that anyone "believes in" Einstein's universe, to the extent that they think that Einstein's universe is all there is (i.e. is a complete description of everything). Instead, Einstein's "theories" are soon as good "models" of some observations, i.e. of some aspects of reality.
IMO the fact that Einstein's laws don't explain suffering or love or anything else is only proof that Einstein didn't explain everything, not proof that what he didn't explain doesn't exist.
It's possible too that some Physicists get some consolation from their beliefs. There's this famous story:

Besso died in Geneva, aged 81. In a letter of condolence to the Besso family, Albert Einstein included his now famous quote "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Einstein died one month and 3 days after his friend, on 18 April 1955.

One of my complaints about Physics is that it has nothing to say about sila; but that doesn't have to mean that physicists are immoral.

by giving appropriate chemicals the suffering can be removed
I think that's a different topic: not physicists but psychiatrists, medical doctors, and "recreational drug" users.
I think that scientists believe that meditation (and discipline) can be effective too, under certain circumstances (if it's practised in the right way) -- see for example The Pursuit of Happiness.

Physicists and Brahmins are different than farmers and linguists... Physicists like Brahmins claim to explain everything about the Universe, from the beginning to the end. Physicists like Brahmins hold the wrong view. Wrong view means eternal hell because without getting rid of wrong view one can not attain Nirvana. That is why a physicists have to make  extra effort to unlearn the theories about reality before understanding Dhamma.

Physicists like Brahmins claim to explain everything about the Universe Do you know, I doubt that any physicist would make that claim. I guess you mean a different kind of person -- like perhaps you're talking about physicism (i.e. Physicalism or Materialism) as some kind of philosophy, rather than physics as a science.

Physics is very precise in what it claims. Big Bang explains the origin of Universe. Initially there was quark gluon plasma...(a kind of matter) which led to the creation of what we see around us including ourselves. They believe self is the integral part of quantum mechanics. That self is the observer. As this is not a debate forum I would leave it there. I raised this question because I know physicists who are desperate to find theory of everything. I found them suffering. Buddha can definitely help provided they have an open mind. I myself was a student of physics.

"They believe self is the integral part of quantum mechanics" Well, not all physicists believe that -- and that kind of theory (e.g. theories of "self") is unrelated, maybe even antagonistic, to the way in which Physics is (or was) taught at university the UK. And I'd specifically warn (warned) against trying to over-extend Physics.

"I know physicists who are desperate to find theory of everything" Yes and Physics doesn't explain everything (or at least it didn't used to), so it too may be inadequate or disappointing (i.e. dukkha), especially to someone who is craving.

This story is just one example of the ten thousand kinds of thing that Physics, IMO, doesn't explain -- i.e. pride, hurt, anger, and so on.

Yes. Physicists have strong craving to know few things like what is mass ? What is the theory which unites gravity and electromagnetism ? How does observer effect the outcome of an experiment ? I have my ideas on how Buddha would have responded to those modern day questions which are effecting not only physicists but also humanity. Buddha would have said mass is Anicca. Buddha would have said Unity is Anatta. And so on... but I guess we will have to wait to get the answers.

Farming skills or grammer knowledge does not incorporate taking up nihilistic views. But a physicist could easily take up nihilistic views like no-rebirth, no karma etc.

@SankhaKulathantille You may be right, they could, if they imagined that "physics" is all there is. It isn't necessary though, IMO, a "physicist" isn't necessarily a "materialist" -- some famous physicists are (famously) religious too. Here for example are some quotes from Freeman Dyson on that subject.

Yes, some can be open minded. Ever wondered why most of them do not research much about the mental aspect of reality?

When I studied physics there seemed an obvious mind-made component, i.e. physicists describe what's in their own mind, their own views -- but, adding "self" to that picture made it degenerate into a useless "thicket of views", so "mental aspects" didn't seem to me like a profitable line of inquiry (only silly paradoxes like Schrödinger's cat). There are people (e.g. Fritjof Capra) who have tried to link physics with other belief-systems; and there have been some popular books (e.g. I read The Dancing Wu Li Masters, but I remember it as useless).

@ChrisW The study of the physical aspect of reality could have been a useless thicket of views when science was at its infancy.  What we call science today is a system of theories which were developed over centuries. If the scientists took the mental aspect of the universe seriously, today we would have very useful scientific theories on things like rebirth, Karma etc.

@SankhaKulathantille If the scientists took the mental aspect of the universe seriously When you write "the mental aspect", I guess that "mental aspect" includes ,"how we perceive it (sense-objects)", "how we feel about it (dissatisfaction)", and "how we react to it (anger or attachment)", and maybe "what's good (ethics, discipline, maybe kindness or selflessness too)". Is that what you mean by "the mental aspect" (which science should have studied), or did you mean something else?

@ChrisW By the mental aspect, I mean 4 out of the 5 aggregates. Scientists only study 1. I.e. Rupa.  Look how much they are missing.

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

I like this answer, but as a physicist I find the opinions developed in the comments horrifying. They point both against the existence of an objective reality (which goes against the Damma) and against the epistemological side of science in general.

@QuantumBrick I don't understand your comment. Which "opinions developed" do you find horrifying, and point against the existence of an objective reality and against the epistemological side of science?

@ChrisW Posted it as an answer!

The Buddha started out with the goal of finding the end of suffering and he found it. The Dhamma is his teaching of how to reach the end of suffering. The Parable of the Simsapa Leaves showed that the Buddha knows more than he revealed, as part of his enlightenment.
Physics and science in general has a different goal. It has the goal of trying to understand how the universe works, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation.
While the Buddhist path is an empirical one based on personal practice and personal evidence, science is another type of empirical path based on physical evidence. Both have different goals.
When scientists say that the mind is based on chemical and electrical interactions in the brain, that is simply their hypothesis based on the available physical observations. However, science is continuously progressing, and their understanding of how this works would improve over time. This does not mean that science will over time become the same as the Dhamma. But they may get closer.
I tried to explore in this answer, the possibility that physics is getting closer to the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, I tried to consider the possibility that the Buddhist description of hungry ghosts may fit microorganisms in this question. If you look up YouTube video talks of physicist Prof. Lawrence Krauss, you would find that physics is slowly finding reasons for the lack of intelligent design in the study of cosmology. In this answer, you can find the links between neuroscience and Buddhist meditation.
Also, you can read the 14th Dalai Lama's "Science at the Crossroads" talk given in 2005. Excerpt below:

Although Buddhist contemplative tradition and modern science have
  evolved from different historical, intellectual and cultural roots, I
  believe that at heart they share significant commonalities, especially
  in their basic philosophical outlook and methodology. On the
  philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep
  suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a
  transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul,
  or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science
  prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and
  life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of
  cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions
  emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist
  investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of
  knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of
  the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and
  testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of
  reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over
  scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may
  be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference,
  its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of
  experience. Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often
  remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified
  insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to
  modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology
  as found in ancient Buddhist texts.

You are trying to say that science will ultimately express the Dhamma as told by Buddha. I do not think that is going happen because science is refusing to see the obvious Truth which is as visible as the light. There is a state of Nirvana. There is a state of Uncreate. Will science ever admit the existence of state of Nirvana ? No because it can not be expressed and science does not believe in word of mouth.Will science ever be able to guide us towards our true destination ? No.

Science will not ultimately express the Dhamma. However, science and Dhamma will get closer over time. Their goals are different, that's why they would never become equal. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Physicists are holding a wrong view. They say we came from nothing but matter , unconscious unintelligent matter. It is like saying tree came from mixture of soil , sunlight , water and air. Physics ignores the existence of seed. Physics is irrational. It ignores the obvious. Such a wrong view can only lead to eternal suffering if it is not abandoned immediately. We grew up from coming together of form , feeling , perception, fabrications and consciousness. Physics only recognizes form and claims form led to feeling, consciousness etc.

Great thinking if your objective is to become a jihadist.

@QuantumBrick You mean to say .. no one is going to listen to the truth unless one becomes a jihadist ? If true that is sad.

The truth is everyone is suffering. But Physicists have that scientific explanation of how we suffer. For example, a normal person may have the understanding that most of us end up being with the similar type of people. A Physicists may describe this how waves with the same frequency synchronize as we all are a bunch of waves (our body, mind... everything). Therefore, actually, a Physicist who is passionate about suffering may suffer less as he/ she understands the core and try to find a solution to the main cause.

All theories are Anatta.

This question is surrounded by ignorance regarding science and also ignorance regarding the Dhamma. Philosophically speaking, the question assumes an objective reality does not exist: it assumes nature does not exist outside of one's own mind. This goes against all factual evidence (e.g, we are very sure the Earth existed before mankind came around) and the Dhamma. In MN 1 it is said that an untaught person

perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

This passage should be matched and compared to the view of the wise man, who

does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say.

Which, for people like me, indicate that the Buddha is both exposing the essence of anattā and the existence of an objective reality. It becomes even clearer if one considers paṭiccasamuppāda: contact (phassa) is a fundamental step, since the senses need to interpret an objective reality in order to feel (vedanā) something about it.
Justifying the existence of a natural world outside one's mind is very simple if one advocates humbleness: do not think the world depends on you. Many things depend on you, but the existence of the Sun, the stars, the electrons and even the nibbāna, don't. After being forced to admit such a tangible, objective and human-independent reality exists, it's really easy to see why physicists suffer as much as anyone else: since every person in the world has an occupation, some will naturally incline towards the study of such an objective reality. Since "scientist" is not included in (AN 5.177)

Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison,

this means the scientist has done anything wrong. Buddha doesn't mention the attempt to explain nature leads to bad kamma and terrible rebirths. He does, however, point that dealing with poison might get you in trouble. The objective of religion (in general) is not condense within its teachings all possible knowledge attainable: religion deals with soteriology, with the immaterial and mental, with the exit from a problem regarding man, not regarding natural phenomena. When people (at least me) say that Buddha was fully enlightened, we say that he was the understander and explainer of all that leads to happiness (as defined by Buddhism), not an explainer of natural phenomena. In fact buddhist cosmology, for many traditions, has lost its place as once a phenomenological concept, being now treated (by many) as an allegory.
The changes in society, along with the changes in scientific research, should also make us revise parts of the Dhamma. As an example, take the vision of perfect wife implied in AN 7:59:

One without anger, afraid of punishment,
Who bears with her husband free of hate,
Who humbly submits to her husband’s will—
Such a wife is called a handmaid.

Remember "handmaid" is what Bodhi chose as the best translation [nowadays] for "dasi", which means "slave". We shouldn't live in a world where a good wife is considered as a slave anymore, and the Dhamma should be revised regarding this - even if in Buddha's time, this was normal. We should also investigate nature and reality as deep as we can, and if the conclusions obtained using a seemingly fail proof method (the scientific one) lead to contradictions regarding some aspects of the Dhamma, then I know some lines of Buddhist thought are willing to change the Dhamma based on them.
I wrote this answer because it would be impossible (and against the rules) to post it as a comment to ChrisW's answer (which is very good). In resume, I was aiming towards explaining that no, science does not claim to explain everything. It claims to explain what is explains, and aims to explain what it still doens't. When science explains something, it explains it in a totally different way than religion: it's not supposed to be personal, but general and statistical - faithless. It's supposed to be measured and investigated by everyone and give the same results. That's why there are dozens of lines of Bubddhist thought, but only one line of science: if scientist don't agree, it means nature didn't act as we thought it would. We therefore need to go back to the lab and blackboard until we measure the proper result. Also, such a result does not depend on the observer,  but it might depend on the observation. Depending on the observer would mean that each person would measure a different value for the charge of the electron, and this would be against the premise that everyone should measure the same charge, otherwise theory/experiment would be wrong. The observation, however, plays a fundamental part in quantum mechanics, but this has nothing to do with attā or mankind. "Observe" is a physical term that means: making a quantum system interact with a [usually] classical one, which forces it to change (obviously). Science will never prove or disprove any religion basically because it's not interested in them, since religion is not a component of an objective reality.
Religion and science no not mix, and a physicist is exposed to suffering as much as everyone else.
P.S.: If you can make a person cry and laugh using magnetic fields, maybe it's time to understand feelings are chemical, right? ;)

What do you mean by Anatta is objective ? Anatta is as objective as Buddha himself.

I didn't say that. MN 1 refers to both the existence of a reality disjoint to man and to the essence of anatta.

science proposes we are living in a Universe or multiverse. Science also proposes that Universe will come to an end. Science also claims life originated due to juggling of chemicals. Do you really believe that consciousness can originate due to rearrangement of matter ? This kind of faith leads to darkness. You suddenly find no reason to be kind ,compassionate because you are just a show of chemicals and you yourself can be manipulated using chemicals. Buddha would have shown that Truth is beyond chemicals. Buddha shows the light.

If you think our chemical nature and the fact that the universe will or will not end culminate in the fact that there is no reason to be kind, then you have not understood the Dhamma. The Dhamma is about the Four Noble Truths, and they are not concerned with the end of the universe. The Dhamma is about suffering, and on suffering you should focus - not on the end of the universe. Let the scientists study the universe, let us find peace studying and practising the Dhamma.

I was a student of the physics. I had difficulty understanding atman,forget about anatta. I had gone crazy trying to understand self from scientific perspective. This I predict is going to happen to scientific atheists. They are going to suffer. Is it not our duty to be ready with answers which will remove the cause of their suffering ? Those who believe in God at least believe in atman. Scientific atheists believe in no self view. According to them you are no better than a thermostat.

What you're saying is very wrong. Religion and science don't mix. Try not to mix them, otherwise you'll end up utterly confused.

If it is like that then I give up science.


text:
The dilemma of enlightenment
As a lay Buddhist, I know it is almost impossible for me to attain Enlightenment in this life. So if I keep enlightenment as a goal in mind it creates frustration, as I am not progressing in meditation and, life seems hopeless as Enlightenment is an impossible pursuit. However, if I don't think of enlightenment then I don't have any good motivation to do meditation and keep the precepts.
How should I get out of in this confusion? Life as a Buddhist seems almost unpracticle. Any advise?

It has occured to me that the solution to my dilemma is to not think of enlightenment but go step by step as given in Ajahn Brahms book. So probably now I should just be aiming at present moment awareness. That ways I have reason to meditate and reason not to get frustrated.

Such transient doubts are inevitable. Just step past them, as you said.

The goal in Buddhism is the end of suffering. But why do you want to reach the end of suffering? The reason is to attain the only permanent happiness, which is Nibbana.
So, the mission in Buddhism is really the pursuit of happiness. The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence and over-asceticism are not conducive to the path to the end of suffering. So, he prescribed the middle way through the Noble Eightfold Path.
If you follow the middle way, you can have long term, medium term and short term goals of happiness.
The long term goal associated with this mission is attaining Nibbana (permanent happiness). It might take multiple births, maybe even aeons to achieve this.
The medium term goal would be to try to achieve: at least stream entry for Theravada and strong cultivation of Bodhicitta for Mahayana. You can also get more info on stream entry in this YouTube video talk.
The short term goal would be to try to achieve and maintain happiness in this life and future lives (which includes avoiding unfortunate rebirths). At the very minimum, you need to keep the five precepts with heedfulness (appamada). Going a little further, you need to practise more of virtue (sila) with heedfulness (appamada).
This short term goal is described in the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who
  delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously,
  the wise praise heedfulness in making merit.
The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this
  life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's
  called prudent, wise.

For lay followers, there is plenty of advice on achieving the short to medium term goals in the Gihi Sutta (or Discourse to the Householder), Sigalovada Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta and Anana Sutta. The minimum training rules imposed on lay followers are the five precepts.
For those in a hurry to Nibbana, there are the more advanced training paths of anagarika (sort of a pre-monk or pre-nun), novice monk or nun, and fully ordained monk or nun. Please see this answer for details.

I don't agree that "the mission in Buddhism is the pursuit of happiness", but perhaps I misunderstand your intent. I thought that words like 'equanimity', 'dispassion' and "knowledge and vision of things as they are" were more to the point.

Don't focus on suffering as it is the reason for suffering. You can have a goal of reaching that eternal freedom. But, make sure you enjoy the journey without too focusing on the end...

Did you kill your mother or father?
If the answer is no, you cannot say for sure  that it is impossible for you to attain  enlightenment within this life.
So when you are meditating if this worry arises, simply remind yourself worrying... worrying... worrying... or doubting... doubting... doubting... until it goes away. Then get back to your meditation.

So you mean it is possible for me to attain enlightenment in this very life?

It could be if you practice the correct technique with dedication. It will take at least 7 days and at most 7 years.

If you are not practising to end suffering, I'd suggest to quit Buddhism. Its like you hear about a fantastic doctor who is a miracle worker & you are so inspired by the doctor that you decided to visit the doctor, even though you are not even sick. The doctor asks you: "What is your problem?" and you answer: "I don't have any problems but I heard you are a miracle worker". Mass-market Buddhism is the similar. It advertises meditation & enlightenment, similar to advertising I-Phones, even though you might have no self-perceived need for an I-Phone.
The Buddhist teachings are for the prevention & eradication of suffering. If there is no self-perceived suffering in your life, there is no point in practising Buddhism & meditation.

So I have to be suffering to be a Buddhist? In that ways, only depressed and stressful and anxiety-ridden sad people will be following Buddhist teachings. There is no self-perceived suffering in my life. Since I have started following Buddhism all my loathing, self-pity and sadness are gone. Now it is replaced by confusion.

Since you have started following Buddhism all you loathing, self-pity and sadness are gone; then why are you complaining?

I am not complaining...i was confuced about right attitude towards my practise which I guess is cleared by other friends who answered.


text:
What to do when overwhelmed with Doubt - Practical Advice
I have a major problem in my practice. When things are going well in life ,doubt rarely raises its head and I practice diligently. However , when something bad happens , I feel, how could this happen , I practiced so much. I start losing faith in the Dhamma and start to question whether it is real or helpful. This is a very painful position to be in.
There are things causing doubt; frequently giving unwise attention to them — that is the nourishment for the arising of doubt that has not yet arisen, and for the increase and strengthening of doubt that has already arisen.
— SN 46:51
When in the midst of painful emotion , this is what revolves in my head. How do I take this advice of the Buddha on a practical level. How do I stop giving "unwise attention" to the events that arise doubt like when accosted with suffering even though I practice so diligently. I would like to hear you own practical experience or links to any meditations out there.
Furthermore, for denourishing of doubt , there are the five antidotes:

Knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures (Doctrine and Discipline);
Asking questions about them;
Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);

4.Firm conviction concerning the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.

In addition, the following are helpful in conquering Doubt:
Reflection, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Wisdom, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Investigation of reality, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).
How do I apply these antidotes practically , I read Dhamma books almost everyday , chant everyday and meditate. But when I am suffering , I feel anger and disbelief at the Dhamma . Even though I am practising so much ,I am still suffering.
How can I overcome this very toxic and negative wrong-view to continue my Dhamma practice?

There are times when there's nothing to do but watch. Put aside the expectations for yourself gained by reading the Dhamma. Unwise attention, in this case, would include reading about arahants and then judging yourself for not being like them.
Just focus on what is right here.  Focus on the doubt itself, or on the body, and the feelings in the body created by the negative emotions - the constricted breath, the aches and tensions, the agitation, the rushing thoughts.
Resolve to sit, but don't expect anything from the sitting- just put in the time. If chanting feels like a chore, just sit instead.
Find some small, easy, thing to do that is useful, or is kind and helpful to someone else, and do that.
Or just sit still and count to 100, if that's all you can manage. These are all wise and skillful actions and are Dhamma.
If you just do your best to not nourish the already-arisen thoughts, then you are practicing Dhamma. You're experiencing an emotional flood, created by long-past circumstances. The flood is pulling away your energy and faith. Wise attention, in this case, is to let the flood wash through, watch your energy and faith fade away, and stay aware. Later, the energy and faith will return - it is inevitable- and you will have have strength again to nourish new, increased faith and energy, but for now, just do what you can.

There's no such thing as "something bad happens". The painful emotion you experience is solely because of your attachment.
The unwise attention is to project this emotion outwards as "something bad happened even though I practice so hard".
The wise attention is to see "here is a painful emotion. Let me see which attachment it's caused by and let that go ASAP"

OP: But when I am suffering , I feel anger and disbelief at the Dhamma .
  Even though I am practising so much, I am still suffering.

According to Itivuttaka 44, enlightened ones can still feel pain and pleasure:

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

However, the enlightened ones don't suffer, even when they feel pain and pleasure (from DN16):

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

So, it is not that negative situations stop happening when you practice or even become enlightened, but rather, you face them differently. This applies to both health and other types of situations. Also see this answer.
In the Nakulapita Sutta:

"So it is, householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, &
  encumbered. For who, looking after this body, would claim even a
  moment of true health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should
  train yourself: 'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will
  be unafflicted.' That is how you should train yourself."


text:
What is the difference between Sakkaya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?
What is the difference between Sakkhya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?
I have asked the same question at the Dhamma Wheel topic: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

In my opinion or view, SN 35.166 (Samyutta 34.16.11.(166)) says Sakkāya Ditthi - Self View is not the self view but it is taking this existence or five aggregate as pleasurable.

34. 16. 11.
(166) Sakkāya - Self View
1. At one time the Blessed One lived in Jīvaka's mango orchard in Rajagaha.
2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped and sat on a side.
3. Sitting on a side that monk said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, knowing how and seeing how does the self view get dispelled?”
4-9. “Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness, in the eye self view gets dispelled Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness in
  forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings pleasant,
  unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact,
  self view gets dispelled. Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body, and
  mind
10. “Monk, knowing and seeing thus self view gets dispelled.”

In my view or opinion, taking:

Anicca (the impermanent) as Nicca (permanent) is wrong view ie: Micchaditthi
Dukkha (the unsatisfactory) as Adhukha (happiness) is Sakkayaditthi
Anatta (not-self) as Atta (self) is Attanuditthi.

They are just the synonym.

Sakkāya is an object of anu-diṭṭhi. So, sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta and
attānudiṭṭhisutta have the same content. This is the english translated version of those suttas,
attānudiṭṭhisutta is next of sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta.

Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other like this:
Diṭṭhi means misunderstanding of causes and effects, clinging-aggregates which is anattā as attā.
Anu is prefix which means often.
Micchā is prefix which means mistake.
Sakkāya is a name of clinging-aggregates follow to many sutta, such as Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.

These clinging-aggregates are the Sakkāya described by the Blessed One.

So, sakkāya-micchā-anu-diṭṭhi means often mis-understanding,  micchā-anu-diṭṭhi (verb act as noun), of sakkāya (object), causes and effects, clinging-aggregates, which is anattā, as attā. See note0 below for more information.

Note0: (I have to use image, because I can not make underline in stackexchange. The same format are relating to the same format.
)

Above pāli appear in these suttas:
Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Isidattasutta:

For "dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhigatāni brahmajāle" above refer to micchā-diṭṭhi in Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto saṅghabhedakasutta:
brahmajāle:

saṅghabhedakasutta:

So, what I said:

It is completely from pāli.

Note1: Sakkāya is not only internal, because there are internal clinging-aggregates, internal sakkāya, and external clinging-aggregates, external sakkāya, which are contemplating by the practitioner in Cūlavedallasutta and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ (<< this link is a good translation of this sutta).

they meditate by observing an aspect of the principle inside and outside.

The inside and outside aspect of the principle in this term is sakkāya (clinging aggregates), sakkāyasamudayo, sakkāyanirodho, and sakkāyanirodhagāminīpaṭipadā.

Note2: Santo kāyo sakkāyo. Kāya, clinging-aggregates, is sacca, santa, vijjānana, the reality, truth, possible to arise in causes and effects cycle. So, buddha said sakkāya is sacca and clinging-aggregates in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans].
"Sakko kāyo sakkāyo" and "para kāyo sakkāyo" is allowed in Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ as an internal anupassī, but it is not the primary meaning when compare to Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans], which sakkāya meaning is defined by buddha directly. And "para kāyo sakkāyo" never found in any where else except in  Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ.
So, if you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in Sakkāyasutta, Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, which has both sakko and paro.
But by the "Santo kāyo sakkāyo", there is no conflict like that between the co-context sutta, such as micchādiṭṭhisutta, sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta, and attānudiṭṭhisutta, which using the same context and near by each other. Also, there is no conflict between those sutta and the faraway suttas such as Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta,  Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.

Note3: Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other. Mostly words of them can use in the other sutta, such as anicca, dukkha, anatta, of these 3 sutta contexts all refering to saṅkhata (clinging-aggregates), which means arisen by causes. So, it can use to explain each other like appeared in Vinaya. Mahā (1) Anattalakkhaṇasutta:

‘Now what do you think, O bhikkhus, is the body permanent or perishable?’

‘It is perishable (anicca), Lord.’
‘And that which is perishable, does that cause pain or joy?’
‘It causes pain (dukkha), Lord.’
‘And that which is perishable, painful, subject to change, is it
  possible to regard that in this way. ‘This is mine, this am I, this is
  my self (atta)?’ ‘That is impossible, Lord.’

So, those 3 suttas is synonym of each other. For the example:
You never have to see "I often(1) mis(2)-understand(3) of you-ahaṃ tuvaṃ micchā(2) anu(1)-passāmi(3)" sentence. But is it the right, if I tell you A, B, and C have the same meaning?:
A: I often understand of you as permanent person.
B: I misunderstand of you as permanent person.
C: I understand of you as my dear forever (misunderstanding sakkāya as attā).
In this case the buddha can predict, because buddha maybe his teacher, the listening-bhikkhu will enlighten by animitta-vimokkha, so the buddha taught  impermanence to him. And this bhikku maybe memorized micchādiṭṭhi from buddha before, so the buddha taught micchādiṭṭhi in this sutta. If the buddha teach the other words, they cannot enlighten, because the listening maybe never memorized before.
It looks like when I said หนึ่งคูณสองเท่ากับสอง, you cannot enlighten what I said. But if I said "1x2=2", you can get it.
This is the same way which atthakathā described  SN Salāyatanavagga aniccatādisutta:

Iti idaṃ suttaṃ chasu ajjhattikāyatanesu tīṇi lakkhaṇāni dassetvā
  kathite bujjhanakānaṃ ajjhāsayena vuttaṃ.
For these 3 sutta, buddha taught 3 characterizes of 6 inner-āyatana
  depend on the enlightening-possibility of each listening-bhikkhu.

For more information, you can see naya in netti.

Note4:

Note5: Sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi in mostly suttas such as sakkāyasutta.
Sakkāya is 5 aggregates, which is engaging by diṭṭhi-clinging (diṭṭhi-upādāna).
But sakkāya-diṭṭhi is diṭṭhi-clinging, which engaging 5 aggregates.
So, mostly english version, which I random checked, translated wrong as "self view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)", but it should be just "sakkāya".

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

@ChrisW I guess you will like  the note0 and note4, which I added above, because It is very clear, and provable.

I think the commonly-accepted definition of sakkāyadiṭṭhi comes from passages like this in MN 44:

Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti? “Idhāvuso visākha, assutavā puthujjano, ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto, rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Vedanaṃ … pe … saññaṃsaññaṃ: ? … saṅkhāre … viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Evaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti.

I think, in summary, that is saying that it is wrong view to identify the five aggregates with the atta -- the "self" (or, soul).
So maybe it is no surprise, and not wrong, that sakkāyadiṭṭhi is called "self-view" or "identity-view".
Here's a translation:

"But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"
"There is the case, friend Visakha, where 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. This is how self-identification comes about."

But it might be easy to read an English translation like "self-view" or "self-identification", and assume it's talking all about the self.
Instead it may be talking mostly about the aggregates, i.e. "wrong to view the aggregates as self".
Perhaps it ought to be called "a wrong view of aggregates".

But anyway, perhaps it isn't right to say, "Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!"; nor, that it means "taking the aggregates as pleasurable" -- because instead, in MN 44, it explicitly says, "taking the aggregates as self".

Logically, attanuditthi is presumably some kind of wrong view regarding the self (whether it's the same wrong view of self, or a different wrong view of self, I don't know -- I haven't looked up the sutta reference[s] for it).


text:
Thinking during Vipassana meditation
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
From what I read, the purpose of Vipassana meditation is to get insight, and wisdom about one self, in order to achieve a better life and eventually nibanna.
The way I have been taught to practice Vipassana, is to focus on the present moment, feeling the sensations or emotions as they appear and disappear, observe the changes in the mind, and so on.
However, in order to get insight, am I not supposed to analyse what is going on, looking for answers ? In order to think in that way, isnt'it necessary to break the focus on the present moment and therefore break the meditation ?
Maybe it is part of the meditation ?
As an example, suppose that I am meditating. Suddently a feeling of anxiety arises. I turn my focus to this feeling, gathering informations, feeling it for what it is, seeing the impermanence in it, etc. Then the anxiety disappears or some other thing arises, so I need to switch my focus in order to stay in the present moment.
Instead, I would like to investigate this feeling, trying to guess why it happened, seeing if there is a way I can prevent myself from feeling it again, or if there is a way to prevent myself from the suffering I create by repeling this feeling.
Experience as shown that I can get to great insight by interrupting the focus on the present moment to investigate the feeling. However on some other occasions it distracted me. In addition I imagine that the insights I get may be sometimes incomplete or false views ?
How I am supposed to go about this ?

All in all, the boundaries between thinking and not thinking are more conventional than real. The brain is a machine that is always at work doing its thing, whether we create narratives like "I'm thinking", "I'm meditating" or not. It's a machine that can see patterns and connections between the things it sees -- so as you keep looking, seeing happens (semi-)automatically. As long as you look with clear attention, that is. Learning some dharma theory does help with seeing things in the right perspective, but it sounds like you already have that. So in some sense it doesn't really matter what you do - as long as you keep looking with right attention your mind will almost "enlighten itself".
Anything you do is fine, there are no hard rules. You can interleave analytical meditation and introspection if you want. You can read a paragraph of a book, put it down, think about it. Or you can watch your mind in parallel with reading a book. As you become more advanced all boundaries between different types of meditation begin to melt and look obviously contrived. As my Zen master used to say, regular thinking is not different from meditation. Regular mind is not different from the Diamond Samadhi.
However, there is virtue in formal meditation that is pure introspection. In this approach we don't discursively reason about things we see. We engage attention in looking inside and let the pattern-seeing machine of our brain do it's work connecting the dots on autopilot. Makes sense? So you just look and stare at that emotion, trying to go deeper into it, and then boom, you see it's root in some sort of childhood event, that created a preconception that now manifests as attachment. You don't "calculate" this insight analytically, it happens by itself through deep looking.
Similarly, there are other, deeper, types of insights that are only accessible through this sort of intuitive staring, informed by dharma theory. For example, you can stare at your mindstream and then suddenly realize you now know what they meant by suffering and attachment. Or what they meant when they said everything is empty. The bottom line is that meditation is not entirely non-analytical, but it's not your regular thinking either.

I believe that it is natural. However, when you feel like you are losing your focus, try to get it back by focusing on the strongest feeling of breath. That means, when you breathe you can feel your stomach going up and down or the warm air touching the edge of your nostrils... observe a bit and understand what you feel the most and try to focus on that.
I know it can be harder when you practically do it rather than typing here. But it is worth to give it a try.

You appear to be trying to mix two methods of insight in one sitting, and by doing that you are getting confused.
Try this. Release (for the moment) what you know or have studied. In your sitting, engage in monitoring your mental processes - the subject (monitoring mind) and the object (monitoring mind) are the same. The framework is that of an eager and scientist watching the events of a fascinating experiment. Don't push it, and don't relax too much, otherwise you will sleep! Just remain engaged and alert, and basically comfortable - even playful.
You are engaging in monitoring your mind, so always go back to that. Don't get caught up in thinking about thinking, thinking about meditating, or anything like that.
Very quickly you will notice the mental nature of the experiential narrative of 'sitting doing meditation', and that's okay - you are just monitoring - but these experiences begin to lose their concreteness, as we see them for what they are.
This is an experiential wisdom method.
It differs from (but is very well augmented by) an conceptual wisdom method, such as using the anti-philosophy of Nagarjuna's madhyamaka - which, through understanding that substance ontologies (ie. a biological conviction in essential, or objective truth) are mistaken leads us to a powerful understanding of how we keep buying into something (essence) which isn't really there.
In the end the strong understanding (wisdom) of the nature of reality will become manifest from either (or both) - one through experiencing how what we take to be 'hard fact' is merely a conceptual narrative - the other through determining that the objects of fascination and abhorrance that we dress our universe in are not efficacious in the way that we believe them to be.
When we perceive that we are conflating objects as being the causes of our pleasure rather than merely the circumstances against which our pleasure arises, then we are able to see clearly how ignorance is the cause of suffering - and then we are able to develop renunciation and compassion.