text:
Is ritual always a practice, or can it be a belief too?
If ritual is repetition outside of what can be justified through direct experience, can ideas and opinions, as well as words and actions, be ritualistic? Would a belief in God - given the axiomatic impossibility to verify the entity directly - classify as ritual?

Till the experience of clear seeing and knowing, realizing, what ever deed by body, speech and mind is good to considered as a habitual ritual, householder Ilya Grushevskiy and interested.
Ways of belief, expecting certain happiness and release, to the extend of not knowing, not clear seeing, are rituals.
In regard of abounding the fetter of ritual toward an aspiration headed to Nibbana it requires the knowledge of the path through realization. Relaying on this, it's also again practiced as ritual (habitual) but no more destined toward anything else as well as raw rituals not headed toward the aim have been abounded.
The same, of course, would count also for the path into the Brahma-realms, if realized once.
To possible understand the underlying point as well: believing is an action (mental), a practice, as well, and the foremost in becoming also signs and physical deeds, rituals. Usually the word ritual is used for practice that would not really cause the desired effect (i.e. actually: mind is one, sign, physical another). Sometimes ritual refers also to holding on certain actions by signs and deeds although the mind might not be directed at it's purpose, perceived as habitual only outwardly.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

I get the impression (e.g. from this answer) that a "belief" might (instead) be classified as a "view".
The word you're asking about might be sīlabbata -- using a quick search of Google I saw several discussions of that, but didn't notice references to suttas where the term is clearly defined.
The PTS dictionary says,

bbata [=vata2] good works and ceremonial observances Dh 271; A i.225; S iv.118; Ud 71; Sn 231, etc.; sīlavata the same Sn 212, 782, 790, 797, 803, 899; It 79

Given that the word includes sīla I assume that, like the precepts, it implies some element of behaviour and not only of view.
I think the two (i.e. "belief" and "practice") might be equated by some Christian sects, e.g. "the only thing you have to 'do' is 'believe'" (i.e. the Christian sola fide doctrine) -- I guess that might seem like a ritualistic belief.
There may be something analogous in Buddhism too, e.g. this answer or perhaps even just taking refuge.

Is ritual always a practice, or can it be a belief too?

Silabbata paramasa is a ritual backed by wrong belife.

If a ritual is a repetition outside of what can be justified through direct experience, can ideas and opinions, as well as words and actions, be ritualistic?

Yes. As it is a practice not rooted in reality.

Would a belief in God, given the axiomatic impossibility to verify the entity directly - classify as a ritual?

Yes. Any practice expecting liberation will be.
Following is a good writeup:

SILABBATA PARAMASA is generally translated into meaning the adherence to wrongful rites, rituals and ceremonies. Believing that a wrong practice is a right practice is called Silabbataparamasa, which is believing, maintaining, or supporting a wrong belief in the practice. According to the teaching of the Buddha, apart from the Eightfold Noble Path, all other practices are wrong practices and taking them as right practices amount to wrong belief in the practice.
Everything that appears at the six doors of senses constitute the Five Aggregates of Grasping, namely, rupa and nama, the Truth of Suffering. Meditating on rupa and nama is practising the Path by which the Four Noble Truths will be understood. Believing in and practising any other method which keeps aside the magga Path and which does not lead to understanding the Four Noble Truths, is wrong belief in the practice (silabbata paramasa ditthi).
There are people who are preaching that "It is not necessary to practise meditation nor to observe the precepts (sila)." That is to say, they are saying it is sufficient to simply listen to sermons and learn by heart the nature of rupa and nama." It will be necessary to consider whether such views amount to silabbata paramasa. In the opinion of some, such preachments amount to teaching wrong view in practice as this method excludes the three disciplines of:

Samadhi
Sila
Vipassana

Although a person at a lesser level of insight may participate in Wrong Practice and even be unaware of such, a Sotapanna, a person of the first level of The Four Stages of Sainthood, and those above, being well-established in the knowledge of the Right Practice are not liable to hold the wrong view of silabbata paramasas. (1)

SILABBATA PARAMASA DITTHI PRESENTED BY: the Wanderling

Upasaka: "1. Samadhi - 2. Sila - 3. Vipassana" is mentioned in the text, while saying listening to the Dhamma might be ritual. Atually my peron would say that this believe, 1,2,3 is total ritual and not based on the Dhamma, Upasaka, so maybe worthy to prove whether this citation is biased or not. May just "unlucky" formulated. With the ritual of listening Dhamma, at least, right view can be gained, path and end of wrong practice. The most importand ritual is listening to the Dhamma.

The source quotes the question Is the practice of Zen, which by its own nature explores or professes the Enlightenment experience as attained by the Buddha and the ancient masters Outside the Doctrine, in direct contrast with or violate the premises of the Buddhist concept of Wrong Practice (silabbata paramasa)? and usually in Zen right view and listening to Dhamma at first place is avoided. Just to consider. They are after Paccecabuddhahood, if even prevering to stay Bodhisattas.

I think you can easily distinguish between the two.  Beliefs are orthodoxy i.e. excepted views, doctrines, or teachings.  Ritual is orthopraxy or correct conduct, liturgy, or action.  What ultimately distinguishes ritual from belief is that the former is expressed in some context whereas the latter fundamentally structures how a person views the world. Saying "I believe in God, the Father, the Lord, the Giver of Life" is to make a ritualistic declaration of an orthodox belief.  Belief is God, on the other hand, is to formally order your universe according to that view.  Obviously, both are contrived when compared with direct experience.


text:
Why is Nibbana referred to as "The destination and the path leading to the destination"?
Why is Nibbana referred to as "The destination and the path leading to the destination" ?
What does this mean?
Is it referring to the cessation of defilements?
Is it referring to anything other than the cessation of defilements?
In what way is Nibbana "...the path leading to the destination" ?
reference: https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Nibbana#33_synonyms_for_Nibbana

Cessation of defilements is one attribute of Nibbana, but certainly is not everything that Nibbana is all about. Otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have to waste an entire Samyutta talking about it (ref: https://suttacentral.net/sn43 )

The Nibbana page at dhammawiki.com states:

33 synonyms for Nibbana:
.....

The destination and the path leading to the destination

(from Samyutta Nikaya 43)

I found the original quote in SN 43.44 and it actually says:

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the destination and the path leading to
  the destination. Listen to that….
“Parāyanañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi parāyanagāmiñca maggaṃ. Taṃ suṇātha…
“And what, bhikkhus, is the destination? The destruction of lust, the
  destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the
  destination.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the destination?
  Mindfulness directed to the body: this is called the path leading to
  the destination.
“Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the destination and the path
  leading to the destination. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a
  compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring
  their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees,
  bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhus, do not be
  negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you.”
Each to be elaborated in full as in §§1–12.

So, the dhammawiki page appears to be incorrect.

The dhammawiki page is correct follow to Pāli's structure.
Parāyanañca = Para (next) + Āyana (tourist destination; going).
The path leading to the destination = Magga.
Magga is leading to Nirodha (DukkhaNirodhaGāminiPaṭipadā).
So, Nibbana (Nirodha) is "The destination or object" of the path (Magga).

The talk The Essence of the Dhamma exlains good why the path is also regarded as "essence", leading to "essence". For only one derived at Nibbana, path can be abound to hold on, grasp, has become "his own".

Nivana and Nibbana are the same meaning words used for the same The Enlightenment in buddhism.
So Nivana word has the meaning of calm, quite, not hot - not cool (getting to normal state). This means the beings are not calm due to Raga, Dvesha, Moha. And we are hot => burning our minds with bad thoughts. When we get rid of these it's like we are getting in to the most calm position, which is Nivana
And when you take Nibbana This has another meaning but referring to the same state. If you know five aggregates and five aggregates of clinging latter is born as a result of chanda-raghaya(can also be explained as: attaching to things due to the lack of Vijja) on five aggregates. . Five aggregates has no issue but five aggregates of clinging which born due to the chnda-raghaya (on five aggregates) has issue.
'bana' means couple, and in couple there's some connection between two things (or persons). This connection is the cause which makes couple exist. So this chanda-ragaya is equivalent to the cause to exist the connection between Five-aggregates and Five-aggregates-of-clinging. Nib+bana means destroying the couple by removing the cause of the connection (chanda-raghaya) in between and that will result just existence of Five aggregates no more clinging parts.
So If I come back to your question, by doing all these (removing ragha,dvesha,moha or clinging aggregates) all it tries to see the world as it is.  No attachments or no more getting cheated. This is called Nivana or Nibbana.
To explain you this more practical way,
Think what all of us are doing. We are running after what? We are running after happiness. Right?
But then why can't we just be happy by doing something and stop there. Why? Because we are not just looking for happiness we are looking for an ultimate happiness. That's why being happy doing one thing (achieving a goal, graduating, marrying , be a parent) doesn't make us stop. And we keep this doing until we die. (Even an old man tries to be happy by watching a game on TV).
So until we find the ultimate happiness we keep running. We never get tired (we do sometimes, but it just pauses our selves but not stops completely) why? because by doing something we actually feel the happiness. So we keep doing that.
Imagine if you are finding a necklace in your cupboard (where you normally place it). After one hour still you haven't found the necklace, so you get everything out and continue the search, imagine even you make the cupboard in to pieces you couldn't find the necklace. What can be the reason for not finding the necklace there? Because Necklace is not there and you've been looking it in the wrong place. That's the only explanation for this right?
Same as Saṃsāra and Nibbana (or Nivana).
The only place which you can be happy forever, or the only place which you can be ultimately satisfied is Nivana. That's why it's the destination. Once you are there there's nothing you want more because you are 1000% satisfied and happy. As a result you will stop suffering by looking happiness in the wrong places. And as a result you will not born again, which had been happening due to fact of looking happiness in the wrong places through out the Saṃsāra.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Permission to ordain from absent father
I want to become a monk in the Theravada tradition and have already obtained permission from my mother. My father does not live with us and never has, so according to the following passage from the Vinaya Atthakathā, I shouldn't need his permission:

A father, not concerned for the welfare of his wife and son, runs
  away. The mother gives her son to some monks, saying, “Let him go
  forth.” When asked, “Where has his father gone?” she replies, “He has
  run away to disport himself.” — It is suitable for him [the son] to be
  given the going forth.

However, I am still not sure since in his case it isn't that simple. Although my dad moved to another country, he continued to fully financially support us in the first years of my life and paid for all my school costs up to 12th grade. As far as I know, he initially had the intention to bring us over to live with him, but it seems my mom refused. Even then, he continues to visit me every year or so, and we talk on the phone quite often. One could argue that he did, in a sense, leave me, since he could have well come back and at least live closer to me, even if he had split with my mom, but I still have mixed feelings.
The reason I ask is that I know he will not agree with my ordination, since he's quite focused on money and material things, and expects me to become accomplished in those areas. He is also quite unskillful in his behavior and conducts himself pretty much opposite to the Noble Eightfold Path.

Ask him. A father seldom ever abound his son, young householder Manuel, and without putting parents on the right place in ones heard, having some issues, going forth will not easy success. It's a matter of respect and gratitude, the base of the Noble path. Much grow with it.

Feel given and free to use the possibilities here for further on it.

From Vinaya view, it would be had to give going forth in this case, for a monk, if householder tells about facts. Don't forget that one has no rights to ordain, no rights to leave. Both is a matter of goodness and gratitude to be given. The Vinaya Atthakathā mentioned case does not apply here. And this things to do right or wrong, are not your case. No rights!

Firstly, I suggest that you should talk to your father and not assume that he will not give permission. Secondly, I think you can join the monastery as a anagarika or novice (samanera) without requiring your parents' permission. You can use this as a trial period to see if the monastic life suits you or not.

samanera would need it as well, householder @ruben2020 , and since Anagarika is actually such, as well. It's just not asked because the Buddha gave no formula. The rule itself is in regard of pabajjata, going forth.

Ordination is a personal path. Is your desire to ordain invalid merely because your father has a different opinion?

I would speak to the preceptor you wish to ordain with.

There is no need to get a parent’s permission if he/she is no longer
  alive or has abandoned the son. From this it can be argued that if the
  parents are divorced and one of them has totally abandoned
  responsibility for the son, there is no need to get permission from
  that parent. If, however, both parents continued to assume
  responsibility for the son, he needs to get the permission of both.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0054.html

If Bhikkhus follow the Vinaya, they would not have much possibilities to advice, although they often do. So important to raise questions in a way the Venerable could answer.

"If, however, both parents continued to assume responsibility for the son" I believe that fits my situation, so I do need his permission according to the Vinaya.

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


text:
What does 'all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real"' mean?
Upasaka Angus asked on another place:

What do you mean that all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real"?

So what does a statement '"all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real (anicca)"' dhammical mean?
What are phenomena related to the senses?
(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Note: Real/echt should be not understood as "act-ual/wirk-lich", what ever else notion of real would neverteless fit.

I think that "not real" is not a good translation, and is not a translation that I'm used to seeing on Access To Insight or other careful translations.
It's a phrase I used to see written sometimes in some author's modern paraphrase of Buddhism, and before I discovered the translations of the suttas -- but it's a phrase I didn't understand at that time, and which might be (in my experience) a little harmful because it makes Buddhism sound like nonsense (e.g. because I don't understand it).
For that kind of reason I wish that people wouldn't use the phrase ("not real"). As well as being unclear, and maybe untrue, the phrase "not real" also seems to be a bit unkind -- if someone is grieving a loved one's death, for example, would you say "the grief you feel isn't real"? That kind of message ("grief isn't real") is not the kind of message I get from the suttas (though the suttas do describe a way towards the end of suffering).
I think the conventional (non-Buddhist, English-language) understanding of "not real" is something like "illusory" or "not existent" -- also "not tangible" or "not thing-like" -- but that sort of meaning might be refuted by this Zen story:

Nothing Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?”

The word anicca is usually translated "impermanent".
The "phenomena related to the senses" are usually described as "dependently originated", "not fit to be regarded as 'self'", "changeable", maybe "not satisfying", and by implication "not reliable" etc. (though they're also described as "The All" in one sutta).

Whats the different between "not real" and "not lasting"?

What's the phenomena that arises when touched on the intelect base with perception "not real"? Real? Nail it down.

I'd say that conventionally "a horse" (for example) is real, where in contrast "a unicorn" is not real and is instead imaginary (see also e.g. a definition of real). You can explain that things (sense-objects) aren't real or explain why they aren't real -- I think that people say that Nagarjuna proves that "things don't really exist" -- but if so I think that does require some explanation and I find it an unconventional and non-obvious usage of the word "real".

Whereas I find that suttas (e.g. the four noble truths) as they're more usually translated are self-explanatory or self-evident, easier to understand -- as well as prescriptive (i.e. useful) and so on.

Anger? Real? So what? Got hit by a stick?

Loving comes from taking things as real.

How then could it be abounded, comes and goes?

Some forms of love might be an attachment, perhaps desiring (or craving) the continuation of a phenomenon that was experienced as pleasant -- but I don't think that "not real" is a good, clear description of what's happening if that happens (e.g. I think that an explanation involving "craving" or "attachment" might be a clearer explanation).

If you do think that "not real" is a good explanation, then OK, I guess different words have different meanings to different people, but I personally didn't find "it's not real" to be clear. Saying "not real" might imply that nothing is real (which might be wrong view), or that that there's something else apart from what's perceptible that's more real (shrug).

Yes "real" can mean something like "actual" or "present". A phrase like "he was in real pain for two days" is not self-contradictory nonsense, imo.

@Angus I don't think I remember suffering being described as an illusion -- though perhaps "the self" is sometimes described as an illusion, or at least as no more than a convention (and "self-view" as a cause of suffering) -- ditto all the skandhas (e.g. here) -- and "suffering" described (e.g. by later Buddhists, not in the suttas) as "optional" which implies that it's affected by or might be ended by choice, as well as being described as subject to cessation (the third noble truth).

@Angus Samana Johann wrote, "not real (anicca)" in the OP above, so perhaps he understands or uses the phrase "not real" as meaning "impermanent" or something like that.

Real/echt should be not understood as "act-ual/wirk-lich", what ever else notion would neverteless fit.

@SamanaJohann I'm sorry, what I wrote might sound rude. I was hoping to answer based on my own experience. I'm not familiar with words related to philosophy (nor German philosophy). When I read paraphrases of Buddhism a while ago I didn't understand what "not real" meant, so it didn't help me. And later when I read translations of the suttas (which I found were relatively helpful), those translations tended to use a lot of words other than (perhaps more specific than) "real".

More real hmm... :-) no problem, just "real" was offended.

The word 'unreal' causes problems but is often misread.
I would suggest (with Marino above) that it means 'reducible' or 'not real in the way we usually think it is'. It may mean 'having only a dependent-existence'. Often 'unreal' is associated with 'appearance' as in title of Bradley's 1897 essay 'Appearance and Reality'. This is a reproduction of Nagarjuna's argument against the genuine reality of multiplicity, (although I don't think Bradley knew of Nagarajuna).
Ibn 'Arabi discusses this in various texts. Every 'thing'  would derive its reality from the Real and 'exist' only as an expression of consciousness or God. These things would be not metaphysically real, being reducible to God, Reality or Consciousness. Every-thing would derive its reality from the Real, and in this sense is both real and unreal depending on how we look at it. 'Two Truths' would be required to describe the situation, as in the statement 'All things are real and unreal'. This satisfies Lao Tsu's condition that to describe Reality with rigour means speaking in a paradoxical manner.
He makes the point that God has two 'modes' and levels of description, one that requires us and one that doesn't. From the first perspective everything is real, deriving its reality from God, and from the second everything is unreal, since it derives its reality from God. (Where God, Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon).
The point would be that Reality is Unity, not a collection of things. These 'things' would be real as appearances but unreal as independent objects. All phenomena would be void. As the Upanishads say 'The voidness of one thing is the voidness of all'.
Thus one might say that the end of suffering is the realisation of its unreality and the unreality of its causes.
Calling the world unreal causes many problems because it might seems to say that the world is not important, can be ignored or even despised. This is not at all what the word should mean.
I feel you'd be better off reading the literature than asking here since a full answer would be a lot to ask. A very short text by Ibn 'Arabi called Treatise on Unity may be useful. A good modern translation by Cecelia Twinch (great name!) is titled Know Yourself- An explanation of the Oneness of Being'.
The notion of Oneness, Unity, Unicity and non-duality requires the (metaphysical) unreality of composite or multifarious phenomena. They would be real as sensations and perceptions, but would not 'really' exist. Nothing would 'really' exist, but the Real would be really real.
The great thing about Nagarjuna's view is that as soon as one has adopted a one-sided or 'positive' stance on any issue, for instance the reality of phenomena, one knows one is not understanding it properly. When one can see both sides then one is on the right track. Thus it is said the sage can agree or disagree with any statement about Reality as they choose, since if it does not seem paradoxical it will be true and false depending on our level of analysis.

"all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real (anicca)"' dhammical mean?
What are phenomena related to the senses?" was asked, householder Peter.

@SamanaJohann - Apologies, but I cannot disentangle your comment. I did not use the words 'anicca' or 'dhammical'. What are you asking?

Just that, but no problem if not knowing.


text:
In how far does involvement in certain undertaking effects one, good or bad?
In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking?
In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims?
Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings?
And how should common-kamma here be understood?
(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Ven Sir, I have noticed you have opened a new bounty but not voted on or accepted any of the answers given. Doing so is all up to you. But this will mean the bounty will get "wasted" when it expires.

My person leaves it up to the community, the system and to ones Nissaya. It's abounded with a blessing, Upasaka, and can not be of waste. My person thought longer about how to get ride of much reputations and it would be not proper to transfer them back into the world, give them householders personally. He also does not make use of voting generally since it is better to comment and know of who approves or disapproves. In this matter one should not think that ones good gifts are not regarded. So double+ merits if answering the "bounties" with same state of mind, toward Tripple Gems and Nibbana.

Good opportunity to possible engage in a transaction on one side or even two sides purified, Upasaka @SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena and not at all one should fear that there could be a lose by giving into it, yet very insecure to receive direct reputations. Good training for one self, btw. Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard of ones reputations: What to practice to get ride of it? (had a bounty of 500)

The site would also let users put a bounty on someone else's question (if you think it's a good or difficult question while you'd like more people to try to answer).

That would be a possibility, yes. How ever, those having given reputation before and also others, would easy say "look he likes to benefit..." or "or how could be give up reputation giving in faith for him, this or that...", how ever, sometimes it has been made already. And if seeing an answer good if answered, why not answering by oneself? So is really not easy to carry such around and has much "burden" of responsibility, if holding, received for the Juwels.

There are also less questions not answered yet. If doing such on questions which have already answers, but highly wrong answers much upvoted...? Just to give a sample. It's not for exchange made, not to forget, but for giving possibility to make releasing high merits.

If:

rejoice in others' action - mental approval
partake in the activity

one accumulates common karma.
Also, being encouraged or not (sasañkhārikam / asañkhārikam) does matters. This reduces potency. In case of doing something as a group, not everyone will have the same motivation. If one is self-motivated karmic potential is high. If one loses motivation and seeds some self-encouragement it is lesser. If one needs external encouragement it will be even lesses.
If a group is taking some negative action. One should disassociate with the negative action and also not rejoice in that is being done. One should encourage others to disassociate. One should not encourage anyone to do what is negative.
If a group is taking some positive action. One should associate with the positive action and also rejoice in that is being done. One should encourage others to associate. If one's motivation lapses one should encourage oneself.
If one is a monk being suspected of doing wrong may discredit the institution/order of monks. So it best to be mindful of if this happens. For a layperson disassociating mentally is enough to prevent karmic repercussions, as karma is volition based, but wise even not to appear as associated as this will have social consequences.
Even if one does not have the means to participate or do a positive action if one mentally approved it then one partakes the merit. If one is indifferent or does not approve one does not get karmic results. Same is true for negative actions.

Sadhu Upasaka. One thing that comes to mind is that the Buddha warned "even if not mental involved, approve by thoughts, one becomes suspected by good fellows, and may have disadvantages, losing them". What about such? Is mind here enough? Or does disapprove requires clear signs and actions for security? "partake in the activity"= body, speech, signs, right?

"rejoice in others' action", approve, agrees, ignores in ways "that is not my problem" and takes benefits from it anyhow (cheating one self, a-sacca), right?

The Noble Eightfold Path ends kamma (AN 6.63). Therefore, those minds free from self-view can engage in any necessary quantity of skillful undertaking without reaping negative results, such as paranoid neurosis that occurs to those unskillfully craving the Path who generally view anatta as annihilationism or vibhava.


text:
Is there such a thing as craving for enlightenment and would it be unwholesome?
I was wondering if for example an obsession or craving that someone has for attaining Nirvana would be considered something unwholesome. On one hand it seems to me like it would, since that person would be reinforcing the habit of craving, but on the other hand how else could they actually achieve the goal? Like for example how could they decide to become a monk and devote themselves fully to the practice etc. I don't think the Buddha would have left his palace if he wasn't motivated by some sort of craving, at least in the beginning.

Related: Difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)?

A strong craving (Taṇhā) for enlightenment would not get you there as it is unwholesome.
You need some desire or motivation (Chanda) to get to enlightenment. But when you get there this desire is also no more. Say you want to go to the park you need some desire to get there. When you are there you no longer have the desire to go there.
Craving for enlightenment would be unwholesome, the intention to achieve enlightenment would be wholesome.

I have read in a book by Ajahn Jayasaro that cravings or desires can be divided into two groups, which are tanha (unwholesome desires) and chanda (wholesome desires). Desire which drives you towards dhamma practice and motivates you to stay on the Path certainly falls within the second group.
Nevertheless, there should be a subtle balance between effort and desire. Merely wanting to practice does not necessarily mean you will attain the fruits any time sooner, it’s just an indicator of to what extent you are determined right at a given moment.
Here you can listen to the very first question about cravings and Ajahn Jayasaro’s answer to it

Q&A in Silicon Valley by Ajahn Jayasaro
The distinction would be that craving tends to focus on feelings, and desire for some particular feeling, or some particular state of being; whereas the wholesome kind of desire (which is called chanda or dhamma-chanda) is the desire to do -- it's not a desire for the result of doing.
So, working: some people work with craving, so the work itself is merely a means towards wealth, fame, status, and so on, that's like working with craving; whereas someone who's working with wholeome desire really just wants to do a good job.

In the Mahayana, the apparent contradiction of craving enlightenment for one's own benefit is resolved by the notion of Bodhicitta, the mind that seeks enlightenment specifically for the benefit of others. One who is has this motivation and constantly acts to manifest it is called a Bodhisattva. Often but incorrectly interpreted simply as compassion, Bodhicitta is motivated by great compassion, the inability to bear the suffering of others, but it goes beyond compassion in two ways.
First, one identifies enlightenment as the best and most powerful tool or capacity to actually relieve the suffering of others. An enlightened being can see what each being needs to relieve their suffering and also provide the best possible assistance to them in that endeavor. Ultimately, that means helping others toward their own enlightenment, but since not all beings are in a position to undertake that journey at present, Bodhicitta can also manifest as the motivation to relieve suffering in more mundane ways. In fact, everyday suffering is an impediment to seeking enlightenment -- if you don't have enough food, clothing, shelter and so on, or are wracked by physical or emotional pain, it is difficult to even conceive of undertaking the path to enlightenment. So relieving everyday suffering opens up that possibility and is part of the activities of a Bodhisattva.
Second, combining boundless compassion and that understanding of enlightenment, one resolves to fully dedicate their lives to achieving enlightenment for exactly that purpose. That is what makes one a Bodhisattva. A Bodhisattva is often said to postpone their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened, but that is more of a metaphor -- achieving enlightenment with this motivation is the best thing one can do for others.
Thus, Bodhicitta is indeed craving of the most powerful sort. Because it is focused on the ultimate welfare of others, however, it has none of the faults of ordinary craving. We can understand Shakyamuni's resolve to attain enlightenment after seeing the various forms of suffering as exactly this, Bodhicitta.
There are many published teachings on Bodhicitta:

The book Teachings from Tibet: Guidance from Great Lamas has a chapter titled
Generating Bodhicitta
The classical treatise on Bodhisattva is Shantideva's remarkable poem, Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, The Guide to the Bodhisattva's way of Life.

Sadhu for this important question householder Sirangelo,
No desire, no craving, is more wholesome, more of use, then this for long time happiness, awakening, ending of suffering, and the prerequisite for awakening, by seeing Dukkha.
Yet it can not be reached by only wishing for it, but requires the path, the skill, and those point it out and follow them.
And at the same time, no more aversion is more skillful as that toward what is not real, not conductive for long lasting happiness, awakening, ending of suffering.
People who think that lobha, desire and craving are unwholesome per-se don't understand that this path requires will, right will.
Only this four factors are always related to unwholsome, akusala mental-states:

Delusion (moha)

Lack of moral shame (ahirika)

Lack of moral dread (anottappa)

Restlessness (uddhacca)

The same, in this relation, counts for becoming, better using, the opportunity to live the holy life as monk, since this is the straight path to awakening, perfection of virtue. And also here it's important to take care on the four primarily factors in an unskillful mind.
And not to misunderstand it, this strong desire, strong craving, strong will, needs to be nourished till having reached the Unbound, Arahathood, the state where it can be, will be abound and ends.
Most, as seen at this question, although listening and read much of the Budddhas teachings are incapable to understand that will, desire, and aversion, at the right places, is what makes the path. Most do not understand, like a spoon next the soup, that the path consists of kusala (wholesome) deeds, do not understand that there is kusala which leads beyond this world and suffering, placing it toward wrong objects, again and again.
May householder strongly seek for the holy life, strongly seek after giving strong conditions, associating with what heads toward liberation, or already is.
It was strong desire to go beyond aging, sickness and death, metta for oneself, that leaded the Bodhisatta to renounce the world and seek for refined happiness and ending of stress.
For one wishing for such a noble goal, the Devas open the doors wish might be closed otherwise.
This path begins by leaving home, by seeing the dangers and meaninglessness, faculties in ones stand.
Once this right craving reaches it's fullness by gaining right view, the path, on it's given causes, develops on them by itself, no more danger to return.
Mudita
Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

As others have said, people distinguish between an always-unwholesome "craving" (tanha), compared with a potentially-wholesome "desire" (chanda).
I guess the difference might be two-fold:

Whether the object of the desire is wholesome
Whether there's a corresponding skilful effort

I suppose you're right that the pre-enlightened Gautama experienced a desire for liberation, and must have also learned to identify craving and suffering -- and their cessation -- e.g. because he was eventually able to identify or describe those, in the doctrine of the Four Noble Truths.
The Brahmana Sutta seems relevant too. A Brahman asks a question like the one you're asking ...

... This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire.

If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire.

... and has Ananda's reply to that question.

Worthy to quote: ""Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire.", sadhu

Yes it's worth reading. It's not very long but I find it difficult to select just one bit of it to quote, better to read it all.

"This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire." "If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire." is a good starter "teaser" for a good answer, reflecting the op in good words.

It is called path desire: when you have no desires other than pursuing enlightenment. As you make spiritual progress, material things becme pale and no longer interesting. Your interest shifts to spiritual values. In the Bhagavad-gita this milestone on the spiritual path, whey you become fully commited to spiritual life, is called vyavasayatmika buddhi:

vyavasāyātmikā buddhir
ekeha kuru-nandana
bahu-śākhā hy anantāś ca
buddhayo ’vyavasāyinām
vyavasāyātmikā—resolute Kṛṣṇa consciousness; buddhiḥ—intelligence;
  ekā—only one; iha—in this world; kuru-nandana—O beloved child of the
  Kurus; bahu-śākhāḥ—various branches; hi—indeed; anantāḥ—unlimited;
  ca—also; buddhayaḥ—intelligence; avyavasāyinām—of those who are not in
  Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
TRANSLATION
Those who are on this path are resolute in purpose, and their aim is
  one. O beloved child of the Kurus, the intelligence of those who are
  irresolute is many-branched.

"vyavasāyātmikā", what's the pali equivalent, Brahman Marino Klisovich? Bhava... , just that wrong desire for certain becoming gets not to be a hindering desire.

I don't know the pali equivalent.

How ever, this point, related the the Buddhas path, is called stream enter, different to possible wrong seek, this won path "desire" leads unrevokeable to liberation. Just if interested.

Somebody downgraded this answer -- can they comment on why? It seems to me to be a relevant answer, though it does refer to a Hindu scripture.

@DavidLewis It was me who downvoted, because I don't think the Bhagavad gita is a useful/reliable reference to what Buddhist doctrine might consider wholesome or unwholesome, or even "right view".

There's a verse from Bhagavad-gita 2.62-63 (https://bit.ly/2SfdUPo) that talks about the arisal of anger in human beings. Very good example of dependant origination.

@ChrisW -- ah, yes, wondered. I agree that the main thrust of our discussions should be focused in the various Buddhist traditions -- that's what this forum is about. But I think there's also a good case for not being quite so strict in this age, when all traditions are in intimate, worldwide contact as never before and have much to learn from each other, taking care,of course, to preserve the sense of one's own tradition. But chacun à son goût, eh?

Perhaps beyond distinctly specified doctrinal boundaries, for many Branches of Buddhisms, and much of society could infer the implications of selfless virtue & devotions, without attachment: with the Bhagavad Gita Verses even then within the context of The Mahabarata and what was chronicled as going on in generaland some Doctrines being more specific re sources cf sort of the societal context of the times c. 6th-5th Century BC the region


text:
Could unwholesome craving cause the wholesome desire for enlightenment?
From this question, we see answers stating that one has the wholesome desire for enlightenment, and not craving for enlightenment. In this question, we read about the difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha).
There are 3 types of craving - sensual craving (kama tanha), craving for becoming (bhava tanha) and craving for non-becoming (vibhava tanha) according to Iti 58.
Why would one have the desire for enlightenment? Or the desire to end suffering?
If the desire for enlightenment comes from aversion towards suffering, then isn't it due to a craving for non-becoming (vibhava tanha)?
If the desire for enlightenment comes from wanting to become someone as revered as the Buddha or other Arahants, then isn't it due to a craving for becoming (bhava tanha)?
Could unwholesome craving cause the wholesome desire for enlightenment?

What's the different between craving and desire? That's a lost in samsara question, repeating a former, householder Ruben. And yet, householder craving after pointless could cause desire to get out of this wheel...

Based on theoriginal question:
Householder,
Aside that craving (tanha), lit. thirst, does not really differ in meaning to desire, will, cetana..., it is not necessary unskilfull, but required all along the path => refined becoming (bhava), and becoming, caused by tanha, is also the prerequisite for being able to develop the path:

"Fabrications have ignorance as their prerequisite, consciousness has fabrications as its prerequisite, name-&-form has consciousness as their prerequisite, the six sense media have name-&-form as their prerequisite, contact has the six sense media as its prerequisite, feeling has contact as its prerequisite, craving has feeling as its prerequisite, clinging has craving as its prerequisite, becoming has clinging as its prerequisite, birth has becoming as its prerequisite, stress & suffering have birth as their prerequisite, conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite." (Prerequisites)

For whom?

the ending of the effluents is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what is there the ending of effluents? Prerequisites

One may look out for "The Four Right Exertions",  in The Wings to Awakening

Perhaps the most surprising element in right exertion is the role played by desire, which is usually associated with the craving that acts as a cause of suffering. We will treat this topic in more detail under the bases for success [II/D], and simply note here that the Buddha recognized that desire can be either skillful or unskillful, and that he freely admitted that skillful desire is a necessary factor in the path to the end of suffering and stress...

Whats the problem with the use of the word craving, tanha?
The Buddha used this world, for the most, as craving after the world, the six senses:

And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

Now think, better look with proper attention, of what you are actually g/crave for?
So when ever reading tanha, keep in mind that it is not thirst per-se, but desires in the world that distracts one from developing thirst after beyond.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Why would one have the desire for enlightenment?
In my experience it's something like:

Craving
Suffering
Want to satisfy craving to end suffering -- but craving is unsatisfiable -- so is there an alternative?

Then it's suggested that that there's not only a solution for this problem but for all problems i.e. "enlightenment".
After which I guess that ("enlightenment") might for some people become a new, shiny, object-of-craving.
I guess that (i.e. "enlightenment as an object of craving") also happens when enlightenment is valued in society like money or status or power -- instead of "I'm richer than you" or "I'm better born then you" it's "I'm more enlightened than you".

You wrote ...

From this question, we see answers stating that one has the wholesome desire for enlightenment, and not craving for enlightenment

... but I don't think that's quite right: instead I guess that people can even have an (unskilful) "craving" for (imaginary) "enlightenment" -- what that question was saying was only that some desires are wholesome.
This answer for example suggested that "craving" is an split between what's wanted and what is. I suppose that wholesome desire is, by contrast:

Wanting something wholesome
Skilfully acting to reduce or zero the distance between what's wanted and want is

Could unwholesome craving cause the wholesome desire for enlightenment?
Things have several causes. I suppose that craving might cause a need for liberation (i.e. cause dukkha and a state in which cessation of dukkha is desirable), but it's because of right view (rather than craving) that unwholesome craving becomes wholesome desire.

Having craving for enlightenment leads to extreme effort that balanced effort. This can also lead to extreme ascetic practices. Craving for enlightenment is craving for non-existence (Nirvana), becoming enlightenment being an or some form of some Brahmic or divine existence.
Being motivated to achieve enlightenment does not lead to extremities. This is not excessive desire  (Tanha) but intention or motivation  (Chanda). If developed this way it becomes an Irddipada.
The distinction makes here is the desire to become or desire to act without too much attachment to the result. If your desire is to become your goal is bigger than the path and you might justify any path which you might think will take you there. This can be the wrong path or even excessive effort. If you are limited to taking action, without excessive desire for the end result, then you will take balanced steps on the right path.

It's not a matter of right effort (what effort) rather then it's amount, Upasaka Sirinath?

It is amount and direction.

Only direction might be the proper answer, right view, like one desires to produces..

Or with other words, there can not be to much of Saddha.

Upasaka answered more relative now, but: If one would not have a strong desire to become more purified, become better, would that be unwholsesome?

Or let my person ask in this way: Does Upasaka revise his answers out of strong desire for becoming or of strong desire to act wholesome?

Or let my person ask in this way: If there is no desire for becoming, would there be any act, wholesome, unwholsesome or neither of them?

But if one does not care in regard of the result, what does prevent him from not acting unskillful? E.g. "there are no fruits, no results of actions" What balances panna and saddha? Effort and concentration?

Why would one have desire fo enlightenment? Well, to end suffering. Why would one have desire for suffering? If you don't feel like ending your suffering, maybe you're not aware engough to pursue Buddhist path. Stick to philosphy and religion.


text:
Shiva's 112 ways to attain enlightenment and Buddha's way
I recently came across a video of a guru (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPINIZmQDwI&t=1s) claiming that Buddha's method to enlightenment was just one of 112 methods discovered by Shiva many years before the time of Buddha. ( https://yogitonics.com/shivas-112-ways-to-attain-enlightenment/).
I was wondering if anyone knows if this is a valid claim. Are there other ways out there to attain enlightenment or is the eight-fold path the only way?

Are you looking for an answer based on reference to scripture, or an answer based on a personal experience? If you're looking for a "reference to scripture" then, what kind of scripture -- e.g. Buddhist, or other, or ...?

Any kind of reference is fine

Isn't Shiva said to still circle around? How does one assume that he knows awakening?

Buddha explicitly said that the only way to attain enlightenment is following the Noble Eightfold path. However, the way you enter Nibbana may have many doors. Hinduism doe not fitting to any of these as they do not have Noble Eightfold Path.
Eleven doors. Dasama Sutta.
When this was said, Dasama the householder from Atthakanagara said to Ven. Ananda, "Venerable Ananda, just as if a man seeking a single opening onto treasure were all at once to come upon eleven openings onto treasure, in the same way I — seeking a single doorway to the Deathless — have all at once come to hear of eleven doorways to the Deathless. And just as if a man whose house had eleven doors could take himself to safety by means of any one of those doors, in the same way I can take myself to safety by means of any one of these eleven doors to the Deathless. Venerable sir, when sectarians search for a teacher's fee for their teachers, why shouldn't I pay homage to Ven. Ananda?"
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.017.than.html

Hinduism's Lord Shiva found 112 ways to enlightenment.
The Buddha found 1 way to enlightenment.
Isaac Newton had his enlightenment when an apple fell on his head.
But all these types of enlightenment are not the same enlightenment. Hinduism's enlightenment and the Buddha's enlightenment are not the same.
The reason for this can be found in Indology Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's comment in his essay Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study:

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens
  realissimum (true substance)," or similarly.

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

yes he makes the usual mistakes of the puthujjanas infatuated with samadhi.
the idea of a small self is not the one of the buddha. This idea of small self is really the usual mistake of the brahmins and ascetics who managed to be skilled at some wrong samadhi and try to pass that as nibanna. They are forced to acknowledged that 5 usual senses have nothing to do with self, because ''the senses disappear'' with the jhanas, but they still invent some weird self from samadhi.
This infatuation prevents them to see that vinnana is conditioned too. then they go to the buddha and whine that even though they are skilled at the jhanas, they have not seen the end of the world.
The lines about the sound are worthless.  More generally, the lines with focusing on some objects to get into samadhi. This is the classical mistake even made today by people who call themselves buddhists, like the people infatuated with the Visuddhimagga.
for instance he says

“104. Wherever your attention alights, at this very point,
  experience.”

this is exactly the opposite of what the buddha says with sati sampajanna and a the big mistake people do today. They confuse tracking vedana-sanna-vitakka with nibanna, because they read that arhants are good at tracking those, so it means when a puthujjanas is good at tracking those, the puthujjana is an arhant.
Those people fail to understand that they need to filter vitakkas, filter sanna and vedana. And the first step is with vitakka, which will make the sanna-vedana good, ie with piti and sukha, and then there is right samadhi.
But puthujjanas are too infatuated with their ideas to even think that ideas need to be sorted out.
People who just track those love to say that ''doing nothing'' is samadhi, but it is just worthless.
THey do not understand that puthujjanas needs to purify what they experience. They do not understand that a puthujjana ''can have the mind of the buddha'', like people who invented mahayana say, while still being a puthujjana.
THe best that puthujjanas can come up with, on their won, is the non-ill will thoughts as good thoughts, but puthujjanas never ever think about the Nekkhamma, whereas it is really the thoughts of Nekkhamma, or more generally (in order to include even whatever happens in samadhi), dispassion, detachment, effacement, and so on which makes you progress. In fact, the whole path is based on this theme

There are, bhikkhus, these four knots. Which four? The bodily knot of
  craving, the bodily knot of ill-will, the bodily knot of attachment to
  religious rites, the bodily knot of holding on to 'This is the truth'.
  These, bhikkhus, are the four knots. For the direct knowledge of these
  four knots, bhikkhus, the five strengths should be developed. Which
  five?
Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the strength of conviction,
  founded on seclusion, founded on disenchantment, founded on cessation,
  resulting in detachment; he develops the strength of exertion, founded
  on seclusion, founded on disenchantment, founded on cessation,
  resulting in detachment; he develops the strength of mindfulness,
  founded on seclusion, founded on disenchantment, founded on cessation,
  resulting in detachment; he develops the strength of concentration,
  founded on seclusion, founded on disenchantment, founded on cessation,
  resulting in detachment; he develops the strength of discernment,
  founded on seclusion, founded on disenchantment, founded on cessation,
  resulting in detachment.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn50-102.html
THe puthujjanas who managed to think that thoughts of good will are good thoughts end up still being infatuated with that and the they come up with the wrong view that ''dukkha comes from not accepting everything'' and that ''nibanna is love'' and son. Those people never ever progress on the path because they lack half of the good thoughts and they are too infatuated with their wrong view to even try to base their life, what they do on seclusion, founded on disenchantment, founded on cessation, resulting in detachment.
THe whole point of the buddha is that right samadhi is reached with right thoughts, not by of focusing on a sound or visual object. When you do that you get wrong samadhi at best. Even with anapassati, the job is not to track breath but to calm whatever Sankhara you manage to be sensitive to, which all Sankharas normally, then to destroy them.
The problem of this list is that it is really general and lack too much details to base your life on it.
In searching for those lines, you see them printed on the book Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: A Collection of Zen and Pre-Zen Writings
https://books.google.com/books?id=u5dIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT178&lpg=PT178
here is the preface of the section dedicated to the infatuation of the zen people towards this wrong view.

Zen is nothing new, neither is it anything old. Long before Buddha was
  born the search was on in India, as the present work shows.
Long after man has forgotten such words as Zen and Buddha, satori and
  koan, China and Japan and America—still the search will go on, still
  Zen will be seen even in flower, and grass-blade, before the sun.
The following is adapted from the preface to the first version in
  English of this ancient work.
Wandering in the ineffable beauty of Kashmir, above Srinagar I come
  upon the hermitage of Lakshmanjoo.
It overlooks green rice fields, the garden, of Shalimar and Nishat
  Bagh, lakes fringed with lotus. Water streams down from a mountaintop.
Here Lakshmanjoo—tall, full bodied, shining—welcomes me. He shares
  with me this ancient teaching from the Vigyan Bhairava and Sochanda
  Tantra, both written about four thousand years ago, and from Malini
  Vijaya Tantra, probably another thousand years older yet. It is an
  ancient teaching, copied and recopied countless times, and from it
  Lakshmanjoo has made the beginning of an English version. I transcribe
  it eleven more times to get it into the form given here.
Shiva first chanted it to his consort Devi in a language of love we
  have yet to learn. It is about the Immanent experience. It presents
  112 ways to open the invisible door of consciousness. I see
  Lakshmanjoo gives his life to its practicing.
Some of the ways may appear redundant, yet each differs from any
  other. Some may seem simple, yet any one requires constant dedication
  even to test it.
Machines, ledgers, dancers, athletes balance. Just as centering or
  balance augments various skills, so it may awareness. As an
  experiment, try standing equally on both feet; then imagine you are
  shifting your balance slightly from foot to foot: just as balance
  centers, do you.
If we are conscious in part, this implies more inclusive
  consciousness. Have you a hand? Yes. That you know without doubt. But
  until asked the question were you cognizant of the hand apart?
Surely men as inspiritors, known and unknown to the world, have shared
  a common uncommon discovery. The Tao of Lao-tse, Nirvana of Buddha,
  Jehovah of Moses, the Father of Jesus, the Allah of Mohammed — all
  point to the experience.
No-thing-ness, spirit—once touched, the whole life clears.

no wonder people who invented zen completely fail to reach nibanna and are not even at the beginning of the noble path.

According to my understanding, Buddha is all-aware. Just because he didn't stated directly all 112 methods of attaing enlightenment (Vijñāna Bhairava Tantra), that doesn't mean he was not aware of them. Gautama Buddha formulated his teachings with the aim of ending all suffering in human being. Appart from his teachings, we was aware of many other things as well:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest.
  Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the
  monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few
  simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
  Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
  knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
  taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
  with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
  not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
  direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
  not taught them.
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of
  stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
  taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
  with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
  disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
  knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
  them.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
  the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
  duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of stress.'"
-- Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

I have heard there are about 80,000 methods or ways of attaining Nibbana.

..."And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."

If you haven't been taught them, you have probably been cheated. The Eightfold Noble Path is an internal process is self-awakening and it leads to cessation of suffering. The other things Buddha didn't teach do not relate to cessation of suffering, but the 80,000 methods of meditation do. Those methods must be found in many other spiritual traditions.

As Brahman Marino likes to think.

The Buddhist path has 3 elements:

Morality
Monastery over the mind
Wisdom

This method will take you to step 2 but not beyond. But again what you gain will not be the right type of Samadhi as you are not free from Vipallasa. Some practices here reenforce that soul is consciousness. At this stage, you will have to switch Vipassana.
Since this only takes you 2/3 of the way, with respect to the 8 fold path, at the most, even much less considering Release/Liberation itself, with the possibility of going astray, due to the lack of right view; so it is best you start with the Buddhist practice from day 1. Though the Path of Siva is not totally useless and misguided it is inferior to the Buddhist path, as Buddha learned all these techniques and beforehand and found a better path, leading to true liberation. Hence, the 8 fold path is what merits practice over the path of Siva.
The claim that the Buddha's way is part of the path of Siva is wrong as Buddhism is completely different in every aspect of morality, concentration and wisdom. Path of Siva takes up to concentration but not beyond. This too is not perfect. Path of Siva is not complete like the 8 fold path on all aspects of morality, concentration and wisdom, while wisdom being totally lacking.
NB: In Buddhism enlightenment is Release or liberation arising due to Wisdom, in Hinduism it is Samādhi. Buddhism also has Samādhi but takes a couple of steps further with Wisdom and Release. See: The Tenfold Path, From the Eightfold Path to the Tenfold Path and Ashtanga (eight limbs of yoga). The Buddha rejected the fact that deepest Samadhi is liberation and found that liberation is beyond which is Wisdom and Release. You can have Samadhi without a perfect Right View (Samadhi does not arise if you do not have some form of conducive view, through not Right View, which suspends the 5 Hindrances) but you cannot have Wisdom and Release without the Right View.

"Since this only takes you 2/3 of the way"... that's far. Really, householder Sirinath? Both, the questioners approach and householders missing right view.

So enlightenment means something different in Buddhism and Hinduism?

In Buddhism enlightenment is Release or liberation due to Wisdom, in Hinduism it is Samādhi. Buddhism also has Samādhi but takes a couple of steps further with Wisdom and Release. See: The Tenfold Path, From the Eightfold Path to the Tenfold Path and Ashtanga (eight limbs of yoga)

The different is right view, Upasaka. That's important. If not mention that, Upasaka teaches what Hindus do, not different. Upasaka can train eons on sila, samadhi, panna...


text:
What symbols represent Zazen?
I am looking for symbols which specifically represent Zazen, or, more generally the act of meditating.

The symbol for Zen meditation is Riding the Ox.
See Wikipedia article on Ten Oxherding Pictures.

The calf, bull or ox is one of the earliest similes for meditation practice. It comes from the Maha Gopalaka Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 33). It is also used in the commentaries, especially the one on the Maha Satipatthana Sutta (Digha Nikaya 22) and the Satipatthana Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10). As Buddhism spread throughout South-East Asia, the simile of the bull spread with it.

According to this explanation, the use of ox as symbol for meditation predates Zen, but on my memory I have not seen the ox used in any tradition other than Chan/Zen/Seon. Now technically, the ox is probably a symbol for the mind or something like that - so it is not the ox itself but riding it joyfully (symbolized by the flute) is what probably stands for the (successful) act of meditating.

Or perhaps, if you want to show the struggle you can use the fighting scene:

In Tibetan tradition the ox is replaced by an elephant:

In Pali Canon, the Buddha speaks on multiple occasions about herding the grazing cows, taming wild elephants, and training horses as metaphors for Buddhist practice. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche spoke about training our inner gorilla. Dza Kilung Rinpoche compared the gentle but steady approach to meditation with teaching a very young child. I think it should be safe to say that training an animal is probably a good symbol for meditation.
Other generic metaphors used by various Buddhist teachers for (not necessarily Zen, but definitely Buddhist) meditation, that come to mind, include:

Improvising a certain theme on a lute, with the strings not tied too tense nor too loose.
Flying a kite of mind, tied to the stake of the breath.
Practicing airplane "touch-and-goes".
Watching the running water calm down.
Sobering up without sleeping.
Cleaning the kitchen.
Weeding the yard or field.
Polishing a tile or a mirror.
Leveling jungle into a flat field.
Honing an arrow.
Heating or chilling a piece of smithwork to maintain the right temperature.

These metaphors hint at such factors as steadiness, balanced effort, removing the obstacles, and making incremental gradual progress.
Some of these might make good graphical symbols, too.

From Zen specifically:
Silver valleys and iron cliffs
Swallowing a hot ball of iron
Mingling your eyebrows with the patriarchs
Washing your bowl
Hunting the king of the king deer
Staring at the wall
Those are the ones that come most readily to mind.  There are probably scores more I’m forgetting from the various koan collections.  What’s listed above specifically refers to seated meditation, but virtually every koan has some symbol or metaphor that you can sorta shoehorn into applying to zazen e.g. putting on your seven piece robe, cutting off your finger, proceeding from the top of the flagpole, etc.  Phrases like that actually refer to specific aspects of big mind, but in many cases can be used to describe some of the mental states associated with zazen as well.

The most common symbol which implies meditation, and specifically Zen meditation, is a seated figure in a half- or full-lotus posture.


text:
What is breath?
There is a lot of talk on breath, now what is breath? What's the meaning?
Is it form? What of it? Is it an action? Is it a perception? A feeling? How should it be taken, if to be taken, so that it would be used right, focused on it right?
Addition: It should be seen to be encouraged to give answers after own investigations on field, having investigated breath, in and of itself.
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

In the context of Anapanasati or Anapanasati Sutta this is the respiratory process of breathing in and out.

FORMATION (SAṄKHĀRA)
Ayya, how many kinds of formation are there?
Avuso Visākha, there are these 3 kinds of formation

bodily formation, kāya,saṅkhāra
verbal formation, vacī,saṅkhāra
thought formation. citta,saṅkhāra
But what, ayya, is bodily formation, what is verbal formation, what is thought
  formation?

Avuso Visākha,

The in-and-out breaths, are bodily formation.
Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.
Perception and feeling are thought formation.

But, ayya,'

why are the in-and-out-breaths bodily formation;
why are thinking and pondering verbal formation;
why are perception and feeling thought formation?

~

The in-and-out-breaths, avuso Visākha—these are states bound up with the body. Therefore, they are bodily formation.
Avuso Visākha, one, having first thought and pondered, then breaks out into speech. Therefore, thinking and pondering are verbal formation.
Perception and feeling—these are mentally-connected states, bound up with the mind. Therefore, perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
So the breath is of bodily formations.
Normal breathing, viz., non-volitional, involuntary, uncontrolled breathing is not an action. Controlled breathing like pranayama, is an action as it is volitional or voluntary. Bening mindful of the respiratory process displaces ignorance once sees clearly the true nature of things through the breath, but the same cannot be said about controlled breathing, hence the reason Buddha abandoned these practices as per Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Mahā Sīha,nāda Sutta, Maha Saccaka Sutta. Controlled breathing is an unskilful action which is rooted in ignorance, hence reaping future conditioning. Non-controlled breathing dissolves formations and does not create new formations hence is skilful action. So controlled and mindful breathing is an action with karmic results. Being unaware of the breath and everything else, i.e., one is not practising any of the 4 foundations of mindfulness (Satipatthana), one is accumulating unskilful actions. When one is aware, i.e., practising any of the 4 foundations of mindfulness (Satipatthana), but not necessarily of the breath but compatible with the Satipatthana Sutta and related Suttas, then one still is accumulating skilful action.
The breath as 2 aspects:

movement of the air element - this aspect of the breath can only be perception - this is sensed by the mind sense door. The air element can only be perceived but not be felt.
touch sensation of the breath - this can be felt and perceived - this is felt by the body sense door and subsequently the mind sense door.

The movement of the breath is a perception. Giri-m-ananda Sutta mentions breath as a perception (sanna).
The perceived aspect of breath meditation is the Samatha part and felt part of the breath meditation is the Vipassana part. When once feels the breath at some point one will see a counterpart sign where you feel the touch. When the perceiving part of the breath meditation becomes stronger one starts seeing a mental image.
Breath meditation covers all 4 foundations of mindfulness (Satipatthana).

First Tetrad: Contemplation of the Body (kāya)

Discerning the in and out breathing (SA 8.10 begins with "he trains" in the first step)
Discerning long or short breaths (Ekottarika Agama 17.1 version adds "warm" and "cool" breaths)
Experiencing the whole body (sabbakāya). Pali versions add "he trains" in this step. Some Samyukta-Agama sutras meanwhile have "bodily-formations" in this step.[12]
Calming bodily formations (kāya-saṃskāra)

Second Tetrad: Contemplation of the Feeling (vedanā)

Experiencing rapture (pīti)[14]
Experiencing pleasure (sukha)
Experiencing mental fabrication (citta-saṃskāra)
Calming mental fabrication

Third Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mind (citta)

Experiencing the mind
Satisfying the mind
Steadying the mind (samādhi)
Releasing the mind

Fourth Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mental Objects (dhammā)

Dwelling on impermanence
Dwelling on dispassion (virāga). SA 8.10 instead has 'eradication'.
Dwelling on cessation (nirodha). SA 8.10 instead has 'dispassion'.
Dwelling on relinquishment (paṭinissaggā). SA 8.10 instead has 'cessation'.

Source: Anapanasati Sutta

So breathing in and out is not an action? Not watching an action, maybe a sequence? Upasaka?

Updated the answer.

The reason there is a lot of talk about breath is its intermediary function between voluntary and involuntary personal features in human beings. This is also a reflection on the strong emphasis which it has received as a symbolic or literal reference to subjective essence (spirit, soul).
The biological factors are obvious. As mammals we need respiration to survive as part of our sustained organic process. This is part of what constitutes human experience. We breathe, and this continues or we expire. The variable character of this breathing, however, is the focus of a number of liberation instructions or ideologies ostensibly disclosing meaning and purpose.
The reason that focal practices of the Dharma include attention to breath is its rhythmic, ever-present, and involuntary nature. We may learn to loosen our self-control and begin to enter into a condition of repose (calm reflection).
There is no requirement as to breath's role in doctrine or practice. As part of disciplines such as pranayama it may become an exclusive tool to help one move toward liberation. In certain Buddhist practices it may function as an element of practice while meditating having no influence upon breathing while so doing.

The Buddha did not teach to focus on breath. The question is non-sequitur.
The Buddha taught to abandon craving. When craving is abandoned, the mind will be quiet, silent & still. When the mind is quiet, silent & still, the breath will "visit" the mind. When the breath "visits" the mind, the mind remains unconcerned & detached about the breath and merely experiences the "visitor" as the "visitor" is.
It is similar to when a monk goes on alms round. Women, with their filial lusts, wish to feed the monk. The monks accepts the alms food but does not pursue the women. Similarly, the Noble Meditator does not pursue the breath. Instead, like the monks on alms round, the Noble Meditator maintains Noble Silence and allows the breath to visit or give.

Breath is a physiological process which can be voluntary or involuntary. When you don't try to control it, it proceeds at an involuntarily regulated pace. That's similar to blinking. When your eyes are open, they automatically blink once in a while. Breath is quite regular in its frequency, unlike blinking. Your heartbeat is also involuntary and regularly paced, but you usually cannot feel it (unless you have palpitations).
So, breath, is the only physiological process that I know of, which fulfills all these criteria: it proceeds involuntarily at a relatively regular pace and it can be felt through it's effects on the nostril, upper lip, movement of abdomen or movement of rib cage. It's frequency is also not too slow and not too fast, for observation of its effects.
Now how does that relate to Buddhism?
Well, the regularly paced change of effects on the nostril, upper lip, movement of abdomen or movement of rib cage that can be felt by a person, are sensations (vedanā). Not the breath itself, but the effect of the physiological process of involuntary breathing, causes detectable and observable sensations.
And how is this useful in Buddhism?
There is nothing mystical about the mind-breath connection in Buddhism, unlike prāṇāyāma in Hindu Hatha Yoga.
In meditation, the observable sensation (vedanā) caused by breathing is physically rooted and is something that the mind doesn't control, which the mind can use as an object to track, in order to cultivate concentration, instead of becoming bored and distracted.
If the meditator tries to observe something that his mind created, he might get carried away in imagination.
If the meditator tries to track an unchanging sensation like the sensation of his palm, he might get bored and fall asleep.
However, breathing is not imagined by the mind, and changes at a regular pace, so it makes a good meditation object for cultivation of concentration. Of course, the meditator could still get distracted or bored or fall asleep, but at least when he remembers that he had drifted off, he can come back to the observable sensation caused by breathing.

"Breath is a physiological process", given by God, accidentally... or maybe an act of will, react? Good to investigate what's the matter with breath.

Did breath come about due to being created by God or accidentally? Well, that's answered by the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

No, not at all, since one investigating the breath looks after the cause. Good if starting to get breath known, suffereing known. It's called Maha-puta, great-"seed" btw. investigation defender Ruben.

What's the cause of "a physiological process", what is breath?


text:
Union with Brahma, or company of Brahma?
The following phrase comes from DN 13:

“ayameva ujumaggo, ayamañjasāyano niyyāniko niyyāti takkarassa
brahmasahabyatāya, yvāyaṃ akkhāto brāhmaṇena pokkharasātinā”ti.

T.W. Rhys Davids translated here as:

‘This is the straight path, this the direct way which makes for
  salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of
  union with Brahmā. I mean that which has been announced by the Brahman
  Pokkharasādi.’

Bhikkhu Sujato translated here as:

“This is the only straight path, the direct route that leads someone
  who practices it to the company of Brahmā; namely, that explained by
  the brahmin Pokkharasāti.”

What does "brahmasahabyatāya" mean? What does "sahabyatāya" mean?
This translation could be meaningful. "Union with Brahman" sounds like the modern Hindu concept of Moksha which is a union with God or Ultimate Reality. On the other hand, "company of Brahma" sounds like rebirth into the Brahma realm. What's the correct interpretation?

This topic is thoroughly analyzed in a 2013 paper “Brahmanical Terminology and the Straight Way in the Tevijja Sutta" by Brett Shults.
There, Shults explains that "sahaya" means "friend", "companion" - therefore "sahavyata" means "companionship" or "fellowship".
Shults explains (as ChrisW said too) that the term refers to the Brahman's idea of The Goal, which Buddha then takes and clarifies according to the Buddhist proper interpretation.
Shults also argues that the meaning of the word is most probably "joining", "in a sense as we might speak of joining a club".
I personally think "sahaya" means something more like "sidekick" or "henchman" - i.e. someone who is always together with, but is "lesser" than, the main figure. The idea IMO is that one is in a state of joining with Brahma without actually being Brahma.

In DN 13 the term is originally used by Brahmins talking with each other, and so between them it meant whatever (non-Buddhist doctrine) they each understood it to mean.
At the end of the sutta the Buddha teaches them the four brahmaviharas and defines or explains that these are the path to "companionship with Brahma" -- i.e. I think he thus redefines brahmasahabyatāya (whatever it used to mean) in Buddhist terms, in a way that can be understood and agreed by the Brahmins.

My view would be that 'union' is the more rigorous word. 'Companionship' suggests a separation from Brahman but where there are 'not-two' separation is impossible.
Yoga is the art of union with reality, not the art of of becoming a distinct phenomenon.

I feel this is "in the audience/assembly of the brahma". So "company of the brahma" seems more right. This seems more like a literal translation.
Looking at the context union with the brahma might be right if the brahmins were teaching this. In the case the brahmins in question were teaching being born among the brahmas or brahma plane then company of the brahma is more correct.

DN 13 is not for Buddhists. It is an example of the Buddha's universal love; in that he taught something suitable for Brahmins; which probably also became the doctrine of Christianity. The Lord Buddha is the Lord of the whole world. MN 115 says there is only one Buddha is a world-system.
"Union with Brahman" merely means "Universal Love". Refer to MN 43, which refers to Boundless Liberation Via Loving-Kindness (which is said to not be the foremost liberation).
Previously, the Brahmans, like the Jews, believed they were a chosen or special people, born of Brahma's Mouth or Breath (refer to MN 93). But Buddha, which was later taught by Jesus, said Brahma is Universal Love (rather than exclusive tribal or caste self-love).
This is unrelated to "rebirth" or Hindu Moksha.

Householder Ruben, interested,
Would you say, perceive, that you are now in Union with Brahma-SE or in the company of Brahma-SE? Or even deny the relation, dependency, company or union with his host?
Would you say that you are here with Brahma-SE or of Brahma-SE?
In the same way there are being perceiving the body as the own, or the own in the body, ...
And likes as gained a human awareness, there are those who perceive own in this or that way and those free from the fetter of sakkaya-view, and those in all ways liberated.
So what is real? Worthy to seek for, worthy to go after?
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

The Buddha says:  This is a path to companionship with Brahmā.
Regardless of whether companionship means union or company, the Buddha says that this is a path that is related to Brahmā (and not to Emptiness / Void)
Company with Brahmā is lower than Union with Brahmā.
What sort of 'company' can it possibly be that will justify to be called The path of Lord Buddha ?
It is - becoming One with Brahmā.


text:
What are the six types of equanimity based on the household life?
I am reading SN 36.22, which says:

And what, bhikkhus, are the thirty-six kinds of feelings? Six types of
  joy based on the household life, six types of joy based on
  renunciation; six types of displeasure based on the household life,
  six types of displeasure based on renunciation; six types of
  equanimity based on the household life, six types of equanimity based
  on renunciation. These are called the thirty-six kinds of feelings.
  “And what, bhikkhus, are the hundred and eight kinds of feelings? The
  above thirty-six feelings in the past, the above thirty-six feelings
  in the future, the above thirty-six feelings at present. These are
  called the hundred and eight kinds of feelings.

What are the six types of equanimity based on the household life?

It's described in the Sutta: based on the six kinds of senses there are six kinds, in the case it's missed in the Sutta. But good that householder investigates this matter.

Is this a duplicate of https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25046/what-is-the-difference-between-householder-and-renunciation-equanimity?r=SearchResults

This thread contains the right answer for me. The "duplicate thread" does not.

(E) Therein, what are the 6 kinds of equanimity of the household life (cha gehasitā upekkhā)?
(25) On seeing a form with the eye, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend form.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(26) On hearing a sound with the ear, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend sound.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(27) On smelling a smell with the nose, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend smell.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(28) On tasting a taste with the tongue, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend taste.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(29) On feeling a touch with the body, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend touch.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(30) On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend mind-object.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
These are the 6 kinds of equanimity of the household life.

Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta
So the neutral feeling or equanimous feeling experienced, in the case of a householder leads to ignorance. The equanimity, in this case, is not been non-judgemental.

So the neutral feeling in the case of a householder leads to ignorance. yes, but also for a recluse if not really renounced the world.