text:
Monks and politics
Should monks be envolved with Politics or Governments? I think the answer is a clear NO, but I have seen things like that so I would like to doublecheck and ask where is this "rule"? Vinaya?

In DN2, the Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life, the Buddha speaks of virtues in three sections of his discourse; The Lesser Section on Virtue, the Intermediate Section on Virtue, and The Great Section on Virtue. Part of the Intermediate Section on Virtue reads:

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

If even speaking of kings, ministers of state, armies, and battles is considered lowly, then it seems implicit that to be involved in politics and governments would also be lowly and not virtuous for one "living off food given in faith" i.e. an almsman or monk.

Yes, but this part is still open to interpretation I guess.. I image the Buddha gave more clear and specific guidelines for that (politics). Let's wait and see, but Thanks that was a good answer

When I read through the Vinaya rules briefly I don't notice one which obviously prevents monks' being involved in secular politics.
DN 2 (see @Robin111's answer) suggests it's inappropriate, but I don't see a Vinaya rule on the subject.
Rājā Sutta (Ud 2.2) is similar:

Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we were sitting gathered here at the assembly hall when this discussion arose: 'Friends, which of these two kings has greater wealth, greater possessions, the greater treasury, the larger realm, the greater stock of riding animals, the greater army, greater power, greater might: King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha or King Pasenadi of Kosala?' This was the discussion that had come to no conclusion when the Blessed One arrived."
"It isn't proper, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should talk on such a topic. When you have gathered you have two duties: either Dhamma-talk or noble silence."

“Is the Participation of Buddhist Monks in Thai Politics still Taboo?” by Katewadee Kulabkaew is on-topic:

Buddhist monks are known as world renouncers. In Thailand, the ideal monk has nothing to do with worldly matters, including impure activities like the lust for power or with materialistic concerns like politics. But throughout the past two decades, Thai monks are getting more involved in national politics and in the politics of Buddhism itself. The Thai public usually frowns upon clerics who interfere in such matters. However, political monks enjoy an increasing number of supporters.
The Thai constitution denies to monks the right to vote and thus strips them of the other political rights enjoyed by Thai citizens in general. The Thai state has decided to deny monks these rights with the ideological goal of protecting the purity of Buddhism – a pillar of the national identity and of the society’s moral consciousness. Some monks however have discovered a backdoor through which to play a role in politics.
Generally, monks’ political status depends on interactions between a Buddhist state and its sangha or monastic order, which vary across Buddhist societies and their distinct cultural and historical contexts. In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks are allowed to run for political office and are free to establish their own political parties. As Sri Lankan monks have played an important role as nationalist leaders in many political struggles for Buddhist-Sinhalese dominance, there is public acceptance of their participation in politics. Sri Lankan Buddhists interpret the national sangha’s political activism as part of a holy and selfless mission, equivalent to practicing the Dhamma.
In contrast, such activities are considered unthinkable for Thai monks. Thailand has a centuries-long historical legacy of monastic orders controlled and disciplined by secular rulers. That legacy leaves no room for positive views toward monks that disobey the governance of Buddhist rulers, whose traditional mandate is to uphold and protect the religion.
Successive Thai governments have labelled monks’ political activism as improper and even something that could represent a security threat to the state. The Sangha Council has banned monks from participation in politics, issuing decrees to that effect at government instruction in 1974 and again in 1995. Last year the Supreme Patriarch signed yet another Sangha Council decree prohibiting political activities in monasteries.

So that seems to say that there a monks who want to be political, but who are not allowed to be, in Thailand.
Conversely there have been monks in Sri Lanka, associated with organisations which are described as political or nationalist -- for example some of these Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism organizations were founded by Theras.
There have also been some monks engaged in nationalist politics in Myanmar -- for example the "Ma Ba Tha" -- Wikipedia says that too (i.e. a bit like in Thailand) contravenes the organization which coordinates the Sangha with the State:

Some PAB members are connected to the 969 Movement. In May 2017, the State Sangha Maha Nayaka Committee, which regulates the Buddhist clergy, ordered the group disbanded. The group renamed itself as the Buddha Dhamma Charity Foundation, which government officials was also outlawed, according to government officials.

Therefore perhaps the Vinaya rule you're looking for (or the rule you'd expect) doesn't exist, and is instead a matter of interpretation (which varies), a topic for the Sangha to self-regulate, and/or to be regulated by the State.
Perhaps monks who are involved in "Buddhist nationalism" see that as (and if necessary justify that as being) dhamma-related and/or "dhamma-talk" (karaṇīyaṃ—dhammī vā kathā).
If there isn't a rule, possibly the topic didn't arise in the Buddha's lifetime. There are some stories of the Buddha meeting kings, but so far as I remember they tend to be like this one -- or the Buddha once tried unsuccessfully to stop a war (maybe that counts as being involved with politics).


text:
Stabilizing the counterpart sign
Stabilizing the counterpart sign (nimitta) isn't easy. Is there a 'technique' that leads to stabilize it? I.c. is there a 'technique' to develop/cultivate intensively the absorption factors (jhanangas)?
With 'stabilizing' I mean: making the nimitta sharp, focused, completely free from tension (of the panca nivarana), so that absorption (1st jhana) can be attained.

The prepatory steps (precepts, location, time, etc.) are just as important as the actual practice. Ven.Buddhadasa's detailed anapanasati's instruction might be useful..

You're welcome. Glad that it helps..

To stabilise the nimitta when doing breath meditation requires one to ignore it and continue to keep ones focus on the object of meditation.Maintain the focus on the breath point and the  nimitta will stabilise on its own.

Here is a quote from "The Jhanas" by Ajahn Brahmavamso.
In here he gives the following techniques to stabilize the nimitta. He also discusses a suitable and a useless nimitta, how to shine it up and how to disturb a stable nimitta:

SUITABLE NIMITTA AND USELESS NIMITTA
It is very helpful to cultivate nimitta of the sort perceived as a light. These "light nimittas" are the best vehicle for transporting the meditator into the Jhanas. However, it is just possible, but rarely done, to enter a Jhana by using "feeling nimittas" instead. By this I mean that one sees no lights in the mind, instead one experiences a feeling of bliss in the mind. It is important to note that the sense of touch has been transcended and such a "feeling" of bliss is experienced completely by the mind sense. It is a pure mental object again, but perceived as relating closely to a physical feeling of bliss. This is a bona-fide nimitta. But it is much more difficult to work with such as a nimitta to gain access to Jhana, though it is not impossible. For these reasons, it is recommended to cultivate the light nimitta if one aspires for the Jhana.
There are some visual nimittas that are of no use on the path into Jhana. It is helpful to know these "useless" nimitta so that one will waste no time with them.
Visions. Sometimes whole scenes can appear clearly in the mind. There might be landscapes, buildings and people. They may appear familiar or strange. It might be fascinating to watch such visions, but they are of little use. Moreover, they are meaningless and one should certainly not take them as some revelation of truth! Experience shows that visions arising at this stage are notoriously deceptive and completely untrustworthy. If one likes to waste time, one can linger on them a while. But the recommended thing to do is to remove all interest and go back to the beautiful breath. Such complex nimitta are merely a reflection of an overcomplicated mind. The mind should have been calmed into simplicity much more effectively before letting go of the breath. When one sustains the attention on the beautiful breath, uninterrupted for long periods of time, then one is training in simplicity. Then when the breath disappears, a simple unified nimitta arises, one that is suitable for progress.
The Firework Nimitta. A less elaborate nimitta, which is still overcomplicated, can be called the "firework nimitta." As the name suggests, this consists of many bursts of light coming and going, never lasting long and exhibiting much movement. There may be several bursts of light at the same time, even of different colors. Again, this firework nimitta is a sign that the mind is still too complicated and very unstable. If one wants, one can enjoy the sideshow for a short time, but one should not waste too much time there. One should ignore all the razzele-dazzele of the firework nimitta, return to the breath, and develop more one-pointedness and calm.
The Shy Nimitta. The next type of nimitta can be called the "shy nimitta," a single pure light that flashes up quickly and then disappears. After a few moments, it flashes up again. Each time, it lasts only a second or two. Such a nimitta is much more encouraging. Its simplicity shows that the mind is one-pointed. Its power is a sign that pitisukha is strong. But its inability to remain after breaking through into consciousness shows that the level of calm is not quite enough. In such a situation, one need not return to the beautiful breath yet. Instead, one patiently waits, developing more calm, allowing the mind to become more receptive to the very shy nimitta. As will be explained at greater length later, this nimitta disappears because the mind overreacts to its arrival, usually with excitement or fear. By establishing more solid calm and having the confidence to not react at all, the shy nimitta returns and stays longer each time. Soon, such a nimitta loses its shyness and, feeling accepted within the mind's calmness, remains a long time. One should attempt this approach first; But if the nimitta continues being "shy," with no indication that it is remaining longer, then one should return to the beautiful breath and ignore the shy nimitta. When one has built more tranquility of mind with the beautiful breath, then one can return to the shy nimitta to see if it will establish itself this time.
The Point Nimitta. Another type of nimitta is the "point nimitta," a simple and powerful light, but ever so small, which persists many seconds. This nimitta can be very useful. It shows that one-pointedness is excellent, calm is sufficient, but pitisukha is still a bit lacking. However, all one needs to. do is gently look deeper into the point nimitta, letting mindfulness zero in, then it appears as if one's awareness comes closer to this nimitta and its size starts to increase. As it expands a little, one should keep one's focus on the center, not on the edges, nor beyond the edges. By maintaining the mind's focus sharply on the center of the point nimitta, it increases power, it grows in pitisukha. Soon the nimitta unfolds into the best nimitta of all.
The Best Nimitta. The best nimitta of all, that which is the most suitable for Jhanas, begins as being similar to the full moon at midnight in a sky free of clouds. It rises unhurried when the beautiful breath softly disappears. It takes three or four seconds to establish its presence and settle down, remaining still and very beautiful before the mind's eye. As it remains without effort it grows brighter, more luminous. Soon it appears brighter than the sun at midday, radiating bliss. It becomes, by far, the most beautiful thing one has ever seen. Its beauty and power will often feel more than one can bear. One wonders whether one can take so much bliss of such extreme power. But one can. There's no limit to the bliss one can feel. The nimitta explodes, drowning one in even more bliss, or one dives into the center of the radiating ecstasy. If one remains there, it is Jhana.
SHINING UP THE NIMITTA
It is a far-reaching insight to realize that this nimitta is actually an image of one's mind. Just like one sees an image of one's face when one looks in a mirror, one sees an image of one's mind in the profound stillness of this meditation stage. The nimitta is a reflective image of one's mind.
The Importance of Virtue. So when the nimitta appears dull, or even dirty, it means that one's mind is dull, even dirty! Usually, this is because one has been lacking in virtue recently, possibly angry, or maybe self centered. At this stage of meditation, one is looking directly at one's mind and there is no opportunity for deceit. One always sees the mind as it truly is. So, if one's nimitta appears dull and strained, then one should clean up one's act in daily life. One should undertake moral precepts, speak only kindly, and be selfless in service. This stage of meditation when nimittas appear makes it abundantly clear that virtue is an essential ingredient for success in meditation.
Having taught many meditation retreats over the years, I have noticed that the meditators who have the easiest progress and most sensational results, are those who are joyously generous, whose nature would never allow them to harm another being, who are soft spoken, gentle and very happy. Their beautiful lifestyle gives them a beautiful mind. And their beautiful mind supports their virtuous lifestyle. Then when they reach this stage of the meditation and their mind is revealed in the image of the nimitta, it is so brilliant and pure that it leads them easily to Jhana. It demonstrates that one cannot lead a heedless life and self indulgent lifestyle and have easy success in one's meditation. On the other hand, purifying one's conduct and developing compassion, at the same time prepares the mid for meditation.
The best remedy, then, for shinning up a dull or dirty nimitta, is to purify one's conduct outside the meditation.
Focusing On the Beautiful Center. The above being said, if one's conduct in daily life isn't too outrageous, one can shine up the dirty nimitta in the meditation itself This is achieved by focusing the attention on the center of the nimitta. Most areas of the nimitta may appear dull, but the very center of the nimitta is always the brightest and purest part. It is the soft center of an otherwise stiff and unworkable nimitta. As one focuses on the center, it expands like a balloon to produce a second nimitta, purer and brighter. One looks into the very center of this second nimitta, the spot where it is the brightest of all and that balloons up into a third nimitta even purer, even brighter. Gazing into the center effectively shines up the nimitta. One continues in this way until the nimitta is beautifully brilliant.
When, in life, one has developed a strong faultfinding mind, obsessively picking out what's wrong in this and that, then one will find it almost impossible to pick out the beautiful center of a dull nimitta and focus attention thereon. One has become so conditioned to pick out the blemishes in things that it goes against the grain to ignore all the dull and dirty areas of a nimitta to focus exclusively on the beautiful center. This demonstrates once again how unskillful attitudes in life can stop success in deep meditation. When one develops a more forgiving attitude to life, becoming more embracing of the duality of good and bad-not being a negative obsessive nor a positive excessive but balanced "acceptive" - then not only can one see the beauty in mistakes, but one can also see the beautiful center in a dull and dirty nimitta.
It is essential to have a bright and luminous nimitta to take one through to Jhana. A dull and dirty one is like an old, beat up car that will break down on the journey. The dull nimitta, when not made to shine, usually vanishes after some time. So, if one is unable to shine up the nimitta, then go back to the beautiful breath and build up more energy on that part called the "beautiful!" Generate greater Pitisukha, huge happiness and joy, along with the breath. Then next time the breath disappears and a nimitta arises, it will not be a dull one but something more beautiful and luminous. In effect, one has shined up the nimitta in the stage of the beautiful breath.
STABILIZING THE NIMITTA
When the nimitta is very bright, it is also very beautiful. It usually appears unearthly in the depth of its beauty and more wonderful than anything one has ever experienced before. Whatever the color of the nimitta, that color is a thousand times richer than anything that can be seen with one's eyes. Such awesome beauty will captivate one's attention, making the nimitta remain. The more beautiful the nimitta, the more likely is the nimitta to become stable and not jump about. Thus one of the best methods to stabilize the nimitta, so that it persists a long time, is to shine the nimitta into brilliance, as just explained above.
However, some brilliant nimittas still don't last long. They burst into the mental field of awareness with strong pitisukha, but they persist not much longer than a glorious shooting star in a clear night sky. These nimittas have power but lack sufficient stability.
In order to stabilize such nimitta, it is important to know that the two enemies that disperse the nimitta are fear and excitement.
Fear. Of the two enemies, fear is more common. These nimittas appear so immense in their sheer power and beauty, that one often becomes very afraid. Fear is a natural response to the recognition of something much more powerful than oneself. Moreover, the experience is so unfamiliar that one's personal security looks seriously threatened. It seems as if one might lose all control. And one will-blissfully so-if one would only let go of the "self" and trust in the nimitta! The one would experience desire and control overwhelmed by supramundane bliss, and, in consequence, much of what one took to be one's self would vanish leaving a real sense of freedom. It is the fear of losing part of one's ego that is the root cause of alarm when a powerful nimitta appears.
Those who have understood something of the Buddha's teaching of Anatta, that there is no self, will have an easier time of transcending this fear and accepting the nimitta. They realize that they have nothing to protect and so can let go of control, trust in the emptiness, and selflessly enjoy the beauty and power. Thus the nimitta settles. Even an intellectual understanding that there is no one in here will help overcome the terror of letting go of the innermost controller. However, those who have no appreciation at all of the truth of no self, may overcome this fear by substituting it with the more powerful perception of bliss, as in the simile of the child and the swimming pool.
When a child, who has just learned to feel confident upright on dry land, sees for the first time a swimming pool of water, they are likely to be scared. The unfamiliar environment threatens their security, and they are deeply concerned how their little bodies can manage on such an unsolid material. They are afraid of losing control. So they put one toe into the water and quickly pull it out. That felt all right. So they place three toes into the water, just a little bit longer. That was okay too. Next they dip a whole foot in. Then a whole leg. As the confidence increases and the swimming pool begins to promise much fun, the anticipation of joy becomes stronger than the fear. The child jumps into the water and. immerse itself fully. Then they have such a great time that even their parents can hardly get them to leave!
Similarly, when fear arises with the powerful nimitta, it is all one can do to just stay there. for an instant. This is like the child dipping one toe in the water, and drawing it out in an instant. One then reflects how that felt. To say it felt wonderful is an understatement! So, next time, one is encouraged by they previous experience to stay longer. This is like putting three toes in the water, then a whole foot. Later, one will find oneself staying even longer with the strong nimitta, like putting the whole leg in the water, and it feels even better. By this gradual method, confidence soon becomes strong and the expectation of joy so dominant, that when the awesome nimitta arises one jumps right in and immerses oneself fully. Moreover, one has such a great time that it is only with great difficulty that anyone can make you come out.
Another skillful means for overcoming fear at this stage, especially when fear is not strong, is to perform a little mental ceremony of handing over trust. It is as if one has been the driver of one's meditation up until now, and now is the moment to hand over the control completely to the nimitta. One may imagine handing over a bunch of keys to the powerful nimitta, like getting a trusted friend to take over driving one's car. With the imaginary gesture of passing the keys, one passes over control. One then lets go of all driving and controlling, and puts full trust in the nimitta. Such a transfer of faith from oneself to the nimitta usually leads to stability of the nimitta and its subsequent deepening.
Indeed, one is placing faith in the knowing and taking it away from the doing. This is the theme underlying the whole of the meditation path. One trains from the very beginning in passive awareness, that is, the ability to be clearly aware without interfering at all with the object of awareness. Energy, with faith, goes into the mindfulness and away from activity. When one learns to watch with ease an ordinary object like the breath without meddling; then one's passive awareness will next be challenged with a more seductive object like the beautiful breath. If one passes this test, then the most challenging object of all, the nimitta, will be presented to you as the ultimate test of passive awareness. For if one gets involved with the nimitta with even the slightest of controlling, then one fails the final examination and gets sent back to the beautiful breath for remedial training. The more one meditates, the more one learns to be powerfully mindful while letting go of all doing. When this skill is fully perfected, it is easy to pass the final test and stabilize the nimitta with flawless passive awareness.
The simile of the mirror is applicable here. When one looks in a mirror at the reflection of one's face and the image moves back and forth, then it is futile to try to stabilize the image by holding the mirror still! In fact, if you try this, the reflection moves even more. The image in the mirror is moving because that which is watching is moving. The mirror doesn't move and so does not need to be held still. The fault is with the knower.
The nimitta is in reality a reflection of the mind, an image of that which is knowing. When this reflection, this nimitta, moves back and forth, then it is futile trying to stabilize the nimitta by holding the nimitta still! In fact, if you try this, the nimitta moves even more. The nimitta is moving because that which is watching the nimitta is moving. When this is understood, one gives up on doing any holding and, instead, focuses on that which knows, letting that come to stillness. Because when that which knows doesn't move, then neither does the nimitta. Like the reflection of one's face in the mirror, when the knower is still, then so is its reflection.
Excitement. I mentioned above that the other enemy of the nimitta's stability is excitement or exhilaration, what I sometimes call the "Wow!" response. It is understandable that when there is success in the meditation and amazing thing happen, then the meditator can get very excited. This is especially so when a wonderful nimitta first appears, more radiant than the sun and more beautiful than the most exquisite of flowers! It is common, then, for the mind to say, "Wow!" Unfortunately, immediately after the "Wow" the nimitta disappears and may be reluctant to return for a very long time, even months. In order to avoid such a calamity, one should bear in mind Ajahn Chah's famous simile of the STILL FOREST POND.
In the late afternoon, forest monks, wandering in the jungle for solitude, would seek out a river or pool. They needed the water to drink, bathe, and maybe wash a few robes. After drinking and washing, they would set up their forest monk's umbrella draped with mosquito netting away from the pool to spend the evening in meditation. Ajahn Chah said that some times he would sit in his mosquito net with his eyes open to watch the jungle animals come to the water at twilight, also to drink and bathe. But the animals would only come out to drink when he was very still. If he moved, they would sense his presence, run back into the jungle and not return for many days. Ajahn Chah knew how to sit very still, so that the jungle animals didn't know that he was there. He would enjoy watching them drinking and playing, sometimes squabbling, and he would delight in the antics of these wild children of nature.
On some occasions, Ajahn Chah would sit extremely still. Then, after the usual jungle animals had finished by the lake, some strange and wonderful animals would cautiously emerge from the undergrowth's darkness. These beings, if they were animals at all, were so beautiful and rare that no one had ever told him about their existence. Or if they had, then he hadn't understood. He didn't know their names. As they came out from the jungle, their ears would scan the whole area and their noses would timidly sniff for any danger. If Ajahn Chah stirred, even slightly, or softly said, "Wow," these beings would pick up his presence instantaneously and flee back into the jungle, not reemerging for months. They' were the shyest of all beings who live in the jungle, and also the most rare and wondrously beautiful. They are hard to describe.
In this accurate simile, the forest pool represents the mind, and the forest monk sitting near its edge stand for the mindfulness. When mindfulness is still, the "animals" like the beautiful breath and pitisukha come out from the "jungle" to "play" by the mind's edge. Mindfulness must remain still and not interfere otherwise the beautiful breath and pitisukha will nervously withdraw back into the jungle, not easily coming out again. But if the knower, mindfulness, remains extremely still, after the beautiful breath and pitisukha have finished their business in the mind, then the beautiful, shy nimitta will cautiously emerge to play in the mind. If the nimitta senses that mindfulness isn't so still, if it hears the knower thinking "Wow," then the bashful nimitta will immediately run back into the jungle, and it will not re-emerge for a very long time. Mindfulness blew the opportunity by moving.
So when the powerful and beautiful nimittas appear, one must remember this simile and watch with the stillness of an Ajahn Chah, sitting absolutely motionless by the remote forest lake. One must restrain all excitement. Then one will watch this strange and wonderful nimitta make merry in the mind for a very long time, until it is ready to take one into Jhana.
DISTURBING THE STABLE NIMITTA
When the nimitta is stable and radiant, then one is at the entrance to Jhana. One must train to wait patiently here, maintaining the stillness through the lack of any doing, until the causes or conditions are ready for the transition into Jhana. However, at this stage some meditators make the mistake of disturbing the process by "peeking" at the edge of the nimitta.
Once the nimitta is stable and bright, one might become interested in its shape, or size. Is it circular or oblong? Are the edges precise or ill defined? Is it small or is it big? When one looks at the edge, mindfulness loses its one-pointedness. The edge is the place of duality, of inside and outside. And duality is the opposite of one-pointedness. If one looks at the edge, the nimitta will become unstable, and may even disappear. One should keep mindfulness on the very center of the nimitta, away from the edge, until any perception of edge vanishes into the non, duality of one-pointedness. Similarly, if one attempts to expand or contract the nimitta, then one will also be sacrificing the essential one, pointedness. Expansion and contraction involve the perception of size, and that involves awareness of the edge of the nimitta and the space that lies beyond. Again one is falling back into the trap of duality and losing one-pointedness, through this unprofitable expanding and contracting.
So when the nimitta is stable and bright, just be patient. Don't move. One is building up the Jhana factors of pitisukha and one, pointedness. When they are built to sufficient power, they will unfold into Jhana by themselves.

Wow. Incredible information and very pertinent to me at my point in the jhana journey. Thank you.

Np. I'm glad it could help you out. You might also like "A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas": http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrnguna.pdf

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Any ideas about the energy feel I constantly have?
I'm going to try to describe this, but I'm honestly not sure how to. I have this vibration feeling just under my skin what seems like all the time. It's like a feeling of energy but it feels like it's vibrating. Oddly, if I get awoken abruptly, I actually feel the energy go CRAZY to the point my whole body shakes. Sorry in advance if this sounds crazy, as I really don't know the best way to describe it.

Could you please explain how do you relate that to Buddhism? I would like to help you with an answer, but I can see no connection.

Maybe you should see a medical doctor, probably a neurologist.

maybe a really intense experience of continuity or affective obstruction. not to validate your experience as being meaningfully buddhist, it could just be a psychological problem

I think it is an interesting experience and you may try to ask different people about it, but be sober accepting their answers. My personal experience suggests, if you feel good and you are advanced then it is OK. If you don’t feel good, that maybe you have to do something with that.

Allison, can you please clarify if you are asking about an experience that occurs during meditation or  "all the time"? That will help determine whether this is on topic for this site or not. Thanks.

Sabbo pajjalito loko, sabbo loko pakampito.
The entire universe is nothing but combustion and vibration.
When meditating and you mind gets sensitive you will start feeling the vibration in your body. Also when meditating when old formation dissolve this creates different experiences including vibrations.

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


text:
Immaterial Absorptions and cultivating wisdom
Is it correct that only the 4 lower jhanas (rupa jhanas) are useful for cultivating insight (panna) because the meditator's mind is too absorbed when he enters successively the immaterial jhanas (arupa jhanas)?

Am I right when I state that the only reason to develop the jhanas is to stabilize the mind and then, with this stabilized mind, to analyze the three characteristics. If this is correct, than I do not see any reason to cultivate the arupa jhannas further.

Entering the 4th jhana (the most focused of the four) is best before doing focused insight practice (vipassana)
The immaterial jhanas are related to some of the Stages of Insight (achieving one can spontaneously lead to the other) but I have never seen it recommended in reference to Vipassana practice. Bavo Lievens was saying in his book that apparently some people who have never cultivated the form jhanas can spontaneously experience some of the formless jhanas! This would make sense why certain drugs (e.g. marijuana, shrooms) lead to states that feel like descriptions of the formless jhanas but do not have the stability and clarity of the form jhanas.
I've actually seen it said in some places that the formless jhanas can be distractive due to their more permanent, expansive nature, making it harder to see the 3 characteristics.
The "form" jhanas on the other hand lead to a centered state of mind which readily allows penetrative clarity into the 3 characteristics, the essence of vipassana and Awakening and disentangling the chain of suffering.

In MN 70, the Buddha taught a seven-fold classification of practitioners. Depending on the various dominant faculties, the immaterial attainments are must-have to some class of disciples (ie. the "Liberated both ways", the "Body witness", etc.)..

That is false. In the Anupadda Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html) the Ven. Sariputta enttered into the various jhanas, arupa jhanas, and the cessation of perception and feeling, and used each of them as a basis for insight. The only difference was that in the case of the last of the arupajhanas (the sphere of neither perception nor nonperception) and the cessation of perception and feeling, the Ven. Sariputta had to withdraw from jhana in order to practice insight.


text:
Losing my religion, and shikantaza
I was raised in a secular family, went to CofE church a little as a young child, but only to support my mum. Actually I'm way more drawn to Nietzsche now than Christianity, though I cannot see any answers in his work.
I visited Thailand as a teenager, took a few meditation classes, and would say I had a sort of conversion experience upon reading more about Buddhism, in general. But don't feel like there's any reason to keep my faith; it hasn't I think helped my mental health or my life, only got me to where I am today. Almost spiritually exhausted.
In effect, I feel like I have nothing to look forward to and nothing to look back at. I am scared of dying, but not to the extent that I would assume a religion to cheer myself up.
For a long time I believed that I won't be annihilated when I die, but the more I think about it, and I have done so a lot, the more it seems that this is an irrelevance, something that tells me about my life now not the future.
But, I can sometimes feel good in the present moment, and wondered whether shikantaza might help me feel better about that. I can't find an exact phrase to describe that, but maybe Soto zen might help me to be how I am or want to be, in life and death, even though I am so tired with everything but this fluctuating enjoyment of now. Which incidentally, does not seem very Nietzschean: I don't place much value on happiness as a way of life hedonism etc.
I have visited a local Soto group, without meeting a teacher there, and enjoyed doing so. The people seemed cool etc., too. But I wanted to ask if Soto meditation has the answers to the rest of my post, or what the answers were. Even what I am asking.
Thank you for any encouragement or for any insight.

Shikantaza means "just sitting" or "single-minded sitting". It is a state of being where you are present here and now, no matter on what you experience, in body or mind.
About losing your religion: the Buddha said that there are three marks of existence, one of them is impermanence of all compound things (anicca). In other words, anything that once begins to exist, one day ends (changes to other thing or ceases to exist). So your opinion about what is your religion, or even yourself and what you consider your religion, will certainly change and/or cease to exist.
About your annihilation when you die: one of main questions that buddhism bring to us is this: "What is this I?"? Because most of times we get identified with things that we bring with us, like the body that we carry or the thoughts and emotions that we have. We think that these things are "me", however, these also are compound things that began one day and that will cease to exist certainly. If you strip yourself of all impermanent things in yourself, what remains? Is there something that remains? So what is this that you call "I"? Before answering to where will you go when you die, you must answer what is this that you call "I" and answer what in this "I" dies with the death of the body.
Zen buddhism have quite diverse opinions about where are one going when s/he dies. Each master say one thing, but for certainly, the most important thing (and that's what shikantaza and enlightenment is all about) is to be totally in the present moment. This does not means that it's wrong to make plans for the future: on the contrary, it means that even making plans, you are totally conscious that you are in the present moment, and any plan may not happen, and even knowing that you are fine.
Suffering (dukkha) for buddhism is also inherent in all compound things, because when they cease to exist, if one haves desire or attachment for it, s/he will suffer. Buddhism says that there is a root, a cause for desire or attachment to exist, that is a kind of ignorance, a delusion, that prevent one of experiencing the reality as it really is. And that's what about shikantaza: experiencing the reality as it is, completely, here and now.

I agree with you concerning Nietzsche: there should not be the answers in his works, because his life, especially its end, :-) witnesses that he was faced in front of good problems, but he found no good solutions  (conversely to Buddha :-) ) It seems for me that practices usually give some experience and a spiritual ground for your life. So this is not a question of belief, this is a question of experience. So I allow myself to recommend you to look at two books: “Zen training” by Katsuki Sekida and “What the Buddha Taught” by Walpola Rahula.

Here is another pdf link for "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. In the link above, there are some odd things added to the text such as the "Instructions for Life" on page 55 which are not part of Dr. Rahula's original text. http://bs.dila.edu.tw/zh/downloads/download_document.html?gid=4210

@Robin111 Thanks. I don’t read the linked book, because I have read only Russian translation of “"What the Buddha Taught"”, so I get a link to the first English version which I found by Google.


text:
What did the Buddha mean when he spoke about samma samadhi?
What did the Buddha mean when he spoke about samma samadhi?
Did he mean access concentration (upacara samadhi) or full absorption (appana samadhi) or momentary concentration (khanika samadhi)?

The Suttas usually define Samma-Samadhi as the four jhanas, but in some Suttas it gives a different explanation. For example, in the Mahacattarisa Sutta the Buddha said:

The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration
  with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind
  equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right
  speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right
  mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports &
  requisite conditions.
(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html )

In the interpretation of the commentaries, any of the three levels of concentration can be sufficient, but in the case of momentary concentration, it would at least need to have the intensity of access concentration although it wouldn't have the duration of access concentration.

Hi Bakmoon,The explanation in the Mahacattarisa Sutta is "still" talking about the Jhanas.Remember the Jhanas is a state free from the five hindrances.When developing the Noble Path you are freeing yourself from the hindrances.All you need is the factor of One pointedness(Any singleness of mind) and your practicing the Jhanas.When the Buddha said Samma Samadhi he meant The Jhanas.

Hi Orion. The exact nature of the jhanas is subject to a great deal of debate and I just wanted to give a brief answer to the questioner without delving into the details. They framed their question using commentarial terminology, so I answered them from the commentarial tradition, and in the commentaries, Aramanupanijhana is more than just the five hindrances. Lakkhanupanijhana doesn't need to be fixed concentration, but usually when people just use the word jhana they are talking about Aramanupanijhana.

Different linages may interpret this differently. This is Samadhi developed with awareness of the reality of the present moment rather than a perceptional or external element. E.g. the breath, sensation can be considered Samma Samadhi where as Samadhi based perception, greed or hatred is not Samma. The Samadhi developed outside Vippassana generally is not Samma, but can later be covered to Samma by turning to Vippassana (realising the 3 Characteristics and arising and passing away.)


text:
Have any Buddhist thinkers responded to the critique of the Brahma Sutras?
By far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy, which almost all Hindus nowadays belong to, is the Vedanta school, which is based on an ancient Hindu work called the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras.  The Brahma Sutras consist of a series of aphorisms which summarize and systematize the philosophical teachings of a set of Hindu scriptures called the Upanishads.  They also spend some time defending the philosophy of the Upanishads against rival schools of Indian philosophy.  In particular, here is what they say concerning Buddhism:

Topic-4: Refutation of Buddhist Realists

Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved.
If it be argued that a combination becomes possible since (nescience and the rest) can be the causes of one another (in a
  successive series), then we say, no, (for nescience etc.,) can each
  merely be the cause of origin of another just succeeding.
And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges, (therefore nescience and the rest cannot each be the cause of the next
  in the series).
(If it be contended that the effect arises) even when there is no cause, then your assertion (of causation) will be stultified; else (if
  you contend that the entity of the earlier moment continues till the
  entity of the later moment emerges), the cause and effect will exist
  simultaneously.
Neither pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation) nor an apratisamkhya-nirodha (natural annihilation) is possible, for there
  can be no cessation (either of the current or of the individuals
  forming the current).
And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view.
And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction).
And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.
And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people.

Topic-5: Buddhist Idealism Refuted

(External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived.
And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.
(Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived.
And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary.
Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view.

My question is, have any Buddhist thinkers responded to this critique of Buddhism? Note that I don't want answerers to try responding to the critique themselves (which might lead to too much speculation and arguments).  I'm just interested in whether any published works have responded to it.
By the way, the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras are somewhat cryptic, so their meaning and justification are usually understood with the help of commentaries, like this one and this one.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You in Advance.
EDIT: Here is a book about the Brahma Sutras' critique of the Vedanta school.

Good commentary on Brahma Sutras here: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-04.html

Most of them are too obscure. If you expand each point in separate questions, you might get some good answers while you are looking for printed material.

@SankhaKulathantille Well, they are obscure, but they're made clearer with the commentaries I linked to.

I'm sure! But like I said, since you are the one looking for answers, if you took the time to use the commentaries to make each of these points clearer and present them separately as you understand, you might get some useful answers.

@SankhaKulathantille So do you suggest I ask 15 different questions for the 15 Sutras?  I don't know enough about Buddhist philosophy to know which ones are the most (potentially) devastating criticisms.  Otherwise I could post questions on, say, the three most important Sutras in this list of 15.

"which ones are the most (potentially) devastating criticisms" - criticism was never devastating to Buddhism. It's the change of political powers in countries that affected the propagation of Buddhism. So you could post questions for the points which you find most interesting :)

@SankhaKulathantille I'm not talking about devastating to the propagation of Buddhism.  I'm talking about (potentially) devastating to the truth of Buddhism.  That is to say, which of the criticisms, if valid, would be most devastating to the tenets of Buddhist thought?

Or to put it another way, which of the criticisms would it take the most effort for a Buddhist philosopher to answer?

Amount of effort that takes to answer depends on the person. Nothing is devastating for the truth of Buddhism. The reality of the universe never changes no matter how much you argue.

Related (but not same): http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2374/402

I think Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is the work you are looking for. Just like Brahma-sutras does not mention specific Buddhist sutras it debates with, Mulamadhyamakakarika does not mention Brahma-sutras, but it does methodically address the same points.
As ancient texts go, Mulamadhyamakakarika is way too obscure to be brought in here and contrasted point by point, luckily the details of the polemics between the two commentary traditions are surveyed in the book you mentioned, a modern (1980s) work "An Evaluation of the Vedantic Critique of Buddhism". The author concludes (emphasis mine):

In this work, an attempt has been made to compare the interpretations by Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva of those sutras of the Vedantic texts, the Brahma-sutra, devoted to a refutation of Buddhism. An attempt has also been made to compare the interpretation by each Vedantic commentator of a particular Buddhist school's position with the actual Buddhist school's position as set forth in its own texts. It has been discovered that Buddhist positions were often distorted out of ignorance or deliberate intent, and that the Vedantic commentators proceeded to build their refutations of Buddhism on the basis of incorrect assumptions. It may have been the case that other matters were of more pressing concerns to the Vedantic commentators than the refutation of Buddhism. [...] In any case, however, it may be concluded that Buddhist positions have not been portrayed correctly in the Vedantic commentaries to the Brahma-sutra.

Another work that compares and contrasts Vedanta and Buddhism is Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche's essay "Madhyamika Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Vedanta". Instead of debating with Brahma-sutras it addresses Swami Vivekananda's claim that Buddhism was an offshoot of Vedanta. Although it does not directly address your question, the essay is very informative if you are interested in comparative studies:

In conclusion, I would like to sum it up by stating that Buddhism (especially Mahayana/Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of Hinduism or a negative way of expressing what Hinduism has formulated positively. Hinduism and Buddhism share a common cultural matrix and therefore tend to use the same or similar words. Even though they share certain concepts like karma and re-incarnation, their interpretations differ. Hindu concepts of karma and reincarnation tend to be rather linear, whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratityasamutpada. [...] However, all similarities to Hinduism end there. The Shunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna and Candrakirti is by no means a negative way of describing the Brahman of the Upanishad, Samkara and Vidhyaranya groups.

Here is the list of the Buddhist and Hindu Acaryas in chronological order based on their dates and who critiqued whom.

Nāgārjuna(1st C.E) critiqued by Vātsyāyana (400 C.E)
Vātsyāyana critiqued by Dignāga(500 C.E)
Dignāga critiqued by Kumārila bhaṭṭa/Saṇkarācarya(6th-7th century)
Kumarila bhatta/Saṇkarācarya critiqued by Dharmakriti (6th or 7th century)
Dharmakriti critiqued by Vācaspati Miśra(841 C.E)
Vācaspati Miśra critiqued by Jñānaśrimitra(975-1025 C.E)
Jñānaśrimitra ( C.E) critiqued by (C.E) Udayanācārya (10th -11th century)
Udayanācārya( C.E) critiqued by Ratnakirti(C.E)
Ratnakirti (11th century CE) critiqued by none so far.

So, yes of course the Vedanta/hindu philosophy propounded in Brahma Sutra is critiqued by Buddhist philosophers time and again in the history of development of Indian philosophy.
As you might have been familiar with the style of the Indian philosophers, they did not critique the texta per se but the tenent systems in them.

/|\ welcome to Buddhism Q&A

This is a good answer, but it would be even better, if it included sources.

I have not found a single source that addresses the Brahma Sutras directly, but as Bakmoon says, it is possible to find references in texts regarding some of these points. It might be better to add each point or a few relevant points into one question each, with commentaries, in order to obtain good answers.
Points 18 - 21's discussion of cause and effect, seem to be related to and may be answered by SN 12.17 Acela Sutta:
(This comes from here but the full text can be found here)

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S.
  XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

If Point 25 relates to rebirth as proof that a permanent soul exists in order to transmigrate, then there is an answer here (Milindapanha 3.5.5):

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn?" "Yes, your majesty, one does
  not transmigrate and one is reborn." "How, venerable Nagasena, is it
  that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy."
  "Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is
  it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the
  other lamp?" "Certainly not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your
  majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn." "Give me
  another analogy." "Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy
  learning some verse from a teacher?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Your
  majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?" "Certainly
  not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn."

There is a discussion on the above in another answer. That compares the discovery of quantum entanglement in physics, with the above.
However, if Point 25 relates to memory in our present lifetime as suggested by this Brahma Sutras' commentary, then I would say that when a person experiences brain damage, he could lose his memories (from a modern day scientific perspective). So, if having memories is proof of having a permanent soul that links them together, then is losing one's memories proof of losing one's soul? This can be linked to the following quote:

The characteristic is stated more succinctly in this way: "The eye
  (ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and six external bases) is
  impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering is
  not self" (S. XXXV, 1/vol. iv, 1); or "All is not-self. And what is
  the all that is not self? The eye is not self..." (S. XXXV, 45/vol.
  iv, 28); or again "All things (dhamma) are not-self" (e.g. Dh. XX,
  7/v. 279). The canonical commentary, the Pa.tisambhidaamagga, adds
  "Materiality (etc.) is not-self in the sense that it has no core
  (saara)" (Ps. ~Naanakathaa/vol. i, 37).

This answer is written with reference to Brahma Sutras with commentary by Adi Shankara (BSSB), translated by Swami Vireshwarananda (1936).
The Brahma Sutras are too cryptic to be understood without a commentary. And Adi Shankara is probably the most reputable commentator of the Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankara to Hinduism is like Nagarjuna to Mahayana Buddhism.

BSSB: This Sutra begins the refutation of the Bauddha school. There are
three principal schools of Buddhism, viz . the Realists, who accept
the reality of both the outside and the inside world, consisting
respectively of external things and thought; the Idealists, who
maintain that thought alone is real; and the Nihilists, who maintain
that everything is void and unreal. But all of them agree that
everything is momentary—nothing lasts beyond a moment.

BS 2.2.18-27 refutes the Buddhist Realists (Theravada?), BS 2.2.28-32 refutes the Buddhist Idealists (Yogachara? Cittamatra?) and Nihilists (Madhyamaka?).
The first misconception is that everything is momentary according to Theravada. Physical matter is not momentary. Only mental states have moments. This is according to the body vs. monkey mind analogy of SN 12.61.
Based on the commentary, the Realists are assumed to believe that everything is composed of mind and matter. The "Bauddha series" refers to the 12 nidanas of Dependent Origination and the aggregates refer to the five aggregates. Nescience means ignorance.
I'll quote a few parts of the commentary.

BSSB: The question now arises, how are these aggregates formed ? Is
there an intelligent principle behind as the cause, the guide, of the
aggregation, or does it take place spontaneously? If there is an
intelligent principle, is it stationary or momentary? If it is
stationary, the Buddhistic doctrine of momentariness is contradicted.
If it is momentary, then we cannot say that it comes into existence
first and then unites the atoms, for that would mean that the cause
lasts for more than one moment. Again, if there is no intelligent
principle as guide, how can the non-intelligent atoms and the Skandhas
aggregate in a systematic way? Moreover, the activity would be
eternal, and there would be no destruction or Pralaya. For ali these
reasons the formation of aggregates cannot be accounted for, and in
their absence there cannot exist the stream of mundane existence.
Consequently, the doctrine of this school of Bauddhas is untenable.

The second misconception is that Buddhism is concerned with metaphysics, ontology and cosmology, just as Hindu schools of philosophy are. The statement above talks about the origin or formation of the five aggregates.
It states that Dependent Origination doesn't explain how the five aggregates originate. If there is an intelligent entity like God, which caused the aggregates to form, then is He permanent (stationary) or momentary? If God is permanent, then the assumption of Buddhist momentariness is violated. If God is momentary, then He might disappear before the five aggregates are put together. If there is no God, then how would the body and the rest of the five aggregates come together?  Even if there is literal rebirth, how exactly does rebirth-linking consciousness (if not soul), travel from one place to another and enter the right womb, without the intervention of God? Dependent Origination doesn't explain this.
Buddhism is not interested in metaphysics, ontology and the origin of the cosmos. Buddhism is only interested in solving the problem of suffering (soteriology). The creation or origin of the five aggregates, and whether intelligent design and control is behind it, is not of Buddhism's concern. This is explained by the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow in MN 63 and the discourse on the unconjecturables of AN 4.77.
If one is shot with a poisoned arrow, he should not ask "where does the arrow come from?", "who shot it?", "what is it made of?", "why was it shot?". Instead, it's practical to ask "how to remove the arrow and save my life?"

BSSB: The Sutra can also be explained as follows: The Bauddhas say, if
we hold that the atoms stand in a relation of causality, then no
combining principle of the atoms would be necessary; in that case they
would join of themselves. The latter part of the Sutra refutes this
saying that the causality will explain only the production of the
atoms of the pot of a subsequent moment by the atoms of the pot of a
previous moment, but will not explain the combination of the atoms
into an aggregate, which can take place only if there is an
intelligent agent behind, for otherwise the combination of inert and
momentary atoms cannot be explained.

The third misconception is that Dependent Origination is used to explain the origin or cause of physical matter or even mental aggregates. That's not true. Dependent Origination is used to explain the birth of a mental self-identity, or individuality. It is not used to explain the arising of the five aggregates. A detailed explanation on dependent origination can be found in this answer.

BSSB: The Sutra now refutes that even the successive causality spoken
of the series Nescience, Samskaras, etc. is untenable. Since
everything is momentary, the antecedent thing would already have
ceased to exist at the next moment, when the subsequent thing is
created; so it cannot be the cause of the other. The clay that exists
at the time the pot is created, is alone the cause of the pot, and not
that which existed before and has ceased to exist then. .....
Again on account of the momentariness of things
‘origination’ and ‘destruction’ will be synonymous, for if we say
there is difference between the two, then we shall be forced to say
that the thing lasts at least for more than one moment, and
consequently we shall have to abandon the doctrine of momentariness. ....
If, to avoid the difficulty shown in the previous Sutra, the Bauddhas
say that effects are produced without a cause, then they would
contradict their own proposition that every effect has a cause. If on
the other hand a cause be assumed, then we have to accept that the
cause and effect exist simultaneously at the next moment, i.e. the
cause lasts for more.than one moment, as already shown in the last
Sutra, which would falsify the doctrine of momentariness.

The fourth misconception is that each nidana is the cause of the next one, and since each nidana is momentary, so it may disappear before the next nidana appears. This is wrong, because each nidana is the condition and not the cause of the next one. And all the nidanas (from ignorance to birth) have to line-up at every mind moment, for the birth of the mental self-identity to appear, at every mind moment.

BSSB: The Bauddhas maintain that universal destruction is ever going on, and
that this destruction is of two kinds, conscious and unconscious. The
former depends upon an act of thought, as when a jar is broken by a
man with a stick, while the latter is the natural decay of things. The
Sutra says that either kind of destruction would be impossible, for it
must refer either to the series of momentary existences or to the
single members of that series. The series is continuous and can never
be stopped. Why ? Because the. last momentary existence before such
destruction must be assumed either to produce its effect or not to
produce it. If it does then the series would continue and will not be
destroyed. If it does not produce the effect, the last momentary
existence ceases to be a fact at all, for according to the Bauddhas
existence (Satta) means causal efficiency. Again the non-existence of
the last momentary existence would lead backward to the non-existence
of the previous momentary existence and so on of the whole series.
Again these two kinds of destruction cannot be found in the individual
members of the series also. For owing to the momentary existence of
each member no conscious destruction of it is possible. Neither can it
be unconscious destruction, since the individual member is not
altogether destroyed; for when a pot is destroyed we find the
existence of the clay in the sherds. Even in those cases where it
seems to vanish, as when a drop of water disappears on account of
heat, we can infer that it continues to exist in some other form, viz.
as steam.

Things always being destroyed probably refers to impermanence (anicca).
The statement above says that things cannot be impermanent, because they cannot be destroyed, because the chain of cause and effect of Dependent Origination cannot be stopped, since it keeps going forever. If it has to stop due to destruction, then cause and effect cannot be true.
This argument doesn't make any sense, if we consider all the previous misconceptions above. It's an argument based on multiple misconceptions.

BSSB: Nescience, according to the Bauddhas, is the false idea of
permanency in things momentary. They say that on the destruction of it
Moksha or Freedom is attained. Now this destruction of Nescience must
be one of the two kinds referred to in the last Sutra. If it is a
conscious destruction, depending on the effort of the individual — his
penance and knowledge then this would go(?) counter to the Buddhistic
doctrine of momentariness, according to which Nescience will also be
momentary and cease to exist after a moment of its own accord. And if
we say that the destruction of ignorance is spontaneous, then the
Buddhist instruction ac to the ‘path’ is useless. So in either case
the Bauddha position is untenable.

The idea above is that ignorance (nescience) is momentary, so it appears and disappears. If ignorance is consciously overcome (with effort), then the doctrine of momentariness is not obeyed. If it is spontaneously overcome (without any effort), then the Noble Eightfold Path is useless.
The fifth misconception is that ignorance is momentary and that it disappears completely at every moment (resulting in Nirvana) and then reappears again. This is not right. Ignorance is impermanent, but it's not momentary. Not everything is momentary. Only mental operations and the mental self-identity is momentary. Ignorance and craving can continue to exist through multiple mind moments.

BSSB: According to the Bauddhas, besides the twofold destruction Akasa
or space is a third non-entity. It means the absence in general of any
covering or occupying body. It has been shown in Sutras 22-23 that the
two kinds of destruction are not absolutely devoid of positive
characteristics and so cannot be non-entities. The case of Akasa is
also similar. Just as earth, air, etc. are recognized to be entities
in consequence of their being the substratum of properties like smell
etc., similarly Akasa also on account of its being the substratum of
sound ought to be recognized as an entity. Earth etc. are experienced
through their attributes, and the existence of Akasa also is
experienced through its attribute, sound. Consequently it also must be
an entity.

Hindu scriptures have 5 great elements, and Buddhist suttas usually mention 4 great elements. The missing element is space or akasha.
This is the sixth misconception, because space is mentioned as an element in SN 27.9 and MN 140.

BSSB: If everything is momentary, the experiencer or enjoyer of
something must also be momentary. But that the enjoyer is not
momentary and abides longer is realized from the fact that people have
the memory of past experiences. Memory is possible only in a person
who has previously experienced it, for what is experienced by one man
is not remembered by another. So the agent of the experience and the
remembrance being the same, he is connected with at least two
moments—which refutes the doctrine of momentariness.

The argument to support an individual soul is that personality and memory exists continuously, so it must depend on the existence of an individual soul for its continuity.
This argument can be easily refuted. A person who suffers from brain injury or Alzheimer's disease, or the effects of drugs, could forget his personal identity or have his personality changed.
Also, computers remembering data or configuration using data storage, does not prove that computers have an individual soul.

BSSB: The Bauddhas say that from anything that is eternal and
non-changing no effects can be produced; for that which does not
change cannot give rise to effects. So they say that the cause
undergoes destruction before the effect is produced. The seed
undergoes destruction, and then the sprout comes out. In other words,
existence springs from non-existence. The Sutra refutes this by saying
that if it were so, then the assumption of special causes would be
meaningless. Anything might spring from anything; for non-entity is
the same in all cases.

This is answered by SN 12.17. Future consequences are neither completely unrelated to past actions (annihilationism i.e. no one owns it), nor are they completely related to past actions (eternalism i.e. the same individual soul owns it). The Buddha takes the middle way through explaining this using Dependent Origination.

BSSB: From this Sutra begins the refutation of the Idealists among the
Bauddhas, according to whom only ideas exist and nothing else.
According to them the external world is nonexistent.

This is the seventh misconception. Yogachara doesn't say that the external world doesn't exist with respect to metaphysics, ontology and cosmology. Rather, it says that, based on soteriology. This is explained in this answer.
It's a method or tool to solve the problem of suffering. It's not an explanation of how the universe exists. This is the second misconception, applied to Yogachara.

BSSB: Nihilism of the Bauddhas goes counter to everything. It goes
against the Sruti, the Smriti, perception, inference, and every other
means of right knowledge and so has to be entirely disregarded by
those who are mindful of their welfare.

The eighth misconception is that Madhyamaka states that nothing exists at all, with respect to metaphysics, ontology and cosmology. That's not true. Rather, it says that, based on soteriology. This is explained in this question and answer.
It's a method or tool to solve the problem of suffering. It's not an explanation of how the universe exists. This is the second misconception, applied to Madhyamaka.
In conclusion, the Brahma Sutras have a mostly misconceived or distorted basis of Buddhist doctrines, upon which refutations are made. Some refutations can be easily dismissed using modern day knowledge of science.
This (distortion) agrees with the conclusion of Gregory J. Darling's book "An Evaluation of the Vedantic Critique of Buddhism", that was quoted in Andriy's answer.

Among various Indian Buddhist figures within the Madhyamaka tradition, most of them made general criticisms against the ideas of other religions, including vedanta, and I think that many of the criticisms of the Brahma Sutras are touched on in Buddhist literature (the Milindapanha comes to mind for example) but I don't think that any of these texts specifically address the Brahma Sutras as opposed to just addressing criticism in general.

First of all, isn't it implausible that in two millennia, not a single Buddhist thinker have specifically addressed the Brahma Sutras?

In any case, if it's really true that not a single person has specifically addressed the Brahma Sutras, can you at least tell me what responses there have been to the content of these Sutras, even if they're not referred to by name?  (For instance, "The argument made in Sutra 25 has been responded to in this passage of the Milindapanha.)  That would make for a proper answer.

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


text:
The middle is way between extremes
Sorry for the noobie lay questions.
Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons.
E.g. enjoying reading a book because it is innately pleasurable and because it is an extrinsic good in teaching me something.
It seems to me that there is no way to do so, that we cannot resolve opposites into one reason or meaning for being. That whatever you think of dialectics, nothing can be synthesized with an absolute opposite.
I think then that any reason or meaning is had to the exclusion of something else, and there is a fundamental deficiency in thought, such that any meaning is absolute i.e. a lie, or contradicted.

You might be asking several questions, but let me try to just answer the first one, where you ask,

Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons?

On the contrary, at least initially, the first of the "four noble truths" is that everything is dukkha (i.e. stressful, unsatisfactory, cause of anxiety, etc.).
It's important to understand dukkha: What are the twelve aspects of the Four Noble Truths?

Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons?

If you're asking, "What does the 'middle way' mean in Buddhism?", there's a Wikipedia article about that: Middle Way
In summary, I think that the 'Middle Way' doesn't mean "both of the two different mutually exclusive reasons" ... instead it usually means "neither of the two different mutually exclusive extremes".
For example:

Should we pursue sensory pleasure (hedonism), or, should we mortify the body with asceticism? The Buddha's "middle way" answer to that question was, "neither of those two extremes" (e.g. eat to live, but not live to eat).
Should we believe in eternal life of the self/soul after death, or, should we believe that death is annihilation? The answer is "neither".
Should we believe that everything exists, or, that nothing exists? No...

And so on.
The problem is that asking, "Is it this extreme, or is it that extreme?" implies that it's one extreme or the other: which reminds me of what's called a false dilemma, also known as a "fallacy of the excluded middle".

hm thanks for the reply but i didn't really like it... i shouldn't really claim to be new to thinking about this. maybe i expressed myself badly, but i feel that that there is something unsettling there, about being unable to synthesize opposites. i welcome any further comment though, especially ones which draw more heavily from the sastra literature. thanks @ChrisW

having thought a bit more i realized i agree... maybe in a world of permanence we could embrace both extremes. but yeah, thanks, thanks for the answer :)


text:
Negation and the middle way
Following on from this and this thread, I'm going to expound my understanding / of the relevance of the Buddhadharma.
To avoid the extremes of thought, right up to any kind of differentiating consciousness if you can, is to live meaningfully. Because the mind cannot find meaning in fragments.

Consciousness has two aspects. The first is known as discriminating
  consciousness. This is taken to be the activities of cognition, of
  apprehension, and of discrimination (commonly, what we take to be
  memory, judgment, and reasoning.)

And to life valuably we do so without affirming either. Because there is no reality to the negative value of either extreme.

The object of inference is not ultimately real, it is a conceptual
  construction. And part of what the mind puts into it when the mind
  constructs the object of inference

And so to live the middle way without affirming either extreme, is an active / creative life. Because our world really does consist of both these facts, of no self and impermanence.
So my actual question is just: does this put me in any particular group of Buddhist thinkers?

What do you call "extremes of thought"? There's this popular notion that buddhism avoid any and all extremes, making it easy to label whatever is "too much" as an "extreme"and thus, "non buddhism". Yet, the expected concentration to develop all jhanas is "extreme"; a layman may also consider becoming a monk something extreme. Nibbana, is something quite extreme. So it is the motivation of a boddhisatva aiming for liberation.

yeah i wouldn't make that mistake and i don't see how it's implied in my argument. but thanks.

I did not assume you did, rather I'm justifying the significance of my question.

the question was clear and to the point !

hey, just saying that i kinda have given up on thinking on this, so i wanted to apologise to anyone i bugged in any way etc. maybe meditation will throw up new (less bad?) questions but i'm not really in a place to start that right now. peace :) !!

Could you please reference your quotes? Moreover, I suggest you study LoRig, for instance Lati Rinpoche's Mind in Tibetan Buddhism. According to Sautrantika, an inferential consciousness realizes its object of engagement.

That doesn't sound like a Buddhist understanding of the middle way to me, although it is close in some ways. In Buddhism the two extremes are described in some places as the extremes of indulgence and mortification, and in others it is talked about as the extremes of eternalism and anihilationism. This second description is taken up in detail in Madhyamaka philosophy.
I'll tackle your question mostly from a Theravadin perspective since that's the tradition I'm in but you could do so from others as well.
The core problem with framing it that way is that from a Buddhist perspective, meaning is conceptual. From our experiences of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and cognizing we generate concepts to make sense of it all. We make concepts of objects, time, space, etc... so that we can interact with things, and these concepts become superimposed over out experience. Conventionally we can say that these concepts are real because they give us an accurate description of the world. But at the end of the day, these concepts aren't a part of the things they describe. They are mind-made representations, and when we mix them up with our experience, our whole way of viewing things becomes distorted.
Meaning is one of these concepts. It is something created by the mind to help us make sense of things. It is a valid concept because it really does give us a description of human action and purpose and such, but if we forget that it is something that we ourselves are generating then we can fall into a trap. For example, we start looking at things that occur naturally and somehow think that they also have some kind of purpose or meaning beyond what people do to them. Or we can look at ourselves looking for some sort of pre-established purpose that we just have to find, when in fact our purpose is something create and choose for ourselves.
To understand this deeper, I would recommend studying the Mulapariyaya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html), the Madhupindika Sutta
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html), and a very good but also concise book called Concept and Reality (http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/other/concept_and_reality.pdf)

i have read a LOT of buddhist work. i wasn't being socratic in the OP tho, tho i do think you misunderstood it tbh. i.e. nothing you said SEEMS to me to contradict anything i said ? can you edit your answer to show where you think what i said isn't buddhist :) ?

OK then. I can go into more detail in my explanation then. Do you want me to expand what I said from a Theravadin perspective or a Madhyamaka perspective?

i don't mind, as long as you explicily tackle what doesn't seem buddhist... i won't be offended!!!

I've edited my answer to give more detail. Are there other matters I should cover?

if you can, and i don't want to strain the point here, but can you show where i said that meaning isn't conceptual? i.e. include quotation next to the refutations :) !!?
thanks, appreciate it.


text:
Is 'Neo' the Buddha?
In the Matrix, is Neo's character just Sidhartha in a new life? Does the movie have any implication to whether Neo is actually the Buddha? I know the movie is chalk full of notions of being Buddhist or at least explores some of it's foundings but Im asking is anyone in the movie, mainly Neo, seen as The Buddha?

Unless the Wachowski brothers are members of this group, your question may be irreparably requiring of an opinion-based answer, so you might see it deleted (since they're not the best for this kind of forum). I've answered nevertheless, cos it looks like you're new :-)

This question seems a better fit for the Science Fiction and Fantasy site.

thanks i sent alot of my questions in the sci fi, thought id give buddhism a try since it interests me. ironically enough all my sci fi questions are about the matrix ahaha!

I don't think Neo is the Buddha in this movie because the Buddha rediscovered the Truth on his own,Neo on the other hand had Morpheus and Trinity reveal it to him.Neo would be similar to someone who realised or awakened to the Truth because he took the red pill which i would liken to an insight pill.The irony is The Buddha was likened to a physician who could prescribe medicine and in the Matrix Neo was given the red pill to wake up and get a dose of reality. :">

Never saw that movie? Where could I find it? Doubt it'd be on Netflix eh

Here you can watch it for free : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x175h8u_little-buddha-official-movie-1993_shortfilms

I've never understood why people somehow think that the Matrix is somehow a Buddhist movie. It's actually a very thinly veiled allegory for Gnosticism. In Gnosticism, you have the idea that an evil creator god called the Demiurge created the physical world and trapped the souls of people in physical bodies to have dominion over them, and the goal of Gnosticism is to escape physical existence.
Most of the Matrix is a copy and paste of that. The core ideas of Buddhism really aren't in that movie in any real sense.

No, not in the context of the story. It's obviously possible to see the story as an allegory, in which case, sure, Neo is the one who woke up. But nothing in the story suggests that Neo is intended to be a reincarnation of Siddhartha Gautama.


text:
Do Buddhist believe fortune teller?
As a Buddhist, I only believe Buddha ,Dhamma,Sangha. But some of my relatives still believe fortune teller.
What should I do with people who try to read and tell my future.

I think lots do. Maybe you could retitle it "should" buddhists believe in fortune telling,

You can't really say No to "Do Buddhist Believe in Fortune Tellers?" Because The Buddha himself had the ability to tell someone's fortune and future.He didn't do it for money of course.But he could tell what would happen to people. There were times where he knew that they had to listen to the Dhamma soon because their death was imminent.He could tell their fortune or misfortune.
In fact the past Buddha Kassapa was able to predict that the then Boddhisatta would one day become a Buddha.I know this all sounds like magic.But it all boils down to Karma. All Buddhas posses omniscient knowledge.They have the ability to discern someone's karma and the karmic tendency that will lead to the likelihood of one's karmic fruit ripening.
The Buddha also had a disciple who was once a fortune teller called Venerable Vangisa.Now, You don't have to be a Buddha to be able to predict the future.It can come as a Siddhi in some yogic practices.But this is clouded by delusion because one doesn't see dependent origination in it.Not to mention the Ego is still very much in charge.
When people try to read or tell your fortune it may be skillfull to just politely decline.If you don't want to do that then just remember that no one can make or take your fortune except you.It all depends on you.When people read your future their reading what your own actions are producing, their not causing the future to happen to you.Your fortune depends on your own actions.

Thank you Orion. You open my mind about fortune telling. This answer really help me.

Here is a quote from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda. The quote is from the chapter: "Fortune-Telling and Charms", p. 422-424:

"ALTHOUGH Buddhism does not refute belief in deities, spirits, astrology and fortune-telling, the Buddha’s advice was that people should not be slaves to any of those forces. A good Buddhist can overcome all difficulties by knowing how to make use of intelligence and will-power. The above mentioned beliefs have no spiritual significance or value. A person must overcome all problems and difficulties by his or her own efforts and not through the medium of deities, spirits, astrology or fortune-telling. In one of the Buddhist JATAKA stories, the Bodhisatta said:
‘The fool may watch for lucky days,
Yet luck he shall always miss,
The luck itself is luck’s own star,
What can mere stars achieve?
He believed that hard work was the luckiest star and one should not waste time by consulting stars and lucky days in order to achieve success. To do your best to help yourself is better than to rely solely on the stars or external sources.
  Although some Buddhists practise fortune-telling and dispense some forms of charms or amulets under the guise of religion, the Buddha at no time encouraged anyone to practise such things. Like fortune-telling, charms come under the category of superstition, and have no religious value. Yet there are many people today who, because of sickness and misfortunes attribute the cause of their illness and ill-luck to the power of charms.
When the cause of certain sicknesses and misfortunes cannot be ascertained or traced, many people tend to believe that their problems are due to charms or some other external causes. They have forgotten that they are now living in the twentieth century. This is the modern age of scientific development and achievement. Our leading scientists have thrown aside many superstitious beliefs and they have even placed men on the moon! And no matter how strongly traditionalist religions object, the first human clone is almost at our doorstep.
All sicknesses owe their origin to either mental or physical causes. In Shakespeare, Macbeth asked a doctor if there was any medicine that could cure his wife and the doctor replied: ‘More needs she the divine than the physician.’ What he meant was that some diseases can only be cured if the mind is strong enough to face facts in life. Some severe mental disorders manifest themselves in a physical manner as in the case of ulcers, stomach aches, and so on.
Of course certain diseases are purely physical and can be cured by a competent doctor. And finally, some inexplicable disorders could be caused by what Buddhists call the ripening of the karmic fruit. This means we have to pay for some evil deed that we had committed in a past life. If we can understand this in the case of some incurable diseases, we can bear it with greater patience, knowing its real cause. This is not fatalism: we must still make all reasonable efforts to find a cure. But we do not expend unnecessary energy feeling sorry for ourselves. This is what we would call a realistic attitude.
People who cannot be cured of their sickness are advised to consult a medical specialist and obtain specialised attention. If after having gone through a medical check-up, a person still feels he or she is in need of attention, then he or she may want to seek spiritual guidance from a proper religious teacher.
Buddhists are strongly advised against falling into the miserable pit of superstitious beliefs and allowing the mind to be troubled by unnecessary and unfounded fears. Cultivate strong will-power by refusing to believe in the influence of charms.
A short meditation course may also prove very helpful to clear the mind of unwholesome thoughts. Meditation leads to strengthen the mental energy. A developed mind automatically leads to a purified and healthy body. The Buddha-Dharma is a soothing balm to get rid of sickness of this nature."

Simple answer is No. According to the Several Sources budhda can see the Future and he is not reveal it. He truly believe Future is not exact it can be change according to our present life events. So According to my readings answer is NO.
I Rephrase Theravada Reading

Those who telling Fortune will tell Fortune. But If someone believe in
  Triple gems. Will not use those.


text:
Submission in Buddhist teachings / practices
I have heard people, Buddhists I guess you would say, mention submitting to a higher power. It was just in passing, but I wondered if that sort of thing had any role to play in the theory or practice of Buddhism.
I think I would like to "submit", and can do so without losing my mind etc.. Well, I don't know if that makes any sense, but thanks for any guidance.

The idea of surrender in Buddhism in general can vary very, very widely, depending on the particular ideology. Some ideologies believe you need to submit totally to a Guru to be enlightened, others do not. It depends on how people have set the system up in the first place. Pureland Buddhism is particularly strong about this point, and I encourage you to look it up.
That being said, it is important to mention that Buddhism is not, at its core, about believing in something or submitting to an ideology.. it is about The Dialectic or Conversation that happens when you try something, find out it is not quite as described, then ask a question about your personal experience and get a clarifying answer, or engage in a debate. That is the dynamic. Discovery through experience, discussion and debate.
So, submission and dominance fall then to the status of Dualistic Thinking, and are no different than black and white, cold and hot, or back and front. Both are illusory... Maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)).
Surrender in the Buddhist sense, on the other hand, is about letting go of any fixed notion of self, the universe or any other idea, and trusting in experience to guide you to truth. It doesn't mean that you give up.. it means you let go of the strong attachment you have to particular ideas about the world and yourself, and allow mind and body to take you to places where you can experience truth.

hello you mention the dialectic and while i appreciate this is off topic and not strictly buddhist, what would you say about the dialectic and self submission ?

I would say.. I think you may be asking the wrong question :-) To have a dialectic, you need to pose a question for discussion.'What would you say about' is a request for an opinion (which is fine.. its just not really an opening for a discussion). Basically.. ask a hard question and work out the answers between you. Don't assume anyone knows anything you don't.. go through the process of experience, discussion and resolution.

Quick question: why is submission dualistic thinking and surrender is not. In the same way submission contrasts dominance, surrender is contrasted by resistance. Isn't that also dualistic

That's a very good question. The answer is that everything that can be conceptualized is essentially dualistic, including surrender.
Considering surrender is a more facile way to reach the non dual state behind that idea than is submission.
In the end, 100% of everything is dual since we are alive. Or.. at least.. we think we are :-) You see, you have to be careful to limit the scope of inquiry, otherwise you will always end up with a sort of nihilistic approach, since at their root, everything is dual, and you will get nowhere.
"And then not." - Every Master's final words.

I realized I may have appeared glib in my answer.. let me clarify. Surrender is a better concept to proceed from if you want to reach the non dual experience BEHIND the thing. Submission is not as good, as it is more deeply rooted in culture and biology, and is more difficult to sort out, whereas Surrender is less so. Surrender is also well established in the literature, and various brilliantly scammy masters have created wonderful lies for us to use to accidentally trip over the Truth about that idea. :-)

I am recently extremely interested in Buddhism, I've read the dhammapada, done  alot of thinking and reading about it. However I have not actually done much meditating. My most recent experience in trying or doing meditation was during a moment I was feeling suicidal. I get suicidal thoughts fairly often I think compared to most people.
Anyways, a very short time into it, a part of my mind gave me an incredibly strong thought/order telling me to submit. I 'submitted' (idk how, it's all just mental) and immediately felt much better. Since this experience I have felt more at peace, and so I paradoxically am more empowered. In this case, submission is the cause of dominance.
This experience was hardly dualistic in the usual sense. The concepts have now become merged into a whole, or at least, the opposite result followed the opposite action.

Hello Veronica and welcome to Buddhism SE. The answer does not really address the central question which is "... but I wondered if that sort of thing had any role to play in the theory or practice of Buddhism ...".

I totally fail to understand how sharing my experience while endeavoring to practice Buddhism, when that experience was one of 'submitting', does not, in fact, centrally address the practice of Buddhism.
I didn't touch on theory, but practice. All the other answers I have read have addressed theory.

'Letting go','giving up' or 'relinquishing' ('vossagga') is the core Buddhist practise.

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation
  and ripens in relinquishment (vossagga). MN 118

It is like submission to the Nirvana element, which can dissolve mental negativities.

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all...Those who trust in the Dhamma of
  dispassion have trust in the best; and for those who have trust in the
  best, the best result will be theirs. AN 4.34


text:
Bhanga and the ego
Is the experience of bhanga (5th insight - knowledge of dissolution) the equivalent of the destruction of the khandhas?

No, in the knowledge of dissolution the khandas are still there. The Visuddhimagga describes knowledge of dissolution as follows:

Visuddhimagga XXI (10-11)
When he repeatedly observes in this way, and examines and investigates
  material and immaterial states, [to see] that they are impermanent,
  painful, and not-self, then if his knowledge works keenly, formations
  quickly become apparent. Once his knowledge works keenly and
  formations quickly become apparent, he no longer extends his
  mindfulness to their arising or presence or occurrence or sign, but
  brings it to bear only on their cessation as destruction, fall and
  breakup.
When insight knowledge has arisen in him in this way so that he sees
  how the field of formations, having arisen thus, ceases thus, it is
  called contemplation of dissolution at that stage, 7  with reference
  to which it is said: “Understanding of contemplation of dissolution,
  after reflecting on an object— how is this knowledge of insight?
  “Consciousness  with  materiality  as  its  object  arises  and
  dissolves.  Having reflected on that object, he contemplates the
  dissolution of that consciousness.

In other words, it is called knowledge of dissolution because the mind is focused on seeing the formations break up and cease.

When you reach Bhanga you still have ego. Ego is mainly due to Sanna. To dissolve this you have to look at contact > sensation > perception > through proliferation > sensations process and try to stop the thought proliferation / conditioned response of you mind / identification and perception about the world.
With Bhanga you can quickly rid any formation by brining you attention to the sensations associated with Sankhara.


text:
Vinaya Loopholes?
Did the Buddha ever say anything about monastics finding "loopholes" in the rules? A loophole would be something like: Showering when bathing is not allowed or living in a building  when the opposite sex lives in the building also but as long as the monastic is outside the building for a certain period of time every day the monastic can not be said to be living there. Also what are some of these possible loopholes?

The Buddha laid down the four great standards to try and avoid this sort of thing:

"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.
"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you."

(from Vinaya, Mv.VI. 40)
Source: http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=4_great_standards

Still, where there's a will, there's a way, and it's easy to find loopholes if you're looking for them.


text:
What is the difference between nanas and jhanas?
I often hear nanas and jhanas mentioned together as if they are different but related concepts. Is that true are they different or is nanas the exact equivalent of jhanas? Are the different terms used in different traditions perhaps?

They are different things. Jhana refers to a particular kind of concentrated state of mind, and the word nana simply means knowledge, but in a meditative context, it refers to one of the 16 stages of knowledge which are described in part III of the Visuddhimagga.


text:
How does the Bhavanga State relate to the Jhanas?
When we sit down and practice samadhi we would naturally want to enter absorbtion.But what if by practicing samatha we manage to calm and refine all the five senses,to the point where all five senses dissapear.
What's left would only be the mind sense with no outer stimuli from the five senses.
If this happens then won't the mind grasp the Bhavanga State? So my question is How does the Bhavanga State relate to the Jhanas?Are you suppose to go through one before entering the Jhanas.Or are you suppose to avoid lapsing into one in the first place.

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.

Thanks for the answer Bakmoon.Your right in saying the difference between Jhana and Bhavanga states are the factors that go a long with it.The mind should be grasping the object of meditation and developing five factors of jhana.(Vitakka,vicara,piti,sukkha,ekagatta).And i think through repetition and trial and error one will learn not to drop into the bhavanga states.I think the only harm bhavanga states do is one might think one has attained niroddha samapatti.But if you know this is not the jhanas and no where near that,there's no harm falling into one until you get it right.

@Bakmoon. Great answer +1.

While doing some reading I noticed the following which may shed more light on you question. Pa Auk Sayadaw and Tina Rasmussen teach that returning to bhavanga-consciousness between jhana states allows a review of the jhana factors that were present in the jhana which, according to them, is not possible when absorbed in jhana:

You examine the bhavanga with the wisdom eye after exiting jhana and before entering the next higher jhana to determine which jhana factors are, or were, present. It is impossible to examine the jhana factors or bhavanga while in jhana because in jhana there is no volition or thinking. When you are checking the jhana factors, you are in access concentration, not absorbtion.
  Practicing the Jhanas by Tina Rasmussen (p.77)

Pa Auk Sayadaw - Mindfulness of Breathing (p.7):

Once one can maintain the first jhana for about two or three hours, one may try to discern the five jhana factors. Whenever one emerges from jhana, one discerns the area in one's heart where the bhavanga-consciousness rests: that is the heart-materiality. The bhavanga-consciousness is bright and
  luminous, and looks like a mirror in the heart: that is the mind-door. And when one discerns the mind-door, one will see the anapana-patibhaga-nimitta appear there. Then one discerns the five jhana factors.