text:
Any benefit from meditation, if your mind is already completely blank?
I have never meditated before. I really want to get into meditation to explore the benefits, especially trying to understanding who I am and how my mind affects my perception of reality (looking for spiritual growth etc).
So, for the past week I have spent an hour a day, what I understand as meditating, on my own in a quiet room. From my very first session onward, my mind has simply been completely blank during meditation (after allowing 1 minute to adjust to such a state). I don't experience any form of brain chatter (I hardly ever do), I sit easily for an hour with only a handful of thoughts occurring to me, although I feel completely focussed, awake, present and aware. I don't force a blank mind, it simply goes quiet when I focus on breathing (perhaps due to my inability to multitask). In short, I simply feel I get no benefit from this, other than experiencing some sort of longish-lasting blissful state (but I thought there is more to it).
From my limited understanding, I understand that the ideal meditation state is getting your mind as still as possible, then simply observe (non-judgmentally) any thoughts passing by, realising it's all conceive by the mind and learning from what you witness as a kind of 'outside observer'.
Since I don't observe much, I feel I don't learn anything at all.
Can anyone perhaps please shed some light on my situation and tell me what benefit I can get from meditation when I find my mind is already completely blank and I have no thoughts during meditation sessions.

Just to give you some background context in the event that it might help ... I have immense focus and no ability whatsoever to multitask. e.g. I literally have to stop a conversation when I plug a plug into a wall socket. On the other end, I can easily sit still and concentrate for hours and hours. In general, my mind is overflowing with ideas whenever I want it, but I simply find that my mind goes offline when I meditate and I don't find it helpful in my deeper spiritual search.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to my question... much appreciated!!

As others have said, meditation isn't just about a still mind, because a still mind is being found in order to be a step towards something. It''s not an end in itself (or at most it's only part of the desired end, not the whole of it).
So congratulations,you have found stillness easy, and you're doing well, but don't mistakenly imagine that this means you've "accomplished" meditation, in its deeper sense. Now to use that state.
There are two aspects to this - look carefully at what you already do, then put it in context to understand what next.
As a first question, I have to ask you to consider how sure you are, that you have accomplished what you believe you have done. I "get" the monofocus point, but having a still mind, seemingly empty and without thoughts, doesn't necessarily mean an inward watching mind,and doesn't necessarily mean you're seeing what's there. Be careful in assuming it is.
Perhaps you are taking "no thoughts" too literally. In meditation, you are watching for/remaining aware of everything. That's one reason stillness matters - the ability to notice what passes within, and move beyond mind, is immediately limited by "noise to signal" - the chatter, distraction and instability of the observing one.
In this context, one wants to stay alert, and watch and become aware of (but not reactive to) anything that arises.
A rich and important source of things, is ones immediate reactions and "involuntary" behaviours. Your eyes blink, the heart pulses, you catch the edge of a thought "how long have I been sitting" in the moment it arises, there is a sound outside and for a brief moment you feel yourself move as you react to it and decide what it means. And "yes you do" - if you didn't, you wouldn't react to a fire alarm or scream of a loved one, any more than a car driving or foot on the stairs, because you wouldn't perceive the sound or the difference between them. Literally, anything that causes the edge of a thought, or internal change of any kind, one is seeking a state of awareness of it.
A good one here is a body sensation like an itch, or ache. Do you ever scratch, ache, or move when sitting? I do.  Notice that these are just sensations, the thought to scratch or move arises separately. You can see these arise separately. As these are common and observable, these are really good ways to check what you are doing when sitting. For example, when sitting, I notice that what I think of as an itch, is actually an irritating burning sensation, that arises, ripples a bit, intensifies, an instinct to move a hand arises, a thought to do so occurs to make that happen, and if I watch it a while, the itch gradually moves, then vanishes. And I can watch all those play out, and stay detached from it. Even if I do scratch, I just let my body and mind do what they will, and observe, like any other observation. This might help.
But then there is the question, "why"? What does this achieve, why meditate anyway? The aim of meditation is not just to sit untouched and have a still mind. It is more about becoming aware of how thoughts (in all ways) arise in your own mind, and developing detachment and awareness of them in daily life.
There is a saying, I forget by whom, to the effect that in the tiny fraction of a second between the raw sensation, and the reaction - that is where free will and freedom reside. In a way, that is a good description of meditation's real goal. So a still mind isn't the final aim, it's a prerequisite needed to make observation, and then more refined observation, of those split seconds, possible and more automatic. It's also to prolong the space between the two (and allow freedom and detachment into that space where judgement and reaction usually occur).
So, now you have a still and aware mind when sitting. But when you stop sitting, what then? The aim is to keep within this state in everyday life. The concept of "walking meditation", where you walk, or move, while staying within that state, sounds like a place you could go next.

Thank you Stilez. This is an excellent response! Highly inspiring with so much to digest and yet such clear steps and explanations on making progress. Thank you sincerely for your message!

One thing to add - you'll notice I haven't mentioned anything about becoming aware of who "I" am/am not, or an end to suffering/duality, or any other more spiritual goals. That's mainly because of my sense about your question and where it's coming from, but also because these are arising realisations/questions/conclusions/states that (may/may not) arise within a meditative state, rather than aspects to be 'forced' in order to reach a meditative state. Demanding they appear rather than developing a meditative insight, is a good way to just get stuck in the same ego traps instead :)

Thanks again Stilez, makes perfect sense what you said. I've certainly learned in the past few days that meditation requires patience and that insights will come when I'm ready. I am just super excited about all the discoveries lying ahead of me in the years to come! Thanks for pointing me into the right direction.

Mumonkan - Case 4: The Western Barbarian With No Beard
The Case:
Wakuan said, "Why has the Western Barbarian no beard?"
Mumon's Comment:
Study should be real study, enlightenment should be real
enlightenment. You should once meet this barbarian directly to be
really intimate with him. But saying you are really intimate with him
already divides you into two.
Mumon's Verse:
Don't discuss your dream
Before a fool.
Barbarian with no beard
Obscures the clarity.

When I first started out, I had a very similar experience with meditation as you.  It was never really difficult for me to sit.  I mean, seriously - butt, cushion, breath, calm.  It's not that hard, right??  I'm sure you've figured it out by now, but for most people, it's not so easy.  For them, that place of calm that you experienced so quickly can be years away.  For these folks, a chattering mind and fidgeting body are obstacles that will take all sorts of sitting and sweat to unseat.  Believe it or not, though, these people are at an advantage.  To practice Buddhism isn't to sit well and have blissful experiences on the cushion.  On the contrary, to practice Buddhism is to work through our bullshit and burn through our karmic obstacles.  And it takes one hell of a hot fire to do that.  If we were to liken Buddhist practice to a forge we have to stoke, then those who struggle with sitting are blessed with a huge, nearby wood pile of problems and difficulties that they can quickly burn up.  They come out of the gate burning like stars.  And it's that blazing inner fire their struggles have helped establish that make it that much easier for them to incinerate their deeper, psychological obstacles.  People like us, well, we have to go searching much deeper in the forest in order to find enough wood to keep our practice fueled.
Which brings us to the question of what you should do now.  How do you fuel the fire of your practice?  The first thing I'd ask is whether your practice is going as well as you think it is.  When you sit, do you remain completely motionless the entire time?  If not, start there.  Next, if an hour is so easy, why not try an hour and a half?  I actually find that my meditation sessions don't really start to take off until after the first hour.  Longer sitting can lead to better sitting.  The same goes for frequency.  Are you sitting everyday?  If not, why not?  If you are, why not try sitting twice a day?  And even if you've got all that going, when was the last time you meditated 10 hours a day for a week long retreat?
So now that we've got that out of the way, onto beards and barbarians.  Remember how I mentioned that Buddhist practice isn't about sitting well and being blissful?  This is key.  Real practice is when you meet the western barbarian face to face and are really intimate with him.  You are the Western Barbarian.  When was the last time you really took a look at your beard in the mirror?  Once an adept has establish a good sitting practice, the rest of their days are spent examining that beard - those mental hangups and karmic obstacles - through a variety of insight practices.  These can come in the form of Vipassana, Zen koans, sutra study, keeping the precepts, etc. etc. etc.  These are the true forges of enlightenment.
So that should keep you busy for a couple of decades.  Have fun!!!!  :-D

Thanks tripple-0! That was a pleasant read and great advice. I guess you've pointed out my first blindspot .. my assumption that more of the same input would simply result in more of the same outcome. I didn't expect longer or more frequent meditation would result in much more depth but I'm now looking forward to give it a go. I'll look up the more advanced terminology that you've mentioned towards the end and I also trust that it will lead me onto new paths of discovery. Thanks again, much appreciated!

My pleasure!  And just remember, insight practice (and really all practice) should take place under the direction of a teacher.  We have a really nasty way mistaking our own delusions for wisdom.  It helps to have someone to point out our idiocy.

Then it begs the question .. How do you find a good teacher? I wouldn't necessarily simply take the first one I come across, yet I have no way to tell how capable they are of the task at hand.

Google is your friend!  ;-)  Seriously, start local.  Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.  Just because someone isn't internationally renowned doesn't mean they aren't capable of teaching well.  Researching lineage also helps.  At least in Zen, only those who are authorized to teach by their teacher can actually lead a group.  There are similar lineages within other traditions (esp. Tibetan).  And even if you can't find a teacher, at least find a group to sit with.  There is nothing like sitting with a group of people...and you might be able to find a teacher through them.

Great news - thanks. I'm excited about what I've learned from you today - it's much appreciated!

Buddhist meditation is unique among meditation types in that it is firmly rooted in Buddha's key realization: the so-called Noble Truths. All other meditations are set within different frameworks, aiming at their respective goals. Some meditations aim at a blank mind, other meditations aim at experience of unity with All. Buddhist meditation aims at the goal of Buddhism, variously known as Nirvana, Enlightenment, Liberation etc. or more properly as "the cessation of suffering".
In order to understand this goal, one needs to understand the framework in which this goal is defined - the Noble Truths. Then you can understand Buddhist meditation as the way of achieving the goal.
The Noble Truths are centered around what they declare to be The Key Problem of sentient existence: the experience of psychological suffering, or the painful feeling of this is wrong and I can't fix it (as opposed to Peace, defined as everything is right). Following from there, the Noble Truths identify the Mechanism behind the problem, the Solution, and the Way to implement the solution.
The mechanism behind "suffering" (I will call it that for simplicity, although now you know that it refers specifically to the subjective experience of "painful wrongness") is identified as craving for one's current experience to be different than what it is now. This craving takes a million forms, some of the instances having to do with invalid desires or unrealistic expectations, and other instances having to do with the way we interpret and evaluate our experience. Anyhow, it all comes from our definitions of the world and of ourselves and from the rules by which we delineate and evaluate phenomena.
The Solution then is to figure out ways to reduce and completely eliminate all mismatch between one's interpretation of the current moment-by-moment experience and one's idea of what that experience should be. As a rule of thumb, this means eliminating all sources of conflict, both external conflict with society, and internal conflict within one's mind. This is accomplished, first by fixing one's life to eliminate all major sources of disharmony, and second through identifying and eliminating all kinds of psychological hangups. The first part is Buddhist ethics. The second part is Buddhist meditation.
The Buddhist path in general and the path of meditation in particular is a gradual implementation of the Buddhist principle of "elimination of the causes of psychological suffering". It starts with coarse and obvious sources of trouble, and proceed to progressively finer items. In the course of doing this, the practitioner keeps getting an increasingly better understanding of one's own mind and the way it shapes one's experience of peace or suffering, until at one moment, this understanding culminates in a breakthrough. This breakthrough has to do with the most fundamental assumptions underlying our experience, and enables complete elimination of even the slightest experience of suffering, regardless of external circumstances.
So when you meditate, your goal is not a blank state of mind. Your goal is to examine  your experience in terms of suffering and the causes of suffering, first and foremost your own internal psychological causes, and then, through trial and error, to discover practical ways to stop the experience of suffering and create the experience of harmony and peace. As I said above, it all comes from our definitions of the world and of ourselves and from the rules by which we delineate and evaluate phenomena.
Our subjective reality, with its ups and downs, is an interpretation we make. The question is, how to be free from the ups and downs inherent to an interpretation. This is what you need to figure out and implement, first in meditation, and then in real life. Good luck!

Thanks Andrei for the great explanation. Much appreciated!

You're certainly right in that one of the goals of mediation is to quiet your mind. Congratulations on achieving that! As others have mentioned, this isn't an easy feat (even if you stumble onto it by not being able to focus on more than one thing very well).
The question then becomes if your mind is completely quiet, devoid of thoughts, feelings, and whims, what are you? Are you your thoughts? Or are you the thing or being that is able to silence your thoughts? Another benefit of mediation is simply realizing that you are NOT your passing thoughts. Your thoughts and feelings are only temporary. You are the being that is able to quiet your thoughts, and, as such, you are the being that observes your thoughts.
How does this apply in everyday life? Through practicing meditation and becoming aware of your thoughts as temporary, you're able to regulate your own emotions better. You don't become so quickly consumed in the "emotions of the moment." I'm sure you know people like this, who are guided completely and totally by their current emotions and current thoughts, not having realized that they are TEMPORARY. You're able to think more critically about yourself. You gain an introspective ability and start taking apart every single thought you have.
In short, meditation teaches you to quiet your mind and in doing so also teaches you MINDFULNESS.

Thank you, I appreciate your great input. I love your 2nd paragraph and the questions it raise. I actually do get moved easily by immediate emotions, which is why I was hoping my thoughts and emotions would surface during meditation so that I can observe and learn from them but that is not happening (perhaps not yet).  It sounds like I should just keep doing what I do, patiently, and see where the path eventually leads me to. Thanks again!

You could notice how your breath moves in and out through the nostrils. This can be done to a very fine degree even isolating individual characteristics contained within one portion of the in-breath or out-breath. There will be more gross observations happening with bodily phenomenon like the rising and falling of the abdomen and the residual echoes this produces in other parts of the body.
The other day while meditating my attention shifted to  my hearing as the sound of a crow (I think) was croaking. I discerned this with more depth thus: sound - ear - interpretation - feeling. I was able to get a very sharp sense of what was happening beneath the cognizance of the sound and could focus purely on just the raw sensation that the sound seemed to produce. As the crow was croaking there was a kind of sine wave in a localized part the head in the form of a sensation. This wave-form married perfectly with the amplitude of the croaking crow.
Your focus is one that many would envy. It can be fine-tuned to observe the most subtle physiological changes. I found myself in your position with having a tremendous focus when I began Buddhist meditation two years ago.
I would encourage that you develop a good structural spiritual framework before advancing to deep levels quite simply because insight and other odd experiences came to me with quite some force. Even my Sangha were uncertain about how to support me but eventually, I found a small group of individuals who were practising at very deep levels who give me some guidance.
Read many suttas and connect with a sangha group.

Thank you Suchness, your input is much appreciated. I think I have a better understand now of what you mean by noticing my breath. Perhaps I was indeed not focused on its entirety. I envy your sound experience and the comprehension of how it traversed your entire being. I will be open to such experiences now and I'll look into your guidance/group advice. Thank you once again for your contribution to my search.

Since i didn't feel such, i don't know what exactly your feeling is. But i have heard that people who are meditating expressing their experience by these words  blankness, lightness, emptiness, weightless etc. And for those experiences the teachers advice not to focus on it or do not meditate again and again for feel that experience. Even the Lord Buddha also said not to stuck there on that lightness or emptiness, because it is kind of a craving and it is distracting.

Thanks for sharing that. So what I understand from your message is that it's not an ideal state to be in. Do you have suggestions how I can shift my focus to something else? I posted an answer that I copied from someone's response on a similar question. Does that perhaps sound like a valid option to you?

For me it's valid but hard :-). mind is tricky, actually that's best way manage the situation, for example if you're doing meditation on focusing on breath, and then you're settle in that state and focusing only in the experience not the breath, that is how mind trick you to not to advance on meditation.

But you know that you are misdirected, this is not my suggestion it's advice from my teacher's. "Focus back on the breath again if you're feel lightness or weightless or something similar experience, do not focus and savor that feelings". Hope you could understand. :-)

Meditation is a deeply personal word, so you get to decide what it means to you.  I can impose my own personal opinions and offer suggestions in that direction.
The Japanese Zen Buddhists have a term, mushin(無心).  Translating the characters literally, we get "no mind," which is where the blank slate imagery comes from.  For many people, it is very hard to have such a blank slate.  It can take years to attain it. If you already have it from your nature, then it may be useful to explore the full phrase.  Mushin is the shortened form of the full phrase "mushin no shin" (無心の心).  Again, literally translating the characters we get "mind without mind."  No surprise that phrase sounds rather paradoxical.  These are Zen Buddhists who came up with it.
If I may offer just the interpretation of one person, I see the concept of potential being a reasonable resolution of the paradox.  If you have a mind that is blank at the moment, but at any point in time could generate a thought without warning, that is a powerful thing.  And if you don't necessarily have to know where that thought came from within your mind, so much the better.  That would mean every point in your mind is ready to spawn a thought should it be the best thing to do.
To that end, I may recommend something many teachers of meditation recommend: observe the world from where you sit.  Alan Watts recommended starting a meditation by striving to reach out and observe the faintest detail as you can.  But he carefully made sure not to tell you what particular detail to look for.  He didn't specify a sound, or a particular sight.  He didn't' even specify that what you would observe would come from the five senses.  He simply said to try to observe it.
The world is not blank.  It's full of activity at every moment.  If you observe the world while you are still, you must have movement in your stillness.  And that is a very interesting paradox indeed.

If there is not enough activity surrounding you to bring you closer to the verge of having a thought at any moment, another option to consider would be a walking meditation.  This brings activity into the body, which is closer to the mind.  This also increases the likelihood that you might run into someone.  If you can connect with them instantly with compassion without breaking out of your meditation for a moment, then I am a mere altar boy preaching to the priest, for I consider that to be a great challenge indeed.

The walking meditation sounds really like a great plan! I'll certainly give that a go. I guess meditation in nature would also trigger thoughts through sounds. Thanks for your input! I appreciate it very much.

Can anyone perhaps please shed some light on my situation and tell me what benefit I can get from meditation when I find my mind is already completely blank and I have no thoughts during meditation sessions.
What then made you finish the session and yet even thinking about benefits?
Sure, if there is an indifferent feeling (neither pleasant not painful), there is only that, but does it last, is it real? Is it satisfactory or not? Can one call it "my meditation", "a refuge", "under my controll"? Maybe inspect this for your self and try to get it under control with what ever creativity.
Mindfulness Defined might be useful to cross over what already observed ("in this, not-judging-way I stay without any understanding")

Thanks Samana. Your questions really caught my attention: "What then made you finish the session" ... I am going to plan a big meditation session over the weekend without any time limit and see how that works for me. Thanks again!

In Buddhism, there are two types of meditations. They are, Samatha and Vipassana. There are
many sub techniques in each type. Samatha meditations focus on the "tranquility" of the mind where Vipassana meditations focus on the "insight" ie: a clear awareness of exactly what is happening as it happens. Path to Nirvana often starts with Samatha meditation where you can calm your mind and then practice Vipassana meditation to get a clear understanding of function of the mind.
Since you have no trouble with calming your mind, I would suggest that instead of doing  Samatha meditation techniques like mindfulness of breath, you can explore more on Vipassana meditation techniques. You can start with Satipatthana Sutta, which is the Buddha's teaching that Vipassana is based on and get advice from a good meditation practitioner and share your experience.
What exactly differentiates Vipassana from Samatha meditation?

Thanks Pasanbsb. I'll look up Satipatthana Sutta.

I like to approach to your question like this. I assume you are not a Buddhist(which is totally ok). In Buddhism there are two main types of meditations as Samatha and Vipassana.
Samatha is mainly contributing towards on concentrating your mind. In this there are different types of meditating methods such as Anapana sathiya (Focus on breathing in and out) which is a very famous one and there are other methods too(Better try to find these by referencing thripitaka). Samatha meditations will lead you to jhana(firts,second,third etc.).
Then vipassana is mainly focus on understanding the truth. For this its better to have samatha practised well.
Strongly I suggest you to prefer Thripitaka where real teaching of Lord Buddha can be found. (If not there are sometimes you might lead into a dead end)
Mean while you try for it better try to learn Buddhism which will help you to solve problems occur. Since you can sit in one posture for an hour(which is the hardest part for beginners) start with samatha medition method you prefer to try. Do it daily. Make it a high priority. You will get results. Remember explore Buddhism and good luck

Thanks Joe for adding some new concepts to explore, I'll certainly look into Thripitaka and the others.

I would say that you are able to develop calm and stillness during the in-and-out-breath very well. See: Google search for Ānāpānasati
So then, the next step is to rotate through the "Four Bases" or "Four Foundations"
as listed in the texts
Also see: Satipaṭṭhāna
Next, add the positions: sitting, standing, walking, lying down, eating.
Compare 5 types of meditation to see which challenges you the most:
1. śamatha
2. Vipassanā
3. Dhyāna
4. “Silent Illumination,” or mozhao
5. Shikantaza
I suggest these because they all have taxonomical similarity to the method you indicated.
This should get you started down the path of breaking up the monotony, and can be easily found using internet researches.

I do not think there are any benefits of a completely blanking the mind. I think this state is very similar to the mental state of a newly born child or animal like a buffalo.

Thanks SarathW, then again on the other side .. this is probably the fastest developing period for an infant ;-)

Agree. But we should be aware of the capacity of the person and what you feed the brain. For instance, a buffalo will not be able to attain Nibbana.

I would not dare to add another answer to this question, when so much incredibly helpful wisdom has already been shared, if there wasn't another important element of what is specifically "Buddhist meditation" to emphasize. (It was touched upon in other answers)
My guru says that meditation is more valuable than gold. There is NOTHING better to do then meditation. So please, for the benefit of yourself and the rest of the world, keep it up. What I want to share is a very specific aspect that makes Buddhist meditation different than others. But Buddhist meditation is very difficult and takes tremendous strength, will power, determination, persistence and most of all, faith in the Buddhadharma. So don't give up meditation if what I describe seems too much.
As Andrei, I am sure, already knows the mediation focus he described is not distinctly Buddhist although immensely helpful. The technique of recognising the conflict between what IS and what you want it to be, is a tried and true way of improving your life through meditation that is almost universally applauded. Andrei described this technique and its merits beautifully. But I would suggest if you want to take meditation to an even higher level, incorporating the teachings that make Buddhist meditation different, then you should consider the following:
Suffering in life exists and it is something that can be completely resolved only by seeing for yourself what life really is. The Buddha taught that we can gain that knowledge only by first recognizing what life is not.
Genuine Buddhist meditation is always accompanied by the Buddha's teaching that ALL OF THIS is "not me, not mine, THIS I am not!" In other words, when you meditate, instead of trying to dissolve your resistance to "what is happening right now," instead, forcibly impose the recognition that none of it is you. [I don't agree with the earlier comment that forcing this type of thinking is not helpful].
The adherence to the idea that this ALL is you, is the deeply ingrained obstacle (or fetter) upon which all your psychological resistance to what life is, has been and possibly could be, comes from. If you don't feel any of that psychological resistance . . . don't worry, you WILL! Real soon.
The Buddha's truth is that it is not you, not yours. Within Buddhist meditation we say 'I am aware of this, it's arising, it's decline and (maybe even) its cessation' but we don't adhere to even THIS observation as 'mine.' The only knowledge we adhere to, is the one that the Buddha has given us as being truth: this is not me, not mine, not myself. So not even the experience of suffering is something we adhere to as "my" experience. Even more so, we abandon any experience of being delighted by something as being 'mine.'
In order to practice this one needs genuine faith in the Buddha that this type of meditation will completely eradicate suffering if followed accurately. It is very difficult to continually impose the thought 'this is not me, not mine, not myself!' The Buddha taught insight techniques concerning impermanence and dependent origination in order to help us to build this faith. Those techniques are his way of saying, 'if you can't fully trust me on this point then you can use these techniques to see it for yourself.' But if you have faith in the Buddha and this, his core Truth, then you are set to succeed.
The Buddha taught the 4 noble truths but these are the truths of life, not the truth of who you are or what is yours. In Buddhism, we drop EVERYTHING like a searing hot coal that has been pressed into our palm while we were not looking. This doesn't imply anything negative about who we truly are. It just means that ignorance of it all being "nonself" blocks everything of value and must be removed before real peace and happiness can be experienced.
As the Buddha taught, you have already suffered sooo much. If all the tears that you have shed upon the death of your mother during this aeon alone were collected in one place it would be greater than all the water in the 4 oceans! Be determined to throw off the burden of ignorance by gaining direct knowledge of this truth of nonself through Buddhist practice.
Don't be dismayed!
This type of meditation has tremendous heart as well. When you insist on this type of meditation everyone around you will benefit and this whole world will eventually become a paradise. Why? Because the Evil One doesn't want you to escape him through direct knowledge. The greatest weapon he has is to try and make you feel pleased with your meditative efforts. So when your Buddhist meditation gains inertia he will give blessings to your loved ones so that you will be tempted to be pleased with yourself and then, wham, you fall back to suffering and ignorance. So you force the evil one to improve the world by doing this meditation.
It may seem strange but this type of meditation brings peace and joy even in its early stages once you determine to courageously pursue it. So it is truly Good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end result, open to inspection, easily verified by a meditator of faith and energy.
Finally I will pass on a trip I have found valuable: virtue is key. Embodying the noble virtues and noble lifestyle helps this meditation take off. And lastly, don't smoke any intoxicating herbs! Lol

I am no-one, but have received instructions before from a ch'an master, have sat in on zazen classes, and have read a lot about what different Buddhists say. I only want to disagree with most of what's been said!
Meditation doesn't get us anywhere, and is not at all about a blank mind. Isn't the trick to it to calmly, with samatha, let the thoughts you have arise, without attaching to how you do so?
You're seem to have some insight into your thought processes, that you rarely think, and that's a good start!
Here is a good explanation, that shows the difference between a thoughtless mind and a clear one. I would summarize it as: moments of thoughtlessness exist all the time in anyone's life. You can concentrate on this and maybe achieve samadhi on it, but that is not Buddhist meditation!


text:
Self invoked feelings during meditation allowed?
I'm new to meditation and I struggle with my mind being 'blank' whilst meditating.
I came across an interesting statement while trying to figure out how to advance further under circumstances when feeling I make no progress.

Someone wrote:
"I used the 'blankness' to find something in my memory that made me feel something about anything, then sit with the experience and
  monitor the feeling."

It sounds like it could work well for me as a trigger to invoke certain feelings that I then can observe.
My challenge is that my mind goes completely 'blank' (no thoughts whatsoever) when I meditate, although I still feel completely focused, awake, present and aware. I feel this prevents me from getting any real deeper benefit from it, other than experiencing some sort of blissful state.
The 2 questions I have, are:

Is this at all recommended for meditation? (Also, if not, why not?)
Is this perhaps a particular established form of meditation?

Yes, it is a properly defined method of meditation.
Meditation isn't the absence of thoughts, but the awareness of them. Training the mind to a point when you can sit still without any thoughts is an extraordinary feat (which I suppose you're referring to as "blankness"), but in the Buddhist manner of training, it is also only the first step.
After you are keeping still, the second step is the single-pointed concentration or Samatha, where you keep your focus on one single activity/phenomenon, usually your breath.
Samatha is followed by Vipassana, i.e. meditation of insight, also sometimes called analytical meditation. From Samatha, you can move on to choose a phenomenon/event that you want to gain insight into (Buddhists usually contemplate on Buddha's teachings such as emptiness). Once chosen, you can move to dissect it pieces by pieces. It is important to retain the single-pointed concentration while doing this.
I personally as a practitioner prefer to be in Samatha for about 5-15 minutes, before I choose to go deeper into Vipassana. I have used it to analyze things such as my fear of house lizards or spiders. In here, I try to dissect the problem into smaller more precise questions such as:
Why I am scared of spiders > 1) They can kill me? 2) They can give me diseases? 3)They are ugly? 4) What makes they ugly? 5) Do they bring me any benefits?
I think dissecting the issues like this during meditation brings amazing clarity into irrational behavior, and helps us realize the emptiness of any being or phenomena existing from its own side.
The nun who taught me meditation once told me about how she would use the analytical meditation to think about the act of her boyfriend cheating on her, back when she had a lay life — an event which had an overbearing effect on her life.
She would dissect into smaller questions like "Was it the fact that he humped someone other than me?" "Is it the act of two sweaty bodies just going against each other that hurt me?" "Was it the breaking of the promise of exclusivity?" "Was it my sense of him "belonging" to me? Or, being my "possession" of sort?"
So, yes, you don't just have to sit still trying to avoid thoughts. The purpose of buddhist cultivation of mind is to gain insight into life, not avoid living.

It seems contrary to Buddism that one must ruminate on specific problems during meditation. Analytical meditation is used to gain a greater understanding into the nature of reality itself which doesn't occur through cognitive reasoning but moreso through a gentle organic and intuitive processing.

Excellent response, Neer.  The only thing I'd add is that some people do the insight portion of meditation in a less formal way.  I think that varies from tradition to tradition.  For instance, in Rinzai Zen we sit in samatha with our koan and simply allow the answer to "bubble up" into awareness in our day to day lives off the cushion.  I can't tell you how many koans I've answered while gardening or taking a walk!  One rarely finds the answer to their koan during formal zazen.

Thanks Neer and commentators. i appreciate your insights!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the meaning behind this chant?
Who are the eight [types of] individuals that the chant refers to, and what is the meaning of the chant?
Apparently, it is the Wat Phra Ratana Mahathat Monks at evening service before the great bronze Chinnaret Buddha, Phitsanulok Thailand.
Source: Freesound
The translation came from the YouTube comments section but I cannot locate it any longer. Here is the link to a looped version...
Buddhist Chanting

Of good conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of upright conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of wise conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of proper conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
This Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One, namely these Four Pairs of persons, the eight [types of] individuals,
  is worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality,
  worthy of offerings,
  worthy of reverential salutation,
  and is an incomparable field of merit for the World.

Supatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Ujupatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Ñāyapatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Sāmīcipatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
Yadidam cattāri purisa yugāni
  Attha purisa puggalā
  Esa Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Āhuneyyo
  Pāhuneyyo
  Dakkhineyyo
  Añjalīkaranīyo
  Anuttaram Puññak khettam lokassāti

If liking the source (like maybe wished by the giver of it) of the Parita it might be even included there as explaining.

@ChrisW - Thanks for the excellent edit. ;-)

I use two spaces at the end of a line, to force a line-break for verse; and mostly avoid using bold and italic.

when thinking that if a moderator helps in violating the tos here and there..., well go on and take... may you all of you here give the right causes to attain liberation and freedom from any missery with ease.

@SamanaJohann The same appears on many sites, I don't know exactly where this was quoted from. I assume the Pali isn't copyright at all, can't be copyrighted; I don't know about the translation, that might be copyleft (given to the public domain). Suchness, I think that  Samana Johann is suggesting that you ought to reference the source from which you quote something. That's usually good policy -- it may be a convenience to people reading, a politeness to the source/author, and an aspect of the "fair use" doctrine.

Please see amendments in the question. ;-)

It's taken from (or quoted in) MN 7 (but it's one of the Pali Formulae -- buddha-vacana.org says, of this one, "45 occurrences", so I suppose this occurs in 45 suttas; also, that it's a component of the Sekha Paṭipadā).
It's one of the Anussati -- specifically Saṅghānussati. Sati is "mindfulness" -- and anu is "after (behind)", "for (towards an aim)", "according to (in conformity with)", also "each/every/one-by-one" -- so, combined, "remember" or "recollect" or "call to mind".
AN 3.70 says (of all the Anussati) that, "as they recollect ... their mind becomes clear, joy arises, and mental corruptions are given up".
Commentary says that this is referring to the "ariya sangha" (the noble sangha), i.e. all enlightened ones. The "8 [types of] individuals" refer to the "four stages of enlightenment" (sotāpanna etc.) or as it says "the four pairs of persons" -- both ordained and/or lay.

Supatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

The Blessed One's community of disciples who have practised well/thoroughly

Ujupatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

The Blessed One's community of disciples who have practised directly/without messing around/without dreaming about reincarnation/without trolling internet forums obsessively attempting to teach morality to worldlings/with total abandonment of selfing

Ñāyapatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

Practised insightfully

Sāmīcipatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

Practised correctly

This Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One, namely these Four Pairs of persons, the eight [types of] individuals,

Eight individuals practising for or have realised the four levels of enlightenment, namely, stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner and arahant

is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, and is an incomparable field of
  merit for the World.

The above means to not give to or place faith in idiotic monks (duppaññā eḷamūgā) but only revere and place faith in monks who have realised emptiness (sunnata).

buddha-vacana.org translates uju·paṭipanno as "straightforwardly", with uju as "right, direct, straightforward, honest, upright".

its means directly; like the "hearers" in the suttas, who entered the stream immediately upon hearing the teaching. It means not flip flopping to this & that practise,guru, school , etc.

For the meaning of saṅghānussati in advance, see Part II—Concentration (Samádhi) CH. VII SIX RECOLLECTIONS Recollection of the Saṅgha page 215.
We should be used with the tree refuges according to Sutta. Ma. U. Sevitabbāsevitabbasuttaṃ:

It was said, "Sāriputta, I say, persons are also twofold those that should be used and not used" On account of what was it said by the Blessed One? Venerable sir, when using certain persons demerit increases and merit decreases, such persons should not be used, when using certain persons demerit decreases and merit increases, such persons should be used. It was said, "Sāriputta, persons too are twofold, those that should be used and not used. " It was said on account of this.

Why? Sutta. Khu. Jā.(1) Vīsatinipātajātakaṃ Sattigumbajātakaṃ:

“To whomsoever, good or bad, a man shall honour pay, Vicious or
  virtuous, that man holds him beneath his sway.
“Like as the comrade one admires, like as the chosen friend, Such will
  become the man who keeps beside him, in the end.
“Friendship makes like, and touch by touch infects, you’ll find it
  true: Poison the arrow, and ere long the quiver’s poisoned too.
“The wise eschews bad company, for fear of staining touch: Wrap rotten fish in grass, you’ll find the grass stinks just as much. And they who keep fool’s company themselves will soon be such.
“Sweet frankincense wrap in a leaf, the leaf will smell as sweet. So
  they themselves will soon grow wise, that sit at wise men’s feet.
“By this similitude the wise should his own profit know, Let him
  eschew bad company and with the righteous go: Heaven waits the
  righteous, but the bad are doomed to hell below.”

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


text:
What are the different forms of nibbāna?
Often people refer to nibbāna with the cessation of all mental defilements.
However, does nibbāna also encompass 'momentary cooling off', for example when one engages in the various contemplations / mindfulness of breathing? If I, for example read suttas, I feel my mind is getting calmer and calmer, as if a heavy burden wanes.
Another 'momentary nibbāna' would probably be samādhi, where all hindrances lie dormant, right?

It's possible to have temporary events that may have flavour-tones of nibbana. Is this what you are asking?

Yes, even more subtle forms of cooling, like when medating on death, talking about virtue and generosity etc and in the grander scheme of things samadhi, jhana and final nibbana

The possibility of nibbana hinting at itself may occur but until one has reached nibbana one cannot know for certain if those prior experiences are nuances of enlightenment. Probably the best gauge to progress is noticing your degree of self-suffering diminish.

This talk may help answer the question: Nibbāna for Everyone.

Please avoid posting link-only answers. Extract the key points and put them in the answer.


text:
Acceptance of impermanence as the right of passage to adulthood? My take on Buddha's teaching
The Buddha encouraged us to find out for ourselves whether what he was saying was true.
I say the same. Feel free to find what is true for you.
The Buddha invented a rite of passage to adult age.
He said that we need to accept impermanence.
This makes us adult.
As long as we refuse impermanence, we are still children.
Impermanence is a polite word for failure, illness, decay, loss, death and all the **** life throws at us.
During the years 50s and 60s teenagers lived a rite of passage to adult age consisting in racing on the edge of a cliff, possibly to death (see film Rebel Without a Cause).
They thought that it's better to die than to live your entire life as a never-grown child.
Society abolished rites of passage to adult age.
Every time we accept impermanence we make our adult self-image stronger.
Every time we accept discomfort, failure, mistakes, illness, decay, suffering, pain, loss and death we make ourselves invincible.
The base of this rite is that what we accept helps us, what we refuse kills us.
This is a psychological law.
Every time we decide to accept impermanence we are Enlightened.
Impermanence is not the key here, acceptance is.
What do you think? What's the core of Buddha's teachings?

I don't understand why you associate impermanence with failure. Also, I feel that acceptance of impermanence is not possible prior to its recognition while recognition demands acceptance, so would say that it is the realisation of impermanence that is important while acceptance follows inevitably from the realisation. I would also question whether acceptance of impermanence constitutes enlightenment. What you say seems in the ball-park but I'd suggest some more reading of the literature. .  .

I don’t recall reading the Buddha ever used the words “adult” and “child” to distinguish between the enlightened and the common folk.

Impermanence is everywhere for everyone to see, but we usually spend a lot of energies trying to deny it and pretend that we can find something permanent that will make us happy.
I don't think that acceptance of impermanence is automatic once you see it.
I think that, in general, refusal of it is more common.

When mentioning that impermanence is being available for everyone to see, are you then talking about the "general" impermanence that can be seen without meditation practice or the subtle "hard-to-see" impermanence, that are only available to Insight-meditator or those who have attained Jhana mastery?

“Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’” --MN62

The Buddha maintained the importance of recognizing impermanence right up into his very last words. It doesn't seem to be enough to formulate your own definition of impermanence, but to see how, in your direct experience, it shows its full authentic nature. The three marks of existence are key: impermanence, suffering and not-self. One should not focus entirely one one domain. Buddha had taught one to see all the three domains concurrently. This is the height of the wisdom he brings out in others from his own wisdom.
Yadanicca sutta
Bahirani sutta

You are right, impermanence needs no definition, it's just out there for us to see and accept. I was saying that we need to accept impermanence and all the nasty things live throws at us.
Acceptance is key. Usually we spend a lot of energies trying to deny impermanence.

I accepted the impermanent nature of things a long time ago, but I still suffer. A deep shift in consciousness is needed to bring about the full realisation of the three marks of existence. Therefore,  I'm not sure acceptance is enough from a Buddhist perspective.

My roshi's roshi walked into the parlor where his roshi's (my great-grand roshi if you will) body was laid out.  He began to cry inconsolably at the loss of his teacher.  All in attendance were dumbfounded.  How could a man so deeply awake be so emotional!  After all, isn't death just another example of impermanence?  Seeing the minds of the other mourners written blatantly in their faces, the man said - "My teacher, who I loved like a father, has died.  If I want to cry, I'm going to cry."
Who had the more intimate understanding of impermanence?  The man who wept or those who wondered at his weeping?

I see no problem in being emotional. If I am being emotional, I accept that I'm being emotional. I trust my emotions. I don't think that the "goal" is to suppress emotions. It's more about embracing and trusting them.

Your point about becoming an adult is valid. In one sense, Enlightenment is attainment of the Universal Adulthood.
However, accepting impermanence ("and all the **** life throws at us") is not sufficient to get there.
The state of adulthood, unlike that of a child, is characterized by independence -- the strength and wisdom to determine one's life instead of having others (i.e. the adults) determine it for you. Adulthood is a state of self-realization, of being fully and truly oneself.
In Buddhism the obstacles to independence are recognized to be of two kinds: emotional and cognitive. Emotional obstacles are automatic reactions that make us slaves to our emotional neediness, our avoidance of discomfort, and our impulsive irritability and anger. Cognitive obstacles are the ones that make us slaves to our biases, stereotypes, overgeneralizations, jumping to conclusions and other perceptual==>conceptual mistakes.
The complete liberation from both leads to a subjective state that is characterized by a clear understanding of How Things Work, a deep emotional Peace and a sense of Freedom to act according to one's own sound judgement.

It was a dark night, raining lightly, with flashes of lightning. The Buddha said to Ananda: "You can come out with the umbrella over the lamp." Ananda listened, and walked behind the Buddha, with an umbrella over the lamp, [lighting the way for both]. When they reached a place, the Buddha smiled. Ananda said: "The Buddhas don’t smile without a reason. What brings the smile today?" The Buddha said: "That’s right! That’s right! The Buddhas don’t smile without a reason. Now you are following me [while having your own] lamp. I look around, and see everyone doing the same thing." (SA 1150)
...Monks, be your own lamp, be your own refuge, having no other! Let the Dhamma be a lamp and a refuge to you, having no other! (SN 22.43)

The Buddhist path is a gradual training that takes an immature sentient being and sets it on the course of figuring out and getting rid of the emotional and cognitive obstacles to Universal Adulthood, until one attains the state of clarity, peace and freedom.

SN 22.43 - that's beautiful!

How independent can one be? Perhaps one becomes more independent if they realize how dependent they are, because one's life will always be influenced by others and to some extent determined by others. I don't think it's particularly useful to distinguish adult and child since it depends on the persons understanding, but there is always a child in the adult and an adult in the child. One isn't born immature, he only seems that way because of how we have defined maturity.

Emotionally independent. Mentally independent. Emotionally mature. Mentally mature. Which, of course, includes understanding the limits of one's independence and maturity. Children want toys, have fears, are impulsive, have simplistic views, are often cluelessly cruel  etc. Adults are supposed to be wise. I think it's a useful metaphor.

I understand what you mean but when Lao Tsu compares a sage to a new-born baby, there are things in a child which are considered wise. Adults want money, have fears, are reactive, cling onto definitions, and are often selfish when preoccupied with the 'self.' Children learn those things from the adults. I just wanted to point out that it isn't as simple as adult versus child = wise versus unwise.

Right, so in this sense these "adults" are not mature enough still, they are not "universal" adults. Of course this is just a figure of speech, that has its limits as any.

What do you think? What's the core of Buddha's teachings?
I think the core is the "four noble truths" -- that craving, attachment, and suffering co-arise or are related.
But I don't think there is one core.
Another core is the "Middle Way" -- classically between hedonism and self-mortification; but also e.g. between eternalism and nihilism; or between renunciation and non-self on the one hand, and the brahmaviharas, ethical conduct, and spiritual friends on the other.
Another is the Dhamma being visible, inviting inspection, testable (unlike doctrines of some other religions).
I suspect that anatta is at least as important as impermanence -- and ethics perhaps even more so.
Identifying the mental hindrances or fetters is a core doctrine -- "purify the mind".
Every time we decide to accept impermanence we are Enlightened.
I don't know, maybe it's every time we decide to accept things-as-they-are (which includes "impermanent" -- and that may be one of the harder characteristics to accept, but is not the only characteristic).

Yes, to accept things as they are including the fact that they are impermanent. Acceptance being an aspect of love, this takes us to universal love, our final destination. Right?


text:
Do Arahants have Vinnana and Namarupa?
Do Arahants have Vinnana and Namarupa?
According to Dependent Origination, Namarupa is the result of Vinnana. It appears Vinnana is the contributory factor for six sense base which eventually leads to rebirth. Hence Arahant will not be re-born then the question come whether they have Vinnana and Namarupa.

First of all, it is incorrect to say "arhats have vijnana (etc)". The word "have" implies someone who has, but in case of an arhat there's no entity, no one to "have" vijnana. The right way to phrase this question is to say: In case of an arhat, are there vijnana and namarupa?"
Second, an arhat will not be reborn exactly because there is no entity to be reborn, and this realization is part of cessation of ignorance which normally keeps the Twelve Nidanas rolling.
Third, in this context vijnana and namarupa refer to nidanas, not to skandhas. The twelve nidanas describe the process of gradual taking shape and hardening of a certain subjective world and the person living in it. Vijnana and namarupa refer to early stages of this process. First, there develops a tendency to recognize and discriminate, and from that tendency appear various objects and entities. That's what vijnana and namarupa refer to in context of twelve nidanas. They refer to the naive, ignorant discrimination and to the illusory entities that it delineates.
In case of an arhat, the discernment is no longer ignorant and it therefore does not posit illusory entities. Buddha clearly said, with cessation of ignorance, there's cessation of tendencies, with cessation of tendencies there's cessation of vijnana etc. This refers to cessation of naive, ignorant automatic discrimination which contrives objects and then believes they are absolutely ontologically real.
So we are not saying that the skandhas disappear with attainment of arhathood, not at all. Arhathood is cessation of nidanas, the causal chain that leads to emergence and hardening of the illusory world and the illusory self.
And of course arhats are not mindless dummies. In case of an arhat there's a function of right discernment. This function is called prajna. The object of this discernment is yatabhuta, things as they truly are. This refers first and foremost to seeing samskaras as samskaras, instead of the fixed entities. Because samskaras are seen as samskaras, they are seen as Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta, and at Mahayana level, as Shunya.
So the short answer is, no, in case of an arhat there's no vijnana and namarupa - there's prajna and samskara/shunyata.

Arahants who are still living are those with "fuel" remaining and sense faculties (salayatana) still operating. The "fuel" here refers to the five aggregates. Hence Vinnana, one of the five aggregates, is still existing. The five aggregates have stopped burning with the fires of passion, aversion and delusion, but they are like glowing embers. When the arahant passes away, then the "fuel" is no more remaining.
Then, what about namarupa? It is also still existing for living arahants. Contact (phassa) and feeling (vedana) also still exists for living arahants. However, craving (tanha) has ended for arahants. Without craving, there is no clinging (upadana). Without clinging, there is no becoming (bhava) in the future i.e. no suffering here or anywhere else after death. Arahants are also free of ignorance (avijja).
According to Itivuttaka 44:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)
Note1 and Note2 (commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel
  remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first
  case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the
  second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold.
  The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is still
  alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not
  burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
  arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
  here or anywhere else.

Do you have the wind?
If you have, then you can control it. Then you can stop the wind, give it to others and so on.
If you haven't the wind, then it can't blow on you, because you have no wind.


text:
What is saupādisesā according to the Pali suttas?
I have not read 100% of the Pali suttas. I am only aware of the term "saupādisesā" in the following sutta:

“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element with no
  residue left.
“What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue/fuel (saupādisesā) left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbāna-element with residue left.
*“Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant … completely released through final
  knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is felt/experienced (sabbavedayitāni), not being delighted in, will be become cold (siti). That, bhikkhus, is
  called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.*
Iti 44

Based on the Pali suttas - without quoting any views of commentaries or scholars - what teachings exist in the Pali suttas that might explain the meaning of "Nibbāna-element with residue (saupādisesā) left"?

Isn't the answer in your quotation? "It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left".

Yes, it is, sort of. But what remains are feelings (vedana).

Don Dhammadhatu seeks a non-commentarial, that is, genuine Dhamma sutta that explains this, as mentioned in his question above ;)

The Suttas isn't a comprehensive system in the sense that it does not provide exhaustive definitions/explanations to every single term/concept. That's why we have the "TiPitaka", the "Three Baskets" instead of "Single Basket" of Suttas. Therefore one will have to rely on a "view" nevertheless (whether one's own view, others' view, or the Commentary's view, etc...) until attaining arahantship to verify things for oneself. Here's Ven. Bodhi's note from "Connected Discourse" citing Comy's explanation:

in relation to Nibbana, it denotes the five aggregates, which persist until the arahant expires. Nibbana as experienced by the arahant during life is called the saupadisesanibbanadhatu , "the Nibbana element with a residue (= the five aggregates) remaining"; as attained at his death it is the anupadisesanibbanadhatu, "the Nibbana element without residue remaining."

I marked this answer down because it is unrelated to the question. The question asks for sutta references and not for us to lazily regurgitate the views of scholars; in the manner of what the Buddha called "a line of blind men".

@Dhammadhatu, that's exactly why I didn't immediately start with the Comy's explanation. Instead I began with the reasoning about why we should include Comy's explanation simply because SuttaPitaka alone is not a comprehensive system.

I think you didn't give the suttas a chance. I have posted two quotes from the suttas (from MN 140 and AN 7.56) to support an interpretation of Iti 44 and will look for more later. Regards

Actually you've just proven my point that relying solely on the suttas make your understanding incomplete. You cited AN 7.56 and Iti 44, thinking that they refer to the same concept, but they do not. The Anupadisesa in AN 7.56 is not the same as the one referred to in Iti 44. As such, your "research" into AN 7.56 in hope to find some support for some interpretation is futile.

The huge hole in your logic, not mine. You yourself have said that you have not read all the suttas. If that's the case, it'd be an absurdity for you to claim that something's not written in the suttas. By the way, you're not willing to accept your mistake in lumping together AN 7.56 and Iti 44 as though they're speaking the same thing, which again, proves the danger of just solely relying on the suttas. It's not only dangerous, its' outright ignorant.

@Dhammadhatu said: "Your head will be set on fire and you will vomit blood from to your own volition". Wow, Isn't it an irony that someone who's inquiring about the Nibbana element without residue and yet, full of defilement of all kinds from crude to subtle? Only 1 word would fit the description: hypocrisy.

This answer to my question is "work-in-progress". In other words, I will do more research at a later time. However, my first two contributions are as follows:

Possible explanation #1
Iti 44 distinguishes between two types of Nibbana: (i) still experiencing what is agreeable and disagreeable/ still feeling pleasant and painful feelings (vedana); and (ii) where all that is felt (sabbavedayitāni) grows cold (sīti/sīta). Similar phrases are found in MN 140, which usefully includes a metaphor for explanation but does not include the word "upādisesā", which says:

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. When he feels a feeling terminating with the body, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with the body.’ When he feels a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here.’
Bhikkhu, just as an oil-lamp burns in dependence on oil and a wick, and when the oil and wick are used up, if it does not get any more fuel, it is extinguished from lack of fuel; so too when he feels a feeling terminating with the body… a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt (sabbavedayitāni), not being delighted in, will become cold (siti) right here.’
MN 140

Both Iti 44 and particularly MN 140 focus on feelings (vedana). MN 140 uses the literal metaphor of an oil lamp with fuel. In the metaphor, it appears "feeling" is the "burning" of the lamp (rather than the "fuel"). It appears the "fuel" is what is/the things that are felt. In fact, the translation above by Bhikkhu Bodhi appears illogical in terms of the English language. Bhikkhu Sujato's translation appears logical, as follows:

Suppose an oil lamp depended on oil and a wick to burn. As the oil and the wick are used up, it would be extinguished due to lack of
fuel. In the same way, feeling the end of the body approaching, they
understand: ‘I feel the end of the body approaching.’ Feeling the end
of life approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of life
approaching.’ They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has
come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take
pleasure in it, will become cool right here.’

Therefore, the impression from both Iti 44 and MN 140 is "saupādisesā" (fuel/residue remaining) refers to all/the things that are felt, which would be the five aggregates and anything else that are felt.

Possible explanation #2
In AN 7.56, a Brahma God uses the term "saupādisesā" in an explanation to Moggallāna, to which both Moggallāna and the Buddha appear to agree:

But when their body breaks up gods and men will see them no more.’
Kāyassa bhedā na naṃ dakkhanti devamanussā’ti.
This too is how those gods know whether a person has anything left over or not.
Evampi kho, mārisa moggallāna, tesaṃ devānaṃ ñāṇaṃ hoti: ‘saupādisese vā saupādisesoti, anupādisese vā anupādiseso’ti

Here, it appears "saupādisesā" refers to the five aggregates or the "collection" or "group" ("kaya") that is visible and knowable.


text:
Eclecticism in the Dhamma (as per AN 3.72; AN 3.65; MN 20)

“Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught”.
(Ājīvaka Sutta; AN 3:72)

Does this verse imply that the Theravadin tradition is sticking too much on traditional teaching, and are unwilling to accept other approaches as well? Rarely do I see monks for example, who acknowledge other approaches who aim at the removal of grees, hatred and delusion.
Of course the essence of Dhamma needs to be maintained & practised, but if we take for example M20, as follows:

He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts
If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside.

With that said, it seems that there must not necessarily be a one-way approach, but rather, if 'x' fails do 'y' or 'z'. Am I misinterpreting something?
Regards

It seems to say if x fails try y. It does not seem ambiguous. The two approaches would be complementary.

I don't understand the question; are you saying that there are other, non-Buddhist (and/or non-Theravada) Dhammas, for the abandoning of passion, aversion, and delusion? Any in particular, that you're thinking of?

The Pali suttas say there is only one path to Nibbana.

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

Good argument, but how then are AN 3.72 & the Kalama Sutta to be understood?

Does this verse imply that the Theravadin tradition is sticking too much on traditional teaching, and are unwilling to accept other approaches as well? Rarely do I see monks for example, who acknowledge other approaches who aim at the removal of grees, hatred and delusion.

Interestingly the adherence to traditional teaching is the factor that allows Theravadins to have an open mind. If one "sticks too much to traditional teaching", s/he'd have already studied and practiced the Buddha's teaching in AN 8.53:

Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

In Canki Sutta Buddha explained that people should not rely on tradition:

"Bharadvaja, first you went by conviction. Now you speak of unbroken tradition. There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five?

Conviction,
liking,
unbroken tradition,
reasoning by analogy,
& an agreement through pondering views.

These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked... truly an unbroken tradition... well-reasoned... Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn't proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless."
..."If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion

Also note, when you say "Theravadin tradition", who is that?
Is there a person on the Earth who can speak on behalf of "Theravadin tradition"?
Clinging to "canon" is a bad habit of many people who claim to follow "Theravadin tradition". But there is no written rule that in "Theravadin tradition" you must have such bad habit.
However, better read and understand Canki Sutta rather than trying to follow tradition (which would be already a mistake Buddha advised against).
In Mahaparinibbana Sutta he said:

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

Buddhists use the term dhamma in two main meanings:

phenomena (what is real),
teaching about what is real, or natural laws of something (e.g. "dhamma of awakening" etc.).

Thus I understand Buddha's advice as: do not rely on others or on texts; they wouldn't practice in stead of you. Take refuge in what is real and in your own practice.


text:
What does celestial mean in 'celestial bodhisattva'
What does celestial mean in 'celestial bodhisattva'. I'm aware of the definition of the term "celestial", but wondered if it meant that the bodhisattva was not born on earth, so that e.g. tantric masters are not celestial beings.

In Tibetan Buddhism they recognize a class of beings that we can call "latent informational energy entities". In modern language they can be explained as long-term memes or archetypes inhabiting the sphere of knowledge and capable of producing activity through that sphere.
This includes spirits, guardians, dakinis, and celestial bodhisattvas.
They are not organisms in our sense of the word, but they are acting entities in an abstract sense, having a certain identity, relationships with the world of people, and even something like attitude or perspective, that allows them to respond or react to human acts.
You could say that this is a kind of animism towards religious archetypes, and you would be right, except that our own system of political parties, corporations etc. is in essence based on the same principles.
So yeah, celestial Bodhisattvas are characters, like Batman or Spiderman, that have a certain role and function in human society. As opposed to normal Bodhisattvas who are actual people.


text:
If you build in difference to reach higher jhana won't that make it hard to enter jhana?
If i have to review how gross the jhana factors are won't that make it hard to enter the jhana as I don't care for the factors?

The jhana of the Buddha is born from letting go (SN 48.10). When the peace of letting go is always known, the vibrations of rapture will feel unsatisfactory compared to the peace of letting go (i.e., the Nibbana element). Thus, the mind will not cling to the vibrations of rapture and the rapture will lose its energy as the body (rupa) relaxes even more.
The rapture of jhana is merely nervous system bliss arising from the dissolution of sankharas or stress previously stored in the physical body. That is why they are called "rupa jhana"; because the bliss is based on the relaxation of the neurology of the physical body that stores and is stressed by unwholesome mentality.

Try not to think of "reviewing" as a matter of discursive thinking.  Their grossness becomes self evident as your mind settles and you progress through each jhana.  The best example is in the case of piti or rapture.  As the the 2nd jhana grows in strength, piti actually starts to get a little overwhelming.  At this point, you don't necessarily start  thinking "this rapture is terrible and distracting, I'm going to abandon it".  If you did that, you'd be more  in danger of slipping back into access concentration.  Instead, there's just a letting go of what is now obviously a much coarser experience than the less distracting factors offered by the 3rd jhana.

Well, you review the grossness of the factors of the previous jhana, not the one you're generating. The point is, each subsequent jhana is a step closer to suchness than the last one, because you review and let go of the gross-most factor of non-suchness present on each level.

But to enter the next jhana don't you have to go through the other jhana still? Wouldn't this effect them

Jhana is concentration where as 'suchness' is wisdom.

Correct. But non-suchness is an element of dukkha, which, in case of each consequent jhana, is the factor that must be abandoned to get to the next jhana.


text:
Is stock trading a wrong livelihood?
Does stock trading count as pursuing gain with gain mentioned as wrong view in MN117?
Sure active stock trading is very destructive, especially nowadays it's like trading the weather, but does it count as pursuing gain with gain even for passive stock traders?
Thanks a mil

I'd say it depends how you do it.

In my humble opinion, "pursuing gain with gain" refers to any purely speculative business activity that involves creating no added value whatsoever.
This is confirmed by Visuddhimagga:

Herein, what is pursuing gain with gain (lābhena lābhaṃ nijigīsanatā)?
  It is when one bent on gain/esteem/renown, one of evil wishes, a prey to wishes
  carries there goods that have been got from here,
  carries here goods that have been got from there,
  fishing out material goods by means of material goods,
  seeking, searching, looking, hunting, trying, sniffing out.

According to commentary, this describes the process of aggressive deliberate speculation, buying low, selling high, with no other mission than making profit.
According to this, and in my own opinion, stock trading is indeed a wrong livelihood, unless it also has a charity element or is used as a way to fund some other constructive enterprise.

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

I have a background in finance and am an active participant in the financial markets. In my opinion, investing/trading/speculating (however you want to call it) any financial instrument can have a wrong livelihood to it.
For example, the options, futures, forex markets are zero-sum based so someone has to lose for your gain. Many people may argue that this is wrong livelihood just based on that but in the complex world we live in, these financial instruments can be used to hedge against risk in which less if not all financial loss can be achieved. For example, a multi-national company can buy a futures contract to hedge against fluctuating currencies. If done currently, the company minimizes losses which in turn the money can be used to make payroll or pursue further R&D which  results in a net benefit to their employees and stakeholders. So in a way, positive things can happen.
In equities or debt markets which are not zero-sum, speculative positive things can benefit the world too. For example, a biotech company raises capital through debt or equity, in which they intend to use that money to research cures for deadly diseases. As a retail investor, you can contribute to this by purchasing the stock which helps it stay liquid and increases demand so in the future if the company does an equity raise, it is more likely to find interested investment banks.
Overall, I do believe there is some sort of potential net benefit to society through investing. However, the wrong livelihood of it is also present because of negative emotions, thoughts and potential financial destruction which is common amongst retail investors. I guess if you think about it, the complexity of the financial markets today is brought upon ourselves because we created it, so that in itself is wrong livelihood in my opinion. But spin it however you want, it is quite hard to avoid or avoid contributing to any financial instrument in our time for the lay Buddhist.

@user14243 Well according to the sutta cited in Andrei’s answer investing in general for a gain is the wrong livelihood which I can agree with because of the greed, emotional suffering, and delusion that can arise from pursuing a gain from a gain. And in Buddhist teaching it’s best to avoid that. My answer is just to provide another perspective on how investing for a gain can not just end with a gain for you but for others as well. And for that, I don’t think is against Buddhist teaching.

Thanks for your Insightful answer and for the above response for my deleted comment. I deleted my comment because,in-light of your last paragraph, i wasn't sure what i was really asking. Thanks.

The teaching about wrong livelihood for laypeople is found in AN 5.177, as follows:

A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat,
  business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

In addition, a warning about "gambling" is found in DN 31:

There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in indulging in gambling: (i) the winner begets hate, (ii) the loser
  grieves for lost wealth, (iii) loss of wealth, (iv) his word is not
  relied upon in a court of law, (v) he is despised by his friends and
  associates, (vi) he is not sought after for matrimony; for people
  would say he is a gambler and is not fit to look after a wife.

Also, positive advice about "investing" is also found in DN 31:

With wealth acquired this way, a layman fit for household life, in portions four divides his wealth: thus will he friendship win. One
  portion for his wants he uses, two portions on his business spends,
  the fourth for times of need he keeps.

Where as the following teaching in MN 117 appears to be for monks:

And what, bhikkhus, is wrong livelihood? Scheming, talking, h inting, belittling, pursuing gain with gain: this is wrong livelihood.

Stock trading does not count as pursuing gain with gain mentioned as wrong view in MN117 because this teaching is for monks and is about when a monk acquires gains by donations and then gives some of those gains for the purpose of gaining a social reputation so he can acquire more gains. Its similar to public philanthropy by billionaires to develop a positive public image and avoid lynch mobs (as J.D. Rockerfeller did, when he was the most hated man in the USA).
As for active stock trading; there is nothing "very destructive" about it; apart from the destruction of wealth referred to in DN 31 for those who stock trade similar to "gambling". Those who get destroyed are the sheep that follow the herd. This said, it is not inherently immoral because such activity is done with others who consent to participate in this speculative activity.
As for passive stock investing in a company one believes will grow into a real and profitable business; this is not wrong livehood because most investors will benefit; such as if you invested in Apple Inc 30 years ago, 10 years ago or even  5 years ago.

Thanks for your detailed answer @ Dhammadhatu.

Your'e welcome. This said, obviously you do not have the disposition for stock trading thus it is best avoided because in my former work many of my clients lost close to everything stock trading and investing.

Thanks again @ Dhammadhatu ... I will avoid debt as much as possible that is surly bondage! https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.045.than.html

Another sutta here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html

Traders, like myself, justify their trading by saying that they add liquidity (narrower bid/offer spreads), meaning there is a net positive value from trading (not completely zero sum).
This is true, but practically it is outweighed by pursuing gain with gain and engaging in speculation many fold. In my opinion it is pure hunter gathering for a modern technological world.
However, it offers the individual a very strong incentive to abandon putting oneself into the equation. Because doing so - engaging in one's fears/cravings when 'working' - only leads to loss from my experience.
For me trading is a learning experience in letting go. For many - my brother included - it is a crash course in suffering and further suffering, psychological self destruction - but not in the calm way - because they stop to or never learn to see the market in a detached way.
Interestingly, it has become popular amongst prop traders to practice a lot of meditation, as it improves profitability. I would certainly agree.

No worries! :) .. I'd add that there is arguably a distinction between speculation and preemption - saying the £/$ will be 1.80 in 3 years is different from saying the £/$ is going to fall the instant after the Brexit vote becomes certain. Akin to watching a rock at the top of a cliff crumbling the earth below it, begining to roll - and expecting it to roll further, to just looking at a rock at the top of a cliff and predicting when it will begin to fall! (Preemptive trading - going along for the already happening ride, is better/more profitable than just expecting a ride to happen some day!)

About your last point Ilya: I'd argue that people do meditation mainly because it is 'hip' and because, as you mentioned, has some benefit to regulate emotions and to concentrate more effectively. This being the case, they usually don't practise the Noble Eightfold Path (or at least morality), which would then somewhat benefit everyone.

I marked this answer down because there is no need to morally justify speculative trading. It is essentially a consenting gamblers market therefore those who lose do so according to their own volition. If you sell at the top of market; it is unrelated to your volition that others bought at the top of the market. Your intention was merely to sell because you believed the market was overvalued. While speculative trading can be "dangerous" (as taught in DN 31), it is not inherently immoral because each trader/party chooses to bet or speculate.

Sure thing, I see it as less black and white than that! My dividing line is solely whether the trader suffers or learns. (Gambling is engaging in an activity where expected value <0 - roulette when not the house; betting is any activity where expected value is >0 - say poker.. learners achieve a poker like experience, sufferers play roulette! :) )

Stock traders and/or organizations that release misleading advises to capture money from public stockholders are definitely the worst. I would say it is wrong livelihood.
For informed traders, as an individual, who make their living purely based on investment such as stock, options, properties,......etc, that in fact is a hard line to draw. They are unproductive and should be categorized as gambling.

Against our believes there is no wrong doing or wrong livelihood per se. For that to be the case, there must be a common purpose that is undeniable (which I still have not seen).
Therefore, you cannot answer that question without defining what that purpose is and bringing all living beings to agree on it.
Stock trading is not a wrong livelihood. However, beliefs of its users must often bring wrong livelihood to them. Because profit for just profit cannot be proofed wrong or right, and therefore does not bring any action.
Under my view, they are pawns of money, as money uses them to change between hands. If that was their purpose, people practicing stock trading wouldn't have any more chances to anyone else to have a wrong livelihood. However, although I might be wrong, it looks to me that the dominant trend is that they do not want to move money between hands, but to get all the money on theirs.
That said, stock trading is not a livelihood. It has become a major trend because it moves money fast, between hands. What brings wrong livelihood is what people try to use it for and what they believe when doing it.

Stock trading is no different from any other investment. The objective is to maximize profit and minimize the risk. Unless you are the major shareholder only way to protect your share portfolio is to buy and sell.
If you invest in a stock and do not trade eventually you will lose your money through liquidation, merger or compulsory acquisition.

I'm not sure this is accurate from an economic perspective, and the answer doesn't relate this back to Buddhism

This is wrong on several levels. You don't need to hold your shares forever to be a passive investor, just long enough that your gains are based on actual long-term company success and development, not just on short-term rumours. And even if you didn't ever sell at all, you can make a gain. Neither mergers nor acquisitions (not even hostile ones) make you lose your investment. And there are dividends that can also add up a lot over the long term.

deleted the post


text:
Why is there no self in the container of the 5 aggregates?
I can see that there is no self to find in the 5 aggregates. But what about their container ?
I have a recurrent thought which troubles me : I imagine the 5 aggregates happening within a frame, which is a different one for every living creature.
There is this frame, this perspective, which is unique for any of us, starts at birth, and ends at death. The five aggregates can only be experienced through that perspective.
I can't feel what my cat is feeling when I touch it, I can only experience the aggregates appearing inside my perspective, not the one of the cat.
I don't feel like this is contradicting any buddhist view. The problem is that I don't see how one is suppose not to identify with his own perspective.
1) Where is the impermanence in this ?
2) How can identifying a self there can lead to suffering ?
3) Is there a reference about it in the suttas ?

Perhaps because the container itself is an aggregate (vijnana) or consciousness.

This is the problem with mixing up ultimate reality with conventional reality. In ultimate reality, the cat does not exist. What is real is the tactile experience of the touch. That experience is an instance of the 5 aggregates arising due to causes. The experience is impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self.
'Container' is only a concept in the mind. It doesn't exist. Sights can be sensed, sounds can be sensed, aromas can be sensed, tastes can be sensed, tactile sensations can be sensed, mental objects can be sensed. 'Container' is not something that can be sensed. So it's nothing more than a concept. It has no basis in ultimate reality. Vipassana meditation is about stop looking at the world in terms of entities and start looking at the world in terms of experiences. You cannot see the 3 characteristics in concepts.

"You cannot see the 3 characteristics in concepts." - Could you say some more about this?

@Suchness Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta are characteristics of Sanskhara(conditioned phenomena). Conditioned phenomena belong to ultimate reality. You can have an intellectual understanding of the 3 characteristics with concepts/entities. But you cannot have direct knowledge of them without going into ultimate reality.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bl143.html

Is government a physical object?

I imagine the 5 aggregates happening within a frame, which is a different one for every living creature.

Governments can shape "actions of the country", but in the physical sense there are no such objects like "government" or "state".

There is this frame, this perspective, which is unique for any of us, starts at birth, and ends at death. The five aggregates can only be experienced through that perspective.

Even a point of view of a government isn't so definite and unified; so "can only be experienced through that perspective" is just an idea.

I can't feel what my cat is feeling when I touch it, I can only experience the aggregates appearing inside my perspective, not the one of the cat.

Imagine a beam of sunlight coming to an otherwise dark room. Depending on the time of the day and of the time of the year, direct light falls on particular parts of the room.
All that depends on the position of the sun, and the position, the form and the size of the window, and of the glass quality etc. Suppose you experience what goes on in that room. Should you identify with the window?

I don't feel like this is contradicting any buddhist view. The problem is that I don't see how one is suppose not to identify with his own perspective.

The Buddha spoke of "his" thoughts and actions, like "I did this, I do that".
But he didn't believe that this "I" was a kind of real object.
Just like we say "government did this and that", but that is just a summary on activities of various temporary executives who happen to come together for a while.

1) Where is the impermanence in this ?

All the governments change, sooner or later, and countries cease to exist.

2) How can identifying a self there can lead to suffering ?

If we believe in "I" and "my things", we feel much fear and suffering when they are going to be lost.
Think of how much arguments and wars happen due to constructs based on such beliefs.
Stealing, robbing, murders, suicides - where do they come from?

3) Is there a reference about it in the suttas ?

Practically all the Buddha's teaching speaks about this - how processes create "self", and "self"-based processes develop suffering.
See my explanations of Twelve nidanas.
Also in the "Cittamatra school" (Only Consciousness) see the model of 8 consciousnesses, where the seventh seems to be like the window between the first six and the unlimited alaya-vijnana.

I can see that there is no self to find in the 5 aggregates. But what about their container ?

Only non-puthujjanas see that ''there is no self to find in the 5 aggregates'' and those people would not ask those questions.
Also, container of the 5 aggregates is a new term, and you do not say what that means.

1) Where is the impermanence in this ?

In the dhamma, the impermanence of a thing means the arising and ceasing of the thing. The impermanence of a thing does not mean the thing changes all the time. The impermanence of a thing stems from the thing (arisng and ceasing) being conditioned
it goes like this

thing is conditioned
meaning the thing arises + arising of the thing stems from a condition + the thing can cease + the ceasing of the thing stems from a condition
a conditioned thing is impermanent
an impermanent thing is dukkha
a dukkha thing is anatta

2) How can identifying a self there can lead to suffering ?
3) Is there a reference about it in the suttas ?

It is stupid to base your actions on what is conditioned. And the fact that a conditioned thing has the property of being ceased by a condition is the best ''argument'' to qualify this conditioned thing of ''not self''.

I think I made my definition of container of the 5 aggregates pretty clear in my question, see paragraphs 2 to 4. Please ask for clarification if needed in the comments below the question.

My question is about how the concepts of impermanence and suffering could be applicable to the concept of container of the aggregate. So this answer is too general.