text:
Does the Buddha suggest a change in practice after the unfolding of Sotapanna?
For two years there has been daily meditation. For 10 months there has been the addition of satipathanna practice and present moment awareness. 4 months ago the self was seen as a creation of imagination. There followed two hours of laughter and joy. Later that day there were demon images in the mind. Inwardly smiling they disappeared then the body became electrified and there was a sense of being in the precise moment. One week later occured a formless jhana in the shopping centre. It appears three awakenings or major shifts happened in the space of one week.
It seems like an unknown force is guiding things now. Troublesome thoughts can be dismissed very easily. Suffering has reduced by about 60 percent. There has been strong desire for women and feeling bad towards family members. This is where the sense of self seems strongest.
After the unfolding of Sotapanna which is massively transformational, does the Buddha suggest a change in practice?

No, the practitioner no need changing the practice.
The practitioner has to comprehends 3 characteristics of 5 aggregates, which cycling as the dependent origination, from being ordinary until arahatta-magga. But the teaching literature may be difference. See the description after the below quote.
So, in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sīlavantasutta taught the same meditation for all people, ordinary and all noble one:

On one occasion Ven. Sariputta & Ven. Maha Kotthita were staying near
  Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. Then Ven. Maha Kotthita,
  emerging from seclusion in the late afternoon, went to Ven. Sariputta
  and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an
  exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Sariputta my friend,
  which things should a virtuous monk attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate
  way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Which five? Form as a
  clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend
  in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant,
  stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction,
  alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that
  a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five
  clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit
  of stream-entry."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained stream-entry attend
  to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained stream-entry should attend in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a monk
  who has attained stream-entry, attending in an appropriate way to
  these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of once-returning."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained once-returning
  attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained once-returning should attend in an
  appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant,
  stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction,
  alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that
  a monk who has attained once-returning, attending in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of non-returning."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained non-returning attend
  to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained non-returning should attend in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a monk
  who has attained non-returning, attending in an appropriate way to
  these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of arahantship."
"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"
"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five
  clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
  arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness,
  not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do,
  and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when
  developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the
  here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

But the teaching literature may be difference. Each enlightenment depend on each personal understanding-ability because each person has difference own understandable dhamma, i.e. Pañcavaggī were professional of aggregates before he meet buddha, but Dīghanakha were  professional of six sense fields  before he meet buddha, etc.

Dīghanakha enlightened nibbāna as sotāpanna by comprehending 3
characteristics  of the dependent origination (nāma-rūpa) in Sutta.
Ma. Ma. Dīghanakhasutta.
A thousand jaṭila  enlightened nibbāna as arahanta  by comprehending
3 characteristics of the dependent origination (six sense fields, six
contacts, six feeling) in Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Ādittapariyāyasutta.
Koñḍañña-pañcavaggī enlightened nibbāna as sotapanna  by comprehending
3 characteristics of the fourth noble truth in Sutta. Saṃ. Ma.
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta.

All pañcavaggī enlightened nibbāna as arahanta  by comprehending 3
characteristics of five aggregates, which is continuous from the five
clinging-aggregates suffering noble truth of
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta above, in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha.
Anattalakkhaṇasutta.

Thank you. This is very detailed and sheds light on a lot of dynamics for me.

THe path is the same for everybody at whatever stage. The stage of Sotapanna deals with views more than lusts, with the views being Sakkaya Ditthi and the usual obsessions of puthujjanas with rituals and symbolism that puthujjanas create generations after generations.
THe remaining task after getting  rid of Sakkaya Ditthi is to see the dependent origination, and for that you still need to make the citta serene (pasīdati), to get the citta into samadhi and then to find out the sources of each aggregate.
When it comes to the citta, the only thing to do before liberating it, cittaVimutti, is to make it into samadhi.
THere is a famous sutta where 4 samadhis are listed. The most famous samadhi is the jahnas.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
Of course, the most important samadhi is the one where mano is used as yoniso manasikara, instead of mano being used as vitakka+vicara+papanca, ie for daydreaming, creating views and intellectualizing like so many puthujjanas love to do and claim there are virtuous for doing so.
This Yoniso manasikāra is what stops a puthujjana becoming further a puthujjana. So as usual, it is to see each 5 aggregate as it is but, and this is the most important point of all the dhamma,  you must see for yourself what is the condition of each aggregate and the cessation of each aggregate.
Indeed, so far, a phuttjana only knows the condition of an aggregate by memory of some sutta, but this does not get anybody to become an ariya, just like reading and memorizing a user manual for a lawnmower does not mow your lawn....
THe samadhi right before that is the most important one since it is the usual one to prevent the development of lusts. https://suttacentral.net/sn36.3/en/bodhi
 This samadhi is the the famous  satisampajanna. This  satisampajanna is the pinnacle of what a few puthujjanas call stupidly ''doing vipassana''. THis practice is about watching the ''thoughts'' as they come and go and watching 2 aggregates, sanna and vedena, but not finding out their condition and their cessation (therefore the practice does not lead to the vipassanas).
satisampajanna has nothing to do with finding out the nature of sankharam of the 5 aggregates. But  satisampajanna is the best basis to do Yoniso manasikāra. With satisampajanna you know easily the arising of a thought, the establishing of a thought and the fall of a thought, before a new thought pops up and replaces it and it starts all over again. Same thing for pleasant vedenas, following a non-pleasnt non-displeasnt vedena which follows another vedena and so on. http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/08/an08-009.html
With good sati, go further and you remember to try to see all the conditions that the buddha talks about.
Once you see for yourself the conditioned nature of the aggregates, you see that they are anicca, which makes you see them as dukkha, which makes you see them as anatta, which makes you dispassionate (nibidda) towards them, which makes the citta liberated. All those insights called  Aniccānupassī,  dukkhānupassī, anattānupassī, Virāgānupassī,  Nirodhānupassī,  Paṭinissaggānupassī follow from ''seeing for yourself'' the dependent origination. Like the buddha said, ''seeing the dependent origination is seeing the dhamma'' and the usual first step to do that is to calm down and get the citta in samadhi.
Theway to kill desire, lust, greed is to train to see and to see the 5 aggregates as anicca dukkha anatta
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato
The source of this desire is ignorance.the way to kill the desire is to kill the ignorance.
For instance, to cultivate the perception of impermanence
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.102/en/sujato
 /sn22.59/en/sujato
More explicitly for a sotapanna, the recommendation is to live ''heedfully'', which just means again getting the citta into samadhi which creates a good basis for Yoniso manasikāra:

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified
  confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha...
  virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken,
  unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished,
  leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to
  the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or
  seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one
  who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes
  serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure,
  the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become
  manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who
  dwells heedfully.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html
here is a little sutta with more details for stapipathana
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn47-040.html
If you fail to get the citta into samadhi, then you can fall back on giving to contemplative, with he proper ''state of mind'', because a sotapanna knows that calming the citta is crucial and that giving to contemplatives who strive for sense restrains is a good thing: the citta is serene (pasīdati) when giving is done https://suttacentral.net/an7.52/en/thanissaro


text:
Online reference to AA.i.254
I'm looking for an online reference to AA.i.254 mention at the bottom of this page:

No woman can become a Cakka-vatti (the reasons for this are given at AA.i.254).

Either an English or Sinhala translation would be preferable

Per the List of Abbreviations, "AA" might be "Manorathapūranī, Anguttara Commentary, 2 vols. (S.H.B.)."

Per the List of Abbreviations, "AA" might be "Manorathapūranī, Anguttara Commentary, 2 vols. (S.H.B.)."
This catalog claims that:

The editions are mostly Print books (English or Pali)
There are some eBooks in Pali from the PTS

I don't know that (I doubt whether, but I haven't searched) there's an edition free online.
Google Books shows a limited preview of e.g. the Pali eBooks (e.g. here).

It'd be convenient to have an online link, if not i'll check it out the next time I visit a library. Thanks anyways!

Can you try using a Sinhalese search term? That might find something that I couldn't.

The Sinhalese term is 'මනෝරථපූරනී', but there are no downloadable versions

Sutta. Ma. U. Papañcasūdanī-Atthakatha, Bahudhātukasuttavaṇṇanā's translation :

The description of "It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch": Because the woman can't grow with The Thirty Two Marks of a Great Man, such as Phimosis, etc. The woman can't has seven gems, such as woman-gem (the precious woman). The woman's body can't be the biggest body of all human. So, Buddha said " It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch".

Actually, I don't want to answer like below because the feminists have resisted me before on my reply of some topic like this. I never want to attack anyone, buddha as well.
Sutta. Ma. U. Bahudhātukasuttaṃ:

Whatever fears, misfortunes and dangers arise, they all arise from the foolish not from the wise ... Therefore bhikkhus, to become wise inquirers, you should train thus.
...
“Venerable sir, saying it rightly how is the bhikkhu clever in the possible and impossible.” ... It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch It is possible that a man should be the Universal Monarch.
...
“Ānanda, call it, the Discourse on many elements, or The fourfold circle, or The mirror of the Teaching, or The drum of deathlessness, or The noble victory in the battle.”

That context is the same of Sun Tzu's clauses:

if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

The context is about the best no.1 winner (cakka-vatti/buddha/arahanta/etc.,) vs the ordinary (the follower). So, we have to look about the qualification of the best no.1 winner.
Remember: Buddhism never against female to be the best, if everything (everything is everything, everything is not something) of them can compare to the male. But by the science, history, environment, etc., it  is quite harder than the male.
So, what is the qualification of the best no.1 winner?

The best physical body.
The best  I.Q.
The best  E.Q.
The best  M.Q.
The best  Teacher.
The best  practice.
The best  effort.
The best  environment.
Etc.

Then answer me for these questions to get the answer of this topic:
Don't let me answer it by myself, because I can be killed by the feminists.

On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best physical body compare to the other period of month?
On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best I.Q. compare to the other period of month?
On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best E.Q. compare to the other period of month?
On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best M.Q. compare to the other period of month?
On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best Teacher compare to the other period of month?
On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best practice compare to the other period of month?
On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best effort compare to the other period of month?
On menstrual period of every month, does a female has the best environment compare to the other period of month?
How many time of a life, that the male has bloody period?
How are the patients feeling when they lost their nutriment for bloody lesion?  While this situation, how are their I.Q., E.Q., M.Q., effort, etc.?
How are the patients feeling when they stomachache by the bloody intestine?   While this situation, how are their I.Q., E.Q., M.Q., effort, etc.?
How the doctors, psychiatrist, etc., answer my question?
Why Olympic separates the female competition from the male competition?
Etc.

Remember: Buddhism never against female to be the best, if everything (everything is everything, everything is not something) of them can compare to the male. But by the science, history, environment, etc., it  is quite harder than the male.

Actually, it is from tipitaka, Sutta. Ma. U. Bahudhātukasuttaṃ ,  not atthakatha:

It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch It is possible that a man should be the Universal Monarch.

It is from Mahidol University Application Budsir  The Pali Tipitaka in Roman Character Volume 20 page 36-37.
http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/roman_read.php?B=20&A=738
Click here for these versions of this sutta: Siamrattha(THAI), Mahaculalonkorn University, Atthakatha Pali, and Thai translation of Atthakatha by Mahamakut University.

It says "the reasons for this are given at AA.i.254". But Bahudhātuka sutta merely repeats the statement. Reasons are not given. I'm guessing the reasons/explanation is in the commentary.

I think the OP's question is not about the sutta, but about the reasons for that a woman can't be a universal monarch. And, apparently those reasons are given in AA.i.254, not the sutta itself.

@Sankha Kulathantille Is it better?

@Bonn I'm looking for a reference of AA.i.254. Possibly an English translation of the Pali commentary. Not personal opinions.

Haven't you ever watched any competition? It already described by the syntax of  Bahudhātukasuttaṃ which I quoted above. Therefore, the pali translation of commentary have nothing, so I wasted my time to describe you by myself. It is common sense of what I described, everyone can describe it by themselves, so the commentary never describe it before.

Another, commentary wrote "they describe only the hard words of tipitaka", so the ability of female is not the commentary's job to describe.  If buddha said "female can't be the Universal Monarch", you have to ask the scientist for the reason why most female have a few wininig the competition/war/fight when compare to the male. If you ask commentary, they will said because the female doesn't have enough qualification. Then you have to go back to ask the scientist again. So, it is not the question for the commentary. It is the question for the scientist.

I added the translation. Is it what you want?

@Bonn That translation in the first paragraph comes close to what i'm looking for, but I don't think  it's AA.i.254. Your effort is not in vain. I have given you +1 ;)

See also Can the Buddha ever be a woman?

It is the copy of each other, no any word difference. But I choose in MN because it come with context. You can compare it's pali to see they are the same. Manorathaurani:
http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/read_rm.php?B=14&A=9920&w=Itth%26%23299%3Brata&modeTY=1 , Papancasudani : http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/atthapali/read_rm.php?B=10&A=2214&h=sabbamanussehi,adhiko,attabh%C4%81vo

@ChrisW Their answers in that topic look bias to the historian, and religious. No one bases on science. And if you compare them with my answers, commentary which I quoted, and especially bahudhātukasutta's context, you going to see the sciences and evidences basis answer.

One of the answers in that topic was mine (and I'm not persuaded by the "scientific" and "evidence-based" questions/argument you proposed in your answer here).

@ChrisW I don't want to rude. I just want to share the way I study pali canons. I can say nothing conflict in tipitaka by this way. And I often wrote "the western study system let tipitaka conflict each others". That's why I often compare the westerners' answers with my answers. I don't want to be superego. I just try to support the westerner to deconflict pali canons. I am sorry, If I wrote something looks terrible.

I'm grateful that you take the time to share your understanding of the suttas, in your answers to questions here; and I hope that people find your answers helpful.

Thank you for your understanding. I am practicing to talk by english for almost a year. I hope my conversation skill will better soon to understand people and tolet people understand tipitaka.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Effort in Practice
I noticed recently that for some odd reason, none of my resolutions and efforts have come to fruition. My attempts to diminish junk food, social media, and other such negative behaviours have remained similar, and my attempts to meditate and exercise have lacked success.
Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated approach to training oneself? Is there a mental factor simply lacking from my practice?
I suspect effort may be a mental concomitant necessary for improvement regardless of the insight I may have otherwise.
Q2. Is effort, as resulting from sitting formal and consistent practice, a prerequisite for growth? Is truly effortless practice a myth?
(I ask question two because I know that some Dzogchen and Mahamudra techniques are described as effortless.)

Although this is not directly related to Buddhism, I’m sure there are parallels.. read The Power of Habit. All your bad habits have a cue, routine and reward. Be mindful when they trigger and work to develop better habits. You didn’t develop those bad habits overnight so reversing them won’t be overnight as well.

Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated
  approach to training oneself? Is there a mental factor simply lacking
  from my practice?

As NuWin already pointed out: habituation will play a part in this. Another factor could be the misunderstanding of the practice.
Right effort is part of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Restraining arisen unwholesome qualities. (In your case lethargy, laziness etc.)
Letting go or arisen unwholesome qualities.
Developing of wholesome qualities. (Think, f.i., of the seven factors of enlightenment.)
Sustaining arisen wholesome qualities.

So, walking the path is work.

Q2. Is effort, as resulting from sitting formal and consistent practice, a prerequisite for growth? Is truly effortless practice a myth?

Effort is not so much a result as it is something you have to put in. And since it is part of the path it is definitely necessary. Growth can't happen without effort.
Think of it as gardening. You can't just throw some seeds on the ground and that's it. If you want the right plants to grow you will have to keep an eye on how things develop. Get rid of weed, water the plants you want to grow and so on.
You could try to contemplate on death every day to break the habit of laziness. How would you feel at the end of your days having spent them with social media instead of meditating? Guilty? Think of the possibility of being reborn in lower reals. Stuff like that. Maybe you'll find that these reflections or others can motivate you to stick with the practice.
It will become more effortless once it is your new habit. Doesn't mean you won't put in any more energy. But your attitude towards the practice will have changed and it will no longer feel as a chore but more as a natural thing.
Hope this makes sense.

In traditional Buddhism, effort is not only the way to move forward but, almost more importantly, the main source of satisfaction! This satisfaction then serves as the main source of fuel for going forward.
The student defines a goal according to Dharma (or the Buddha / thera / guru does it for the student), the student works hard to attain that goal, the student rejoices in his or her achievement. The goal itself on every level is an increasingly closer approximation of Final Peace: first you pledge to abstain from violence, scandals, stealing, lust, intoxication etc. - and achieve that; then you pledge to abstain from thoughts associated with coarse craving and negativity and achieve that; then you pledge to learn hold your attention on one object for long stretches of time - and achieve that; then you pledge to learn to use your skill of attention control to abstain from subtle craving and negativity - and achieve that; then you pledge to use your attention to generate joy - and achieve that; then you pledge to stop clinging to any conditioned state, including joy - and achieve that; then you review your resulting state, congratulate yourself on the Final Liberation, and declare Victory.
Whereas in "formless" types of Buddhism, that very same path is re-framed in terms of the end result. So instead of setting a goal, working towards it, and congratulating ourselves on intermediate achievements - we directly jump to the non-abiding state, however imperfectly. We just say, hey, our current state is already Enlightenment and this is already Nirvana, so let's just relax in the spontaneous expression of this eternal fact. Then, if doubts about our progress and negative thinking comes up, we don't suddenly change course and jump to the traditional Buddhism with its goal-setting and effort. We don't regret that we are on the effortless path. Instead, we just look at these doubts and negative thinking, seeing them as doubts etc. - and liberate them right there on the spot, either by appealing to Emptiness, or directly. We engage into this practice in connection with various life situations until it becomes our second nature. In the process we go through basically the same stages as on the original path - we just don't think about it in the same terms.
So in essence, it is the same practice. It's just that in one case we frame it as a series of progressive realizations, connected with effort, resulting in satisfaction and a sense of achievement, until our practice gets subtle enough to defact reach non-abiding - and in the other case we're habituating ourselves to the non-abiding from the very beginning, without the intermediate vows, goals etc. and the associate sense of achievement.
In a way, the formless practice is more honest and direct, but it's also a lot more difficult psychologically, since you don't get that hero feeling you get when walking the other path. Instead, you keep losing shape, and if you encounter any obstacles including doubts, you don't apply effort to solve them brute-force, but meet them by further loss of shape.
You should clearly decide for yourself which of these paths you're on. If you are on the first path, then your thoughts about junk food, social media, formal sitting practice etc. are valid. You should clearly define success on each intermediate stage and then apply strong consistent effort to achieve that success, then review it to harness the energy. If you are on the formless path, you should drop all those thoughts about not being good enough and focus on relaxing in the self-existing perfection of your natural state. What's important is that you clearly decide which of these paths you are on.

I am unfamiliar with the disctinction between what you call "traditional" and "formless" buddhism. I realise I have been taping into both techniques. Why is it important to stick to only one path ? I realise this question can be broad, please let me know if I should ask it on its own.

Well the two approaches are kinda opposite, so when they are combined they reduce the potency of each other. The formless approach with its emphasis on emptiness interferes with setting the goals and consistently going towards them and vice versa.

Yes it makes a lot of sense. I was thiking a goal oriented approach could be beneficial in some situations while a formless approach could be ideal in other situations, but in the long run I can see how these two approaches counteract each other.
Would you care to cite some sources where one could find advices to decide which path to take ?

It boils down to personality type. Some people require more structured guidance and others have high capacity for intuitive understanding. The first do not fare well with the formless, while for the second the rigid approach would be inefficient and an overkill.

Firstly, I don't think that reflecting on the fact that one might gets born in a lower realm is really all that helpful. It is grounded in an unempirical belief. Why should it influence my life? If you go with the interpretarion by Ajahn Chah or Ajahn Buddhadasa and take the day-to-day birth then that's fine, but knowing intellectually that one is in a realm does not help one necessarily to escape it.
Secondly, the path, as advised by the Buddha, should be practised gradually with little increments, meaning: Always setting  personal (short-term & long term) goals that are realistic to achieve. Values are important too (the 'why').
Thirdly, there is really no quick fix once a defilement has arisen, but to always be patient and try to re-direct the mind (thought) and body (behaviour; like for example breathing or escaping a situation) in a different direction, since it's compounded and takes time to cool off.
To answer your question briefly: Emotions can be compared with a light bulb; if you stare on the lights for long, there will be black dots all over your eye's retina. One cannot immediately turn the dots off, instead, one has to be patient in order for them to disappear.

Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated approach to training oneself?

You already know the point because you said that you attempts to diminish junk food, social media, and other such negative behaviours have remained similar.

my attempts to meditate and exercise have lacked success.

Every experience need time to collect. Have you ever gone to the jhāna-meditation school, such as pa-auk? Have you ever observed how the  ่้่้่living jhāna-attainer eat and live?
The jhāna-attainer offers the veggie while meditation.

Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated approach to training oneself? Is there a mental factor simply lacking from my practice?

You miss the various of meditation. There are more than 40 meditations to switch between each other. If you are bored by one you can try the others, especially āhārepaṭikulasaññā (to revolution the root of problem) and caṅkama (using as makeshift while sleepy).

I suspect effort may be a mental concomitant necessary for improvement regardless of the insight I may have otherwise.

Especially, effort of preparation before meditating, such as food approximating, water, āhārepaṭikulasaññā, etc.

Q2. Is effort, as resulting from sitting formal and consistent practice, a prerequisite for growth? Is truly effortless practice a myth?

The practitoner meditates minds & 38 mind factors, included effort-faculty. The prerequisite (basis) of vipassanā meditation are sīla & 40 concentration-meditation.

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


text:
How to avoid apathy in the absence of self?
I have noticed in my meditation / mindfulness practice the following: as the idea of self dissolves, the ideas of compassion, happiness, sorrow, and basically everything that a "person" might experience also dissolve.
This is disconcerting for a few reasons:

I stop caring about the suffering of others. After all, "no one" is really suffering, so there is no "person" to receive compassion. The "person" that I direct compassion to right now, is simply a volatile "soup of phenomenon" that won't even exist a few moments later.
I lose motivation to do things because I don't feel fear the way I used to. Because of my upbringing, fear of consequences was the primary motivation for doing anything. Example: in relationships, fear of letting people down would motivate me to pursue resolution to problems, resolve conflicts, etc.
I don't enjoy things in life the way I used to. As negative emotions have dissipated, so have positive ones. I no longer enjoy eating a meal with good friends, or a sunset or a dozen other things I used to. No moment is particularly better or worse than any other moment. When I live life one moment at a time, there is nothing to "look forward to" because I am not doing anything I dislike that I am trying to "get done as quickly as possible."

Bottom line: the more I meditate and live moment by moment, the more dull and uninteresting the world becomes. Consequently, I don't know how to get from here to having compassion or even interest towards other living beings.
Can anyone offer some guidance?

Hello Stanley and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

Hi @Lanka, thank you so much for the link. I will check it out and let you know if I have questions.

Why do you care?  Why does it matter if the world becomes more dull and uninteresting?   You don't have to tell me the answers, you don't even have to name them.  But since you do seem to care, that suggests that somewhere in that caring is something interesting worth letting grow.  Maybe, just maybe, it may be something you find worth encouraging and nurturing.  Personally I find that approach to be useful.

Hi @CortAmmon. I care because the point of enlightenment is supposed to be developing compassion and empathy and my practice seems to be leading me in the opposite direction. I have reasonable doubts because the results are not what I expected.

I have noticed in my meditation / mindfulness practice the following: as the idea of self dissolves, the ideas of compassion, happiness, sorrow, and basically everything that a "person" might experience also dissolve.

There might be some misunderstanding and a lack of clearly seeing in your practice, because the 'emptier' you are (for lack of better words) the more compassion should arise towards other beings.
Somehow you seem to attach ideas of compassion, happiness and so on to a person. Why? Compassion and happiness exist naturally. Anatta means that they have their own causes and conditions. They are not bound to a 'you'.
With a correct way of understanding you should be able to see that compassion, happiness and sorrow don't dissolve but what changes is your attitude towards and the way you relate to nature and others.
Freedom will lead naturally to more compassion and happiness.
In short: please examine your ideas about how things should be, let go of any of those and just be with experience itself.
I suspect that you suppress emotions, maybe because you (wrongly) think they shouldn't be there since there is no self. But I can't know for sure of course, only you can figure that out.

+1 In Mahayana we think bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment) has two aspects: the relative and the ultimate. Relative bodhicitta is the mind determined to reach Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. Ultimate bodhicitta is the wisdom realizing the emptiness of all things. We say that the two are conjoined and different aspects of the same thing. It is impossible for a Buddha to realize one without the other. We say that these are the two wings that allow the mind of enlightenment to fly.

Hi @Medhiṇī. Thank you for your thoughts! You stated, "Anatta means that they have their own causes and conditions. They are not bound to a 'you'." If they are not, then who is feeling happiness? Unless I misunderstand, you are saying that happiness exists independent of the mind. My understanding is that without the mind, there are no feelings, including happiness. Please let me know if I have mis-understood.

@Stanley Sorry for late reply. Was at a retreat. :) Happiness is not independent of a mind. It's independent of a 'you'. Happiness simply arises due to its own conditions. The question 'If they are not, then who...' is put wrongly. There is no who, there just is. There is a knowing and what is known. Mind arising together with it's object. One state following the next. The question of who is only asked, a who is only observed or felt by a mind that identifies and doesn't see reality clearly. Hope this helps. :)

Very good and relevant question. Based on hearsay and my own experience, I suspect this problem is rather common with serious, sincere practitioners.
On one hand, it is totally normal to keep getting dispassionate and detached as you grow your "eye of no-self". After all, the Buddhist realization was described by the Buddha himself as "dispassionment, disillusionment, disenchantment, nibbana" (or something like that).
On the other hand, putting too much faith in this idea of no-self (and its concomitants of "no future to strive for", "no sentient beings to save" etc.) as some kind of Final Truth indicates incomplete understanding of Dharma, at best.
In fact, my teacher strongly insisted that "3D vision occurs when you look with both eyes". Meaning, the anatta view and the "atta" view - are the two eyes. In one, there is no sentient beings and no suffering, no Path, no Attainment etc (quote the rest of the Heart Sutra) - and in the other there are countless sentient beings who suffer and need help. Enlightenment is called "the knowledge of all modes" exactly because it involves going beyond a single perspective, and seeing all perspectives (all "worlds") at once. Enlightenment is the pinnacle of empathy because it involves appreciating all perspectives out there, including perspectives of the most unfortunate, confused, and suffering sentient beings.
As your realization of Emptiness matures, the idea of single correct point of view, or the idea of absolute truth should start making less and less sense to you. At the same time, being able to see things from other perspectives - and empathize their pain, which for them is certainly real! - is the foundation of enlightened compassion.
The dispassion that comes from liberation from any single point of view (atta, anatta, and all the others) and the compassion that comes from a realization that most of the sentient life is locked into a single point of view are the two signs of correct realization.
The above is about the View. As for the Action, this sense of apathy probably comes from an established habit of living a spiritually sterile life. The same exact principle is at work here. While you cling to a single point of view (that of spirituality), you try to be as honest to that as possible and this leads to this sterile lifestyle. Once you realize that Emptiness means no absolute reference point and this realization sinks in to the level of daily life, you will no longer be restricted by one model of behavior. Then your life can start getting back the colors -- without the passions that came from taking it all too seriously.

Hi @AndrelVolkov. Thank you for the affirmation and feedback. I have read and re-read what you have written many times. Two things struck me: 1) "Enlightenment is the pinnacle of empathy because it involves appreciating all perspectives out there" and 2) "this sense of apathy probably comes from an established habit of living a spiritually sterile life." So hard to wrap my head around these ideas for some reason.

I think that classical doctrine says that having (holding) a view of self (i.e. "me") is a cause of suffering; and so is attachment to impermanent things (i.e. "mine"); and therefore we're advised to view things as "not me" and "not mine".
BUT a view like "nothing exists, nothing matters", or something like that, is "wrong view":

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

I suppose the non-self doctrine is a form of detachment; but saying, "I don't have a fixed view of 'self'", is not the same as saying, "you don't exist" or "you're unable to suffer" -- I suppose that the former is "right" but that the latter is wrong.
Also Buddhism (perhaps especially Mahayana) has the concept of "sentient beings" -- feelings including pain and/or suffering.
At the risk of adding a side-track to the main topic (the question in the OP) I think that classical doctrine warns against having a self-view that one is a "being" (Vajira Sutta); and, that "becoming" is something to avoid ("bhava", i.e. the 10th of the 12 nidanas, see e.g. The Paradox of Becoming).
The point is though that, regardless of how you view or don't view your own "self", there are people in the world, sentient beings, who are able to suffer, able to not suffer, and so on.
ALSO you ought to remember sila (i.e. virtue, ethics). It's foundational. It includes the 5 (or more) precepts, which involve being harmless or acting harmlessly, in various ways: not causing harm. And it's arguably more complicated than that for lay-people (see e.g. Sigalovada Sutta or something this book), though of course it's also quite involved for monks or nuns (i.e. see the Vinaya).
Also relevant to the question are the Brahmaviharas (described here as "the answer to all situations arising from social contact", see also here).
I guess this answer isn't practical, I'm just hoping to share a view of what the doctrine says about views. I think the classic view is that it's unwise to have any view of self at all -- and that "I exist" and "I don't exist" are both examples of self-views (see also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? for more).
As for "nothing exists" or "no-one is really suffering" there's quite a short Zen story on that subject which may be apposite:

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

I think that this topic is important too -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

I'm going to have to start smoking a bamboo pipe. :D

Thanks @ChrisW. I am reading through all of the links that you posted. Much appreciated.

@Stanley My answer may be based more on the Pali canon, where other answers (except Medhini's and VeiculoLongo's) are more Mahayana. Even so I think that the Pali canon denounces "there are no other people etc." as a wrong view, and promotes sila and the brahmaviharas.

@ChrisW - Perhaps it would clarify things to mention the 'Two Truths' doctrine. This would say 'nothing really exists' and 'There is not really anybody who is suffering', where the 'really' would hint at the fact that to all intents and purposes in ordinary life these things do exist.

@PeterJ Perhaps, however I don't think I understand "the 'two truths' doctrine" or see it as a clarification. I'm not sure it's a big feature of the Pali suttas. Further to that Wikipedia sentence I once asked this question -- What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon? -- but I didn't find that a very fruitful line of inquiry either. Perhaps you could use it as a clarification, in an answer of your own?

@ChrisW - The Dalai Lama uses the terms 'definitive' and 'provisional' to describe teachings where the latter are relative and require interpretation and the former are 'saying it as it is'. These would be Nagarjuna's Ultimate and Conventional ways of speaking. Invariably these two ways of speaking would contradict each other. The contradiction would not be real but a didactic device. (Thus the language of the First and Third 'Turning of the Wheel'). Heraclitus shows us the way when he states 'We exist and exist-not'. Nagarjuna would deny the truth of either atomic statement on its own.

@PeterJ OK but I find that all kind of confusing ("definitive", "provisional", and so on, is all vocabulary that I'm not familiar with), and as I said I tried to base my answer on "classical" doctrine i.e. the suttas. Perhaps (I'm not sure) what you're talking about shows up in the suttas as "mundane right view" versus "supramundane right view" . Maybe that's just the kind of doctrinal split (or one-sided extreme) that was confusing the OP, though, I feared that emphasising/belabouring it in the answer would just make that "worse", so I touched on other, more concrete, topics instead.

@ChrisW - I think you might be right about 'mundane; and supramundane'. The basic point is, as Lao Tsu puts it, 'true words seem paradoxical'. I suspect this is exactly what is confusing the OP. Nagarjuna is the man for explaining this and his fame is largely due to his explanation. He explains why the language of mysticism seems paradoxical while not actually being so. It confuses people like Melhuish and Priest who write at length about this stuff so the OP is in good company.

@PeterJ Conversely I don't find the suttas to be mystical or paradoxical -- not "mystical" possibly because it identifies dualities ("right and wrong", "noble and ignoble") rather than trying to take monism as a doctrine (ditto the verse 78 of the Tao Te Ching which you mentioned -- IMO those words are merely true, not paradoxical; see also e.g. Tai Chi). The suttas' anatta doctrine takes a bit of explaining, admittedly, to identify what it is and what it isn't; but there are other bits of dhamma to learn, so I just wanted to remind the OP of that.

Anyway I don't think I'm the person to try to introduce Nagarjuna to the OP -- it was Andrei and Yeshe Tenley who mentioned emptiness in their answers, I wanted to complement that with another answer which didn't explicitly depend on Nagarjuna's dialectic (I saw nothing in the OP that would imply the OP is familiar with or asking about Mahayana doctrine). Anyway if you think that mentioning or explaining "Two Truths" would help the OP, perhaps you could do that in an answer.

Okay Chris. I wasn't trying to start an argument or be critical. It's just that a Two Truths doctrine is common to all schools of Buddhism (the Dalai Lama writes) and it has to be understood for a philosophical understanding, so I tend to assume most people practicing know it to some extent. This has to be my last comment here - I'm being told off for chatting.    .

@PeterJ Maybe if H. H. the Dalai Lama is right, then I have been introduced to "two truths"; but never in so many words, IMO, and not by that name. Access to Insight, for example, nowhere mentions "two truths" and only mentions four (noble) truths (reference). I don't see it as a paradox (e.g. mutually-contradictory propositions which are true simultaneously), more like different tools which do different things and you pick the right tool (or the right view) for the purpose.

@ChrisW   I'd like to say more but mustn't chat anymore. Just a link that may be interesting. https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/

It is quite clear you have fallen to the extreme of nihilism in your conception of anatta and I would advise you to back away with all due haste. The doctrine of anatta and shunyata do not mean what you think they mean. The self does exist, karma does exist and suffering beings exist and compassion is necessary and the Buddha never said otherwise.
The doctrine of anatta and shunyata, when correctly understood does not contradict the need for compassion ... it is precisely the opposite. Based on this I would suggest you take seriously that you’ve misunderstood something and let go what you think you understand about anatta. Only by happily letting go of your current misunderstanding will you have the freedom necessary to achieve the correct understanding.

Hi @YesheTenley. I agree. Can you provide a link (or something else) that explains how nihilism is not the logical conclusion of the doctrine of anatta and shunyata? In the meantime, I am changing my daily meditation practice to follow this methodology: https://zenhabits.net/a-guide-to-cultivating-compassion-in-your-life-with-7-practices. Thanks for your response as always.

Hi @Stanley, just having doubt that your current ideas might be wrong is very, very, very good. Without that doubt, it'd be hard to let them go. In the short term, I'd avise to just concentrate on loving kindness or meta meditation and maybe have a look here on how to do that: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/29134/13375
In order to diagnose how you arrived at nihilism we'd need to go through the logical steps you used to arrive at this to pinpoint the error. In general, you've negated too much. Thinking the self does not exist is silly. How it exists is what matters.

Put to rest the idea that the self does not exist or that karma does not exist or that suffering does not exist. All of these exist just as surely as a chariot exists. Think of the difference between those and something that utterly does not exist... like the son of a barren woman. That will hopefully help to steer you clear of thinking these things don't exist. They do.

Hi @YesheTenley. Once again, thank you for the feedback and I will follow your recommendations. A thought... perhaps the label "non discrimination mind" might explain what I am feeling: "I no longer see an 'I' who translates the sheets to help each child, I no longer see a child who received love and help. The child and I are one: no one pities; no one asks for help; no one helps. There is no task, no social work to be done, no compassion, no special wisdom. These are moments of non-discrimination mind." - The Miracle of Mindfulness, p. 57. But if I remain here, I lose the way.

A link to the PDF if needed: http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/the_miracle_of_mindfulness.pdf

No, I think what you are experiencing and what Venerable describes in that book are very different. Consider: if you injure your left hand does your right hand immediately render assistance? Or does it stop and think first that it is different from your left hand and therefore need not render assistance? Does it make a choice to render assistance? It does not make a decision. It does not "think" of "itself" as "different" from your left hand. That is what I think Venerable is getting at... What you are describing is more like the right hand thinking, "Hmm... the left hand does not exist so..."

My own opinions on meditation are heavily shaped by the work of Alan Watts, a philosopher from the mid 1900's. You can follow a guided meditation he recorded in 1954 for your own enjoyment.  Or you can use it to judge his approach.  It matters not.  I do believe he avoided the three pitfalls you describe in his walk through life, and made it his passion to try to help others with that.  Personally, I love the chuckle in his voice, which all but screams out "This is it!  This is life!  You've found it!  Be it!"
In the comments on your post you say:

I care because the point of enlightenment is supposed to be developing compassion and empathy and my practice seems to be leading me in the opposite direction. I have reasonable doubts because the results are not what I expected.

One might say, as Alan Watts does in that recorded meditation, that meditation doesn't have a reason or a purpose and that, in that respect, it is completely unlike almost everything else we do.  But I do believe there's no reason one can't start from a purpose, as you have.  So we can start from there.
You clearly have two anchors in your mind.  One is what your meditation/mindfullness practice is.  It is a thing, and you can analyze it, and critique it.  It is the thing that it is; its a thing you do.  The other is what you believe it should be.  You state that you believe it should be developing compassion and empathy.  And so you strain these anchors.  You use the purpose of your practice to pull on what it is, saying "Come on.  Here's what you should be.  Become more like that in the future."  And you use your sense of what your practice is to restrain your idea of what it should be.  It must be the thing that is acquired through the practice, else it is not a "good ideal."
I would say this is highly normal.  I think everyone does it.  I find myself doing it right now, as I scan the text of what this answer is, and desperately try to tug on it with my mental image of what it should be when I hit "post."
One approach I find successful is to extend the concept of compassion not just to sentient beings, but to ideas themselves.  You have two ideas in your head, and they are under tension.  Practice having compassion to them.  Help them be happy together.  I find happiness to be a positive thing, in the sense of making positive statements about the world.  So show compassion to what your purpose of your practice is.  Find out what it wants things to be like.  Obviously right now there's a negatively phrased concern of "the current practice is not going in the right way," but focus on the positive phrasings.  What does it mean to be compassionate?  Why compassion?  You clearly have a part of your mind that is well aware of this idea.  Let it run free.  Or meditate on it.  Or do both!
Then you can show compassion to your current practice.  The fact that you find yourself on a path that projects towards nihilism suggests that your current practice has some negatively focused ideas on what meditation is not and what mindfulness is not.  They are "not attachment."  "Not clinging."  These negative statements are choking your path and you acknowledge that (or else you would not have come here with the question in the first place).
Compassionately encourage your current practice to shake it up a bit.  Lose some of its shackles and see where it leads you.  I know many who say that you can meditate at any point in your life, whether you are walking or driving to work or listening to your boss talk.  Focus more on what the practice is, and not what the practice isn't.
If you do this, you will find that you start naturally seeing ways to adjust your practice to go more in the direction of compassion, and your purpose for the practice will become more compassionate itself, decreasing the tension you feel right now.
And at some point, your practice and its purpose may find that they no longer need the negative statements to describe themselves.  They may be focused entirely on positive statements.  We can cast those negative statements away, and be left with something which is simply a being.
And we won't give it a name.

Entangling vines: Case 154
There was an old woman who supported a hermit. For twenty years she
  always had a girl, sixteen or seventeen years old, take the hermit his
  food and wait on him.
One day she told the girl to give the monk a close hug and ask, “What
  do you feel just now?”
The hermit responded,
An old tree on a cold cliff; Midwinter – no warmth.
The girl went back and told this to the old woman. The woman said,
  “For twenty years I’ve supported this vulgar good-for-nothing!” So
  saying, she threw the monk out and burned down the hermitage.

To truly experience what the Buddha meant by emptiness is to come face to face with limitless compassion and joy.  Practice isn't the chill of dispassion. It isn't dead wood of nihilism.  Practice is summer and the trees are in bloom.
The great way is true intimacy with all experience...and all of the highs and lows that come with any intimate relationship.  Anything that takes you away from that isn't any kind of practice you would want to pursue.
So my advice?  Put down your thoughts and put down your current practice.  Get off the cushion, go for a walk, and hug your loved ones.  Come back when you're warm and happy.

I especially like your first paragraph :) Welcome!

This has been familiar territory for me. Having a deep sense of meaninglessness has been a part of the growth process in me. I've come to see it as the falling away of the whole conceptual framework of life. I've learned to just be with it but not make too much of a story out it. It can be considered a form of purgation. Some refer to it as the dark night of the soul. It's quite close to being depressed. It's a dying and a very welcome one because if you allow it, an emergence out of it will pay spiritual dividends. In Buddhism, an unpleasant experience is not necessarily bad, and a blissful one is not necessarily good.

Hi @Nuance. This is very re-assuring and encouraging. Thanks for sharing.

You claim you '' live moment by moment,'' but the point is precisely that by not dreaming about the future nor the past, you avoid much craving and you reduce greatly your misery.
There is nothing wrong with losing interest with the 6 senses. In fact, the more you lose interest, the easier it gets for the jhanas.
All the apathy that you fantasize is just a lack of energy and joy which are typically brought by the jhanas. If you want pleasures and energy, you train for the jhanas.
For caring about others, since you already train for sense restrain and your goal seems to be nirvana, you can generate metta (=friendliness, which has nothing to do with love or even the passive com-passion that jews, christians and other liberals crave so much), do karuna (karuna is always an action like the ''ka'' of ''karuna'' indicates, so it is still not the com-passion that the jews and christians and other humanists love to plaster in their discourse, it is never passive, it is never a feeling) and have mudita (=joy that you see other humans craving less and less, therefore less and less miserable) and Upekkha towards other humans.
 But of course, since you currently long for sense pleasures, you believe that caring about other is wishing for other humans to enjoy themselves through honors, acknowledgement, expressing themselves, their opinions, their feelings,  and enjoying material objects and services. This is exactly what continues their misery. When you follow the dhamma and you are friendly with people and wish for some humans to stop being miserable, you wish for them to stop craving something (typically whatever stems from the 6 senses).
of course, metta, karuna, mudita and Upekkha do not help anybody through the cessation of afflictions once and for all, especially yours, if you do not exercise for sense restrain in the first place https://suttacentral.net/an4.126/en/thanissaro
You can mix metta, karuna, mudita and Upekkha with minduflness and you get ''the jhanas'' to phrase it badly
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.054.bodh.wp.htm#p1


text:
Of the two extremes (eternalism vs nihilism) the latter is more harmful. Reference?
A common teaching in Mahayana is that of the two extremes it is better to fall into eternalism rather than nihilism. This advice is given by many Mahayana or Middle Way teachers. I'm looking for Sutra references for this teaching or earliest known exposition of this teaching.
I'm tagging this Mahayana as I know this is a Mahayana teaching, but if anyone could find references in the Pali Canon I would be very happy for you to share it :)
Please don't use the question as a means to argue with the teaching... just looking for references.

I'm not sure what's meant by "eternalism"; but quoting from the Pali canon again, in The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice is a passage which says that "mundane right view" (i.e. belief in rebirth) is better or safer than an annihilationst view:

So it is with all of our actions. Given that we have to wager one way or another all the time on how to find happiness, the Buddha stated that it's a safer wager to assume that actions bear results that can affect not only this lifetime but also lifetimes after this than it is to assume the opposite.
In MN 60, for instance, he pointed out that anyone who adheres to the annihilationist view espoused by Ajita Kesakambalin would not be expected to avoid unskillful behavior, whereas those who hold to the opposite — mundane right view — would be expected to avoid unskillful behavior. Then he said of the first group:

"With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans [who assert the existence of the next world], this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful."
— MN 60

As for the second group — those who hold to mundane right view and act on it — he said this:

"With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & well adopted by him, covers both sides and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful."
— MN 60

These arguments don't prove the efficacy of action or the truth of rebirth, but they do show that it is a safer, more reasonable, and more honorable policy to assume the truth of these teachings than it would be to assume otherwise. The Buddha didn't press these arguments beyond that point. In other words, he left it to his listeners to decide whether they wanted to recognize that action is an investment that, like all investments, incurs risks. And he left it to them to decide how they wanted to calculate the risks and potentials that action might involve now and into the future. He didn't ask that his listeners all commit themselves to an unquestioning belief in the possibility that their actions might lead to rebirth, but he wasn't interested in teaching anyone who rejected that possibility outright. As we've already noted, he saw that heedfulness lay at the root of all skillful qualities. If a listener couldn't be persuaded to develop an appropriate level of heedfulness around the risks of action, any further teaching would be a waste of time.

SN12.17, DN1, SN12.17, SN22.81 and SN44.10 are the only suttas dealing with both eternalism and annihilationism. Rather than choosing one as better, the middle road is offered.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way:
  ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.
  Choices are a condition for consciousness. …
  That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
  When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.

They're both mentioned in DN 1 too.

Oh dear. I messed up my search. Apologies. Answer updated with newly found references.

In the Paṭhamakosala Sutta (AN 10.29), there is this:

"This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might
  not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be
  mine.’ When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be
  repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the
  cessation of continued existence."


text:
How can we conclude that something is unarisen and eternal?
Let us suppose there is something (i.e. nirvana) unarisen and eternal.
How can we conclude and trust that it is indeed unarisen and eternal ? Because in order to find out whether it is unarisen, we will have to go into its infinite past; and to find out whether it is eternal, we will have to go into its infinite future.
Nirvana is said to unarisen and eternal.
So my question is : How do we know something is unarisen and eternal ?

Or, how about let's not. The first sentence is already wrong, everything after that is therefore invalid.

@Medhiṇī Can you explain what's wrong with it and maybe what the more-correct statement is?

@ChrisW My English is not good enough, but I try. The way it is formulated is improper given the subject (Nibbana). It's impossible to say that there is 'something' unarisen and eternal. As soon as one talks about a 'thing' it already is bound to our conventional frame of reference and can therefore no longer be that which one does want to investigate. It doesn't hold up, doesn't make sense, doesn't apply. Plus, it can only lead to assumptions, and those are also bound to our conventional frame of reference.

@Medhiṇī Nirvana is something we achieve. It is the end of suffering. It is said to be unarisen and unconditional therefore it is said to be eternal. My question is having achieved Nirvana , how do you know it will last forever or that it was in existence since eternity ?

Nagarjuna explains this in his Fundamental Treatise in the chapter on Nirvana. It is probably one of the hardest chapters to understand. In summary: Medhini is correct that Nirvana is not a “thing” nor is it a “non-thing.” This seemingly leads to contradiction since the Buddha seemingly implied Nirvana was a thing. The way to resolve this contradiction is extremely subtle. It is hard to resolve without falling into the extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. In short: to really understand it you can see that from the view of eternalism Nirvana is said to be unarisen and eternal.

Nevertheless, this is only from the view of eternalism and is skillful in leading people out of annihilationism. However, it is not the final correct understanding. The problem is that when people try to go beyond this view they often fall back to annihilationism thinking Nirvana doesn’t exist at all. This is not the case and is very dangerous.

This is getting long... so I guess I will try and give my own answer to explain as I meagerly understand it...

@DheerajVerma No one ever achieves Nibbana. Achieving also belongs to the realm of conditionality. The mind has to let go of everything and Nibbana can then present itself. Knowing the characteristics of Nibbana is best understood by contrast with conditioned reality. That's the best way I can describe it.

It would be a mistake to imagine the unarisen is subject to time and has a past and future that can be explored.

Imagine, for example, that you're trying to travel to Paris (or to Rome, or Varanasi, or anywhere else).
So, you ask people, "How to get to Paris?" -- and you follow road signs, which say, "This way to Paris."
When you get to Paris, after you arrive, I don't think you ask yourself, "How do I know this is Paris?"
I think that descriptions of nirvana (like "unarisen") should be understood as instructions or directions like this.

I don't know, maybe another analogy is like, you go with someone to the sea-shore, and they say, "That ocean is always there." You look, and what you see are waves which appear and disappear, and so it's difficult to see what's constant, to see that there is anything that's constantly there.

Using our conventional methods of learning we cannot know eternity (or the now). However, you may glimpse this from a higher state of consciousness where the concept of time falls away.
I recall watching eighties music videos a few weeks ago where this falling away of time happened. It was perfectly prestine that the events in the videos happened now. I began to experiment. I explored my past and found that I could intuit my entire life in a single thought form.
This falling away of conceptual time stayed with me for around a week. At the same time I lost my concept of distance and size but those came with entirely different experiences.
Speaking to your question: in essence, you cannot know the answer to your question through the finite constraints of the conditioned mind. Moreover, eternity may be the wrong word. 'nowness' fits better. Everything happened 'now'.

This question along with a number of your other questions lately suggest you are arriving at a crossroads in your understanding. This is a very delicate crossroads and is fraught with danger, because if you choose the wrong fork you could very easily fall into the view of nihilism which is the road leading straight into the avici hells. Therefore, please take care and monitor your thoughts for signs of this and if you discover you are traveling this perilous road please back up and consider that you've made an error due to misunderstanding. Now, with that caveat I'll try to give a meager account of the answer according to my poor understanding...
The answer to your question can be found in chapter 25 of Nagarjuna's MMK. I've posted the first eight verses along with a short and poor paraphrase of the Incomparable Je Lama Tsongkhapa's explanation. I wish you all the best in studying and would suggest to read the real thing in Ocean of Reasoning. I really think a detailed study of this book and in particular the 25th chapter on Nirvana is the best you can do to resolve your question. With that said, here you go:

25.1 If all this is empty. Then there is neither arising nor passing away. Through the abandonment or cessation of what Does one aspire to
  nirvana?

I've italicized this verse intentionally even though it is not italicized in the original. Why? Because this verse is given from the view of the objector. You can think of Nagarjuna's MMK as a conversation or debate between two interlocutors. The italicized verses are given from the perspective of ignorance or those who object to the correct Middle Way view. The bold verses are given from the perspective of wisdom or those who uphold the correct Middle Way view.
This verse's perspective is one of eternalism. Thinking that rejecting the inherent existence of "all this" is tantamount to saying that Nirvana does not exist and thus falling to nihilism.

25.2 If all this is nonempty, Then there is neither arising nor passing away. Through the abandonment or cessation of what Does one
  aspire to nirvana?

This verse is the response. It gives the contrary consequence that if one takes the view of eternalism (ie., essentially existing) that Nirvana becomes impossible since all things are fixed and eternal: that is they do not arise or pass away.

25.3 Unrelinquished, unattained, Unannihilated, impermanent, Unarisen, unceased: This is how nirvana is described.

This is the view from the Middle Way and is the correct view and this is the Buddha's own account. This verse is saying that the Middle Way does not maintain that Nirvana is the subsequent elimination of previously essentially existing afflictions which is the view of eternalism. Why? Because this necessarily entails the error that Nirvana would be impossible because from the view of eternalism there is neither arising nor ceasing. How does Nirvana exist or what are the characteristics of Nirvana? It does not exist essentially as desire that has been relinquished, nor essentially as fruits that have been attained, nor as essentially the owning of the aggregates which have been annihilated, nor as the non-empty which would be permanent. It is not essentially arisen nor essentially ceased. It only exists because things do not exist essentially.

25.4 Nirvana is not a thing. It would then have the characteristics of aging and death. No thing exists Without aging and death.

This is a rejection of the extreme of the eternalist. If Nirvana was a thing, then it would have the characteristic of aging and death just as you have pointed out. That is why we can be confident that it is not a thing because the Buddha has described Nirvana as not subject to aging and death.

25.5 If nirvana were a thing, Nirvana would be compounded. A non-compounded thing Does not exist anywhere.

This is a reiteration of the above point from the contrapositive and a rejection of the conception of Nirvana as a thing. It is not a thing because if it were, then we'd have the absurd consequence that Nirvana was compounded and therefore dependent.

25.6 If nirvana were a thing, How could nirvana be nondependent? A nondependent thing Does not exist anywhere.

If Nirvana was a thing, then it would be dependent and this is absurd. For dependent things arise dependent upon causes. All we've seen so far is a rejection of the extreme of eternalism with regard to Nirvana. This is quite in keeping with what your questions are pointing at. Next, we're going to see rejection of Nirvana from the extreme of nihilism. This is what you are in danger of.

25.7 If nirvana were a non-thing, How could it make sense for it not to be a thing? Where nirvana is not a thing, It cannot be a non-thing.

This is the rejection of the view of nihilism saying that Nirvana is a non-thing. What is a non-thing? It is the mere termination of birth and the afflictions. This is the supposition of true cessation. This is a subtle and hard to understand point so please think very carefully about this. Were Nirvana to be a non-thing, then it would be the true cessation of birth and the afflictions. It would be a true ending. And true endings arise only from believing that things exist inherently. It is precisely because inherent existence is impossible that true endings cannot be posited. I think of true endings as inherent existence sneaking in through the back door after eternalism has been refuted. In a sense, eternalism and nihilism are two sides of the same coin of the view of inherent existence.

25.8 If nirvana were a non-thing, How could nirvana be nondependent? Whatever is nondependent Is not a non-thing.

Nirvana is not a non-thing, because if it were then it would have to exist inherently as a non-thing. And inherent existence is an impossible mode of existence. Again, to understand what "non-thing" refers to here, understand that those who assert Nirvana is a non-thing are those who believe that Nirvana is the true exhaustion of the afflictions and the non-existence of rebirth that occurs through the power of actions. This is the view of many Buddhists who believe that with the breakup of the body of an enlightened being that something truly existent has ended. That some mind or being or some thing that was truly there before has now truly and totally disappeared. Something existent has been turned into a non-existent. This is a true ending and it necessarily implies that whatever has been turned into a true non-existent was therefore previously a true existent.

To put this into my own words, I'd say that when you view Nirvana as some thing then the view of it existing in a true, essential, and inherent way rears its head: ie., eternalism.
When you view Nirvana as arising after some thing ends - aka view Nirvana as that non-thing - then the view of that previous thing existing in a true, essential and inherent way rears its head and its true ending pops up: ie., annihilationism.
When you view Nirvana as both some thing that previously existed and subsequently as some non-thing that takes its place then the views of eternalism and annihilationism both rear their head in a mass of confusion that necessarily is caused by believing that inherent existence is a possible mode of existence.
When you view Nirvana as some thing that is "neither a thing nor a non-thing" then again you've misunderstood and are just heaping confusion upon confusion.
The only way to understand Nirvana is to understand emptiness first and then to realize that Nirvana - just like all things - are completely empty of inherent existence. When you understand this directly in an unmistakable and incontrovertible manner then knowledge consequently destroys ignorance. It is just this that is said to be Nirvana.
Hope this helps!


text:
What are some of the sutra's related to the Twelve Links (Nidanas)?
Jarāmaranam,
Jāti,
Bhava,
Upādāna,
Tanhā,
Vedanā,
Phassa,
Salāyatana,
Nāma-rūpa,
Viññāna,
Sankhārā,
Avidya.
I believe they operate inversely and wanted to see further how this inversion is illustrated in the Pali canon.

The best survey of suttas on Twelve Nidanas that I have seen can be found in "The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A comparative study based on the Sutranga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama" by Choong Mun-keat.

Thank you. This is very detailed and informative study.

There's an entire samyutta on the Nidanas in the Connected Discourses: https://suttacentral.net/sn12

Great. Thank you. Suttacentral has a nice app too.


text:
If the self is scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this?
The concept of self is important in social psychology: self-concept, self-esteem, self-control, self-awareness, etc. As a science, these concepts are measured under scientific methods, and there are interesting results. For example, a positive self-esteem does not mean people only have positive self-evaluations, but about balancing positive and negative thoughts.
I think these results don't necessarily refute the central idea of Buddhism that clinging on the self concept will lead to sufferings, but on the other hand, Buddhism also advocates scientific methods to evaluate itself. As there are strong evidences that the self exists, I think it's better to say "there is self, but we shouldn't think about it to avoid sufferings" rather than say "the self is an illusion".

What is the Buddhist view on this?

FYI: • Buddhism and psychology: Perception and the self – Wikipedia
• Social psychology: Self-concept – Wikipedia
• Mindfulness is used to develop self-knowledge
• How is the Concept of Consciousness in Psychology Related to the parallel Buddhism concepts?
• What is the relation between measures, constructs and concepts?

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

The Buddhist view, or discovery, is that the self does not exist. There is no evidence to the contrary. Science is welcome to go looking for the self but it seems rather obvious that it does not have the necessary tools or methods.

"If the self is scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this?"
Let's be very clear: the self has not been scientifically measured. It has not been measured by any scientific discipline let alone social psychology which is about as soft a science as you can find. Set aside the replication crisis that is most profoundly visible in social psychology and look at your assertion on the merits. Please cite even one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal - regardless whether it has been replicated - that shows the objective measurement of "the self" itself.
No, you cannot do this because there exists no such study or result. Why? Because all that has been "measured" by social psychology are ideas or subjective feelings, impressions, or perceptions about the self. But ideas, feelings, impressions and perceptions are not the same as the self.
Do you stipulate this is true? I hope so, because otherwise it will be hard to go further. If not, then again please cite one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal that even suggests otherwise.
Assuming you do stipulate, then let's correct your assertion above to:
"If feelings, impressions, perceptions or ideas about the self are scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this?"
The Buddhist view on this is that these feelings, impressions, perceptions and ideas about the self are not in dispute. Indeed, the only remarkable thing would be if social psychology found that these ideas, impressions, perceptions or feelings about the self did not exist. But of course they do. The Buddhist view stipulates that all these exist and befuddle sentient beings into believing that the self exists in a real, essential, inherent way when in fact no such real, essential, inherent self can be found.
"As there are strong evidences that the self exists, I think it's better to say "there is self, but we shouldn't think about it to avoid sufferings" rather than say "the self is an illusion"
Again, if you think there is strong evidence from social psychology that the self exists in a real, inherent, essential way then please cite even one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal saying so. I don't think you can. No, what you'll find is numerous findings indicating people talking about their subjective impressions, feelings, perceptions or ideas about the self. That is not scientific evidence that the self exists in a real, essential, inherent way.
BTW, I never said that the self is an illusion. Rather, it is like an illusion just as all phenomena exist in an illusory-like way. Let me say that again for emphasis: far more than just the self, all phenomena exist in an illusory-like way completely void of real, essential or inherent existence. What's more, there is not one valid empirical scientific study or result that conclusively shows otherwise. Proffer even one scientific study or result that conclusively shows otherwise and like His Holiness the Dalai Lama ... I would be more than happy to investigate and change my mind if something, anything, can be shown to exist under ultimate analysis.

I think philosophy has been questioning whether a phenomenon is real or not, not just Buddhism. I agree that saying "strong evidence" that the self is scientifically measured is a bold claim, but given that it is the core concept in a science, I think we are safe to say it's real? I mean "real" in the scientific sense, not philosophical sense.

Perhaps "measurable" is more accurate than "real". Money is measurable, but is also just a shared delusion.

I don’t know how you would define “real” in scientific terms vs philosophical terms. Can you give the two different definitions?

Even if you use “measurable” instead of “real” we are still left with what is being measured. I maintain, and Buddhism maintains, that social psychology is just measuring beings subjective feelings, perceptions, ideas, and concepts about a hypothetical self and not measuring the self itself. If the self is a real physical thing that can be measured then where in the body or outside the body does it exist? How do scientists hook up there instruments to it?

yes, I mean "measurable". I suspect that in science, being able to measure a hypothetical object is enough for some to believe that it is real (e.g. naïve realists). Your last two questions require decent knowledge on philosophy of mind and philosophy of science, which I don't have, so I can't answer you.

Yes, naive realism is a view that believes things exist inherently. Buddhism - generally speaking - disagrees.

but that's the point of my question. If Buddhism accepts the conclusions of science, then it should also accepts the method to produce such conclusions, isn't it? (Note, I'm not saying that naive realism is the method in science – I don't know at all. But it can be a possibility.)

Naive realism is just a priori view of some scientists and is not required for doing science or accepting scientific conclusions. In fact, many scientists working on fundamental physics - the hardest of hard sciences - say that naive realism has been refuted by QM. See the answer about Relational QM for more.

@YesheTenley what's your take on psychologys construct of personality? Same as with the concept of a self? Different?

We are fortunate to live in a time where science had made impressive progress and has confirmed many aspects of the Buddha’s world view, but to think and believe that the only way to confirm what the Buddha taught is to see whether those teachings are compatible with science, is the wrong way to go.
There are many, many things that have not been “discovered” by science (or philosophy) yet, and the depth that the Buddha Dhamma had gone in understanding the MIND has not even been touched by science yet. Therefore, trying to gauge the validity of Buddha Dhamma using only the known facts from science is like a blind man trying to figure out what an elephant looks like by touching a leg of the elephant. Science can accept only those phenomena that can be observed and measured with scientific instruments. Such scientific instruments are basically “extensions” for our six senses.
Buddha Dhamma is self consistent. There is self-consistency within the foundational concepts, such as Tilakkhana, Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, Paticca Samuppada, etc. Unlike Budda Dhamma, scientific explanations can change with time.
Buddha has said that there is no “permanent” or “unchanging” self (which is called “soul” or “athma”) that remains the same throughout different births. Hence Buddha rejected both “permanent self” and “no self” concepts.
In current English translations, Sakkaya ditthi is translated as “self view” or “personality view” or “identity view”, etc. However all these translations have now come under scrutiny. As per the new interpretation given, Sakkaya = Sath + kaya (Sathkaya). “Sath” means – extremely valuable or useful or fruitful (the word “sath” has been derived from “atta” or “artha” which means meaningful or useful). And here the word “kaya” means the six pairs – the eye and the external sights, the ear and the external sounds, the nose and the external smells, the tongue and the external tastes, the body and the external contacts, the mind and the external dhammas. In other words here “kaya” means all the six internal rupa (sense faculties) together with all the external rupa. Hence Sakkaya ditthi is a wrong view that- all these “kaya” (all the internal as well as external rupa) are “sath” i.e., highly valuable or useful or fruitful or beneficial.
As stated in the OP, there is connotation of a “self”. Since we use names to label a person, that automatically gives the impression of a non-changing “self”. Thus it is a bit hard to remove this “sense of a self” from our minds. The Buddha said it is wrong to believe that there is a “self” and it is also wrong to believe that “there is no-self”. This is a bit difficult to comprehend first; that is why the Buddha said, “My Dhamma has never been known to the world…”.

The scientific method is one of direct observation/measurement, which is exactly the method of Majjhima Nikaya 27. That observation of what appears external, and observation of what appears internal, lead to different results is not possible, since the internal and external are dependent on each other.

Scientific findings are not inconsistent with Dhamma as given in the Tipitaka. However, there are many things in Dhamma that have not been confirmed by science. More are being confirmed as new findings emerge. Buddha Dhamma is self consistent. If you find any inconsistency, then the problem is in the interpretation of the Dhamma. The Buddhas use a method that is totally different from the “scientific method” used. Answers to ultimate questions on the existence of living beings who have complex minds is found only by PURIFYING a human mind to the ultimate level; that is what a Buddha does.

The Dalai Lama was stating no more than no less than what the Buddha himself stated: that the Dharma he taught was open to investigation and analysis. What's more, he encouraged all beings to see for themselves and conduct such analysis to investigate the truth of his claims. Any honest analysis can only be conducted with an open mind ready to accept the conclusions of such analysis. Without an open mind the analysis is flawed from the start. This is the Buddha's teaching.

I believe the method is the same but the purposes are different. The Buddha's method is an observationally grounded method to  escape suffering. The scientific method is a method that has no aim, other than to poke at the unknown, using direct observation. In this sense the two methods are different - the Buddha's has a clear goal, science lacks any goal. Hence the Dhamma purifies - as intended, whilst the scientific method random walks - both averting (short term) suffering, and causing it. The eventual acceptance of Dhamma by the scientific method will improve science!

The Buddha Dharma is absolutely chock full of seeming or apparent contradictions. Of course, these contradictions are merely apparent and not actual contradictions. Nevertheless, many ignorant beings experience the appearance of contradiction in the Buddha Dharma. In this sense, both the Buddha Dharma and scientific explanations can change with time and with the audience.

Denying apparent contradiction is symptomatic of a closed mind and just flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. This website is testament to the apparent contradictions in the Buddha Dharma.

Only when that day comes when you start seeing consistency in all of Dhamma, will you be truly walking this path. Then and only then will bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle will start falling into place, leading to joyful “Aha!   moments”. This is the ‘Wisdom’ in you coming to light, as opposed to the knowledge that you acquire by reading ‘dhamma’ books.

Absolutely there is apparent consistency in Buddha Dharma as well. Of course, there are different apparent consistencies too! That is only apparently contradictory to my above statement that Buddha Dharma is chock full of apparent contradictions and not actually contradictory. The point is that Dogma is not helpful and downright unskillful and being afraid of challenge or insight coming from other quarters like science is a hallmark that ones belief in Dharma isn't all that strong to begin with.

IOW, there is no room for blind faith in the Buddha Dharma.

Relational QM

I suggest that the common unease with taking quantum mechanics as a
  fundamental description of nature (the measurement problem) could
  derive from the use of an incorrect notion, as the unease with the
  Lorentz transformations before Einstein derived from the notion of
  observer-independent time. I suggest that this incorrect notion that
  generates the unease with quantum mechanics is the notion of
  observer-independent state of a system, or observer-independent values
  of physical quantities.

Dependent origination says exactly this, if only with different language, especially Nagarjuna's. Rovelli's QM is said to be (it is one of many interpretations, but the only which has no EPR paradox issue) a complete description of physical systems, same as dependent origination is a complete description of all conditioned phenomena. The Buddha in addition described the unconditioned element, which still eludes science entirely (as it must, as the scientific method is dualistic, requiring both observer and observed).
The theory of Self is a classical, even Newtonian concept. It is not 'wrong', simply less explicative and more prone to error than not-Self.
As for the direct question as to what the Buddha would say, this is a nice parallel to MN22:

“Bhikkhus, you may well acquire that possession that is permanent,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as
  long as eternity. But do you see any such possession, bhikkhus?”—“No,
  venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any possession that
  is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that
  might endure as long as eternity.
“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not
  arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings
  to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No,
  venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self
  that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in
  one who clings to it.
“Bhikkhus, you may well take as a support that view that would not
  arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who takes
  it as a support. But do you see any such support of views,
  bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any
  support of views that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair in one who takes it as a support.

There is a related question in Philosophy: What are the philosophical implications of the uncertainty principle? Can you have a comment in there, and perhaps a comment of my answer there too?