text:
Why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
From I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?, I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as a practice for "understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point."
This explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering.
I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, this person stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then all answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.)
There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me:

My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected
If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta)

So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?

FWIW, my though is said to be interesting if the readers are in analytic mode.
Related: Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?

This is a question which should possibly asked on meta . Here I'd vote to close.

Yes. I thought it  wasn't intended as a meta-question (it was originally asking about the OP's experience on reddit) but I answered it based on my experience of this site so it seems like a meta-topic now,

Yes puthujjanas crave intellectualism, building fantasies, speculating, building a system of thoughts, classifying ideas, creating ideas, searching for definitions, and they always invent a story where they are good people for spending their day doing philosophy. Always claiming that their speculation ''makes things clearer''. It is completely normal.
And, when they hear that the only good use of mano in the dhamma is to judge the thoughts and sanna and vedanna, and select only the good ones, in order to purify mano to the point where mano has piti, just before the jhanas,  they get disappointed to see that they are not as righteous, with respect to the dhamma, as they thought they where in their intellectual bubble.
Then, like you said, some puthujjanas even manage to say that dukkha can be good. They try to salvage dukkha, because that's all they have in their life. It's like some people claiming that pain has meaning, pain can be useful, creates a person because it would strengthen a person and the person would learn something valuable from pain.
The whole point of the buddha is that there is nothing behind dukkha. Dukkha is just dukkha and is never ever worth it. There is no deep meaning with dukkha. There is no hidden purpose tied to dukkha. Dukkha is purely meaningless. There is no exploration of dukkha that is worth it. But puthujjanas manage to fall in love with their aggregates, and then they claim that dukkha can be skillful. This unconditional love, the clinging to this love by the puthujjanas is pure insanity.

Pain can be useful. Thich Nhat Hanh who is a very pure being said that suffering and happiness is one. I 100% agree your views about non-meditator puthujjannas but just don't alienate meditators because meditators can be wonderful beings with effort and skillness

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

This doesn't seem to address the OP's question. He's talking about analysis, not building fantasies and idly speculating.

@PeterJ I understand this question as "any analysis is building fantasy". I think this question doesn't answer how to do that, but still a good reminder for me for why people don't accept doing that

@Ooker - Oh okay. Fair enough. Maybe you're right about the OP. But it seems to me fantasies usually depend on not doing any analysis. .

@PeterJ oh please replace "question" to "answer" in the previous comment. Yes, I agree that the common use of fantasy may involve not doing any analysis. But I think what user12901 wants to say is that insisting that doing analysis is necessary is not mindful as well

Here are some guidelines, which might help with asking questions ("please help me analyse X?") on this site:

Optionally use a label like mahayana -- see the "Minimizing controversy" topics in this summary of site policies -- doing that will help to avoid the "that's a wrong question" kind of answer.
That kind of non-answer is already not ideal -- see e.g. Answers vs Advice -- but a lot of users don't know all the site policies.
And moderators are a bit inhibited about deleting "answers which don't answer the question" -- if you do add a tag (e.g. a school-specific tag) to the topic then that makes it easier or perhaps less merely-subjective to detect if an answer is off-topic.
Avoid asking "comparative religion" questions (e.g. Daoism). They are or have been allowed, however reluctantly, if e.g. the question is more about Buddhism than about the other, and if the topic isn't too broad (such as "what are the differences between Christianity and Buddhism?").
Also avoid questions like, "Which is better: Theravada or Mahayana?"
Avoid using this site to push your own views -- a question like, "I have such-and-such a view -- and I'm right, aren't I?", is not very welcome.
That makes it a bit difficult to post the kind of question you wanted to ask.
Question about Buddhist doctrine are definitely on-topic. "I'm reading X, written by Y. It says Z. What does that mean? How is that useful? Does it contradict Q which I read previously elsewhere?"
Don't assume that Buddhism is very concise or that everyone knows what "it" is. You might get better answers if you ask more focused, specific questions, about some specific aspect (e.g. of doctrine and/or of practice).
If you want to ask about a view of your own, be careful to ensure it is a question, perhaps something like, "I read X and so I think Y -- but I don't know, maybe not, because of Z1 and Z2?" I think that's better than posting "I think Y" and expecting people to agree or disagree with that.

I don't know how/whether this generalises to other sites.
This site might be unusual, e.g. the Tour  says ...

This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.

... so it's set up for question-and-answer -- answers to specific questions -- rather than "discussions".

From my perspective of watching Buddhist teacher(s) at work, I think they get weary of student having too many ideas, pushing these thoughts forward, wanting to discuss them etc. From teacher's perspective it is like: "dear student, would you stop talking about your ideas for a moment and listen to the framework I'm trying to give you?"
Therefore this attitude of, "Buddhism is not intellectual, it is about practice" etc. Which is really a misrepresentation of reality. In fact, Buddhism has always been very intellectual throughout its history, with thousands of treatises written that go pretty deep down the rabbit's hole. However, from the perspective of traditional teacher, the student's job is to listen and absorb, and try to reconstruct the conceptual framework the teacher is trying to give, then practice in accordance with that framework - as opposed to trying to reconcile this with 100 other frameworks, which would take a very long time. Especially, imagine a teacher working with 10-100 students. It must be really annoying to listen to everyone's ideas about The Meaning of Life, The Universe and Everything.
Now, leaving the teachers aside, from the perspective of fellow students, not everyone has interest or patience for philosophical analysis. Some people are into that, and some are not - whether because they had bad experience with it in the past, or because they are not really capable, or just think it is a waste of time, or don't feel like doing it particularly with you - there can be a bunch of different reasons.
In Mahayana we say, every student is unique and so needs an individual approach. Some require lots of deep logical explanations and some need a bucket of cold water over their head. So we are advised to not try and push the same method on all students, but approach each according to their natural inclinations. In Mahayana we use the student's natural inertia to lead them along, we don't go against it.
So with the above in mind, perhaps analysis is not as universally useful as you assumed.

What do you mean about cold water? And if my inclination is analyzing everything, then how to find suitable teachers/fellows? Assuming this is Mahayana, but any school is welcomed.

Cold water is a metaphor for a shocking insight. If your inclination is analysis, you should go to Gelug (Gelugpa) branch of Tibetan Mahayana, they are famous for this kind of stuff and are very good at it.

I know that cold water is meant for something shocking; I just don't know what kind of shocking insight is here. Is it koan, leaving the students confusing trying to answer it? Also, I don't talk about the meaning of life or quantum physics, but just cognitive linguistics. I wonder why they don't feel curious about it, so that they can actually read the post carefully.

Fabulous answer.

If you're practicing within a tradition that eschews intellectualism and analysis then go for it, Rinzai Zen e.g.. But there are very many traditions that do not do this.
A lot of energy has gone into the scholastic analysis of the abhidharma.
Hua-yen Buddhists texts ask the reader to "ponder this", not forget it.
And there have been many Buddhist philosophers, not mere exegetes, names like Vasubandhu, Darmakriti, Dignaga, Nagarjuna.

Analysis is useful and valuable, and the Budha himself suggest that we indulge in it if we are sceptical of the doctrine. God gave us an intellect so we might as well use it.
It was analysis and nothing else that brought me to Buddhism, (as the only -philosophy that stands up to analysis), so I wouldn't want to devalue it.
Like you I'm baffled when anyone suggest we should avoid analysis or ignore its results.

I wonder if it (i.e. resembling an "avoid analysis!" imperative) is related to doctrine about "stilling" what's sometimes called "discursive thinking" in English, e.g. this description of the second jhana.

@ChrisW - Yes, I imagine this is exactly the problem. It is often a cause of misunderstandings. Someone once objected to me that Buddhism requires us to stop thinking, and as he thought this was a bad idea he dismissed Buddhism. Some people do the same for the whole of mysticism on the grounds that it ignores analysis and the use of reason. A daft idea, but quite common. .

Since you're a fan of daoism, keep that aphorism from the daode in mind: "The master has one attitude for all things." That attitude is as slippery as wet ice, and impossible to express in words, but... You can think of Buddhist practice as pointing you in its direction.
The problem with intellect in general is that intellect is intrinsically aggressive and combative. It splits things up and breaks things down; it creates oppositions. You can see this in your question, above, where you say:

My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected
If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings    properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that
  Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be
  beneficial for them

In this you've explicitly set up a range of oppositions — right vs wrong, me vs him/her/them, knowledge vs ignorance — and then implicitly insisted on a hierarchy, trying to distinguish who has the more desirable qualities. Even if you are engaging intellect here with the best intentions (as I'm sure you are), it is still divisive and combative. A lot of people on the path (and particularly those who are farther along), aren't going to want to engage on this divisive level. They're not going to see those distinctions as important or useful.
If you're going to work the intellectual side of the path, you need to be aware of those divine tendencies, otherwise you risk pulling yourself and others away from the thing you're trying to understand.

Asking the right and how and whom is is skill, so maybe listen and read those who are, rather to seek for food for defilment and "intellectual sex", coupling for the sake of becoming.
Questions of Skill.
Noble Conversation - A Study Guide
After all, better before, it's needed to leave house and come to a borderland, there is no connection to the Noble domain on your drifting away island build of conceit.
When one is born in outer regions and not to forget the duties of a learner.


text:
Threefold division of noble eightfold path
Right view is the first step in noble eight-fold path as mentioned in many answers here.

Right view
Right resolve
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

Noble eight-fold path is three-folded as moral virtue (sīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā). It's mentioned in many suttas that these three are sequential. But when considering this three-fold categorization, right view comes at the end.

Moral virtue (sīla)

Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood

Concentration (samādhi)

Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

Wisdom (paññā)

Right view
Right resolve

For more information: Noble Eightfold Path
My questions are:

Which is the correct sequence out of the above two?
Which sequence to follow?

Ven. Bodhi explained the question here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch2

Obviously Bhikkhu Bodhi is wrong when saying: "The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another.".

Which many suttas mention that these three are sequential? Thanks

If right view is a forerunner or apex, perhaps virtue (including metta and dana) is a basis.
I think that AN 11.1 for example suggests that ethics comes first, that concentration and so on are a result or depend on it.
There's also MN 61 (which this footnote says was delivered to Rahula when he was seven years old): it concentrates on not lying, and then on purifying actions.
Perhaps these quotes ...

The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another.
Perplexity sometimes arises over an apparent inconsistency in the arrangement of the path factors and the threefold training. Wisdom — which includes right view and right intention — is the last stage in the threefold training, yet its factors are placed at the beginning of the path rather than at its end, as might be expected according to the canon of strict consistency. The sequence of the path factors, however, is not the result of a careless slip, but is determined by an important logistical consideration, namely, that right view and right intention of a preliminary type are called for at the outset as the spur for entering the threefold training. Right view provides the perspective for practice, right intention the sense of direction. But the two do not expire in this preparatory role. For when the mind has been refined by the training in moral discipline and concentration, it arrives at a superior right view and right intention, which now form the proper training in the higher wisdom.

... suggests it's some kind of cycle -- e.g. that people practice sila because they have some right view initially.

Sir, Thanks for the answer. "The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another." AND "right view and right intention — is the last stage in the threefold training" -- This is what I wanted to know.

Sir, so the training should be three-folded. Am I correct?

Dana and virtue occur because of right view.

Like most skills the practice requires an iteration between the components. Learning a musical instrument requires just the same approach, a constant returning to all aspects of the technique and creating a positive feedback between them. It woudn't work to treat them as discrete stages that must be finished before moving on.

The forerunner of the path is right view (MN117) and basically this means that you must understand something about Buddhism correctly before starting to practise.
However, the rest of the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is not sequential. It's rather, iterative.
Here are some metaphors.
When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.
Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.
Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).
As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.
As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.
So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.
Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.

Thanks @ruben2020 for your great effort to explain me using metaphors. It actually helps me a lot.

"You can't practise only one of them at a time." -- I agree with you @ruben2020. This statement can be proved with Abhidhamma. Do you know that there are equivalent mental formations for each step in noble eightfold-path? So when you practice Dhamma, the path is developed with each consciousness?

Noble eight-fold path is three-folded as moral virtue (sīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā). It's mentioned in many
suttas that these three are sequential.

The above sounds wrong. There appears to be no "threefold division" of the eightfold path. For example, the right intention to be moral or harmless must occur before the moral behaviour of being harmless. The suttas clearly say 'right view' comes first, as follows:

Of those, right view is the forerunner. MN 117

Bhikkhus, this is the forerunner and precursor of the rising of the
sun, that is, the dawn. So too, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu this is the
forerunner and precursor of the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths
as the really are, that is, right view. SN 56.37

Now, there is the case where a Tathāgata appears in the world, worthy
and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma admirable in its
beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims
the holy life both in its particulars and in its essence, entirely
perfect, surpassingly pure. He [the person discussed above], hearing
the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathāgata... MN 38

The 'three trainings' is found in suttas such as AN 3.88, which refers to training in higher virtue (adhisīla), higher mind (adhicitta) & higher wisdom (adhipaññā). These suttas do not refer to the eightfold path, apart from in the section on higher wisdom (adhipaññā).
Morality comes first in the three trainings because without morality the other two trainings cannot be practised (per MN 6). However, right view is required to practise morality. Without right view, practising morality is difficult (MN 19; MN 61) & developing samadhi is even more difficult (AN 10.61).
For example, if it is not understood with right view how misconduct harms oneself or harms another then it is difficult to maintain, let alone understand, the moral precepts.

Hi DD! What about what's described in MN 44?
"The three practice categories are not included in the noble eightfold path. Rather, the noble eightfold path is included in the three practice categories. Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: these things are included in the category of ethics. Right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion: these things are included in the category of immersion. Right view and right thought: these things are included in the category of wisdom.”

thanks. i never read the above before. what does it mean? it seems to support my point of view, namely: "Rather, the noble eightfold path is included in the three practice categories."

Probably it supports your conclusion. But I think the sutta does not follow the premiss of being no threefold division of the eightfold path in the suttas. I may be not understanding the sutta, though, so I'm not sure. Kind regards!

i tend to disagree with the above. what you quoted appears to be about the Three Trainings rather than about a Three Fold Division. Possibly you can raise this matter for discussion on DW papanca forum.

The three-fold is used in Tipitaka when the listener asking for the step by step teaching, but The eight-fold is used when the listener already trained and asking "why I still not enlightened after trained the three-fold?", so it's called "the higher three-fold training", not only "the three-fold".
The three-fold is the training, Sikkhā. The sequence training is required for the begīnner practitioner to train something. No weight trainee can hold the 100 kg up at first. See Sutta. Ma. U. Gaṇakamoggallānasuttaṃ. Buddha also blame the skipper step as the blank attainer, Moghapurisa, in MN KīṭāgiriSutta and AN Sattakanipātā DhammaññūSutta as well.
The eight-fold is the noble training to enlighten the noble cessation, Nirodhāya AriyaMaggaSikkhā. It's the top of training and only the trained people can use at first, i.e. King AjātaSattu who has a good education person, or Aññākoṇḍañña. Most people can't enlighten even listened to the four noble truth thousands of times. So, after one practiced above three-fold, and he still not enlightened, he is going to asking for "what was wrong? Why I who training very hard still be an ordinary person?" then the Buddha will teach him the higher three-fold that starting with the right attitude, SammāDiṭṭhi in AriyaMagga, ie. Aññākoṇḍañña who ordained a long time ago before he was going to enlighten in SN DhammacakkappavattanaSutta which focusing only the noble eight-fold path.
The practitioner is training the three-fold for the perfect right attitude, so Buddha teaches the trained practitioner the right attitude especially if the trained practitiner still not enlighten after attained Jhāna.
This is why the noble truth, AriyaSacca, often appears at the end of Sutta, such as MN MahāsaṭipaṭṭhānaSutta, DN SāmaññaphalaSutta.
Therefore, the practitioner should practice following the sequence of threefold training then after attained Jhāna, but the practitioner still not enlighten the cessation, the practitioner should focus on practicing the right attitude in four noble truth.
However, the practitioner should practice following the qualified master to keep the time of training. Most of the alone readers died before enlighten because they lose most of the time in discussing Tipitaka. I just explain the thinking of the master. I do not advise you to practice or read Tipitaka without the support of the qualified master.

If one wants to understand this answer clearly, reciting and memorizing Suttas which I quoted above are required because the answer has already appeared in both Tipitaka's and Atthakatha's Pali context like Buddha ordered "He proclaims a Teaching that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing." The reader should use the same method to understand entire those beginning middle and the end "six further qualities he should not live independently:  ... when the two pātimokkhas are not perfectly known to him in their entirety, with all their divisions and their whole course, and with the entire discussion according to the single rules and to the single parts of each rule."
It is extremely easy to understand and deconflict the misunderstood of the only reader when one study Tipitaka follow to the ancient Tipitaka study system with the Jhana-attainer who recited and memorized of what he teaching. It is harder but it is very useful. I recommend Pa-Auk. I know one Thai Tipitaka memorizer and he chose Pa-Auk to graduate his study.

the two suttas about the 3 trainings and the mysterious panna is here
https://suttacentral.net/an3.89/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/an3.90/en/sujato
they explain what adhipaññāsikkhā means. It turns out that the higher discernment is the release itself.
This kind of stuff is what the puthujjanas who invented vipassana mediation really hate, along the ''fetter model''. Those people thought that there where gaps in whatever they heard about the path, so craved an exhaustive path, to the point of creating their toxic textbook, like maths students have at the beginning of their higher education, where supposedly there is no gap between any step so that they feel safe. The result of their work is that the usual pitfall of philosophers: they introduce time and they have separated the vipassanas from the release.

adhipaññāsikkhā: [adhi+paññā+sikkhā]
training in higher wisdom/ insight. A definition is given at AN 3.90.
  It consists of the understanding of the four ariya·saccas. At AN 3.91,
  though, adhi·paññā·sikkhā is defined as 'an·āsava ceto·vimutti
  paññā·vimutti' (liberation of the mind without impurities, liberation
  by discernment).
♦ Adhi·paññā·sikkhā is one of the three sikkhās, together with
  adhi·sīla·sikkhā and adhi·citta·sikkhā. It is said of these three
  trainings at AN 3.82 that they are 'ascetic tasks of an ascetic'
  (samaṇassa samaṇa·karaṇīyāni), at AN 3.93 that they are 'urgent tasks
  of a bhikkhu' (bhikkhussa accāyikāni karaṇīyāni), and at AN 6.30 that
  they constitute the 'supreme training' (anuttariyaṃ sikkhā) for the
  purification of beings, etc. (formula in the style of the
  Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta)
♦ They can even replace the Pātimokkha, in some cases (AN 3.85).

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#adhipannasikkha

Both Upasaka Damith, how ever:
This sequenze, sila, samadhi, panna (as a training to enter the path) is not really found in the Tipitaka but simply serves those who actually have gained a foot in Dhamma, by right view. Only in regard of highered virtue, mind, wisdom, this sequenze is taught. For people in training (i.e. Noble ones, especially monk).
Laypeople, those who did not leave home (strong attached to senses), lacking faith or understanding on the danger in the world, are taught to train Dana, Sila, Bhavana, so to possible come to access concentration, could hear the good Dhamma with proper attention and possible gain right view, i.e. Ariya path.
That commentary-approach, adopted in householder practice since short time, serves also the idea that a worldling is able to practice the path and the whole foundation of "housholder-practice", or meditating for no real benefits.
As it was pointed out by the Buddha, asked whether Samadhi or wisdom comes first, it depends on whether someone is already a Sekha (noble disciple), or still a neither-Sekha-nor-asekha.
Atma will add the answer to this question given by the Buddha, when matched the link, later... here, the Buddhas answer to 1): Sakka Sutta: To the Sakyan (note that the Buddha, also here, does not really speak about a training of/for outsiders)
As for which way to follow: it's clear that right effort has to focus simply on right view and virtue till livelihood and all other comes by cause, it self, no will needed. Cetana Sutta
And how does one gain needed wisdom, right view?

"Monks, these eight causes, these eight requisite conditions lead to the acquiring of the as-yet-unacquired discernment that is basic to the holy life, and to the increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of that which has already been acquired. Which eight? Pañña Sutta

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and other binding ways and should be deleted possible, if the place does not allow such non-commercial, liberating}

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do you pray correctly in Buddhism?
I have been calling myself a Buddhist for as long as I can remember, but I have never done it right. I notice that my mom would chant the mantras from the book, while usually I would just say anything while I pray. I am wondering... is there a right or respectful way of praying in Buddhism?
Just out of curiosity. Thank you!

Hi Tina, and welcome to SE! If you don't mind me asking, who are you praying to? What is the purpose and your intentions when praying? Kind regards!

I am not sure what you meant by "who are you praying to?" But if you meant which branch of Buddhism I worship in, it's Mahayana Buddhism. And for intentions... probably the same as other people. For happiness, luck and peace for myself and the people around me. Also, for forgiveness.

is there a right or respectful way of praying in Buddhism?
Praying is conventionally understood as a petition or wish addressed to a deity.
In Buddhism, one might:

meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. --SN46.54

These two are similar except in one important way. Praying often involves intention and volition. In other words one quite often prays for a fixed result (e.g., rain, health, etc.). Notice that in the described mettā meditation, there is simply an extension of good will without boundaries, intention or direction. From a Buddhist perspective, intention and volition tend to perpetuate the cycle of suffering from craving particular outcomes.
This wisdom about intention and volition is also evident in religions with formal prayer. For example, there is the well-known phrase: "be careful what you pray for."
In Buddhism, one cultivates Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech and Right Action in the context of your question. Interestingly, asking about Right View is itself Right View!

You asked “is there a right or respectful way of praying in Buddhism?” I’d say that @OyaMist and @Brian_Dias_Flores were kind of on the right track, but I'd like to explore this deeper. Specifically, I’m wondering what it is you mean by the word “pray”? The Oxford English dictionary (and I'd guess most of us also) has 2 main definitions.
If you mean it in the sense of “to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving”, I’d say that it is not clear that the Buddha taught that there was a supreme being or multiple such (god(s)/God). In fact, in the discourse with Anathapindika, he seems to indicate that such does not exist. So I’d say in that sense a Buddhist does not pray. It would make no sense.
If you mean in the sense of “wish or hope strongly for a particular outcome or situation”, I’d say that this might be a way of describing meditation; although I’m not sure I’d use the words “wish” or “hope” here. Maybe more “seek for” would be better used for what you do when you meditate.
The net of it is that I’d suggest that a Buddhist does not “pray” at all; as “meditation” is something completely different from “prayer” in the most common meanings.
With regard to the mantras used in the meditative process, I was taught that these are not designed to be communications to any outward being or entity. Rather, they were designed to be repetitiously repeated to, by sound and thought, be aimed inward in order to help align the body and mind and intensify the meditative process. Nonsense syllables can be used as well as repeated “words” so I’m not sure you could consider them “prayers” in any meaningful sense.
I am admittedly, though, a lay person who is struggling with understanding the teachings of the Buddha myself and would appreciate correction by any who have better knowledge in these areas.

The video shows how Buddhist monks pray: Morning Chanting - Pali & English and also allows you to pray with them by reading the words.

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


text:
Is it possible to have awareness without a self-sense?
Is it possible to have awareness without a self-sense? Does an awareness presuppose  a self being aware no matter how refined or subtle that sense of self might be? Or to reframe the question slightly - can awareness be non-dual i.e. the being aware of the subject without the object.
Many thanks as always

Do you mean sakkāya-ditthi by the word self-sense? If so, personality-belief is a better word for that. See, sakkāya-ditthi.

OP: Is it possible to have awareness without a self-sense?

Yes, why not? It's very hard to imagine how enlightened ones think about what they use, their parents, relatives, etc... without self-sense. They use things with knowing that this is not me, this does not belong to me, this cannot be kept as I wish. How beautiful that thinking is!
Do you know even a non-returner lived in a home, did a job (without earning money), and looked after his old blind parents? I quoted here Kassapa Lord Buddha's own words about him, to understand how he did those without self-sense in order to imagine a little about how enlightened ones think.

But Ghaṭīkāra doesn’t get upset, nor will he. Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. He doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. He has experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, and has the ethics loved by the noble ones. He is free of doubt regarding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation. He eats in one part of the day; he’s celibate, ethical, and of good character. He has set aside gems and gold, and rejected gold and money. He’s put down the shovel and doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands. He takes what has crumbled off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice, and brings it back in a carrier. When he has made a pot, he says: “Anyone may leave bagged sesame, mung beans, or chick peas here and take what they wish.” He looks after his blind old parents. And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.

~ Cited from: Ghaṭīkāra Sutta (MN 81)
I have provided this answer by assuming the OP's intended sakkāya-ditthi by the word, self-sense. To my understanding absence of self-sense (sakkāya-ditthi) is not something that totally abandon you from outer world or conventional relationships. We can understand this by reading the following conversation between Ghaṭīkāra and Jotipāla.

Jotipāla: Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?
Ghaṭīkāra: Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?

Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

There is Mahayana text which is believed to be taught by Maitreya and written down by Asanga, Madhyanta-vibhaga-karika. In this text, Maitreya introduces something he calls "false imagination" - which is a mode of cognition that involves imputing subject/object duality onto stuff.
The text is much deeper than my ability to explain it here, so I advise you to study it for yourself, but it does discuss this exact topic in great details. The simple answer is, yes of course it is possible as this mode of cognition is (a part of, a result of) Enlightenment.
In my limited understanding, the way of thinking that delineates individual objects, evaluates each object relatively to a frame of reference, and forms an attitude towards each object - is exactly what leads to emergence of self-sense. Once this way of thinking is overthrown, whether through analytical study followed by meditation, or through yogic exercises, or through wrestling with koans, or through selfless practice of Bodhisattva, or through direct cultivation of prajna-paramita etc. - once we no longer think in terms of entities and don't build attitudes to them - the sense of self is left with no food and begins to fade. And vice-versa.
In one interpretation, by Mario D'Amato in his translation of the text, this mode of cognition is completely free from semiotic interpretation of "signs" into "what they imply", and is instead a pure cognition of everything-as-it-is.
This seems close to my personal experience, when, as my practice progressed, I noticed that my tendency to "read-in" or impute my assumptions onto things and people have significantly reduced in direct proportion to diminishing sense of self. More and more I see things as they are, in all their unknown-to-me-depth and multifaceted ambiguity, instead of trying to assume I know them in a black-and-white way. This is directly connected to the absence of self, because self is a collection of reified assumptions.
At the end, the state of awareness without self seems similar to a state of mind when you drive car on a very familiar road. It's not like you are not aware of what you see - you are, otherwise you would have crashed or lost your way. But it is like, the road is so familiar that it creates no tension that would require some hard form of deliberate attention. Although the attention is definitely there. Similarly, when there is no self, it seems like awareness is not affected, but the sense of tension brought by the self is gone.
In one sense, it is somewhat (but not quite) like awareness of a child - meaning, there is so much harmony with the environment, that the sense of separate self is not required. It is a more harmonious kind of awareness, there is no conflict in it, because the conflict is self.

The origin of self is identification with the forms. If there is no identification with the forms then it is not possible to experience the life as a seperate self. The "form" or "self" can continue to exist in a person, but If there is no identification with it, then there is only objective, nondual, clear, peaceful experience of life. The self's momentum can continue as an old bad habit in an ego-free person, but the person would not identify himself with these mind states so his/her objectivity and clarity wouldn't be disturbed by these mind states.
Every meditator experiences these ego-free mind states temporarily, but becoming permanently free from the identification with the self takes time. Even after the end of the belief of a seperate self, the identification with the self continues. Only after experiencing Nibbana many times, the person will start to disidentify from the core self and eventually identification with the ego-self would end permanently. Then there is only walking, sitting, breathing, feeling etc. without the identification with the seperate self and the person's inner peace would become continous no matter what is happening inside his/her mind or in the outside world.

Nice answer. The question seems to need a distinction between self-sense and Self-sense.

@PeterJ You're right. I am not sure I replied 100% the question because my English is bad, but I tried my best :)

Also it's hard to explain the objectivity, pure awareness etc. without mentioning the nature of the universe. So in another topic I tried to write some stuff about this subject with my limited English: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/30402/700

@Murathan1 Sir, I suppose the majority of the beings in formless-sphere have self-sense (being not stream-winners). So, how would be the origin of self identification happened with the forms?

@Damith As I know Buddha didn't talk about the origin of the universe, how the beings "created", how the journey started for the beings  etc. Also Ven. Yuttadhammo said that it's unanswerabe because maybe the time is not linear. But as many spiritual teachers and traditions say(I think some Buddhist sects say indirectly say too) the root of any beings is the identification with the forms. Everything's essence is emptiness, ultimately nothing is real except emptiness.

In an experiental level the meditator can see the nature of reality. If the beings that have seperate self sense look themselves deeply they will see that their forms and emptiness is one and everything except emptiness is the result of the emptiness identifying with the forms. When a form dissolves, it returns to emptiness. In Ultimate level emptiness is free from these identifications. But as a result of these identifications, the "seperate selfs" or seperate beings which is just shadows of what only really exists-emptiness are manifesting. Ultimately they are just shadows of the truth

@Murathan1 Sir, This Dhamma is universally applicable. So the identification of self happened with form in five types only. There are 20 types of self-identification (sakkāya-ditthi) preached by considering all five aggregates (4 types each x 5 aggregates = 20 types). So it can be applied to formless-sphere beings also. For further info: sakkāya-ditthi

@Damith I think beings still have "forms"(weather they iidentify themselves with them or not doesn't matter) untill they completely and permanently return to total formlessness/emptiness. Everything except emptiness have some subtle or course form. But it is possible for the beings to experience life without identifying themselves with these forms. The description of the form can be very wide.. Thank you for the link.

@Murathan1 Sir I need to correct a mistake in my previous comment; "So the identification of self happened with form in four types only." Another link for twenty types of sakkāya-ditthi: Bhaddekaratta Sutta. Thank you!

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Definitely. That mindfulness training on the 4 postures is a typical example. When a meditator walks, s/he doesn't keep the notion that "I walk". Instead it's just the bare awareness of "walking, walking, walking". Similarly for standing, lying down, sitting, the "self" is completely removed from the mindfulness. It's just a series of "standing, standing..., lyind down, lying down..., sitting, sitting...". A common stock phrase in many suttas that describes the Arahant as still having full perfect awareness but there's no notion of what's considered "I", "mine", or "myself".

Nyom Crab Bucket, interested,
Nearly (i.e. not in the spear of senses), but there is the often called dimension of either-perception-nor-no-perception, and this question actually point on what is desired by one who seeks for going beyond: ceto-vimutti, awarness (being) -release.
"awareness be non-dual": for a mind released, there is no such as contact, hence no object taken on, is beyond the senses.
The last release is pañña-vimutti, release for any stand ("awarness"), if not attained in this very existence, by one instructed, arising in the spheres of the arupa-world, i.e. as non-returner.
[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism to bind and entertain, but to gain release]


text:
Slander and Avici Hell?
I read about how instead of believing if slander is done then that person will goto Avicii Hell. I don’t see this discussed much when researching Buddhism, it seems mainly mentioned by Nichiren?
Does anyone have more information about what this means? What is everyone’s thoughts on this? Why isn’t there more information on something so big?

For bikkhus, You can look at the vinaya, Monks’ Pācittiya 3,
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-pvr1.2/en/horner-brahmali
the buddha says that you go to hell when you slander the buddha or the noble ones, like here https://suttacentral.net/sn6.9/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/t211.30/en/beal
but for slander of a puthujjana by another puthujjana, that's seems to be the usual harsh speech, so no explicit direct destination.

puthujjana by another puthujjana, if speaking Dhamma? In the case a not Bhikkhu teaches Dhamma, the Bhikkhu has to pay reverance, while normaly not allowed toward householder, and younger. Maybe good if investigating such for this answer, good householder.

Slander the Buddha, the good Dhamma, what is proper and right, and the carrier of such and their deeds, the Noble Ones, requires wrong view and such strong wrong view will definitely lead to hell. More about critic and praise in AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise and see also Respect and Veneration
But it does not stop here. Even if slandering a worldling, yet a giver, person of goodness, one one owes gratitude, such as father and mother, teacher, leader of ones community, recluses... also such leads to hell and if gaining a human existence he/she is not influential wherever reborn, he/she is low-born wherever reborn. The Shorter Analysis of Action.
Note and worthy to think about is that physical action might have there effects quick but it is based on mental actions, thought, that has the most impact for a long term, and so even if not spoken out, not physical acted, just thinking "idiot" can have a lot of impact if matching the well gone and well going.

One who tells lies (about others) goes to niraya; one who has done evil and says "I did not do it" also goes to niraya. Both of them being evil-doers, suffer alike (in niraya) in their next existence. DHP

Take care!
[This is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism but for release. For further questions on it or if seeking space for talking about, one may use this exit •]

thanks for your answer. Am I correct in this has to be with bad intent for it to be slander?

I mean with intent to harm/bad intentions? Is it similar to like hate?

Not-knowing, avijja, leads as well to it, good householder @jj5828 jet promted, deliberatly, not even a question.

See also http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than_en.html even failing proper reverance.

The save bet therefore: `In five ways, young householder, should a householder minister to ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith: (i) by lovable deeds,
(ii) by lovable words,
(iii) by lovable thoughts,
(iv) by keeping open house to them,
(v) by supplying their material needs. ' SIGALA


text:
Is this an ok understanding of Dharmakirti's vināśitvānumāna?

The point is that such moment by moment destruction is spontaneous
  (ākasmika) and is the uncaused real nature of things, because it
  cannot be an effect of any cause. The effect of such a cause, i.e.,
  the absence of the entity, would have to be a type of non-being
  (abhāva), and non-being is unreal.
A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative
  facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the
  world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are
  devoid of causal powers. Equally, a fiction lacking causal powers is
  not the effect of something else. While it is obviously impossible to
  deny that hammers smash pots, the absence (abhāva) of the pot, i.e.,
  the non-existent pot, is not an effect, just as other non-existent
  things (abhāva), like horns of rabbits, are not effects of anything
  either. Hammers and the like are thus not actually causes of the pot's
  absence but of it turning into potsherds. That idea is perhaps
  defensible, in that arguably the mere absence of something—a purely
  negative fact—might be less real and less efficacious than the
  presence of other things.[16] Nonetheless, the rest of the argument
  looks to consist in a number of non-sequiturs going from that
  difference in efficacy and reality between absences and presences to
  the idea that perishing is somehow the real nature of things, that it
  must be intrinsic to them, and that therefore things must perish
  spontaneously moment after moment. Let's grant the Buddhist view that
  the perishing of x is the real property of changing into a new thing,
  and not just x becoming absent. If it is accepted that hammer blows do
  change pots into potsherds, then why couldn't someone skeptical about
  the Buddhist's arguments just take that as the model of how things
  perish when they do? It does not follow from that model of perishing
  that a pot could not endure for quite a while.

Is it a non sequitur?
If there are no absences then is nothing excluded from the causal context of an effect? If so, then couldn't we just conclude that causation is beyond conceptualization, so that any cause (the hammer) of e.g. destruction (the broken pot) is also not the cause, and the effect of destruction must be "the real nature of things", so invariant?
Is that a good reconstruction of the argument, or have I misunderstood?

I'm not familiar with Dharmakirti, but from a cursory skim of the argument, it seems he is using typical Nagarjunian reductio-ad-absurdum to yet again show that all (spatially and temporally) discrete things are mental imputations.
It seems he is saying, if things were real, then they would have to perish for real, but if things perished for real, then the effect of the cause that would lead to such perishing would have to be something completely absent. Now, since absence is not real in any sense other than as a mental abstraction, the perishing cannot be anything other than an abstraction. Since perishing is an abstraction, then temporally discrete things must be imputations, hence the ontological momentariness which is just another facet of Emptiness.


text:
"Being" or "Existence" in Paticca Samuppada
Did Buddha mean the term "being or existence" as used in everyday life or different from those such as co-arising with contact and feeling and attachment ?
In case Buddha meant the latter I believe the meaning of "being or existence" is quite different from the ordinary meaning.
"Being or existence" is not something staying for 30 or 80 years but reborn every moment you become craved on sensual phenomenon.

From the explanations I've seen/heard in Mahayana context, and also etymologically, the word "bhava" means "a state of (personal) existence",  "being something or someone", "being in a certain configuration or position", "having a specific form/manner of existence" - something like this. The connotation is not just "being", it is a particular manner or configuration of being, and thinking that that configuration is you.
Of course, this can happen both on a long-term, as well as on the moment-by-moment scale. Being someone is the mind of grasping onto a particular idea of self, identifying with a particular form - which can be something large-scale, like thinking one is a Buddhist - or something small-scale like getting frustrated when you unexpectedly slip going down a stair. One common theme is getting used to a particular way things are, expecting that they will go according to plan, and holding on to that idea even as things go in a different direction. These are the symptoms of bhava - "being something", "identifying with something".
My teacher always said (paraphrasing): you must stop being someone, get rid of all these ideas that you are this or that. You must have no idea who the hell you are. Once you have no such idea, you are free, because there is no you. That is cessation of bhava.

According to Buddhist teaching "being" means the attachment, aversion, and ignorance.
There is a Sutta to support this but I can't locate it right now.


text:
What is the meaning of Pali word "Apannaka"
his question is based on the sutta translation of MN60.
What is the Pali translation of “apannaka”
https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato
Ven. Sujato translate it as “guaranteed”
Bhikkhu Bodi translate it as “incontrovertible truth”
I.B Horner translate it as “the sure”
Ven. Thanissaro translates it as “Safe Bet”
When I read the Sutta, my understanding is that the meaning is very close to the word “safe bet” even though the gambling is very un Buddhist. Perhaps I would say “safe action”

Further discussion in Sutta Central.https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/what-is-the-menaing-of-pali-word-apannaka/12155/5

It obviously cannot be "guaranteed" because the moral realm is never guaranteed; per MN 136, MN 117, etc. Regardless of what "apaṇṇaka" means; I think a "safe bet" is the most accurate meaning, based on Dhamma principles. The idea of "incontrovertible" appears to slander the Dhamma.
For example, moral people who hold the follow view can still suffering when their mother & father die because they still believe in mother & father:

‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed;
  there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world
  and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who
  are reborn spontaneously; there are good and virtuous recluses and
  brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge
  and declare this world and the other world.’

MN 117, a later addition, written by an arahant, properly says the above is non-noble defiled right view siding with merit & not siding with liberation. MN 117 was required to be written to straighten out other later additions, such as MN 60, which falsely say worldly right view has guaranteed results.

Agree that is how I understand it too.

The book "The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism: The Point of View" by Paul Fuller states that the meaning of the word "Apaṇṇaka" as "incontrovertible".

"A sutta called Diṭṭhi-apaṇṇaka paṭipadā-sutta at A II 76 states that when a bhikku is possessed of four things he has entered on the path to the 'incontrovertible' (apaṇṇaka) and the destruction of the āsavās."

~ Cited from: The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism: The Point of View
In the Sinhalese translation of Jātaka Pāli-Khuddaka Nikāya, the phrase "Apaṇṇaka paṭipadā" is translated as "නිසි මඟ [Nisi ma(n)ga]" which means "appropriate path/way". In the same translation and in the translation of Apaṇṇaka Vagga of Aṅguttara Nikāya, the word "consistent" ["අවිරුද්ධ" in Sinhalese] used for the word "Apaṇṇaka".

"බෝධිසත්වාදී නුවණැති සමහර කෙනෙක් අවිරුද්ධ වූ කාරණය (අපණ්ණක ප්‍රතිපදාව = නිසි මඟ) ගත්හ."

~ Cited from: Apaṇṇaka Vagga, Jātaka Pāli, Khuddaka Nikāya

Agree. I suggested "safe action" in Sutta Central discussion.

I think the a prefix implies the negative -- so a more literal translation might be "not a bet" (i.e. it's a certainty ... it is not chancy).

Interesting Chris. is Pannaka means "bet"?

No (according to the dictionary, paṇṇaka means something else). But the PTS dictionary says that paṇa has "wager" (i.e. "bet") as its usual meaning. I don't know how (nor even whether) paṇa and apaṇṇaka are related. I'm pretty sure it's true, though, that a- implies a negative -- you see that a lot, e.g. anatta etc.

dayāpanna:
There is no real contradiction in the various translation quoted and they all fit for the meaning in context as well.
Panna/paṇṇa: bend down, ~ka downbendig, upwardly, falling.
The "bet" idea of Nyom Chris, as a relative, fit's also in relation of "giving into something". As all path factors, especially the initial, right view, are leading to heardwood, security, also to saw that the path is a secure, fits here well, and since it requires faith at first place, "good bet, secure bet" is totaly fine and a good rendering as well.
apaṇṇa: certain, true, secure. ~ka: ~ing
May non be an ''Apaññaka'' toward the Sublime juwels and takes on right thoughts, not wrong, like mostly if worldling, panna:

"And how is one made impure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: '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 how one is made impure in three ways by mental action...Furthermore, as a result of being endowed with these ten courses of unskillful action, [rebirth in] hell is declared, [rebirth in] an animal womb is declared, [rebirth in] the realm of hungry shades is declared — that or any other bad destination. ''AN 10.176''

''Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti.''
  Through virtue they go to a good bourn.
  ''Sīlena bhoga-sampadā.''
  Through virtue is wealth attained.
  ''Sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti.''
  Through virtue they go to Liberation.
  ''Tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.''
  Therefore we should purify our virtue.

[Note that this is not given for any ''Āpaṇa'', market, bazaar... but for Apannaka, for release, if possible to take]


text:
What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?
From Socratic questioning – Wikipedia:

Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems.
Examples of Socratic questions that are used for students in educational settings:

Getting students to clarify their thinking and explore the origin of their thinking
e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Could you explain further?'
Challenging students about assumptions
e.g., 'Is this always the case?', 'Why do you think that this assumption holds here?'
Providing evidence as a basis for arguments
e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Is there reason to doubt this evidence?'
Discovering alternative viewpoints and perspectives and conflicts between contentions
e.g., 'What is the counter-argument?', 'Can/did anyone see this another way?'
Exploring implications and consequences
e.g., 'But if...happened, what else would result?', 'How does...affect...?'
Questioning the question
e.g., 'Why do you think that I asked that question?', 'Why was that question important?', 'Which of your questions turned out to be the most useful?'

Does this sound familiar with any Buddhism teachings/suttas? In specific, I think this has the same idea with koans, but I'm not sure. My interest seems to be about zen and mahayana, however any schools are welcomed.

Yes, this is pretty much the way Buddha has led all his conversations with individual students when he was not preaching to groups. In Pali Canon there are many examples of dialogs following same exact model. Buddha's hallmark was to start with whatever assumptions / framework the student had and to show how by staying consistent with the key principles of that same very framework the student would himself reach the same conclusions as the Buddha has reached. This is why it is traditionally said that Buddha is "perfect teacher" and teaches using 84,000 ways - according to each student's dispositions.

What do you think about koans? (How to lit a candle without match? What is the sound of one-hand clap like? Why does this beardy guy have no beard at all?) I don't think Socrates himself would ask those question, but the koans seems to be in the same technique?

Nope, I don't see any connection. Entirely different point.

Is it because Socratic questioning is meant to solve problems, while koan is meant to realize the clinging on concepts? And thus it is not necessary to answer the koan?

I'm not allowed to answer this question.

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

This meta-topic mentioned the Pañha Sutta, which includes,

There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions.

Many of the suttas show the Buddha asking "leading questions", e.g. (the first one which comes to mind is) the Kalama Sutta

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."

I think I found this line of questioning persuasive when I read it for the first time (though I wasn't always convinced by Socrates' for what that's worth).
I'm not sure why the technique can be helpful, perhaps it lets the student experience working something out for themself.
As an aside, I wonder if the technique helps to bypass a student's resistance to dogma. If you made a claim like, "Greed is harmful!", then I might question that, "Oh yeah? Isn't that what makes people work for a living? Don't people say that's the best way to organise society?" Or saying "Greed is harmful!" would be saying that greed is always harmful (and I wonder whether that's true), whereas when the student answers they're admitting that it's generally harmful -- also the question supplies a little more context, e.g. that it's about what's "arising".

The example you quoted, from Wikipedia, isn't quite like that: that seems to be an example of questioning the student's thesis (or thinking), which assumes that the student has a thesis -- whereas the line of questioning in the Kalama sutta (for example, though iirc the "Socratic" dialog was similar) follows the Buddha's agenda and doctrine (unless the Kalamas' "They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?" is counted as a thesis).

The protagonist-who-asks-questions, and especially the story-which-ends-with-a-question, does seem of a feature of Zen stories -- of Nothing Exists for example ...

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 realisation, 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 one is (again) a question about doctrine, but this one is a bit practical too: i.e. "So there's some doctrine, more- or less-well learned ... can you practice it?"
When I learned Maths, for what it's worth, the lessons were half theory and half practice: the teacher would explain some theory or a new technique, and the second half of the class was student exercises in applying that technique to some problem.
I think that not all of the Zen stories are so obviously connected to a specific piece of of Dhamma (at least, that I recognise as such), e.g. there is some obvious "moral" to the story (or several orals) of Is That So? but the protagonist isn't so obviously asking a Dhamma question.

What do you mean by "Dhamma question"? A question about phenomenology? It's not really clear to me what you intend to say in this answer. It seems that you say Socratic questioning is to uncover assumed thesis, while the Buddhist questioning, as reflected in the Kalama sutta, is about teaching the doctrine? But the Socratic one is also has this purpose? I think the Kalamas say their thesis outright: "They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt"

What do you mean by "Dhamma question"? I meant, "A question about doctrine". Because e.g. "greed" and "is this harmful or beneficial?" are aspects of the doctrine in the suttas, and "emptiness" is Mahayana doctrine.

I tried to say that the questioning in the Kalama sutta was a "leading question". IMO Socrates too asked "leading questions", but it has been a very long time since I read e.g. The Republic and The Symposium so perhaps I misremember that. Conversely the "Examples of Socratic questions" in the OP e.g., "Why do you say that?", assume that the student said something, so the questioning is about the student's thesis. The two Zen stories are a better example of that, though in the first the student's thesis is restating what he learned of ...

... Dharma, so maybe not exactly his own thesis. The second, Is That So? is more clearly questioning the townspeople's own positions, therefore IMO it's much closer to the example in the OP.

I think the Kalamas say their thesis outright: "They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt" I don't know, that's almost the opposite of a thesis. I think a thesis is like "X is true!" and questioning is like "Are you sure? What about Y?". Whereas the Kalama sutta seems to open with "We have no idea!" and the questioning is like, "Oh come on, yes you have: what about X, surely you can take a position about that?"

Yes, I think they are educational leading questions, since it seems that epistemologically you need to have a sense of where the correct answers are before you can ask questions. You ask them to challenge your intuition, not because you want the answerers to agree with you. The Kalamas seem to be the same, in which they think that the brahmans are bad beforehand, but don't want to be disrespectful.

I'm not sure what's your position on this is, but it seems that you think koans and Socratic questioning share similarities? Is that correct?

@Ooker Re-reading it, the Kalamas start with (i.e. their thesis is) "Different people contradict each other's doctrines so we end up doubting both." Which gives the Buddha the lead-in to say, "What do you know for yourself, what about greed for example?" ¶ I don't remember Socrates (i.e. Plato) well enough to discuss it, but I think I remember him as asking rhetorical question, disingenuous, the questionee is just a foil and (perhaps unlike the Kalamas) difficult to relate to. ¶ I think the "Zen stories" of which I referenced two are very different from Zen "koans"

(i.e. these stories are not koans, koans are something else). All these words might be categorised as "discursive", by the way, which I think is seen as a common mode of thought but not the only possible mode.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Yes it is the greatest fantasy by rationalists that a discussion among rationalists is the way to reach truth. They create the fantasy that things have ''definitions'' and that a ''thesis'' is defended by ''arguments''.
When they see the sterility of their ''debate'', they try to salvage their fruitless method with the claim that, instead of having the goal as the opponent switching side, the goal is that the audience of the debate will choose the side presenting the truth.
The usual problem for these people is that they still have zero method to distinguish between an ''argument'' and not an argument. Plus of course, the audience is supposedly drawn towards the side which speaks the truth, but the audience is just drawn towards pleasing ideas.
This is what rationalists do not understand: for them, the intellect is not like the 5 usual senses and they fail to see that what they call truth, validity, argument is just ''pleasing ideas''. And falsehood, fallacy are just displeasing ideas. They claim that when a few humans agree on something, something deep, transcendental and meaningful is happening, like truth is established, consensus is reached and peace is achieved.
Then those people try to talk about what they experience, trying to be down to earth, instead of speculating about their dreams and metaphysics, and they create even more appalling statements. Those people range from the old greeks, like the stoics, with their ''epokhē'', to the modern humanist rationalists trying to pass for professionals in phenomenology, who fall in love with dry vipassana because they see that as compatible with  their ''intellectual minds'', to the philosophers who invented mahayana and vajrayana,
They go like :

''I am miserable because I judge, because I choose, because I think.
  Therefore, the way to be happy is to stop judging, to stop choosing,
  to stop thinking. The reality naked of judgement, of choice, of agency is
  nice and not harmful. it cannot be otherwise''.

this is a few of the meaningless words they invented to talk about their toxic fantasy that they try to pass as nibanna:

aperception, choiceless awareness, present moment awareness, non
  conceptual awreness, non judgemental awareness, centerless awareness,
  bare awareness, lack of doer, lack of witness, lack of agency, pure
  awareness (or knowingness)

And when they try to detail their dream  they say;

''It means that sensations are just sensations, simply that, with no
  knower, doer, be-er (not beer, as that is a beverage), or self in them
  to be found at all.''

THis what the intellectual puthujjanas will never understand: the dhamma has nothing to do with judging or stopping the thoughts, or lack of choice.
The point of the dhamma is that people are unhappy:

not because they judge, but because they have the wrong notion of what is right and wrong
people do not know how to go from bad to right
people already think they are nice people
reality nude of judgement is indeed harmful, dukkha, not worth any consideration, craving, interest, passion. (for puthujjanas, reality is always one of the toxic aggregates or some conditioned stuff stemming from them)

When the philosophers babble about the dhamma to cram their toxic view about lack of doer, lack of agency and how nice reality is when people stop thinking with concepts, they always rely on the Bāhiya Sutta. they really really love that sutta, because it is the only sutta they can use to create their view.
Fortunately, there is another sutta which explains for puthujjanas what that means

"Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard,
  sensed, or cognized: In reference to the seen, there will be only the
  seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the
  sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the
  cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there
  will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in
  reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed,
  only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta,
  there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in
  connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you
  there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just
  this, is the end of stress."[2]
"I understand in detail, lord, the meaning of what the Blessed One has
  said in brief:
Seeing a form     — mindfulness lapsed — attending    to the theme of
  'endearing,' impassioned in mind,     one feels   and remains fastened
  there. One's feelings, born of the form,  grow numerous, Greed &
  annoyance     injure one's mind. Thus amassing stress,    one is said to be
  far from Unbinding.
Hearing a sound... Smelling an aroma... Tasting a flavor... Touching a
  tactile sensation...
Knowing an idea   — mindfulness lapsed — attending    to the theme of
  'endearing,' impassioned in mind,     one feels   and remains fastened
  there. One's feelings, born of the idea,  grow numerous, Greed &
  annoyance     injure one's mind. Thus amassing stress,    one is said to be
  far from Unbinding.
Not impassioned with forms    — seeing a form with mindfulness firm —
  dispassioned in mind,     one knows   and doesn't remain fastened there.
  While one is seeing a form    — and even experiencing feeling — it falls
  away and doesn't accumulate. Thus one fares mindfully. Thus not
  amassing stress,  one is said to be in the presence of Unbinding.
Not impassioned with sounds... Not impassioned with aromas... Not
  impassioned with flavors... Not impassioned with tactile sensations...
Not impassioned with ideas    — knowing an idea with mindfulness firm —
  dispassioned in mind, one knows and doesn't remain fastened there. While one is knowing an idea   — and even experiencing feeling — it falls away and doesn't accumulate. Thus one fares mindfully. Thus not amassing stress,     one is said to be in the presence of Unbinding.
"It's in this way, lord, that I understand in detail the meaning of what the Blessed One said in brief."
"Good, Malunkyaputta. Very good. It's good that you understand in
  detail this way the meaning of what I said in brief."
[The Buddha then repeats the verses.]
"It's in this way, Malunkyaputta, that the meaning of what I said in
  brief should be regarded in detail."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.than.html
The philosophers despise this sutta because they cling to their view that they are already arahants with respect to the doctrine they invented, but when they compare what they experience with the other sutta, they see that they are not even at stream entry.


text:
Are there any attempts to prove the eternal blissful etc. self?
The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self
'Self' appears in the positive very many times in that sutra, e.g. here (Chapter 33) ,,,

Knowledge ["jnana"] sees the Void and the non-Void,  the  Eternal  and
  the  non-Eternal,  Suffering  and  Bliss,  the  Self  and  the
  non-Self.  The  Void refers to all births and deaths. The Non-Void
  refers to Great Nirvana. And the non-Self is nothing but birth and
  death. The Self refers to Great Nirvana.

or here (Chapter 37) ...

""The Eternal of Great Nirvana is the Self.
  "The Self is the Pure.
  "The Pure is Bliss.
  "The Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure are the Tathagata.
"O good man! For example, space is not the east,
  nor is it the south, nor the west, nor the north, nor the four directions, nor up or down. It is the same with the Tathagata

etc. e.g. here (Chapter 23) ...

The Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha truly exist, and the
  Tathagata always expounds the essentials of all laws [Dharma]

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?
I might start by saying that I don't know how a philosopher can prove anything.

A mathematician proves theories by defining axioms and showing that the theories derive from axioms
A physicist proves laws by defining laws and showing that the laws predict observed physical behaviour

This topic about 'proofs' in philosophy says,

[Except in "formal logic"] the best you get is an analytically-reasoned argument.
If I can show that a given position is self-contradictory then I have proven the position false. In terms of positive proof for a position, then it does not seem that there is anything available quite equivalent to mathematical proof in either rigour or epistemic certainty.

So I don't understand the question as-asked. But (instead of answering the question) perhaps analysing the text and looking at definitions of the words will be a partial answer instead.

I just read Chapter 37 (only).
It's translated from Chinese, which is difficult -- I must read an English translation.
I do't entirely trust that because I think that word-for-word translation are inevitably inaccurate -- e.g. the Pali word dukkha has various translations, like "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" etc. -- or Pali has three words for different aspects of "mind" -- but anyway I'll try what I can with the English translation.

To start I note it starts with orthodox/standard doctrine ...

Because of this, know that Sramana Gautama has no father and no mother. If he has, how can he say:

"All things are non-eternal, suffering, void; and all have no self, no doing, no feeling?"

... i.e. it says that the Buddha's doctrine is as quoted above (e.g. "all things have no self").
I'm not sure what "have no self" would be a translation of, if the original were in Pali -- I think it could be anatta or sunyata -- but the previous clause said "void" which I take it was a translation of "empty" or sunyata so I guess that "have no self" is a reference to anatta.
Incidentally the Pali phrase or doctrine is something like sabbe sankhara anatta (i.e. "all things are non-self") -- but "things" there isn't a great translation of sankhara, a better translation might be "compound things" (or "things put together from other things" or "things which depend on other things"), and perhaps specifically in contrast to nibbana which is called a dhamma and not a sankhara.
Anyway I think the word "self" (in common English and in English translations of buddhist texts) might be ambiguous and depending on context it could refer to different things:

Something eternal (a soul, a god, perhaps something "space" or "light" or "time")
Something unconditioned, which exists independently of other things
Something in the I/me/mine kind of realm, e.g. "my soul" or "my consciousness" etc. -- or conversely that the Self is the possessor not the possessed, etc.

The first mention of "Self" seems to be here:

That is to say that all things are non-eternal, suffering, non-Self, and non-Pure, and that only the Tathagata is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure.

I have to guess at what "non-self" and "non-pure" mean; but the Wikipedia article you quoted says some things about that.
The "six masters" then say something like, "Well if you have Self then so have we. For example maybe Seeing is Self (and we see)", and the Buddha replies that seeing isn't Self. Here is the Buddha's argument:

The Buddha said to the six masters: "If seeing is the Self, you are wrong. Why? You take up the analogy of an object and say that we see by it. Now, man uses together the six sense-organs to one object. If there surely is the Self and we see unfailingly by (means of) the eye, why is it that we do not cognise all objects with that one sense-organ? If one does not meet with the six sense-fields, know that there is no Self to talk of. If things are thus with the sense-organ of sight, there will be no change even if years pass and the sense-organs become ripened. As "man" and "object" are different, one sees one's own self and the other. If it is thus with the sense-organ of sight, there must be the seeing of one's own self and the other at (one and the same) time. If not seen, how can we say that there is the Self?

I think that's saying:

Seeing isn't Self because we cognise sense-objects with several senses (not just seeing)
Seeing is dependent on contact (with the sense-fields), if there's no contact then is there no "Self"?
Sense organs (e.g. the eye) change with time
Another argument I don't understand

I wanted to analyse the argument in order to understand (or reverse-engineer) the definition of "Self" that's being used.
I think the first bit of the argument is that if something (e.g. seeing) is Self then there can't be something else (e.g. hearing) that's also self.
And so on. If you analyze subsequent paragraphs in a similar way you derive different characteristics or definition of Self, for eample:

If one cannot do as one wills, know that this indicates that assuredly no Self is there.
The body of the Tathagata is not based on causal relations. Because there are no causal relations, we say that there is the Self.
If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another?

I think this is more-or-less the conclusion:

The Buddha said: "If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another? If a person does good or evil at (different) times, how can we say that the Self is boundless? If the Self does, why would one practise evil things? If the Self is the doer and if it is the wise, how can one doubt about the selflessness of the being? So, we can say that there can definitely be no Self in the doctrine of the tirthikas. The Self is none other than the Tathagata. Why? Because his body is boundless and there exists no doubt. On account of non-doing and non-receiving (of karmic consequences), we say Eternal. On account of birthlessness and deathlessness, we say Bliss. As there exists no defilement of illusion, we say Pure. As he does not have the ten aspects of existence, we say Void (i.e. void of all that causes suffering). Hence, the Tathagata is none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure, and the Void, and there is no other aspect to speak of.

I think that's not a clear (or it's a difficult) explanation of why "the Self is the Tathagata" -- I think the reasoning is that it's consistent with the definitions or properties of "Self" -- e.g. (I paraphrase) "seeing can't be self because it's limited, light can't be Self because it's caused by (dependently originated from) a lamp, but the Tathagata is unbounded".
You might like to see also Why is the Buddha described as trackless? -- because I think that's an example of the Tathagata's being called unbounded in the Pali suttas.

I'm not sure what the point is, what the benefit is, for having this kind of doctrine abut Self. It's unusual, the Wikipedia article Ātman (Buddhism) which you quoted says,

Most scholars consider the Tathagatagarbha doctrine in Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra asserting an 'essential nature' in every living being is equivalent to 'Self', and it contradicts the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.

So if the Brahmins are teaching about the Self, then the Buddha has two ways to contradict them:

"There is no Self"
"The Self is the Tathagata"

Another theory is that it might be intended to contradict the Three marks of existence -- i.e. if things are "negative" (unsatisfactory and non-self) maybe there's something else that's "positive" ... even attractive.

Finally I note there's something else in that same Wikipedia article:

According to Paul Wiliams, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:

The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self.

In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.

I haven't tried to find the location in the sutra where it says that, you might find it interesting to do that.

If I may try and risk answering based on my personal intuition (unlike most of my answers which are elaborations of standard/official doctrines)...
Some Mahayana authors evidently enjoyed being controversial. It seemed like prajna-paramita was popular and very well understood at the time, and so authors almost competed, who would break the stereotypes in a more creatively shocking way. This sutra seems to belong to that category.
You see, once you really get prajna-paramita, you clearly realize that all descriptions have no inherent meaning, that their meanings are acquired through relating them positionally against one another. Therefore, such concepts as "Self", "Permanent", "Void", "Pure", "Bliss" etc. are not some hard truths that have (or can ever have) precise definitions. Instead, the true ontological reality may be described in a seemingly controversial ways, if the same words are used in a different sense, if things are described at a different angle so to speak.
So this sutra seems to attempt to lead the reader to this understanding by playing with stereotypical definitions of words as used in Buddhism and redefining them to speak in a different sense.
It is not like the author seems to be seriously stuck on that framework, it seems pretty obvious that he or she is just messing with us in order to illustrate the limit of descriptions.

i agree they don't mean that there is the self that the buddha ruled out, but the sutra says as much, so i don't think it's willful difficulty either

Mahayana authors are more poetic and they employ a lot of reification, perhaps trying to creatively convey the same meaning of the words that have been inherited (almost) verbatim in the Pali Suttas.
The downside however, is that they may get carried away by reification and some Mahayana Buddhists may have forgotten the original meaning.
For example, from the Vakkali Sutta, there is the statement from the Buddha, "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dharma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dharma. Truly seeing Dharma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dharma." Dharma here means the teachings of the Buddha.
@PeterJ pointed out that Dharma is also translated as Truth in Mahayana Buddhism. So, this I speculate is one level of reification, since the teachings are true, so, Dharma = teachings = Truth.
From here, I speculate that there was the first stage reification in Mahayana to convert this concept ("truly seeing Dharma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dharma") into the Dharmakaya or the Dharma-body of the Buddha vs. his physical body. From the Buddha's teachings-body, this becomes the Buddha's Truth-body. There is nothing wrong with this if one remembers the original meaning.
Then I speculate that there came the second stage reification in Mahayana to convert this Dharmakaya concept into the Eternal Buddha. There is nothing wrong with this if one remembers the original meaning.
As a second example, I will use the example of the Buddha Nature.
In this answer, we can see that the Buddha said anyone can achieve Nirvana, regardless of their caste or origin (Gihi Sutta). And in this question and this question, we see the teaching on the luminous mind (Pabhassara Sutta).
Form here, I speculate that there came the first stage of reification in Mahayana that this was converted into the Buddha Nature (tathagatagarbha) that everyone has.
Then I speculate that there came the second stage of reification in Mahayana that this Buddha Nature became "The Eternal of Great Nirvana is the Self. The Self is the Pure. The Pure is Bliss. The Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure are the Tathagata."
The problem comes when some Mahayana Buddhists forget the original meaning and say that the Eternal Buddha is the Buddha as the person existing after death, or that the Buddha Nature is the Eternal Self (a real self) of everyone. Spices and condiments are used to enhance the flavour of food, but if spices are overused, then the original flavour of the food is masked and forgotten.
And then the Hindu scholars will take advantage of this and say, that the Eternal Buddha and the Eternal Brahman are the same, or that the Buddha Nature and Supreme Self (Paramatma) of Hinduism are the same (as what Prof. Chandradhar Sharma has done in this answer). Centuries ago, Hindu scholars may have used this argument to convert Indian Buddhists to Hinduism.
There is another possibility (speculated by me) that Indian Mahayana authors were trying to attract the attention of Indian Hindus centuries ago to Buddhism by reifying Buddhist concepts to sound like Hindu concepts. If this were the case, then it has certainly backfired.
In my opinion, Mahayana Buddhism is not a different religion from Theravada Buddhism. If you trace the reification backward towards their original meaning, I think they are quite the same. In fact, Mahayana Buddhism probably even stretches one's imagination to look at the same thing with different viewpoints. For e.g. if you say Nirvana is unconditioned and unborn and undying, do you mean the actual Nirvana, or the concept of Nirvana conceived by your mind? The reified concept of Nirvana conceived by your mind as a papanca, is certainly "empty" (thank you, Nagarjuna).

it's not a different religion, but it has different tenets. not sure why i would mean nirvana conceived of by my mind... when i say "that's a big fish" surely i am talking about the actual fish?

One person might say big fish and imagine a shark while another person might say big fish and imagine a whale.

sure, but that doesn't mean there's no fish?

Yes. I don't think Nagarjuna's emptiness is literally "empty of essence". I think it means empty of mentally reified essence

reified is a good word, wouldn't want anyone to reify the idea of nirvana... that's what i meant in the conclusion of my answer: how can i envision nirvana without phenomena?

What is "nirvana without phenomena"?

exactly! no idea

@user3293056 I think a term like "bliss" is more obviously subjective (than "fish", though "fish" is too because it exists in dependence on subjective sense-impressions and/or past experiences and memories of fish) -- e.g. should the word "bliss" be applied to the euphoria associated with taking cocaine or heroin ... or, conversely, to being drug-free, a non-addict?

@user3293056 - Your thoughts are never the thing itself. and the ultimate nature of Reality is unthinkable. You cannot envision 'Nirvana without phenomena'. On the question - perhaps you could say that Buddhism is the practice of proving the truth about the self. But there can be no 'proof by demonstration'. .   .     .

tend to agree @PeterJ but it seems like a cop out

@ruben2020 - Nice answer. although I would not share your critical view of Mahayana. Just wanted to suggest that it may be more helpful in the context you discuss to translate 'Dharma' as Truth.

@PeterJ Thanks. Then there was a 3-stage reification. From Dharma=teachings to Dharma=Truth to Dharma-body (Truth Body) to Eternal Buddha.

@user3293056 - I would suggest that if you see this as a cop-out then you aren't quite grasping what is being said. But don't worry, this stuff takes a long time to grasp and some paradigm-shifting is usually involved. The basic point is that theoretical knowledge is theoretical and truth requires the transcendence of theory. So a 'proof' of truth has to be direct knowledge or 'knowledge by identity', never a logical argument or description. Just as in the sciences a theory is never 'true'.

@PeterJ why are you interested in philosophy then? you seem not to understand its role at all!

@PeterJ by point is just that i can't make sense of what "direct knowledge" of a permanent self could be. buddhists say absolutely everything we experience is impermanent, right? it may seem heterodox, but i quite like the idea that we directly see the buddha nature then infer it is a permanent self, make sense of it that way

@user3293056 I think Buddhists say that (specifically) sense-perceptions (e.g. consciousness of sights and thoughts etc.) are impermanent, and so are (more generally) anything put-together or constructed (including sense-perceptions). But "nibbana" is said to be not impermanent. Also the Dhamma is said to be akalika (meaning "timeless", possibly "immediate" or "ever-present") and the sutra kind of equates the Buddha with the Dhamma -- the Buddha is Tathagata and unbound, but that the Dhamma is our (remaining) contact with the Buddha and is a.k.a. one of the "bodies" of the Buddha's.

yes agreed! @ChrisW ...

@user3293056 - Not sure I understand your comment about philosophy. You're right about experience and impermanence. The practice takes us beyond experience and there'd be no inferences required.   .

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self

I'm also going to answer based on intuition more than anything. What would it mean to say that nirvana is a self? I think, that parinirvana neither has Being nor non-Being: the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism.
I've seen the Buddhanature defined as "awareness" by e.g. the son Buddhist Chinul. Does "awareness" (we probably have some idea of what that means even without studying Buddhism) exist? It is not part of the body or mind, and not the body considered as a whole either, and these are all there are to call a person. But I seem to have awareness nonetheless. So my own answer is that you can't infer that the Buddhanature exists, only directly see that it does. It only exists non-inferentially.
I've seen a few attempts to prove that nirvana is an indestructible self. e.g. the surangama sutra (I'll find a quote later). What I don't understand is how nirvana can occur without phenomena, and phenomena are all impermanent and die. But then I have neither died nor attained nirvana.

just my two cents


text:
What is the duration of Jhana?
What is the duration of Jhana?
How long the duration of each Jhana.
For instance, what is the duration of the first Jhana?
Say if I have first Jhana only for one minute, can I say that I was in the first Jhana?

After the absorption, the practitioner can say he is the obtainer of the first Jhana if the five hindrances still not arise instead of Jhana practice.
If that obtainer can't absorpt the first Jhana, but he has not an arising of the five hindrances, we still can call him as the obtainer of the first Jhana because he is in access concentration state, Upacāra-Jhāna, of the absorption concentration state, Appanā-Jhāna, which certainly going to arise if he still can keep the access concentration go on continuously.
The five hindrances are a major one important keyword of this question. Focus on it.

At the first time absorption, Jhana arises only one moment, but it is going to take the longer duration when the practitioner practice that Jhana to be the mastery skillful expert, Vasī.
It's like when the practitioner practices the weight training, no one can hold up the weight in long duration, but the practitioner can hold the weight up longer and longer after training the weight more and more.
The path of purification, pathavikasinaniddesa:

Sā ca pana ekacittakkhaṇikāyeva.
Ñ(IV,78): But that (first time of the first Jhana) absorption is only of a single conscious moment.
Sattasu hi ṭhānesu addhānaparicchedo nāma natthi paṭhamappanāyaṃ, lokiyābhiññāsu, catūsu maggesu, maggānantaraphale, rūpārūpabhavesu bhavaṅgajjhāne, nirodhassa paccaye nevasaññānāsaññāyatane, nirodhā vuṭṭhahantassa phalasamāpattiyanti.
Ñ: For there are seven instances in which the normal extent [of the cognitive series] does not apply. They are in the cases of the first absorption, the mundane kinds of direct-knowledge, the four paths, fruition next after the path, life-continuum jhāna in the fine-material and immaterial kinds of becoming, the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception as condition for cessation [of perception and feeling], and the fruition attainment in one emerging from cessation.

The path of purification, Vasī:

Tatrimā pañca vasiyo āvajjanavasī, samāpajjanavasī, adhiṭṭhānavasī, vuṭṭhānavasī, paccavekkhaṇavasīti.

Ñ: Herein, these are the five kinds of mastery: mastery in adverting, mastery in attaining, mastery in resolving (steadying the duration), mastery in emerging, and mastery in reviewing.
... (See the explanation inside the link and book)...