text:
Panic arising in meditation
I am a relatively new (about four months) meditator.
My meditation technique is closing my eyes and focusing on the sensation of the breath as it passes in and out of my throat. Today I was meditating for 30 minutes and, as often happens, I saw swirling lights in the darkness of my closed eyes.
As I became more deeply focused on the breath-sensation, the lights went away and there was darkness, but the odd thing was that the darkness extended - it seemed as though I was looking down an endless, dark hallway rather than just looking at my eyelids.
As I noted this, I started to see a purple, vibrating orb appear. I remember thinking to myself that maybe I was about to have some kind of mystical experience. I became a little excited about this, but all of a sudden the excitement morphed into an incredible fear. My breath began to come in gasps and was shaky, and my heart was pounding. I eventually managed to calm down, but wow that was strange.
So my question is - has this happened to anyone else, and is there a reasonable explanation? I have always had issues with anxiety, so I wonder if that is related to this experience.
I have heard that meditation can be harmful - is this a sign that I should refrain from meditating?
Thanks for taking the time to read.
Ian

Symptoms match those of a panic attack. See the "Should you see your doctor about panic attacks?" section of the NHS page I've linked to.

I had exactly the same experience, as you describe at two occasions: at first during a retreat, second time a few months later. I was told that I might confuse excitement with fear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%ABti

welcome!
Generally, from Buddhism standpoint, meditation is not practiced for the sake of mystical experiences. In vipassana exercises, whatever sensation is felt, it's supposed to be observed, we are not supposed to be overwhelmed by it. In general, arbitrary sensations and imaginations are not to be stimulated. And as importantly, awareness should be constant: when one embarks in sensations and imaginations, awareness is lost.
If awareness is lost, whatever imagination inside your mind becomes powerful, your forget that you're safe, sitting comfortably, and believe you are in danger, when nothing will really happen.
I remember reading an account of a meditator who described having visions during meditation, and later on, seeing his visions were true. He brought this to his teacher who told him to not be distracted by such small thing. That's a valuable attitude to have during meditation. At least if one is aiming for the higher goals.
In general also, if the meditator is not calm (if he is excited, in fear, tired, etc), meditation is impaired:

But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

So, to answer your questions:

This is relatively common, specially when our minds follow patterns that easily lead to strong sensations. A remedy for this is having a very good understanding of the practice (for example, understanding very well the five hindrances)
A lot of things can be harmful if not done properly. Though meditation doesn't seem to require knowing much, it can be very hard to do it without study.

From here, I suggest having a good understanding of primordial sources for this practice: the Satippathana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta where the Buddha explains their techniques. I also strongly suggest looking for books that cover detailed explanation for these. Finally, there are a lot of questions regarding meditation here, I suggest looking up for those as well.

Thank you for the response! I am not 100% solid on my understanding of the Satipathana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta so I will make sure to explore these more deelpy to help strengthen my practice. And yeah you make a good point, I will try from now on to remain equanimous toward both experience and lack of experience. My excitement about the potential for a mystical experience obviously took away from my meditation, as I lost my focus on the breath.

When in meditation, you will pass through different psychic experiences. Here are some points:

I would suggest trying meditating on a chair so that your feet are on the ground. If you feel panic or excitement rising, feel the soles of your feet. This will help you get grounded.
Feel the sensation on different parts of your body. Learn to rest in the sensation of your body.
You might try to combine meditation with a physical excercise (qigong, jogging, you name it)
Don't get excited by psychic experiences. Panic and extreme excitement are the different sides of the same coin. Never search for psychic experiences.
Remember you are free at any time to open your eyes and look around to make sure you are safe and not under any physical threat.
I wouldn't watch horror movies or do other things that flirt with the fear in the psyche.
If the panic strikes, endeavour to get back in the stillness of your own sensation. Remember that these energies are all appearances. They are not real in a physical sense so they cannot really harm you.

Thank you for the recommendations, I think you make a good point- my excitement about the potential 'psychic experience' is likely a danger. I will try to add your suggestions to my practice and hopefully things will improve. Thanks again!

What you experience during your practice is absolutely not harmful. It is a stage in the meditation process. More: it is a sign that you proceed in the right direction.
The vibrating 'light' that arises and passes away is the so-called nimitta.
Catherine, Shaila, (2008) Focused and Fearless. A Meditator’s Guide to States of Deep Joy, Calm, and Clarity p. 116:

‘The breath nimitta usually appears as a stable, smooth, white radiance associated with the focus on the breath. It is a mental reflection of the breath and includes no physical aspect; the light and breath may appear to have merged into a single mental experience of breath.’

Dalai Lama & Chodron, Thubten, (2014), Buddhism. One Teacher, Many Traditions p. 88:

‘The learning sign [nimitta] is an image arisen from this physical sensation [the sensation of the breath at the nostrils and upper lip, as it enters and exits]. When it arises, the meditator turns her attention to the nimitta—a colored luminous sphere or a radiant light—and that becomes his object of meditation [i.c. the arising and passing away of this nimitta].’

Brahm, Ajahn, (2011) The Art of Disappearing. The Buddha’s Path to Lasting Joy p. 120-121:

‘If you haven’t experienced these things, it can all sound like fantasy. But as your meditation improves, you gradually start to realize that this is not fantasy, that these states do exist, and what I’m saying is valid.
All you need to do is take your meditation further and drop more of
  the body. As you practice in this way, you start to bliss out. You
  understand that the body isn’t just suffering because of old age,
  sickness and death, but even its normal state is a huge heap of
  suffering. This is one of the incredible powerful realizations you get
  from deep meditation. A nimitta is enough to give you this
  realization, but if you get into jhana it’s unmistakably clear.’

My meditation technique is that of closing my eyes and focusing on the sensation of the breath as it passes in and out of my throat.
What kind of meditation are you doing.Samatha or vippassana?If it's samatha just keep focusing on the physical sensation of the breath.If it's vippassanna just keep noting.
I saw swirling lights in the darkness of my closed eyes. As I became more deeply focused on the breath-sensation, the lights went away and there was darkness, but the odd thing was that the darkness extended- it seemed as though I was looking down an endless, dark hallway rather than just looking at my eyelids.
You may be seeing Phosphenes since you mentioned looking at your eye lids.Also your not supposed to be looking at your eyelids your supposed to be focused on the breath.
As I noted this, I started to see a purple, vibrating orb appear.
This could be the nimitta.But nimitta arising is one thing and leading to a mystical experience which i assume is the jhanas is another thing.Nimittas become quite common when you sit everyday.Sometimes they appear and dissapear when you start breathing.This kind of nimitta is as useless as phosphenes.Don't shift your focus from the breath to the nimitta.In other words.don't try to look at it.It will disappear and appear at another point and you'll spend the rest of the meditation playing tag.
I remember thinking to myself that maybe I was about to have some kind of mystical experience.
If you would like to experience this "mystical experience" ignore the nimitta.The more you ignore the better.Keep your focus on the breath.The nimitta will break into your awareness on it own and merge with the breath,or specifically the point where the physical sensation of the breath is felt.
I became a little excited about this, but all of a sudden the excitement morphed into an incredible fear.
Excitement and fear is a hindrance.I think it comes from being afraid of the unknown.I suggest reading the suttas or learning the proper meditation techniques so you develop confidence or faith in the practice.
I have heard that meditation can be harmful- is this a sign that I should refrain from meditating?
I don't think meditation is harmful.i think our minds are harmful.Meditation is only a tool to clear away the things we store in our minds,to make conscious the subconscious.


text:
Planning Meditation Topics
Is it ever beneficial to decide on a meditation topic before beginning to meditate? For example, say I want to deal with a specific problem in my life, e.g. hatred towards a specific person, cravings for food, stress about my job, etc -- something I'm aware of as an ongoing, personal problem that I want to deal with proactively rather than to merely observe it when and where it pops up.
Is it a good idea to plan and say, "ok, during this meditation session, I'm going to think about problem x," and then proceed to meditate on that subject? Or is it better to begin with breath meditation and to observe thoughts as they develop naturally.
How should one ideally structure such meditation so that it remains controlled, calm, objective, and appropriately focused?

"I'm going to think about problem X" is thinking, not meditating [in the buddhist / vipassana sense].

One shouldn't practice that way if one is practicing Vipassana. The sole goal of Vipassana meditation is to be able to directly see the reality in front of you, so setting up other goals doesn't fit.
If one is having a persistent problem in meditation one can switch over to other techniques to deal with them however. For example, if a meditator keeps having angry thoughts towards people coming up in meditation practicing loving kindness meditation is an effective antidote.
Generally though if you are practicing Vipassana you should only apply these remedies as needed to overcome distractions instead of trying to work them out ahead of time.

Not contradicting what you said. I found it occasionally useful to state a resolution before formal practice (such as "may I see my anger/depression/whatever clearly"), then forget about it, and practice as usual. Sort of pre-conditioning of the mind.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does breeding dogs fall under right livelihood?
Does breeding and selling dogs fit into right livelihood provided that you make a concerted effort to make sure the animals find homes with responsible owners?

Edit:
Thanks for the answers so far. I am especially interested in answers that are rooted in the Pali Canon.
There are two relevant suttas that I found:

The Vanijja Sutta
The Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta

However, it seems like there is dispute about how to translate and understand the relevant passages. Any answers that specifically address these issues would be appreciated.

Depends on which system your in. In the Mahayana system, the precepts have an animal liberation theme, i.e. not using animals for anything.
In the Upasaka precepts.

(15) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises cats or
  foxes, he has committed the sin of negligence. ...
     (16) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises animals,
  such as elephants, horses, cows, goats, camels, or donkeys, and
  refuses to give them away to someone who has not received the
  [upāsaka] precepts, he has committed the sin of negligence. Without
  rising above this impure act, which is conducive to continuing his
  cyclic existence, ... he cannot avoid going down an evil
  life-path.

ref: http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html
And in the Brahma Net Sutra precepts

On Harming Sentient Beings

A disciple of the Buddha must not sell knives, clubs, bows, arrows, other life-taking devices, nor keep altered scales or
  measuring devices.  He should not abuse his governmental position to
  confiscate people's possessions, nor should he, with malice at heart,
  restrain or imprison others or sabotage their success.  (82) In
  addition, he should not raise cats, dogs, foxes, pigs, and other such
  animals.  (83) If he intentionally does such things, he commits a
  secondary offense.

ref: http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/brahmanet.htm
I'm a vegetarian myself, and sympathetic to animal right issues-- the pet trade, zoos, and circuses do involve a certain amount of unneeded suffering and death on the animals parts, but for some people, their dog or cat is the only reason they have any sympathy at all for non-humans. So pets are a sort of unvolunteered diplomats for their species and animals in general.
Anyhow, here is one asian, dog charity I follow- https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duo-Duo-Animal-Welfare-Project-%E5%A4%9A%E5%A4%9A/380841222033262

With Buddhist morality, you have to remember there are two levels:

The conventional, that is used like fence posts to demarcate boundaries and provide a framework. This includes the precepts, and the other teachings of the Buddha on right livelihood, ascetic practices, etc.
The ultimate, that deals with actual mental immorality, similar to a real fence that actually prevents escape. This involves mental states of greed, morality, and delusion.

The fence posts are important on a conventional level, since without them, one wouldn't know where to put the fence, and the fence would most likely collapse without their support. Precepts support practice, and provide clear indication of what is out of bounds. They don't describe true morality.
So, conventionally speaking, breeding dogs may not be wrong livelihood in the Theravada, as per the other answers, but most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being). How wrong depends on many factors, often independent of the actual livelihood. How you treat your dogs, euthanization, etc.  Often, the level of "wrong" is not significant, and simply slows down one's progress towards enlightenment. The point is not to let one's livelihood become a barrier towards nibbana.

This isn't to take anything away from your answer but I find the comment - but most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" - a very challenging (in a positive way) statement. So I've posted another question about it to see the range of opinion on it - http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7878/157. And welcome back to the site of course - i think we all missed your answers

Under Samma Ajiva, five kinds of wrong livelihoods are identified:

trading in animals for slaughter
dealing in weapons
dealing in slaves
dealing in poison
dealing in intoxicants

So breeding dogs for petting is fine!

While there mightn't be any specific quotes from Buddhist texts regarding the breeding of dogs, this doesn't necessarily mean it's fine.
Depending on the methods and goals of the breeding, this can lead to a number of severe health issues ongoing to purebred dogs. One need only begin to research the breed history and plight of the average sausage dog, pug, cavalier spaniel, etc, to read of the common health issues that have arisen from inbreeding and from the emphasis of certain defects through breeding.
Another issue is pet overpopulation - there are millions of unwanted cats and dogs that are taken to shelters every year and euthanised as they are unable to re-homed. To be adding dogs bred purposefully to these numbers would exacerbate the issue and denying existing dogs the opportunity to find a home.
Additionally, the current attitudes within society towards dogs are such that they are commodities to be purchased and traded, utilised for some practical or social purpose (such as a status symbol in the case of some purebred dogs) and these attitudes are reinforced by the encouragement of breeding and its transactional nature. I don't think holding these attitudes is spiritually healthy.
I think people are able to have productive and ethical relationships with animals, however I would argue that the combination of animals and commercial purposes creates welfare issues as the business maxims of maximum output for input inevitably come into play. One might argue that the treatment of dogs such as the above constitutes dealing in slaves.

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


text:
Psychic Mediums vs Buddhist Monks
Who would have the better handle on how the true nature of reality is organised? For example what karma actually is and and how we discharge our obligations towards it; our free will in selecting a new incarnation. Logic dictates that the more insightful answers come from those who can communicate directly with the spirit world as psychic mediums can. The true role of the Buddhist Monk surely is to facilitate peace on Earth rather than to pontificate on the technicalities of the afterlife. This point by the way is not to denigrate the efforts of Buddhist monks, whom I have the greatest respect for.

Speculation based on arbitrary premises (the role of monks, someone who can directly communicate with the spirit). For me BSE should be a forum for question with a bit more background and should be bounded to real observations. So I downvote the question (-1)

You could reformulate the question, perhaps asking whether buddhists regard beings living in other "planes" to be more insightful, or if buddhists believe that just contacting insightful beings makes us insightful (the answer, though, to both questions would probably be "no").

Firstly welcome. Can you clarify your question? Probably you already know this, but this is a Q&A site. Not exactly oriented toward discussion. Try to write down your doubt clearly so people can answer appropriately.

Who would have the better handle on how the true nature of reality is organised?
Buddhist monks.Because they follow the teachings of the Buddha.The Buddha taught Karma and Rebirth.
Logic dictates that the more insightful answers come from those who can communicate directly with the spirit world as psychic mediums can
Please elaborate.I got lost at Logic.
The true role of the Buddhist Monk surely is to facilitate peace on Earth rather than to pontificate on the technicalities of the afterlife
It's neither.The true role of the Buddhist Monk is to realize nibbanna.

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." ~ G. K. Chesterton,
English author & mystery novelist (1874 - 1936) :)

This is illogical but makes sense : ">


text:
Is it OK to mentally multi-task during vipassana meditation?
It appears that I have found it possible to focus both on the breath (as a meditation object) and to be aware of a bit of a train of thought.
Is this acceptable, or unacceptable, or should it be avoided? Or, is it perhaps simply varying "snippets" of mind-moments where I am slipping in and out of bare awareness of the meditation object?

Multi-tasking is an illusion... I have read that the mind and the senses are like a monkey sticking its head out six different windows rapidly in succession.
A great lama once told me that trying to solve a puzzle when you sit down to meditate is in actuality making another samsara.

I'd say that if you multi-task, acknowledge multi-tasking (which is at that moment on top of both breath and thoughts), let it go, and return to the breath. And see what happens in the next moment.
Perhaps when you multi-task, there is also a reason underneath that (avoiding some difficult feelings or pain, ambition to meditate "well", avoidance of boredom or tiredness) which you can become aware of (not by analyzing, just by looking), -- then acknowledge that one, let it go, and return to the anchor.
If you are aware of the snippets of mind-movements as they are alternating, acknowledge that awareness, and perhaps any induced reaction (liking, disliking, fascination, thoughts, comparison), let it go, and return to your anchor (breath).

There are times you have to think and in these cases it is fine as long as you look at the sensations through which you can understand the other aggregates.
In general meditation you have to reduce metal fabrications hence have a look at the thought, their sensation and bring the mind to an anchor. This way you can tame the verbal fabrication.
One very important step in Vippassana is to tame the fabrication. So you have to keep this in mind focused.

The most important thing is that you should not be attached to your train of thoughts. Whether your CPU (brain) has an efficiency of 2 cores or 6 cores, it doesn't matter! What matters is that the cores are used efficiently. And in Vipassana meditation, they are used most efficiently when they are just shut down (unattached/equanimous to thoughts).

Such a thing as "multitasking" does not exist, since mind has only one object one time. So "multitasking" means nothing but dwelling in a fantastic illusion/construction and being totally unaware.
Calling it a puzzle is a good simile: it's just that one "solves" his own created puzzle.
People who think that they can handle more things at one time, are actually not at all aware of what they are doing (outwardly), even more so inward events.
Especially busy people, people who are proud of being "able" to handle many things at one time, hate to hear a (anti-"multitasking") doctrine like this. However, give it a honest self-proof. Record the whole stream and look at it picture by picture.
That reminds me on an essay about walking meditation, which may be of use:

...Before yogis begin practicing walking meditation, they may have
  thought that a step is just one movement. After meditation on that
  movement, they observe that there are at least four movements, and if
  they go deeper, they will understand that even one of these four
  movements consists of millions of tiny movements... The Benefits of Walking Meditation

The idea of any Buddhist meditation is to control the mind to one and only one object of meditation, in this case vipassana.
If the mind wanders, and the meditator discovers that the mind has wandered, the meditator should go back to the meditation object immediately.
Sorry, but there should be no multitasking.


text:
Why Vipassana meditation need a base object?
I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that Vipassana is about letting go of control and judgement, and the meditator will just become aware and accept things as they are. Be it pain, thoughts, sound, or physical sensations like breath or a moving stomach (as we breath).
I wonder we need to have a base object, like breath or moving stomach. Why don't we just let go from the very beginning and just become aware and accept any sensation as it is, without any default object?

I think (please kindly correct me if i wrong) Vipassana is about letting go of control & judgement, and the meditator will just aware and accept things as it is. Will it be pain, thoughts, sound, and physical sensations like breath or a moving stomach (as we breath).

That sounds more like shikantaza/zazen.
Vipassanā means insight into reality: seeing the three marks of existence dukkha, anicca, anatta. The practice is described in suttas such as Satipatthana and Anapanasati. So, the actual goal is not "letting go of control & judement" -- however, "letting go" is a useful tip at some points in the practice.

I wonder why do we have a base object, like breath or moving stomach. Why dont we just let go from the very beginning and just aware and accept any sensation as it is, without any default object?

Because insight into reality need some faculties developed. Two of them are concentration (samadhi) and mindfulness (sati). It so happens that is very difficult to develop concentration without something to anchor our attention: meditation objects.
Finally, samadhi and sati are not just random faculties. Both are listed in the Noble Eightfold Path and in the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.

Two reasons:

The mind gets lost in the contents very easily, so having an anchor (base object) will not let it go too far and for too long. The anchor forces you to let go of stuff every time you come back, which is very useful and pushes the mind into the practice. Letting go of control and judgment (or letting go of anything in the moment it arises -- to see it clearly as it is, just as a momentary eruption of activity of the mind) is is the goal(*) state, but not an effective means of arriving there (in my experience, at least).
In dry vipassana (Mahasi, for instance), you train (momentary) concentration along with mindfulness. Keeping mind on the base object trains concentration, acknowledging and coming back trains mindfulness.

(*) (EDIT) not the ultimate goal of vipassana, but the highest mundane state, knowledge of equanimity regarding formations (sankharupekkha-nana).

The meditator uses the meditation object to center his attention (concentration—samadhi).
When his attention is 'wandering' away, the meditator uses the object (i.c. the breath) as his 'base camp' to bring gently his awareness back.
Mindfulness—awareness (sati) and equanimity (upekkha) are the two wings which lead to wisdom, to insight (panna): they show the meditator the phenomena as they really are (yathabhuta).
Rosenberg, Larry, (2012), Breath by Breath. The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation p. 91:

'To be mindful of something—of anything—is an act of generosity. You are giving it life by allowing it into your world. But the greatest benefactor—because you're showing respect to your own life—is you'.


text:
Buddhist practice in Singapore
Which are the major sects of Buddhism in Singapore? Which are these sects' main temples in Singapore?

I'm not sure if we allow such open-ended questions... we're really better equipped to deal with questions that have a single "right" answer...

I have edited the question so that it gets closer to having a single right answer. There is still some ambiguity as my question uses the terms "major" and "main." I hope that extent of ambiguity is acceptable.

You may want to try the following as I have been attended some events there too :
http://www.fpmtabc.org/ - More to Tibetan Buddhism
https://www.facebook.com/buddhistlifemission
http://www.buddhistfellowship.org/cms/ - More to Theravada
http://www.kmspks.org/
Hope this helps. =)

According to Peter Harvey in An Introduction to Buddhism (second edition page 413)

43% of people in Singapore practice some form of Buddhism; mainly
  Chinese Mahayana but also some Thai Theravada or Japanese Soka Gakkai
  and more recently Tibetan Buddhism.

Hope that's of some interest.

There are Wikipedia articles for about 30 of the Buddhist temples in Singapore.


text:
Is "nāma" an equivalent of the Western concept of "mind"? Is it used alone?
This answer refers to "mind" as a synonym for "nāma". The only relevant use of that word I have found was "nāmarūpa", which refers to the five aggregates. But is "nāma" ever used alone to signify "mind"? Or do we speak of mind in Buddhism only because it is a convenient Western abstraction that we can use?

In the Theravada (mostly in the abhidhamma and commentaries), "nāma" is used to describe those dhammas that are mental, i.e. the last four aggregates. Also, three of the four ultimate realities (nibbana is considered a nāmadhamma, though that's a bit of a technicality).
e.g., in the Yāmaka:

ye keci nāmā dhammā, sabbe te nāmamūlā?
Whatever nāma dhammas, are they all rooted in nāma?

They're also referred to as "arūpadhamma", i.e. not physical, as in the Visuddhimagga:

yathā yathā hissa rūpaṃ suvikkhālitaṃ hoti nijjaṭaṃ suparisuddhaṃ, tathā tathā ... tadārammaṇā arūpadhammā sayameva pākaṭā honti.
For in proportion as materiality becomes quite definite, disentangled and quite clear to him, so the immaterial states that have that [materiality] as their object become plain of themselves too.

The word nāma is never used by itself to mean mind, but the reason for this is the word literally means name, so it would be very hard to tell when it is being used to mean mind and when it is being used to mean name. When it is used in the compound nāmarūpa however, the meaning is clear because it's being used as part of a set expression.
There are other Pali words for mind that are clearer, and some of them have more precise usages as well. the word viññāṇa, or consciousness is one of those words, but it specifically refers to the awareness aspect of the mind, not the whole thing. The word Mano is a more general term that refers to the mind as a whole, especially when one is contrasting it with the body, and the word Citta is usually used to refer to the mind as a whole but in some contexts (such as in Abhidhamma) it is used in the more specific sense of the word viññāṇa.

On page 111 in What Buddhists Believe by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda there is a short section about Nama-Rupa. Maybe it can help you out.
Ven. K. Sri Dhammanda talks about the definition of both nama & rupa. He says:

"... According to buddhism, life is a combination of mind (nama) and matter (rupa).
Mind consists of the combination of sensations, perceptions, volitional activities and consciousness. Matter consists of the combination of the four elements of solidity, fluidity, motion and heat.
Life is the co-existence of mind and matter. Decay is the lack of co-ordination of mind and matter. Death is the separation of mind and matter. Rebirth is the recombination of mind and matter. After the passing away of the physical body (matter), the mental forces (mind) recombine and assume a new combination in a different material form and condition another existence...".

He then says:

"...The relation of mind to matter is like the relation of a battery to an engine of a motor car. The battery helps to start the engine. The engine helps to charge the battery. The combination helps to run the motor car. In the same manner, matter helps the mind to function and the mind helps to set matter in motion...".

After that he goes a bit further into the subject although as stated above its a short section on 2 pages.

Hi, could you elaborate on that section you mention? On "How do I write a good answer?" it explains: "please add context around the link so your fellow users will have some idea what it is and why it’s there. Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."

Yes i will try to do that.

"But is "nāma" ever used alone to signify "mind"?"
MN 9 defines nāma.

Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention [vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro] — these are called nāma.

So some aspects of the mind are nāma.
Outside the suttas, as in @bakmoon's answer, I understand nāma literary means "name".
However, this is one of the things that are not perfectly clear when put together with other concepts, and there has been attempts to clarify its meaning:

"Just as scholars of Buddhism have often understood the term nāmarūpa to refer to 'mind and body' rather than it's more literal meaning 'name and form', so the later Theravada tradition has understood nāmarūpa. Such an understanding, however, is scarcely compatible with the main context in which nāmarūpa is found in the pali canon, which is the fourth link in the usual twelvefold version of the chain of dependent origination". [...] If mind and body arise at this stage, how can one make sense of the subsequent arising of what seem to be mental faculties, and why do we find jāti, birth, so much further along the chain?"
-- Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to early Buddhism

In the book above, a chapter is dedicated to nāmarūpa. The following are a few points drawn from it:

MN 9 is the only sutta that defines nāma. Now, in light of nāmarūpa in the conditioned arising formula, it appears at odds, as vedanā and phassa are further down the links after nāmarūpa, and cetanā is left grouped on samkhara (or taṇhā).
The Papancasudani (MN commentary) projects the skhandhas in the definition above: vedanāskhandha, saññāskhanda, and samkharakhandha (standing for cetanā, phasso and manasikāro).
As per Visuddhimagga (p 438), it's said that a man beginning insight understands nāma as the four arupakhandhas.
Further on in the Visuddhimagga (p 558), while discussing the dependent origination, nāma is said to be three aggregates (saññā, vedanā, sankhara). It seems this was arranged because viññāṇa conditions nāmarūpa.

Finally, the author shows that, though there are parallels to nāmarūpa and the khandhas, the definition of one based on another is commentarial. In further analysis, she suggests that nāma should be understood as "conceptual identity".

Nama is defined the same as in MN 9 in many suttas, such as SN 12.2. MN 9 contains the stock definition. It is only in DN 15 where nama has an erroneous definition, reverting back to its Brahmanism meaning.

The nama definition is not "at odds" in the conditioned arising formula. Dependent Origination is not easy to comprehend. One must meditate upon each condition thoroughly until they are comprehended. If the Pali is understood, saññā & vedanā are also at the 2nd link - sankhara. So saññā & vedanā exist 3 times in the formula. If saññā & vedanā were not perceived & felt, how could they be known? Therefore, when mindfulness is functioning, perception by nama can perceive ignorant internal perceptions at sankhara & can also perceive perceptions of external sense objects at vedana (7th link).

Nama is not "conceptual identity'. MN 44 explains "self-identity" arises due to craving & becoming (rather than before craving & becoming). Nama is defined a 'mentality', i.e., feeling, perception, intention, (internal) contact & attention. The suttas are correct therefore it is up to each meditator to verify it via meditation rather than find fault with it.

In Buddhism, 'nama' means 'mentality'. For example, there is the term 'namadhamma', which means 'mental phenomena'.
Before Buddhism, 'nama' meant 'name' & was a key notion in the creationism of Brahmanism (refer to 'namarupa-vyakarana' in Wikipedia). For example, in the Biblical creationist story, God names things when he creates the world.
It appears the Buddha took the term 'namarupa' from Brahmanism in order to redefine it. In other words, the impression is the Buddha was debunking the Brahmanist ideas; rendering them irrelevant in relation to the arising & cessation of suffering. Since the Buddha declared all he taught about was "suffering & the cessation of suffering", the Brahmin notions of namarupa-vyakarana were irrelevant since suffering revolves around craving & attachment rather than naming.


text:
What is this personality split I'm feeling since practicing Vipassana?
Ever since I've started practicing Vipassana, I'm starting to feel two distinct and diametrically opposite intentions are developing within me.
The first one says "I've suffered enough, not any more! I'm prepared to do anything to experience Nirvana. Enough of supporting these cravings and desires, they have only lead to great suffering. I don't want to take another birth."
Au contraire, the second one says "I want to enjoy the basic things in life. Though I've undergone a lot of sufferings, I should enjoy at least a little before leaving this world, its only fair. Is it wrong to enjoy things?"
Whilst I vaguely used to feel this divide since long, its only since I've started practicing Vipassana that it has become more pronounced. Its as if like a big battle is going on between these two forces, and I'm just a spectator. Is this feeling normal, or my case is any different?

I would say dont bother with any of them. Simply note them as mental formations. They belong to the 4th aggregate and are under the effect of the 3 signs of existence.
Note them and see how they arise and cease like all other conditioned phenomena. There is no "self" experiencing this - there is only the arising and cessation of mental and physical phenomena.
Dont identify with them. Dont take ownership of them. These phenomena are impersonal and empty of any substance.
You should look up Conventional & Ultimate reality - Sammuti sacca & Paramattha sacca.
Or
Check out the discourse on the Anattalakkhana Sutta by Mahasi Sayadaw. In this discourse it is described thoroughly and in detail why the 5 aggregates cannot be taken as a "self".

Thanks. I don't identify with them during meditation. But once I come out, during day to day life, I can't help thinking about that.

Do you carry your meditation practice with you into your daily life? If you do then just use the noting technique. Dont give these thoughts, feelings etc. any value. They are just arisen phenomena that will cease at some point. They might appear strong and intense but they will soon loose their strength and momentum if you note them. Its normal that things intensify if you direct your focus at them. If you become scared then just note that. If you get any bodily effects such as increased respiration or heat in the body then just note that.

"Simply note them as mental formations." - Yes, it doesn't seem QP has bipolar disorder, but just contradicting thoughts and intentions (which is very normal).

It's not wrong to enjoy things. You can have nirvana and you can enjoy life at the same time. In fact when you're free of the grip existence you're most capable of enjoying it: seeing the beauty of the trees and the nature. It's like a beautiful painting: you don't have to believe in the contents of the painting to be able to enjoy it. You should enjoy your life until your physical body dies.
The trouble is in your wanting: wanting to have a nirvana, wanting to avoid another birth or wanting to enjoy life.
Just be without fear. All things come in their right time. Perceive it all. The whole world is your practice ground.

I'm not sure whether that's true, that you can "can have nirvana and you can enjoy life at the same time": see Nekkhamma

Well, I have to say that all thinking brings you into existence as thoughts are part of existence or world of forms. Doesn't matter if you think about renunciation or pleasure.
If you have to limit your life because you think doing enjoyable things would attach you again to existence then you are not free enough yet. Being free of existence means being free whatever your body does or wherever it goes. So there's no problem with enjoyment.
But this just my two cents. No need to discuss it further.

Whilst I vaguely used to feel this divide since long, its only since I've started practicing Vipassana that it has become more pronounced.
Meditation tends to bring forth our vague intentions,feelings,thoughts etc.In other words your just seeing it clearly now because of  mindfulness.It used to go about unregistered in the subconscious until you became mindful of it.

Thanks. Is there any need to be careful about anything if these thoughts, feelings, etc. become more clear? In some sense, I feel they are becoming stronger and stronger than before and a sort of Entire world is getting built up within me!

Don't interact with them.Intentions are intentions.They will lose their power when you don't interact with them.In other words they will die down on their own.So don't try to counter that intention with another intention because they will pull you into their story.and it's game over.Just observe them,note them,but don't feed them with more thoughts and intentions.Stay out of it.Observe and note.Their not your problem.Their not your intentions.Their just intentions.Doing what intentions do.

Leave aside both than romanticize and just keep up your practice. If you are too eager to Niravana then you will put too much effort. If you go the other way then worldly pleasures come with more misery attached.

Thanks. I know I shouldn't romanticize the thoughts, but I just wanted to confirm whether this sort of thing is normal or okay in vipassana practice. Also, these thoughts never bother me during meditation, but during normal day to day life when I'm typically doing something else.


text:
How to practice Metta without a Benefactor?
I find it very difficult to practice metta because i can't find anyone who has been a benefactor.I don't know a lot of people.Most people i know i find it very difficult to send metta to as a benefactor as their either very dear to me or downright hostile.Can i just imagine a benefactor i never had .Or use a dead person, as my auntie was very kind to me but she's deceased now.
How can i practice metta without a benefactor? How can i find a benefactor to practice metta to?

Dead person is fine. It could even be a person you never met, like a book author or a teacher with whom you feel a special connection. Or a series of people over time, linage. Time is a product of mind anyway.

A lot of people cultivate metta for their pet as an entrypoint.  It takes some time and effort to "melt the ice" but it's easy when you start with someone who has helped you, even if in a small way.  You're alive, which means somebody fed you and prevented you from being eaten by wild animals, and that is something to be grateful for.

@sova i guess your right

You don't need a benefactor to practice that type of metta; you just need someone who is dear to you;  it just shouldn't be someone you could potentially desire sexually, or whom you are partial towards, like your children.
The stages, according to the Visuddhimagga are as follows:

cultivate metta towards yourself (useless, but a good example)
cultivate metta towards someone you hold dear
cultivate metta towards a neutral party
cultivate metta towards someone you dislike (optional, only for those who have such a person)

Having someone dear to you seems important, as there is no advice given for what to do if such a person does not exist. Ostensibly, you could skip that step and try to immediately cultivate metta towards a neutral party, but the dear one is useful for returning to when difficulty arises with the other objects.
Alternatively, you could try cultivating metta in order of proximity; may I be happy, may all beings in this room be happy, this building, this city, this country, this world, the universe. Also, by direction; may all beings to the East be happy, etc. Or finally, by class: may all women be happy, men, animals, angels, etc.
Mahasi Sayadaw has a detailed exposition of the four brahmaviharas that is both practical and informative:
http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Brahmavihara%20Dhamma.htm
As he says,

"Mettā can also be developed towards any other person deserving of affection and respect, if not towards your teacher, grand-parents, mother, father and so on."

Hi Bhante, can we just skip all and go straight to the neutral party? I think the coverage will be much more wider. It will probably goes like this, may all beings be happy, may all beings be peaceful.......

A benefactor is not necessary. You can pratice Metta using categories which is the way to pratice Metta without a benefactors. E.g. All beings, all being in front of me, etc. There are 22 such categories in Paisambhidā-Magga.
One objective of Metta Bhavana is to dissolve ego and break down perception and this is my friend and someone is my fore. If some one is better off than you chances is there is some inner resistance to practice Metta or Muditha towards him. If you believe someone has wronged you then the chances are that it will be difficult to spread Metta.
As you progress try to break down negative perception you have build about people. Also look at the impact on other aggregates as you practice Metta. Look at the sensations as you make thoughts off Metta.
Also "A Practical Bare-Bones guide to Metta Meditation" by Bhante Vimalaramsi may be of interest. Page 85, Knowing and Seeing 4th Ed by Pa Auk Sayadaw

Why it is difficult to spread metta? Because our mind is not ready to do it. Correct metta meditation is not difficult. According to Buddhist teaching, spreading metta to oneself is never taught taught in 'Sutta' or 'Abhidhamma Pitaka'. Because one can't reach measureless state with metta by spreading  metta to oneself. Measureless states are the doors to nibbana as Load buddha has Taught us.
Before spreading metta, one must have good qualities, as mentioned in 'karaneeya metta sutta'. Good qualities such as Upright, Exceedingly upright, obedient, gentle and humble, controlled in the senses, prudent, courteous, not hanker after associating with families are meditated and determined before spreading metta. It is a bit complicated at the beginning and later it would become a great platform and make a comfortable position for a meditater to start spreading metta easily. Guided meditation is described in this link -  How to meditate metta dhamma talk.


text:
Is there any point in learning meditation from an unenlightened person?
If a meditation teacher is not enlightened, is there any point in learning from him/her? According to Satipatthana Sutta, the awakening should usually take some time between 7 days and 7 years. If somebody who devoted his life to teaching meditation still hasn't got enlightened, there must be something wrong with his method, then? Or am I missing something?
The question is general, but to give some context: I have been to a meditation retreat using S.N. Goenka's method, and what I learnt seems to have some merits. But if I assumed a Buddhist point of view that the awakening is the ultimate goal, there is no reason to follow his advice, since Goenka has stated that he is not enlightened. Is there any point in using his techniques?

Is there any point in learning meditation from an unenlightened person?

If there are arahants living, it would make more sense to learn from them. But that being the case, it's quite hard to identify them, and they vow not to openly declare such accomplishment.
In these circumstances, consider the negative answer: after deciding there is no point in learning from an unenlightened person we still have to face the fact that we are left as unenlightened being subject to suffering.
The same question applies to the suttas: are they the actual words of the Buddha? If we allow the "maybe not" answer, does this mean it render the texts useless?
In the end, the burden is on the learner, to be autonomous, critical, and to learn to evaluate his/her own steps, directions and options, even if he is, often times, not in the best position to perform these evaluations. And as @Crab suggested, learning is "incremental", and we naturally can learn from people who know "a little more". For example, we don't need to demand isaac newton to teach us physics, nor it makes much sense to only regard nobel laureates able to teach their fields. A school teacher might do "just fine". Of course, there are limits to "just fine", as an unenlightened teacher is subject to mistakes -- and that's were the tension lies.
The fact is that, in our generation, that's our circumstance and that's what we have at our disposal. And we have to work with it.

'The same question applies to the suttas: are they the actual words of the Buddha? If we allow the "maybe not" answer, does this mean it render the texts useless?
In the end, the burden is on the learner, to be autonomous, critical, and to learn to evaluate his/her own steps, directions and options, even if he is, often times, not in the best position to perform these evaluations.' very practical.

The Buddha tells the Kalamas to choose a teacher wisely in the Kalama Sutta based on the usefulness or skillfulness of the teachings, as well as you can identify the characteristics of the "disciple of the noble ones":

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are
  blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities,
  when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you
  should enter & remain in them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
  this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid
  of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps
  pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around,
  everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an
  awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable,
  free from hostility, free from ill will.

At the same time, in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha advises the sangha to take full refuge unto the dhamma and depend on themselves.

"When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and
  sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings
  in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental
  objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having
  overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is
  an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external
  refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge,
  seeking no other refuge.
"Those bhikkhus of mine, Ananda, who now or after I am gone, abide as an island unto themselves, as a refuge unto themselves, seeking no
  other refuge; having the Dhamma as their island and refuge, seeking no
  other refuge: it is they who will become the highest, if they
  have the desire to learn."

Please note the last advice on the "desire to learn".
So:

Take the Dhamma as your island and refuge
Depend on yourself
Have the desire to learn
Learn from teachers whose teachings you find to be useful and skillful (need not be arahants)
Identify that the teacher is, preferably, a "disciple of the noble ones" (see above)
But don't depend on those teachers - depend on yourself and the Dhamma
Alagaddupama Sutta also warns of making sure that we understand the Dhamma properly and also not getting overly attached to it ("In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.")

From a practical perspective there aren't going to be that many enlightened people around so if you want to have anything approaching personal instruction then you will have no option but to engage with an unenlightened teacher. I would argue that the personal connection is far more important than being in contact with someone who has completed the path. Even if there was an enlightened person in your area they probably wouldn't advertise that fact - so unless you had a very close student/teacher connection already, you wouldn't necessarily know.
Also it depends whether you think that it's enlightenment or bust. If you think that enlightenment is all or nothing and unless you have achieved it then you've wasted your time - then hold on for an enlightened teacher. However if you think that it is an incremental process, then anyone on a stage of the path further on than you would be perfectly good teacher. Established concepts such as stream-entrant, once-returner etc.. point to the latter point of view.
Lastly as someone else has said the Sattipanna Sutta has a particular point of view about the time it takes to get enlightened. If you read other texts then you will get other perspectives. In the Lotus Sutra for example the time it takes to get enlightened ranges from between a few moments for the Dragon Kings daughter to 'as may kalpas as there are grains of sand in the Ganges' - which is considerably longer than 7 years.

Just as you let a thought pass through you during meditation rather than trying to crush it, let this opportunity pass through your life rather than crushing it.
Disclaimer: I am not "enlightened"
If a teacher has not attained enlightenment, that does not automatically show that there is a flaw in his meditation teachings, for there is more to an individual than merely what they teach.  And, even if they are flawed (as we all are), that does not mean you have nothing to learn from them.  It merely means they will not be able to "teach you to be awake," but that means little since no teacher can teach you to be awake.  Besides, needing to find someone who is "enlightened" means you are attached to the idea of being taught by an enlightened person.
When we meditate, and a thought appears, we are not instructed to stop the thought in its tracks.  We calmly let it play out, observing it.  Once it is gone, calmness is back.  It is reasonable to map this into life: if you have an option to train from an imperfect source, let it pass through your life, observing all you can from this opportunity.  You may find that their flawed teachings enlighten you, or you may not.  Or, given that the student-teacher relationship often works in reverse, you may assist him or her in enlightenment.
It is entirely possible that this teacher cannot teach you enough to attain enlightenment yourself.  This is true for any teacher.  However, unless you attach yourself to their methods so deeply that you cannot learn from any other teacher, you are always free to thank them for their wisdom, and move on to a teacher which will teach you new things.  This new teacher may be "enlightened," or they may not.  Once again, let it play out, and patiently observe.

Anyone can state he/she is enlightened so you can't just believe their words. Satipatthana Sutta seems overly optimistic about this.
Many persons avoid the use of the word enlightened altogether so I just would just suggest listening to what a teacher has to say. If their words make sense, listen. If their words or teaching no longer have value for you, you can always walk out.

Yes, they have some value for me, but I wonder if they have any value for Buddhists, as they don't seem to lead to enlightenment. I'm talking about a situation where the teacher clearly said he is not enlightened. I have no reason to doubt what he says. Satipatthana Sutta gives information provided by an enlightened person. I haven't heard of any enlightened individual who would say that those times are overly optimistic.

Yes, well my answer was outside of buddhist tradition so somebody else might have an answer within the tradition.

A teacher who follows and explains rigorously and profoundly the Anapana Sutta and the Mahasatipatthana Sutta is worth to be appreciated, enlightened or not.
Anyway, nobody can explain Buddha's teachings in a such a way without 'seeing and knowing'.
S.N. Goenka:

"Observing reality as it is by observing the truth inside—this is
  knowing oneself directly and experientially. As one practices, one
  keeps freeing oneself from the misery of mental impurities. From the
  gross, external, apparent truth, one penetrates to the ultimate truth
  of mind and matter. Then one transcends that, and experiences a truth
  that is beyond mind and matter, beyond time and space, beyond the
  conditioned field of relativity: the truth of total liberation from
  all defilements, all impurities, all suffering.  Whatever name one
  gives this ultimate truth is irrelevant; it is the final goal of
  everyone".
  S.N. Goenka, (2014), The Art of Dying, p. 154:

Whatever name one gives this ultimate truth is irrelevant... Indeed.

How is a somebody potentially interested in Buddhism supposed to know whether a particular person's explanation is rigorous and profound?

Can you please clarify what is your point? Do you mean that Goenka was actually enlightened, just didn't give it the name "enlightenment"?

@michau - 'rigourous & profound': "If with a pure mind
one performs any action of speech or body,
then happiness will follow that person
as a shadow that never departs."
(Dhammapada 1.2)

I still don't understand. Do you mean that if somebody's teaching causes my happiness, that's enough to decide that he is a good teacher?

Truth is, there is only YOU who can decide (for yourself) if any teacher (or any person for that matter) is "enlightened" or not, so this question is actually empty. Authorities that you respect may vouch for one teacher or the other, but again it is YOU deciding that those authorities are authoritative. It is YOU who decided that meditation is worthwhile. So it always falls back on you. Accept that you have this responsibility of deciding things for yourself, and practice.

Very good answer

You don't 'become' enlightened. You are enlightened. It's a question of whether you've had an experience of truly realizing this. Nor is this experience a perpetual state of being, at least for the vast majority of people. So holding out for an 'enlightened' teacher is really missing the point. @Simo Kivistö has a good answer. Look for a teacher who makes sense to you in terms of your knowledge, experience, feeling - or lack of same.

Paramahansa Yogananda was considered to be enlightened, he founded Self-Realization Fellowship to disseminate his meditation techniques. As good a place to start as any, I guess.

Goenka has stated that he is not enlightened.

Smart guy. That way he gets rid of insincere students who aren't genuinely interested in his teaching.
Some enlightened people say they are enlightened and some don't. Some people who aren't enlightened, say that they are, and some don't. So what people declare is hardly a useful metric to rank them by.
Some people get a little insight and declare themselves enlightened, not realising that there are many more steps for them to take. Others who have taken many steps along the road, can see clearly that they aren't at the end of it and so would say that they aren't enlightened.
There are many stages of enlightenment, and stages far beyond our own are generally invisible to us. On the other hand we can learn a lot from those who are a single step ahead of us. Anyone we recognise as ahead (even slightly) can be of enormous service to us. So take full advantage of the opportunities you recognise, instead of looking for a 'better' teacher. You wouldn't recognise a fully enlightened person if they hit you in the face.

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


text:
Does "stream enterer" simply mean "devout Buddhist"?
I have read about technicalities of stream entry, but just wanted to ask, to see if I understand the "big picture": If we step outside and try to describe it in plain English, is a "stream enterer" simply a "devout Buddhist"?
Let me offer an analogy with a more typical use of this word: a devout Catholic is a person who practices Catholicism not because of his upbringing/pressure from the society/habits of following the rituals/suspicion that God may exist, but because he knows that this is the right thing to do, and he knows that God exists (perhaps because of some experience that completely conviced him and left no doubt). So, is a stream enterer, analogously, somebody who knows that suffering is the problem, and knows that the Buddhist path is the solution (etc.)?
I'm only asking about the concept, and I don't want to get into discussion whether things that a devout of a particular religion knows are may be true or not.

I think this is a good explanation into what stream entry is Is stream entry an unmistakeable experience?

No, a stream enterer is much more than that. A stream enterer has experienced Nibbana first hand and is changed in a permanent way because of it. Stream entry totally destroyes the first three fetters of self view, doubt about the validity of the teachings, and clinging to rites and rituals.
A person who knows the teachings of the Buddha are true and sincerely follows them to seek enlightenment but hasn't yet attained stream entry would be called a kaliyana putthujana, or good worldling.
(Added later)
Some other terms that might be what you are looking for are the terms Faith-follower and Dhamma-follower, which refer to individuals who have come to have come to an acceptance of the Dhamma either primarily through the quality of faith or of wisdom, but have not yet been able to directly perceive the truth of the Dhamma for themselves. For example, the Vinnana Sutta says:

At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable,
  alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness...
  Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness
  is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
  called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
  rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
  plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
  which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
  of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
  realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted
  that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who
  has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people
  of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is
  incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in
  the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of
  passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a
  stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
  headed for self-awakening."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.003.than.html

Well, devout Catholics, if they know that God exists, it's because they experienced God first hand in some way. They don't have any doubt about their teaching either, and so on. So I don't see where it is "much more than that".

Many devout Catholics would not claim to have any "first hand" experience of God. Compare, for example, how the experience of Joe Average-Devout-Catholic compares with that of St John of the Cross, or of the Curé d'Ars. Stream Entry is an experience of the same order of magnitude as the great Catholic mystics relate.

Do you speak first-hand about the fetters? A good source (Bill Hamilton: Psychopaths & Saints) says Asians (incl the traditioN) have no clue about statistics, so they'd say "totally destroy", whereas his observation was that stream-enterers tend to see the self as pattern of energy rather than fixed and solid structure and so on. Or that instead of "unable to break the 5 precepts" (as some sources and teachers say), they tend less to self-destructive behavior.

No, they're not describing the same kind of thing. Stream Entry (i.e. the thing which a Stream Enterer achieves) is a particular achievement en route to full enlightenment. Devoutness, then, is merely one aspect of living that may help one reach that achievement.
Another analogy is weight lifting. Someone can be "devout" in the sense of being serious. committed to going to the gym, faithful to the pursuit of increasing weight capability, and so on. And then "stream entry" is something like "can clean and jerk their own body-weight".
In other words, stream entry is a specific, well-described set of "objective" criteria in terms of attainment. Devout, on the other hand, could represent a way of approaching practice so as to achieve stream entry (i.e. to become a stream enterer).
Going back to your Catholic analogy, consider St Thomas Aquinas. He was, by all accounts, a devout Catholic. However, towards the end of his life he is recorded as having had some kind of spiritual experience which led him to say that all his prior work (the Summae etc) was "like straw". I suspect that he may have been referring to something like a Stream Entry experience, but it came along towards the end of (although maybe because of) a devout Catholic life.

Buddha gave about 50+ definitions (that i know of) of a stream enterer.  And also what are not!
Pali cannons are very fragmented so this book is for free downloading..with citation to the english translator..
http://watnapahpong.com/static_media/Sotapanna_Handbook_English_version_30.pdf
One thing clear, Buddha allowed only him and one self to make a determination if you have been into "the stream".  above book is very comprehensive.  enjoy.

The following explains the first two distinct stages on the path to nirvana.
Stream-enterer: The first direct insight into selflessness is often the most powerful because it's unlike anything you've ever experienced before. For a timeless moment (which may last just an instant), no one is there — that is, there's no trace of a separate self anywhere. A feeling of tremendous relief, often accompanied by joy and bliss, generally follows the experience: At last, you've had the insight you've been seeking for so long. At last, you've "entered the stream" of realization.
When you become a stream-enterer, you can never again believe that you're really a separate self that lives inside your head and looks through your eyes. Your experience forever eliminates this illusion. When you look within, you can't find a self anywhere. In everyday life, however, you may still feel like a separate somebody and may still get caught up by greed, anger, ignorance, and various other negative feelings and patterns. Fortunately, the stage of stream-enterer also brings an unshakable confidence and dedication to the Buddhist spiritual path, so you're motivated to keep deepening and refining your realization.
Once-returner: After you become a stream-enterer, your practice includes reminding yourself of your new realization of "no-self," as well as paying attention to the ways that you're still attached and your resistance to life as it unfolds. After a period of time in which your concentration gets even stronger and your mind becomes even more tranquil, you have another direct insight into no-self. (Remember, knowing this truth as a concept or memory is one thing, but experiencing it directly, beyond the conceptual mind, is something else entirely.)
This insight (essentially the same as the first but even stronger and clearer) brings a significant reduction in attachment and aversion and the suffering that accompanies these states of mind. For example, occasional irritation and preference replace hatred and greed, which no longer have any hold over the once-returner. Someone who reaches this stage has only one more rebirth before becoming completely enlightened — hence the name once-returner.
I hope this will provide you sufficient information to understand what you were looking for. And remember these stages are achievable for the modern man. One way I know how is through regular practice of meditation. Simply put I would say it is the recolonization that your mind (ego mind) and you are two different things, by your self.
"Eckhart Tolle" is some one who talks about this situation


text:
Are all non-monastic ways of life wrong livelihood?
Leading on from this answer - is it true that ultimately most or even all non-monastic lifestyles are wrong livelihood. Not being a monk I find this point of view quite challenging but just because I don't like it doesn't stop it from being true.
Also I suspect that this might differ between traditions so if the school that the answer comes from can be highlighted in the answer that would be really helpful.

"Is it true that..." is a difficult question to answer. If you mean, according to a certain school, then yes, according to the Theravada, it is true, since an arahant is unable to practice non-monastic livelihood. They are said to either leave the household life or pass into parinibbana.
See, for example, the enlightenment of Khemā:

At the conclusion of the lesson Khemā was established in Arahatship; the multitude also profited by the lesson.
Said the Teacher to the king, “Great king, Khemā ought either to retire from the world or to pass into Nibbāna.” The king replied, “Reverend Sir, admit her to the Order; as for Nibbāna, never!” She retired from the world and became one of the Teacher’s foremost female lay disciples.
Dhp-A 347 (from Buddhist Legends)

N.B. the word "never" should actually be "enough!", in the sense that it's not time to think about that now.
The point is that, as mentioned in the linked answer, there is a difference between conventional morality and ultimate morality. Conventionally, only those livelihoods mentioned explicitly are wrong, just as only adultery is wrong for one who keeps five precepts. That doesn't mean that ordinary sexual desire is not ultimately misguided; it is. Likewise, any livelihood for the purpose of maintaining a household life is ultimately misguided.
The only exception I can think of is where one's household life is identical to a monastic setting (i.e. no need for ambition, concern for belongings, etc.).

In Tibetan Buddhism there are many examples of yogis that didn´t live a monastic life but achieved enlighten during their lives.
The most revered of them is Milarepa, who after murdering family members in his early life, later became a Buddhist yogi and got enlighten.
Marpa is another good example; he had an ordinary life with wife, son, properties, etc. and got enlightened.
Milarepa and Marpa are both from the Kagyu school, but in all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyigma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelupa) are examples of yogis, not living the monastic life and getting enlighten.

Rosenberg, Larry, (2012), Breath by Breath. The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation p. 124:

"Ordinary life is extremely important. After all, most of us are not
  monks or nuns in a monastery devoted to meditation. But if you take
  that [ordinary life] as a part of your practice—not inferior to
  monastic life and not superior—it can be extremely rich".

Isn't that what is really meant with catuparisa in the Sobhana sutra (AN. VII) , where the four groups [monks; nuns; lay man and lay women] are (...) 'accomplished together in wisdom, disciplined, self-confident, deeply learned and dhamma bearers, who live according to the dhamma and illuminate the sasana?'

The quote was,

... most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being)

I suspect that statement is related to Nekkhamma.


text:
Preventing to enhance one's sense of self
Which are the best meditation practices to prevent enhancing one's sense of self?

Vippassanna's really good because it breaks down the sense of self.
Samatha might require a sense of self at first but it gets released in jhana.
Metta is also good because it breaks down the boundaries between you and others.

Any meditation can do this, since meditation develops non-attachment and concentration on non-self centered objects, and it's attachment and self-centered thoughts that give rise to and perpetuate the sense of self.  Therefore what you do depends on your disposition, challenges, pre-existing beliefs, etc...
However, if you need some pointers, here are some meditations that may be particularly well suited to this...

Meditating on the Skandhas.
Meditating on Emptiness.
Look for the self.
Bare mindfulness.
Choiceless awareness.
Meditating on determinism (if you don't believe in free will)

The key with any meditation is not to exclude any phenomena.  This is key because we can often have blind spots.
For instance, I'm looking at my senses and concepts, yet there's this concept/sense of me looking at these senses, a concept/sense that I don't actually treat as another concept/sense.
Or I am aware of what I'm doing, yet I have a blind spot about my sense of intention as being another sense and instead think of myself as an independent actor acting in the world.
Or I look at external and internal phenomena, while maintaining a differentiation of what goes on inside and outside me (subject and object), instead of seeing it as a flurry of experience, including the experience of classifying these into separate experiences.
Once we really open to all experience, we should end up with a thorough-going non-duality, which erodes all the discrimination which either lead to the sense of self, or that form the substrate of our thinking, the "units" we use to construct (among other things) our sense of self.
In short, any meditation -- properly approached -- should erode this sense of self.  The key is to be ruthless about all phenomena, and not to leave anything out.
Still, some meditations may focus more clearly on this sense of self than others.


text:
What Buddhist materials describe how to increase the number of people with good Karma in a geographic area?
In some of his books Lama Ole Nydahl claims that the prosperity of certain region is determined (among other things) by the Karma of people living there. That is, people in Switzerland (or Silicon Valley) have, on average, a better Karma than inhabitants of poor, war-torn countries.
Imagine that the latter want to improve the situation: Gradually (over several decades or even centuries) build up good Karma so that the life in those regions becomes better (turn Sierra Leone into an African Silicon Valley, for example). Also, there is plenty of evidence that economic measures alone often don't fight poverty effectively, so why not trying out a Buddhist approach to economic development?
I assume that there are some publicly available teachings on how the average Karma of a region can be improved.
What are they and where can I find them?

Deport people with bad karma away from the area, make some with good karma go there :)

@eudoxos The Communists tried that already :) Seriously, by deporting (or any other form of violence) the deporters gather bad Karma, so in this particular case the means must be as oble as the end.

This is a very good question and an important one, but I do not believe you will find your answer here. (I'll try to compose you something)

@YodaBytes Thanks. If you wish, you can send me an e-mail to dp(at)altruix(dot)co.

Though not directly affecting karma, there is a variation of Metta Meditation mentioned in the Visuddhi Magga that increases universal love and brotherhood. Though the object is universal, its obvious that nearer vicinities would be felt more profound an effect.
If there is one thing in this world that can influence peoples' Karma, it is meditation. Karma is nothing but the result of aeons of conditioning of the five aggregates, and only with insight (pradnya) can they be positively affected.
As a practical experiment, just arrange a series of group meditation sittings among the people of the geographic area you want to improvise. After each sitting, just feel the metta vibrations in the air!

That is, people in Switzerland (or Silicon Valley) have, on average, a better Karma than inhabitants of poor, war-torn countries
You don't know how much karma people have (not even on average).Unless your a Buddha or something.And you can't judge people's happiness based on regions or material possesions.Silicon valley might seem like a heaven,but it's not for the person commiting suicide because a plastic surgery went wrong.That's their hell.What of a kind person living a contented life in sierra leone who dies a peaceful death that's his heaven.We experience the effects of our karmas in our minds not on what happens around us.If that was the case most monastics would be experiencing the fruits of their bad karmas since they have to give up everything.Great Ajahns weren't from switzerland and neither were great people who cultivated great qualities such as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama who both came from war torn and oppressed regions.Happiness isn't based on material wealth.True happiness comes from being a good person and you can be a good person anywhere,not just switzerland or silicon valley.The region doesn't cause your good karma,the person does or more accurately your actions.


text:
From the perspective of Theravada, can a Mahayana follower attain Nibbana?
And how about followers of other non-Theravadin Buddhisms? Why? If they cannot, what is the last stage of enlightenment that they are able to achieve?
Please refer to sources in your answers.

There aren't any texts within the Theravada school that talk about what happens to practitioners of other schools. The closest reference I can find in it is in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, which says;

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous
  greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings &
  courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to
  the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each
  with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his
  group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e.,
  Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha
  Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they
  all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not
  have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and
  some of them not?"
"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the
  Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any
  doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no
  contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order
  [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But
  in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found,
  contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are
  found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine &
  discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first...
  second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of
  knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this
  world will not be empty of arahants."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html

Which I think indicates that as long as the Noble Eightfold Path is present, you can expect to find enlightened beings.
There is an additional issue of what happens with a person who makes a Bodhisattva vow. According to the Theravada school, a Bodhisattva must complete three great eons of practicing the ten Paramis in order to attain Buddhahood, but attaining stream entry, the first stage of enlightenment would cause that person to pass into parinibbana within seven lifetimes. As a result, a Bodhisattva will not attain stream entry or higher until the time when they are almost finished. If a Bodhisattva engages in vipassana meditation before that point, then they will be able to progress to Anulomanyana, the knowledge in which one sees the four noble truths, but the force of their Bodhisattva vow will stop them from going any further and accidentally attaining stream entry. This information is found in the commentary on the Majjhima Nikaya and is referenced in one of the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's footnote on MN81 which says:

"MA notes that bodhisattas (or bodhisattvas in Sanskrit) go forth
  under the Buddhas to purify their virtue, learn the Buddha's
  teachings, practise the meditative life, and develop insight up to
  conformity knowledge (anulomanana). But they do not make effort to
  attain the paths and fruits (which would terminate their bodhisatta
  career)."

Has Bodhisattva the same meaning in Theravada as in Mahayana? I.e. do they refer to the same set of individuals? My impression is that they are related, but different concepts.

In the Theravada school a Bodhisattva is a person who has vowed to become a fully enlightened Buddha, which is the same as in Mahayana. There are different understandings of what a Bodhisattva is able to do and such, but the core concept is pretty much the same.

Ven. Bodhi's footnote on MN 81 about the brahmin Jotipala receiving the going forth from Buddha Kassapa and got full admission as a bodhisatta. The note cited the Comy. which says: "MA notes that bodhisattas (or bodhisattvas in Sanskrit) go forth under the Buddhas to purify their virtue, learn the Buddha's teachings, practise the meditative life, and develop insight up to conformity knowledge (anulomanana). But they do not make effort to attain the paths and fruits (which would terminate their bodhisatta career)."

Thanks very much for the reference santa100. I'll add that into my answer now.

I’m just going to say what I think from a Theravada’s perspective so don’t attack me in the comments. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha said that if Buddhist monk or nuns practice the noble eight fold path then this world will not be empty of arahants.

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e., Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?"
"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."

In my opinion, Mahayana doesn’t have right view because they think arahants are lacking in knowledge or not free of lust, hatred or delusion so they don’t possess right view. Mahayana’s emptiness is not taught in Theravada’s Buddhism but in MN 121, emptiness is something that is not present just like your house is empty of a elephant or a horse but emptiness is not a key doctrine. The key doctrine is the four noble truths. Rebirth, dependent origin, eight fold noble path, anatta, anicca, dukkha are all included in the four noble truth. I’m not sure if mahayanists can even attain stream entry but THIS IS JUST MY OPINION SO DON’T ATTACK ME IN THE COMMENTS

The Mahayana definition/understanding of what stream entry even is might be a bit different (see e.g. according to this comment).


text:
In what way do Bodhisattvas help others get enlightened?
In Mahayana, how do Bodhisattvas help others get enlightened? Do they do it by teaching, just like Gautama Buddha did, or by some other means?

I believe the idea is to help them become Bodhisattvas themselves?

I'm drawing from Precepts of The Brahman Net Sutra, Upsasaka Precepts Sutra, and Avatamsaka (Flower Garland) Sutra.
The BNS recommends this worldly Bodhisattvas (monks and laity)

Teaching (many precepts address this directly or indirectly, many sutras discuss pedagogy and the duty to teach) Upasaka Sutras forbid teaching the Dharma by laity.
Building temples, and other religious "infrastructure"
Reading and chanting sutras, which was believed to magically help the nation
Caring for the sick. BNS & Upasaka Sutra's mention this. I don't know if it was for enabling enlightenment, or just a "right thing to do." Even early Mahayana Buddhism expected some sort of practice, like meditation & what not and that requires a certain amount of health.
Avatamsaksa promotes all sorts of ways of helping people reach enlightenment indirectly by working on this worldly jobs.

Hosting vegetarian feasts for monks, lay Bodhisattvas, get mention in the BNS and Ullambana Sutra.
As for celestial Bodhisattvas, we don't get a lot of clues. The 7th to 10th Bhumis (grounds) describes what celestial Bodhisattvas do-- I don't have a good summary for that though.
And finally, there are the vows. Amitabha helps people reach enlightenment by guaranteeing rebirth in a pure land, which depending on who you are reading, is describe as an especially good place for practicing Buddhism, as compared to our own universe, where the most recent Buddha has passed on and there isn't another one available to teach.
Samantabhadra's vows has some more clues, such as encouraging Buddhas to come & stay in our universe-- since it is easier to become enlightened when there is a Buddha available, and transferring merit


text:
What are the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism?
Can anyone provide short (maybe a couple of sentences) summaries of the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the differences between them. In fairly certain there are 4 main schools but I could be wrong in that. Also if there are more minor schools of interested then a link to further information on those too would be really good.
I've read a bit about Tibetan Buddhism but the characteristics and differences of the main schools just won't lodge in my mind so this would satisfy bit of personal interest really.
Many thanks for all responses.

Rather simplified, somewhat caricatured presentation based on my own very limited knowledge:
Nyingma - "the old (translation) tradition", based on prehistoric transmissions of B into Tibet as early as 8th century. Characterized by loose "democratic" organization (until the exile each monastery was independent, with no central figurehead a-la Dalai Lama) and by a very abstract main teaching intended to plant the student into an already-enlightened perspective. Historically situated in Eastern Tibet. Before the communist invasion this was a very deep, very conservative school, very proud of its archaic methods.
Kagyu - "the oral linage" from mostly Eastern (with some important monasteries in Central) Tibet, from 12th century. Characterized by emphasis on effort and various transformative / cleansing practices, this school takes pride in live transmission of fundamental sanity and teaching by personal example that is not shy of adapting to the spirit of times.
Sakya - the study school, historically in close affinity with rich secular rulers of Central and Eastern Tibet since 13-14cc. Emphasizes thorough knowledge of Dharma through study of texts. Not always considered a mature monastic tradition by the above two schools.
The head role is passed down the family line, as in hereditary monarchy.
Gelug - the new reform school, founded in Central Tibet in 14th century, on the textual basis of the then extinct Kadam school (11-12cc). The doctrinal foundation of the Central Tibetan government that saw itself in charge of Tibet from 15th to 20th century. Characterized by relatively more rigid orgstructure. Emphasizes logic and study of Madhyamaka. The Gelug is the most recent and perforce drew upon the prior schools (Nyingma/Kagyu/Sakya) in many ways.
Bon - an ancient shamanic tradition germinated by influx of Buddhism, specifically Nyingma teachings. Leads with shamanism as upaya in lower yanas, elevating to sutra-, tantra-, and Dzogchen-level teachings depending on student's capacity.
Ri-me - a universalistic movement in Tibetan Buddhism intended to harmonize the various views and styles of the different traditions while preserving their individual features. Voiced by leading Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya scholars of 19th century, Ri-me re-established the non-sectarian principle that had been always present in Tibetan Buddhism despite the ongoing political struggle between the schools.

Andrei, where, if at all, do New Kadampa and Shambhala fit?

NK is a spinoff of Gelug and Shambhala of Kagyu.

Nice answer. I could only add that within the Kagyu tradition there are four major and eight minor schools. I remember the names of the major schools: Karma Kagyu, Drugpa Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu and Shagpa Kagyu. I don´t remember the names of the eight minor schools.

I don't think the last two (Bon and Ri-me) are official schools in Tibetan Buddhism, but other than that nice answer!

We should add the Jonang.
The official position of the Tibetan community in exile, at the urging of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is that the Jonang is counted as a major school (http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=30077)
The Jonang goes quite far back, depending on how you figure. Though they were forcibly integrated into the Gelug school in the 17th century, some Jonang monasteries remained independent. There are presently thousands of monks and nuns in this tradition at monasteries in Tibet's eastern region that came to Western attention only in the 20th century.
Among other things, the Jonang teach the Shentong/Zhentong view that has some influence in other non-Gelug schools, and are the source of Kalachakra teachings and practices that the present 14th Dalai Lama has actively propagated.

In addition to and as a complement to the above answers, I highly recommend this YouTube lecture series, Varieties of Tibetan Madhyamaka with Guy Newland (2011).
Professor Newland is a renowned scholar on Tibetan Buddhism. In the spirit of HH the Dalai Lama, Prof Newland here tries to treat the different sects as fairly and properly as possible.


text:
Is reflecting upon a choir conducive to the path of Enlightenment?
A few years ago, I read in the introduction of a Spirituality book about this story of Gautam Buddha. I've forgotten the name of the book, but this poetry has stuck in my memory for ever. The story goes something like this:
The young prince Siddhartha is sitting in the garden, having felt disgusted by the vanity of the celebrations going on in the palace. That's when he hears a group of celestial beings passing by singing melodious choirs:

We Know not whence we come,
nor where we float away
Time and again, we tread this round, of smiles and tears
In vain we pine to know
whither our pathway leads
And why we play this empty play

Each time I remember or reflect upon this choir, I get a profound feeling of anicca. I know that even thinking about this is also a sign of attachment, as even those thoughts are impermanent. But is it wrong to get energized or inspired by a choir, even if the inspiration is towards the path of enlightenment?
As a side note, has such an anecdote really happened with Gautam Buddha? Is there such a mention in any suttas?

"But is it wrong to get energized or inspired by a choir, even if the inspiration is towards the path of enlightenment?"
In principle, I don't think so. It's quite reasonable actually to regard the verses in the suttas having that precise purpose (otherwise, why write in verses?). Additionally, many traditions do chanting.
"I know that even thinking about this is also a sign of attachment, as even those thoughts are impermanent."
Not necessarily. Inspiration does not entail craving, and feeling inspired is very important, I don't think anyone who have directed their lives to this path would be able to gather energy to do so without inspiration.
Moreover:

[...] and he gains inspiration in the meaning, gains inspiration in the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is glad, rapture is born in him. in one who is rapturous, the body becomes tranquil; one whose body is tranquil feels pleasure; in one who feels pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated.
--   Vatthūpama Sutta, MN 7

also:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Endowed with two things, a monk lives in ease in the present life and is appropriately aroused for the ending of the fermentations. Which two? A sense of urgency & awe toward things that should inspire urgency & awe and, feeling urgency & awe, appropriate exertion. Endowed with two things, a monk lives in ease in the present life and is appropriately aroused for the ending of the fermentations."
Feeling urgency, awe / toward what should inspire it / the wise,  masterful /
  ardent monk / should investigate / with discernment. / One who lives thus / ardently / not restlessly, at peace / committed to awareness-tranquillity / would attain the ending / of suffering & stress.
-- Iti 2.10

However, as we know, it's not always like this:

Bhikkhus, have you not known me to teach the Dhamma in such a way as this: ‘Here, when someone feels a certain kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states increase in him and wholesome states diminish; but when someone feels another kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states diminish in him and wholesome states increase [...]?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
-- Kīṭāgiri Sutta, MN 70

By "inspiration", we are presumably talking about, say, something that acts as a vehicle to something else. But when it ends in itself, that is just sensual delight:

And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen sensual desire and for the increase and expansion of arisen sensual desire? There is, bhikkhus, the sign of the beautiful: frequently giving careless attention to it is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen sensual desire and for the increase and expansion of arisen sensual desire.
-- SN 46.51

In more detail:

"Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check. [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown, a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity. It's not worthy of you,' [...].
-- SN 35.205

That is, craving through the five aggregates.

The five basic precepts for laypersons tells one to undertake the training to abstain from:

killing
stealing
sexual misconduct
false speech
substance intoxication

The eight precepts, which are the stricter version, tells one, in addition, to undertake the training to abstain from:

eating at the wrong time
singing, dancing, watching entertainment, cosmetics, perfume
luxurious sleeping places and overindulgence in sleep

The eight precepts version is for laypersons who want to lead a more ascetic life.
So, if your question is generally about entertainment, then it depends on whether you wish to observe the five or the eight precepts.
Naturally, the eight precepts are more conducive to the path of Enlightenment, but we should not use this to forbid or discourage laypersons from watching entertainment. Laypersons are only discouraged (strongly) from the five (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech and substance intoxication).
The prose seems to come from The Gospel of Ramakrishna.

Thanks, Ruben. In fact, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa was also a great Spiritual seeker from India. Though he was not a Buddhist (he followed the path of Vedanta in Hinduism), he not only achieved enlightenment through dhyana (meditation), but also created such legends as Swami Vivekananda. He formed a society called Sri Ramakrishna Mission that still helps spiritual seekers to cross this loop of samsara. An important reason I like their approach is because that's perhaps the only one left in Hinduism that puts more emphasis on meditation, rather than rituals.

I am a learner, I do not know very much about suttas in deep but I have found the description of the question, very interesting (actually that choir/the wording). About a'nicca I read this on wiki. ' Impermanence is intimately associated with the doctrine of anatta, according to which things have no fixed nature, essence, or self. For example, in Mahayana Buddhism, because all phenomena are impermanent, and in a state of flux, they are understood to be empty of an intrinsic self (shunyata). '
I want to understand the question the way I have understood the three marks of existence.
No permanence, no satisfaction and no self BUT all these three exist. It can be taken as chaos or the choir. I think it is not the choir that inspire or energize you towards the path of enlightenment but it's the enlightenment that inspire/energize you to think about the choir this way. Regards