text:
What Gautam Buddha said about "self", in Chapter Three of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra?
From this site, I found the following saying of Buddha:

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the  notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]
  - The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Now, as I know this saying is exactly monistic & found in some hindu philosophies like Advait Vedanta & Kashmiri Shaivism. This practice in Advait Vedanta is called manana; and in KS, Shuddha Bhāvna/Vikalpa under Sāktopāye - Herein you practice not to identify yourself with something (body, mind etc) which you are not.  In other words I think it seems to teach the same as,

It is not with the body identification that you should sit for meditation. It is the knowledge "I am" that is meditating on itself.

Nisargadatta Maharaj

My question is why Gautam Buddha talked about "self" (that it is eternal, blissful, etc.)? I may not be getting context, so what's the context and explanation?

You have quoted from the "The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra", compare this with the Theravada Mahaparinibbana Sutta. You will find some stark differences.

I added the [tag:mahayana] tag. It would be good to have an answer from a Mahayana perspective.

There's another topic about "self" and "Advaita Vedanta": Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta

Note the upper-case 'S' of Self. He is not talking about what we usually call self. He would be talking about the 'I' of 'I Am'. Meditation would be the 'I Am' meditating upon itself, hence the teaching that meditation is enlightenment.

The Buddha would have spoken about self as reference point. This is using conventional language and terms to explain something. Without using conventional language as medium you cannot communicate and when using conventional languages you end up using conventional terms. It is very had to have a vocabulary in terms of ultimate realities since  only few have experienced it any terms coined will not have bearing on people who has not experienced it. Since the Dhamma is taught for people who has not experienced the ultimate realities it should be in conventional terms.
Having said that any conception that there is a self or there is not self is an extreme view and also conceptual construction.

The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.

Alagaddupama Sutta - Translator's Introduction by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Also see: Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts

It appears certain answers by default will gather so certain many numbers of upvotes. I've read this answer twice, even thrice, I still couldn't comprehend if the OP did of course ask about conventional truth/ ultimate reality whilst this answer unmistakenly was speaking with regal authority... alas...

I think this answer (and upvotes) are inferring an answer based on knowledge of the Pali canon. I think it's saying "If the Buddha mentioned 'self' then he must have been using 'conventional' language" -- because that's one of the tenets of "early Buddhism" e.g. the simile of the chariot. I think this answer was posted before someone pointed out that this is a question about a specific Mahayana text/translation, and that it would be good to answer it from that perspective..

ChrisW: didn't the title write: What Gautam Buddha said about “self”, in Chapter Three of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra?

@Bhumishu米殊 The title did write that, yes, and Kaveenga pointed that out in a comment. And I added the [tag:mahayana] tag, to emphasize that. A site policy is that questions with a [tag:mahayana] tag are asking for answers from a Mahayana perspective. Suminda posted this answer before I added that tag though ... you might (or might not) think this answer isn't very relevant to the question, but it's not our policy to delete an answer which misses the mark (I'd delete it if it criticized the question, if it said that a Mahayana question shouldn't be asked ... but that's not the case here).

Yes, the blessed one Gautam Buddha talked about permanent self repeatedly as per the story goes like this in the Chapter 3 here. ( I recommend to read the complete chapter. ).

Then the Buddha said to all the bhiksus: "Do not say this. I now leave all the unsurpassed Dharma in the hands of Mahakasyapa. This Kasyapa will henceforth be the one upon whom you may rely. This is as in the case where the Tathagata becomes the one to whom all beings can turn. The same is the case with Mahakasyapa. He will now become your refuge. This is as in the case of a king who has many territories and who goes on a tour of inspection, leaving all affairs of state in the hands of his minister. The same with the Tathagata. All right teachings are left in the hands of Mahakasyapa. Know that all that you have learned up to now about the non-eternal and suffering is not true. In spring, for example, people go bathing in a big pond. They are enjoying themselves, sailing in a boat, when they drop a gem of beryl into the depths of the water, after which it can no longer be seen. Then they all get into the water and search for this gem. They competitively scoop up all such rubbish as tiles, stones, bits of wood, and gravel, and say that they have the beryl. They are glad and take the things out, and see that what they hold in their hands is not true. The gem is still in the water. By the power of the gem itself, the water becomes clear and transparent. As a result, the people see that the gemis still in the water, as clearly as when they look up and see the form of the moon in the sky. At that time, there is a wise man there who, working out a power, slowly gets into the water and gains the gem. O you Bhiksus! Do not abide in the thought of the non-Eternal, Suffering, non-Self, and the not-Pure and be in the situation of those people who take stones, bits of wood, and gravel to be the true gem. You must study well the Way, how to act, wherever you go, and “meditate on the Self, the Eternal, Bliss, and thePure”. Know that the outer forms of the four items which you have learnt up to now are inversions and that anyone who desires to practise the Way should act like the wise man who deftly gets hold of thegem. This refers to the so-called thought of Self, and that of the Eternal, Bliss, and Pure."

So, Gautam Buddha talked about the permanent, blissful self. But with this sayings Bhikkus became astonished as earlier they were taught the doctrine of non self. It goes like this.

Then all the bhiksus said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! You, the Buddha, said before that all things have no Self, that we should practise this and that, when practised, the thought of Self goes away, and that once the thought of Self is done away with, one does away with arrogance and that, arrogance once done away with, one gains Nirvana. Thus did you say "How might we understand this?"

Then Gautam Buddha started explaining using an analogy of King, doctor & milk to explain.

The Buddha said to all the bhiksus: "Well said, well said! You ask this question and intend to dispel your doubt. Imagine: there is a king, who is dull-witted. He has little wisdom. And there is a doctor, who is obstinate. But the King does not know this and pays him a salary. This doctor uses the products of milk to cure all illnesses. Also, he does not know where the illnesses come from. He may be versed in the medicine of milk, but for him there exists no difference between a cold and a fever. He prescribes milk for all illnesses. This King was unaware that this doctor was ignorant of the pleasing and non-pleasing, the good and bad aspects of milk. But there was a Doctor who knew eight different treatments for illnesses and who was able to cure all diseases. This Doctor was versed in prescription and medicines and had come from a far-off place. And the King's doctor did not know how to ask and learn. He was rash and haughty. So the learned Doctor cordially invited the King's doctor and looked up to him [as an expedient] as his master and asked of him the secret of treatment. He said to the King's doctor: "I now invite you and make you my teacher. Please be good enough to teach me." The King's doctor said: "If you serve me for 48 years, I will teach you the art of medicine. "Then, at these words, the learned Doctor said: "I shall do as you tell me. I shall do my best and run errands." Then the King's doctor, taking the learned Doctor along with him, went to see the King. At this, the visiting Doctor explained to the King the various ways of treatment and even other things. He said: "Please know, O great King! Know well! This Dharma is like this and you will well cure illnesses." On hearing this, the King recognised the ignorance and lack of knowledge of his own doctor. He at once drove him out of the country. And he respected the new Doctor all the more. Then the new Doctor said to himself: "It is now time to teach the King." He said to the King: "O great King! If you truly love me, please make me a promise!" The King replied: "I shall give you, should you desire it, even my right hand or any part of my body." The new Doctor said: "You may give me all statuses, but I myself do not wish to have much. What I desire you to do for me is to proclaim to the people of every corner of your land that henceforth they are not to use the milk medicine, which the former doctor told them to use. Why not? Because much harm and poisonous results arise [from it]. Any person who still takes this medicine should be beheaded. If the milk medicine is not used, there will be no untimely deaths; all will go in peace. That is why I ask this of you." Then the King said: "What you ask me to do is a trifle. I shall at once issue an order and see to it that anyone who is ill does no take milk as a medicine. Any person who does will be beheaded." At this, the learned Doctor made several kinds of medicine, which tasted pungent, butter, salty, sweet, and sour. With these, treatment was given, and there was no case in which illness could not be cured.
  "After some time, the King himself became ill, and the Doctor was called in. The King said: "I am now ill. How am I to be cured?" The Doctor thought about the illness of the King and saw that the milk medicine was good [here]. So he said to the King: "What you are now suffering from can very well be cured by milk. What I said before about the milk medicine was not true. If you take it now, you will be cured. You are now suffering from a fever. It is right that you should take milk." Then the King said to the Doctor: "Are you mad? Is it a fever? And you say that if I take milk, it will cure me? Before, you said it was poison. Now you tell me to take it. How is this? Do you mean to cheat me? What the former doctor said was good, [yet] you despised it and said that it was poison, and you made me drive him away. Now you say that it well cures illness. From you you say, the former doctor ought to excel you."
  "Then the learned Doctor said to the King: "O King! Do not say this, please. A worm eats on [a piece of] wood and [the shape of] a letter comes out. This worm does not know anything of letters. A wise person sees this. But he does not say that this worm understands letters. And he is not overcome by surprise. O great King! Please know: so was it also with the former doctor. To all illnesses he gave medicine made from milk. This is as in the case of the worm that eats on wood, as a result of which a form like a letter emerges. The former doctor did not know how to distinguish between the pleasing and non-pleasing aspects, the good and the bad." Then the King wanted to know: "What do you mean he did not know?" The guest Doctor answered the King: "This milk medicine is harmful, but it is also a manna." "How can you say that this milk is manna?" "If you milking cow has not taken the lees, the slippery grass and the wheat refuse, and if the calf fares well, and if the cow was not grazed too high up on the land or in a low and wet place, if the cow is given pure water and not made to run or made to live among the bulls, and if feeding is done regularly, and if the place it lives in is fit, the milk gained from such a cow well does away with all illnesses. This can well be called the manna of medicine. Any other milk is poison."
  "On hearing this, the King praised the great Doctor: "Well said, well said, O great Doctor! Today, for the first time in my life, I know of the pleasing and non-pleasing, that which is good and not good in the milk medicine. Taking this, I am now well. I shall at once proclaim to the people that they may well take the milk medicine." On hearing this, the people of the country, angry and resentful, said: "The great King is now caught by a devil. Is he mad? He cheats us and makes us take milk." All the people, angry and resentful, came to the King. The King said to them: "Be not angry, and have no resentment. To take milk or not to take it all comes from the science of medicine. I am not to blame." At this, the great King and the people all jumped for joy. They all the more respected and honoured the Doctor, and made offerings to him. That is how all the people took the milk medicine and regained their health.

Then Gautam Buddha concludes finally:

"Know, O you Bhiksus! The same is the case with the Tathagata, the Alms-deserving, the All-Enlightened-One, the Unsurpassed Best Trainer, the Teacher-of-Heaven-and-Earth, the Buddha-World-Honoured One. He comes as a great Doctor and subdues all tirthikas and bad doctors. In the presence of kings and all people, he says: "I shall become the King of doctors and subdue tirthikas." Thus we say: "There is no self, no man, no being, no life, no nurturing, no knowing, none that does, and none that receives." O Bhiksus! Know that what the tirthikas say is like the case of a worm that eats upon [a piece of] wood, from which, by chance, there appears what looks like a letter. Because of this, the Tathagata teaches and says no-self. This is to adjust beings and because he is aware of the occasion. Such non-self is, as occasion arises, spoken of, and it is [also] said that there is the Self. This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their ownself and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.' When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.'

Most importantly, at last he explains what is Self. -

Even though he has said that all phenomena (dharmas) are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon (dharma) that is true (satya), real (tattva), eternal (nitya), sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' (atman). This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milkmedicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things" O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"

Therefore, Gautam Buddha criticised who believed in invidual Ātma (thumb like etc) like explained by Dualists. But he talked about self as common substrata, permanent etc as what Non Dualists say. - at least what we get from this narration.

Translator information: Translated into English by Kosho Yamamoto, 1973 from Dharmakshema's Chinese version. (Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 12, No. 374)

Which translator you based on? The translation is incorrect and littered with erroneous assumptions. For instance, your "...Know that what the tirthikas (?) say is like the case of a worm that eats upon [a piece of] wood, from which, by chance, there appears what looks like a letter. Because of this, the Tathagata teaches and says no-self..." (比丘當知。是諸外道。所言我者。如虫食木偶成字耳。是故如來於佛法中唱是無我。為調眾生故。)

It in fact translates as: ... those heretics, talking about the Self, is like that worm biting a piece of wood, by sheer chance formed the letter, thus the Tathagata proclaimed non-Self, to cure the students [wrong view of Self, heretics' Self]. I suggest Charles Patton's translation, I didn't really read but working on this post I scanned his and Kosho Yamamoto (Dr. Tony P.?), Patton is more trustful. All and all this Sutra is very deep I don't think one will simply get it by the words on surfaces; of import, those words many are incorrect.

To further make this clear, the preceding paragraph reads: (如虫食木有成字者。此虫不知是字非字。智人見之終不唱言。是虫解字。亦不驚怪。大王當知。舊醫亦爾。不別諸病悉與乳藥。如彼虫道偶成於字。) for instance, a worming biting the wood happened to form a letter, this worm doesn't know the letter, the wise one saw this will never proclaim, "the worm knows language!"...

@Bhumishu Translator information: Translated into English by Kosho Yamamoto, 1973 from Dharmakshema's Chinese version. (Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 12, No. 374)

Very superficially (from a high level, non-detailed, view) you may be asking whether a Buddhist negative (e.g. anatman or sunyata), or dichotomy, is related to an Advaita Vedanta negative (e.g. neti neti).
I suppose that even if the practice were similar, according to Wikipedia it's also similar to the Western "via negativa", or to the everyday practice of removing whatever is superfluous to expose what may be essential -- maybe the similarity is superficial, who knows.
If you intended this as a comparative-religion question, perhaps you won't find people on this site who can give an objective description of the differences between the two.
I think that comparative religion questions are often confusing or a symptom of one's own confusion: that it's better to understand a statement in its own context/framework/history (as Bhumishu's answer seems to me to have attempted), instead of or without trying to compare it with other beliefs.
Sorry if this "answer" seems like a criticism: it's too long for a comment ... it's difficult to ask good questions and I wanted to say that "comparative religion" questions are more-or-less permitted but I think our experience on this site is that you should maybe try to avoid them because they don't get the best answers ... you're unlikely to find people (on this site) who are expert in both topics and able to answer well.

Thanks. Understood. But I was finding exactly what Tathagata meant by Self.

you ask:

My question is why Gautam Buddha talked about "self" (that it is
  eternal, blissful, etc.)? I may not be getting context, so what's the
  context and explanation?

I've tried to give the explanation according to my tradition - the Gelug branch of Prasangika-Madhyamaka in this thread.
The summary is that these Sutras are from the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma whose motivation is said to allay the fears of those who heard the Second Turning teachings and came away with an incorrect nihilist understanding. Thus, these Sutras have an essentialist sheen and are thus provisional and require interpretation from the wisdom realizing emptiness.

Oh. From where can I understand this wheel concept?

But can you provide some interpretations? And what you conclude?

Hi, I have posted this question/answer that will hopefully help: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-are-the-three-turnings-of-the-wheel-of-dharma-according-to-tibetan-buddhism
You can find in the answer links to various resources that explain things much better than I can.

@Rohith. See the above for question/answer re: three turnings

Mahākāśyapabodhisattva asked the Buddha to speak: "Lord! I from today start in obtaining samyagdṛṣṭi (right view). Lord! Until now, we all entirely abided in mithyādṛṣṭi (wrong view). Lord! In the twenty five existences, is there no ātman definitely?"
The Buddha said: "Noble son! Ātman, prompt and exact, is Tathāgatagarbha in meaning. All sentient beings all have a Buddha element, prompt and exact, Ātman is it's meaning. Thus so, ātman's meaning is, from root proceeding onwards, constantly under afflictive emotion, without limit, covered, therefore sentient beings cannot obtain sight of it.

(T374.407b6, Mahāparinirvāṇa-nāma-mahāyānasūtra, Tathāgatadhātuparivarta: 迦葉菩薩白佛言：「世尊！我從今日始得正見。世尊！自是之前，我等悉名邪見之人。 世尊！二十五有，有我不耶？」佛言：「善男子！我者即是如來藏義。一切眾生悉有佛性，即是我義。 如是我義，從本已來，常為無量煩惱所覆，是故眾生不能得見。 )
The Buddha's nature is eternal, pure, blissful, and the self. Why? Because the four marks of the dharmakāya is eternity, purity, bliss, and identity. Why are these the four marks of the dharmakāya? Because the four marks of saṃsāra are impermanence, impurity, suffering, and selflessness.
The self? What is that doing there. We are Buddhists, we believe in anātman, the opposite.
We need to contextualize this:

All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self.
  All dharmas’ true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self.
  All dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken language’s ending.
  There is no arising and no cessation, there is calm extinction, such is nirvāṇa.
  All is real, all is unreal, all is both real and unreal,
  all is neither real nor unreal: this is called all Buddhas’ dharma.

(T1564.23c16 Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā: 諸佛或說我,　或說於無我,　諸法實相中,　無我無非我, 　諸法實相者,　心行言語斷, 　無生亦無滅,　寂滅如涅槃, 　一切實非實,　亦實亦非實, 　非實非非實,　是名諸佛法)
"All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self." <---
Let us look at next Venerable Candrakīrti's Mūlamadhyamakavṛttiprasannapadā:

To quote: "Whatever is most familiar to one is most effective for him naturally. If one is bewildered how can one receive the truth? As it is not possible to make a foreigner understand by a language not his own, so the unenlightened person (loka) cannot be made to comprehend except by means of the everyday."
As the illustrious one said: "The unenlightened person is at variance with me; I am not at variance with the unenlightened person. What is accepted by the unenlightened is accepted by me; what is not accepted by the unenlightened is not accepted by me." Thus the scripture. The illustrious one always treated the elements of personal existence, the senses and their objects, and the types of consciousness as "real" (tathyam). These are thought to be real when perceived by those who are to be guided - those suffering from the optical defect of primal ignorance — in whom has been aroused the desire to learn about the various natures of the things generally accepted as real. And this with an eye on the higher truth and with a view to arousing the faith of the ordinary man in himself.
"This holy man is aware of every last happening in the world, he is omniscient and all-seeing; he possesses the knowledge of the inanimate world from the infinity of space to the coursing of the winds and he knows the uttermost limits of the world of beings; he knows incontrovertibly the many kinds of origin, existence and end, what is cause, what is effect, what is pleasurable, what is painful."
So, after those who are to be guided have realized the omniscience of the illustrious one, at a later time it is explained that everything is not real (na tathyam) as naively taken. At this point what is real is what does not change. But all compounded things change in fact because they perish by the moment. Therefore, because of this fact of change, they are not real either. The word „or‟ means „and‟; it is to be taken as joining the two views. That is: „Everything in this world can be taken as real and as not real.‟
For some it is explained that everything in the world is both real and not real at the same time. For the unenlightened everything in the world is real; for those who have started on the way everything is false because not perceived in its naive reality (evam anupalambha).
There are those however who, from long practice, see things the way they really are, who have eradicated the obstructions (avarana) virtually completely like the roots of a tree; for them it is explained that everything in the world is neither real nor not real. In order to remove what remains of the obstructions, both alternatives are rejected even as one rejects predicates like black and white for the son of a barren woman.
This is the teaching of the illustrious Buddhas. It leads men from byways and establishes them on the right way. In the interests of gradual instruction and of adapting to those who are to be led, the teaching is flexible.
All the teachings of the illustrious Buddhas, who are possessed of universal compassion, ultimate insight and practical wisdom, are intended to be a means of penetrating (avatara) to the eternal way of things (tattvamrta). The perfectly realized ones have not uttered one word which was not in fact a means of penetrating to the eternal way of things. They administer medicine suited to the illness. They have the urge to succour those who need guidance and they teach the truth accordingly. To quote from the Four Hundred Verses: "Things are real, things are not real, things are both real and not real: all this is said variously. Indeed all cures as such are cures for a specific desire."
But, you ask, what is the nature of "the way things really are" which the teachings of the revered ones are intended to penetrate to? This is explained in the verse "When the object of thought is no more, there is nothing for language to refer to." When this obtains what further questions can there be? Though this is so, none the less the way things are really must be spoken of. This is done by speaking in a second sense (samaropatah). One accepts the everyday (laukika) terms "real", "not real" and so on which are drawn from the world of transactional discourse (vyavaharasatya).
Nagarjuna expresses it this way.

(Darbhaga 1960, Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, 10: tatra - yadyadyasya priyaṃ pūrvaṃ tattattasya samācaret na hi pratihataḥ pātraṃ saddharmasya kathaṃcana iti tathā ca bhagavatoktam - loko mayā sārdhaṃ vivadati nāhaṃ lokena sārdhaṃ vivadāmi yalloke'sti saṃmatam, tanmamāpyasti saṃmatam yalloke nāsti saṃmatam, mamāpi tannāsti saṃmatam [etc.])
Something that struck me as very interesting was how Ven Candrakīrti interprets the Pupphasutta in the above example, which we can find at SN 22.94 in the Pāli Canon:
Pāli: nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, lokena vivadāmi, lokova mayā vivadati
Candrakīrti: loko mayā sārdhaṃ vivadati nāhaṃ lokena sārdhaṃ vivadāmi
English (after Ven Sujāto): I don’t argue with the world; it’s the world that argues with me.
Along with that, on the above quote from the MMK, we have the commentary of Venerable Vimalākṣa:

Some people teach that there is a soul, in which case it must be of
  two kinds. Either the five skandhas are themselves the soul, or the
  soul exists apart from the five skandhas.
If the five skandhas are the soul, then the soul will have the
  characteristics of arising and ceasing. Thus it says in the verse ‘if
  the soul is the five skandhas it will have the characteristics of
  arising and ceasing’, and why? Becuase once arisen, it will perish.
  Because they have the characteristics of arising and ceasing, the five
  skandhas have no permanence, and just as the five skandhas have no
  permanence, the two dharmas of arising and ceasing likewise have no
  permanence. Why is this? Because arising and ceasing also perish after
  they have arisen and hence are impermanent. If the soul were the five
  skandhas, then, since the five skandhas are impermanent, the soul
  would also be impermanent and would have the characteristics of
  arising and ceasing, but this is not correct
If the soul existed apart from the five skandhas, the soul would not
  have the characteristics of the five skandhas. As it says in the
  verse: ‘if the soul is different from the five skandhas, then it will
  not have the characteristics of the five skandhas’. Yet no other
  dharma exists apart from the five skandhas. If there were any such
  dharma apart from the five skandhas, by virtue of what
  characteristics, or what dharmas, would it exist? If you say that the
  soul is like empty space, separate from the five skandhas yet
  existent, this is also wrong, and why? We have already refuted empty
  space in the chapter on refuting the six elements. No dhama called
  ‘empty space’ exists.
If you assert that a soul exists because belief in it exists, this is
  not correct, and why? Belief is of four kinds; the first is belief in
  a manifest thing, the second is belief in something known through this
  manifest thing as when seeing smoke, we know that there is a fire. The
  third is belief by analogy as when, in a country with no copper, one
  uses the example of it being like gold. The fourth is belief in what
  is taught by saints and sages, as when they say that there are hells,
  heavens and uttarakuru. Without seeing anything, we believe the words
  of the holy men and thus know about them.
Such a ‘soul’ cannot be found amongst these beliefs. It is not found
  in belief in manifest things, nor in inferential belief, and why?
  Inferential knowledge means that having previously seen something, you
  thenceforth know (about) this kind of thing, as for example a man who
  has previously seen that where there is fire there is smoke,
  subsequently, seeing only smoke, knows that there is fire. The concept
  of ‘soul’ is not like this, for who could first have seen the soul in
  the combination of the five skandhas, such that afterwards, seeing the
  five skandhas, he knows that there is a soul?
Suppose you say that there are three kinds of inferential knowledge,
  the first being ‘like the original’, the second being ‘like the
  remainder’, the third ‘seeing together’. ‘Like the original’ means
  previously having seen that fire has smoke, seeing smoke now, you know
  that it is like the original which had fire. ‘Like the remainder’
  means, for example, that when one grain of rice is cooked, you know
  that the remaining ones are all cooked. ‘Seeing together’ means, for
  example, that when you see with your eyes a person going from hereto
  another place, you also see his going. The sun is like this. It
  emerges from the east and goes to the west. Although you do not see it
  going, because a man has the characteristic of going, you know that
  the sun also has going. In the same way suffering, pleasure, hate,
  desire, and insight, etc. must also have whatever goes with them. For
  example, seeing subjects you know that they must rely on some king.
  But these are all incorrect, and why?
In belief through the characteristic of together-ness, having first
  seen a person combined with a dharma of ‘going’ who reaches some other
  place, when you subsequently see the sun reach another place you know
  that there is the dharma of ‘going’. But there is no prior seeing of
  the five skandhas combined with a soul, such that subsequently seeing
  the five skandhas you know that there is a soul. Therefore, no
  existence of a soul can be established by inferential knowledge of
  ‘together-ness’.
There is no soul to be found within the teachings of the saints
  either, and why? In the teaching of the saints, what they first see
  with their eyes, they subsequently expound. And since the saints teach
  other things which can be believed, we should know that when they
  speak of the hells, etc., these can be believed in, but it is not so
  with the soul, for there is no-one who, having previously seen a soul,
  subsequently speaks of it.
Therefore, you may seek for a soul within all beliefs such as these
  four types of belief, but you will not be able to find it. Since you
  cannot find a soul even though you seek for it, no distinct soul
  exists separate from the five skandhas.
Further, because of the refutation of seeing, seer and seen in the
  chapter refuting the six sense faculties, the soul is to be refuted in
  the same way. For if even an eye seeing coarse dharmas cannot be
  found, how much less can we find a soul by empty delusions,
  imagination and so forth? For these reasons, we know that there is no
  self.
‘Mine’ exists because ‘I’ exists. If there is no I, then there is no
  mine. Through putting into practice the holy eight-fold path and
  extinguishing the causes of I and mine, one attains the firm insight
  of no I and no mine.
Question: Even though non-self is the truth, what is wrong with
  teaching, merely as a convention, that there is a self?
Reply: Non-self exists by virtue of the negation of the dharma of
  self. No fixed self can be found, so how could there be non-self? If
  there were a fixed non-self, then annihilation of if would give rise
  to attachment and craving. As it says in the Prajñāpāramitā, if a
  bodhisattva has a self, he cannot act, and if he has no self, he
  cannot act.
Question: If it teaches neither self nor non-self, neither emptiness
  nor non-emptiness, what does the Buddha-dharma teach?
Reply: The Buddha teaches the true character of all dharmas, and
  within that true character there is no path for verbal expressions,
  for it extinguishes all mental activity. Mind arises because of the
  characteristic of grasping, exists because of the rewards and
  retribution of karma in a previous world, and cannot therefore see the
  true character of dharmas. The Buddha teaches the cessation of mental
  activities.
Question: Even though an unenlightened person’s mind cannot see the
  reality, surely a saint’s mind can see the reality? Why does he teach
  the cessation of all mental activities?
Reply: The true character of dharmas is nirvana, and cessation means
  nirvana. It is in order to point towards nirvana, that cessation is
  also termed cessation. If one’s mind were real, what use would be such
  ways to liberation as emptiness, etc? Why, amongst all the samadhis
  would the samadhi of cessation be regarded as the highest, and why
  ultimately reach nirvana without residue?
Therefore we should know that all mental activities are empty
  deceptions, and as empty deceptions, should cease. The true character
  of all dharmas surpasses all dharmas of mental phenomena, has no
  arising and no ceasing, and has the characteristic of calming and
  extinction solely.
Question: In the sutras it says that all dharmas, having from the
  beginning the characteristic of calm extinction are themselves
  nirvana. Why do you say that they are like nirvana?
Reply: Those who are attached to dharmas classify dharmas into two
  kinds, some being worldly, some being of nirvana. They say that the
  nirvana dharmas are calm and extinct, but do not say that the worldly
  dharmas are calm and extinct. In this treatise it is taught that all
  dharmas are empty in nature and have the characteristic of calm
  extinction. Since those who are attached to dharmas do not understand
  this, nirvana is used as an example. Just as with your assertion that
  the characteristic of nirvana is emptiness, with no characteristics,
  calm extinction, and no vain thoughts, so it is with all worldly
  dharmas.
Question: If the Buddhas do not teach self, non-self, and the
  cessation of all mental activities and the cutting-off of ways of
  verbal expression, how do they make people understand the real
  character of dharmas?
Reply: All the Buddhas have unlimited powers of skilful means, and
  dharmas have no fixed characteristics. In order to save all living
  beings, they may teach that everything is real, or they may teach that
  everything is unreal, or that everything is both real and unreal or
  that everything is neither unreal nor not unreal. If you search for a
  real nature of dharmas, you will find that they all enter into the
  ultimate meaning and become equal, with identical characteristics,
  which is to say no characteristics, just like streams of different
  colour and different tastes entering into a great ocean of one colour
  and one taste, which is to say no taste. At the time when one has not
  yet penetrated into the true character of dharmas, each one can be
  contemplated separately as unreal, existing merely by the combinations
  of conditions. There are three levels of living beings; superior,
  average and inferior. The superior person sees that the characteristic
  of dharmas is that they are neither real nor unreal. The average
  person sees the characteristics of dharmas as either all real, or all
  unreal. The inferior man, since his powers of perception are limited,
  sees the characteristics of dharmas as a little real, and a little
  unreal, regarding nirvana, because it is an inactive dharma and does
  not perish as real, and regarding samsara, because it is an active
  dharma, empty and false, as unreal. Neither unreal nor not unreal is
  taught in order to negate ‘both real and unreal’.

(T1564.24a15 Madhyāmikaśāstra)


text:
"No spontaneously reborn beings"
One of the 10 wrong views is the view that there are no spontaneously reborn beings.
The preceding 2 wrong views in the sequence of 10 are "there is no mother" and "there is no father".

Now beings born on earth mostly see beings coming to existence due
to a mother and father. Most will never see a "spontaneously reborn
being". So how does one form the view that there ARE spontaneously
reborn beings when one has never seen such beings? Or is it adequate to simply not reject the
possibility of the existence of such beings, but not form the view
that there are such beings?
Also, if one has the view that there is a mother and father, how
does one reconcile these 2 views with the view that there are
spontaneously reborn beings, which we are also told are born without
a mother and father? Further, say if all the beings we encounter
were born spontaneously, how can we form the view that there is a
mother and father? Or do the words mother and father mean something other than the biological parents or the first pair of primary carers, e.g. DP verse 294?
Why is this view included in the 10 wrong views? The other 9 views
does provide a framework for beings to avoid evil and do good.
Rejecting this wrong view and accepting its opposing view that there
indeed ARE spontaneously reborn beings requires a stretch of the
imagination for many. What is the moral purpose?

Once again these questions are asked only for academic interest.

A view is when you affirm a certain thinking to be true. Simply having a thought of doubt doesn't qualify as having a view, even though it's still unwholesome.
A human taking the view that there are no spontaneous beings solely based on his inability to see them points to a flaw in his thinking. I.e. thinking that anything that cannot be seen does not exit. If a born blind person has the same thinking, he might even deny the existence of the sun and the moon. This is similar to taking the view that the earth is the only place with sentient beings in the whole universe because we haven't seen any aliens yet. The same line of thinking can make a person take the view that Nibbana does not exist, because he hasn't seen it.
Not believing in father and mother is more about thinking that there's no use in caring for them, which is wrong and detrimental. It's about biological parents.

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

"A view is when you affirm a certain thinking to be true." at what point does one make this affirmation? I assume we are to keep to the grounds of not accepting something based on the criteria mentioned in the Kalama Sutta.

@KaveengaWijayasekara whether you follow the  Kalama sutta or not, whenever you believe something to be the truth, it becomes a view. ex: belief of a God.

The Pali is 'sattā opapātikā'. 'Sattā' means 'beings' (plural). The singular is 'satto' ('a being').
SN 23.2 defines what 'a being' ('satto') is, which is, importantly, a state of suffering:

Satto, satto’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sattoti vuccatī?
'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'
Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, &
  craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun
  with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of
  them.

This is confirmed by SN 5.10, which states the arising of the view of "a being" is the arising of suffering:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering
  ceases.

'Sattā opapātikā' is also explained in MN 12. Importantly, MN 12 differentiates physical birth from the mental birth of 'a being' or 'beings'.

Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born
  generation and spontaneous generation (opapātikā yoni).
What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation. What
  is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out
  from the caul; this is called womb-born generation. What is
  moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten
  fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in a
  sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What is spontaneous
  generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human
  beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous
  generation. These are the four kinds of generation.

Therefore, a 'sattā opapātikā' is merely a state of attachment or self-view that immediately arises as immediate results of acts of kamma.
For example, as soon as a person performs an ethical action, they spontaneously arise as a 'human'; as soon as a person performs a compassionate action, they spontaneously arise as a 'god'; as soon as a person has strong craving or addiction, they spontaneously arise as a 'hungry ghost'; as soon as a person performs an unethical or unreflective action, they are spontaneously born as a 'animal'; as soon as a person is angry or sufffering, they are spontaneously born as a 'hell being'.

As for 'mother & father', this teaching is not about physical birth but about recognising you have benefactors. In other words, the right view of 'there is mother & father' creates gratitude & the right view that reciprocal or obligatory actions (kamma) must be performed in return towards mother & father and towards any other benefactors, such as teacher, student, employer, employee, etc.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why Buddha said "There is No God" and Later "There is God"?
EXPLANATION :

In many TV shows,sites I came to know that Buddha gave Different answers about God to Two Persons.
Buddha To a Ram Bhakta :
A Devotee of Lord Ram(Hindu God) was confused that God is there or Not, so he came to Buddha and asked him that "God is there or Not" .
Buddha answered : There Is No God.
AFTER SOME TIME
Buddha to Atheist
An atheist was confused that God is there or Not,so he came to Buddha and asked him that "God is there or Not"
Buddha answered : There Is A God.

QUESTION :

What was the Reason for Buddha to Give different answers to same question ?

Dear Sakthi can you please provide the sources? There are many who intentionally or otherwise misrepresent the Buddha, and attribute things to the Buddha which he most likely never said

@KaveengaWijayasekara ok friend

@KaveengaWijayasekara Friend this is a Link  that i can i find  about the story

In Buddhism there are deities and Brahma living in the 31 planes of existence. But unlike many other religions they are not almighty and of infinite life. They are also in the cycle of Samsana and are being transitioning from life to life and they existance in these planes are temporary. In this sense there is no God in a sense accepted in other religions but also there are higher beings who have temporal existence.
I am not sure what the TV program mentioned is accurate at least from a Theravada perspective.

The Buddha took a different approach to God than 'is' or 'is not':

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon
  the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one
  who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom,
  there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one
  who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct
  wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world. "
  SN 12.15

In only accepting truth that is directly perceivable and verifiable,

“Bhante, there are some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta.
  They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage,
  denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. But then some
  other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain
  and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride,
  and denounce the doctrines of others. We are perplexed and in doubt,
  Bhante, as to which of these good ascetics speak truth and which speak
  falsehood.
It is fitting for you to be perplexed, Kālāmas, fitting for you to be
  in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come,
  Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by
  hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by
  inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a
  view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or
  because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when, Kālāmas, you
  know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are
  blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if
  accepted and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should
  abandon them." AN 3.65

, as well as MN 27, one is naturally lead to DN 9.

“There are some brahmans & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like
  this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from
  disease.’ I approached them and asked them, ‘Is it true that you have
  a doctrine & view like this: “After death, the self is exclusively
  happy and free from disease"?’ When asked this, they replied, ‘Yes.’
  So I asked them, ‘But do you dwell having known or seen an exclusively
  happy world?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But
  have you ever been aware of a self exclusively happy for a day or a
  night, or for half a day or half a night?’ When asked this, they said,
  ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But do you know that “This is the path, this
  is the practice for the realization of an exclusively happy world"?’
  When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But have you heard
  the voices of devas reborn in an exclusively happy world, saying,
  “Practice well, my dears. Practice straightforwardly, my dears, for
  the realization of an exclusively happy world, because it was through
  such a practice that we ourselves have been reborn in an exclusively
  happy world"?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’
“So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”
“Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”
“Potthapada, it’s as if a man were to say, ‘I’m in love with the most
  beautiful woman in this country,’ and other people were to say to him,
  ‘Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with
  whom you are in love: do you know if she’s of the warrior caste, the
  priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?’ and, when
  asked this, he would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘Well
  then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she’s tall, short, or
  of medium height? Whether she’s dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you
  know what village or town or city she’s from?’ When asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you’ve never known or
  seen the woman you’re in love with?’ When asked this, he would say,
  ‘Yes.’
“So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”
“Yes, lord … ”
“In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”
“Yes, lord … ”
“ Potthapada , it’s as if a man at a crossroads were to build a
  staircase for ascending to a palace, and other people were to say to
  him, ‘Well, my good man, this palace for which you are building a
  staircase: do you know whether it’s east, west, north, or south of
  here? Whether it’s high, low, or in between?’ and, when asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you don’t know or see
  the palace for which you are building a staircase?’ When asked this,
  he would say, ‘Yes.’
“So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”
“Yes, lord … ”
“In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”
“Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”

As the Buddha stated in his first sermon,

“Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has
  gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual
  happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of
  worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of
  self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without
  veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened
  to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to
  knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to
  enlightenment, to Nibbāna." SN 56.11

All speculative views are abandoned in DN 1. MN 74 gives one analysis of why Nihilism, the strong atheist's statement 'there is no God', is flawed.
DN 15 is likely approximately what he taught, and MN 118 and MN 10 is likely what he would have practiced..
Some Hindu societies accepted Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, which may mix his statements quite a lot.. in fact, a lot of his supposed quotes on the net, are not his quotes. Best to stick to the Pali canon and some later writings for what he says imo! :)

I read a quote of the Buddha regarding God which was: "Both is, and is not. Neither is, nor is not." That about covers it, I think.

@user2341 Yes! This is the two-sidedness of non-dualism. Lao Tsu nails it when he remarks 'True words seem paradoxical'. We have to get past our dichotomies as explained by Nagarjuna. I would guess that your quote is authentic.

The Buddha never said such a thing! This is simply Indian folklore.

I read the article in the link you provided above. I am unable to verify the authenticity of the story. Usually in Theravada Buddhism the Sutta's have a reference. I have not come across this story in my readings, but that's limited.
Perhaps "an" answer you seek can be found at the end of the link you provided.

Moral of the story: Belief that there is God or belief that there is no God are both equally useless, one has to realize the truth in himself with diligent self-effort. Enlightened one had told each of them what they had to know in order for them to get stronger on their spiritual quest

I wish you well on the Path.

friend  I need an true version of that story as i am new to this i asked this to remove the EDITIONS made by others so does the books you have this story

I have not come across this story in the limited Theravada texts that I have read. However, those texts we read that the Buddha while acknowledging a powerful being called the Brahma, he has categorically stated that the Brahma is not the creator, amd rejected a creator god concept.

That is the beauty of Buddhism, and the Buddha himself.  He encouraged the Hindu practitioner to leave behind the baggage inherent in Hinduism (with which the Buddha was well acquainted), but encouraged the strict materialist to open his mind, and be considerate of the possibility of an afterlife and higher beings.
The Buddha taught that one of the dangers, leading to samsara, is attachment to views.  One view is the view of existence; and the other is the view non-existence.  One who loves existence will postulate that he is eternal, and is under the protection of an eternal god, and has an eternal destination.  One who loves non-existence will postulate that he is not eternal, has no eternal god and no eternal destination.  Both are inaccurate, both can lead to disputation, and most importantly, both are the result of craving what one desires.  Craving what one desires leads one to infinite cycles of reincarnation, because one will never attain every desire one has in a natural lifespan.
So, save yourself some time.  You don't have to spend an eon, in disputation; you don't have to whittle away a mountain with your words.  Whenever a mere mortal, of merely average intelligence and merely average moral rectitude, says, "God exists" or "God does not exist", just tell yourself, "that is merely an opinion; that is merely wishful thinking."

No,
Buddha didn’t say that there are no god realms. There are god realms, and if any individual does good karma which is sufficient to be born in these realms, then they can go to those realms.
Anyway, god or Brahma realms are not permanent

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

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


text:
Pali Scriptures & Folklore
What is she difference between the Pali Suttas and folklore or the Indian folklore at the time? Is it possible some suttas include folklore as well as authentic words of the Buddha?

Pali scriptures were brought down by the Sangha who actively practice the teachings of the Buddha. The oral tradition and later the scriptures were verified by many Buddhist councils which were headed by enlightened monks. These councils were held specifically to eliminate alien elements.
Folklore is just stories told by ordinary householders who might not even be Buddhist. ex: Hindus believe that Buddha is an avatar of one of their Gods

Buddha said when told a sutta, do not reject or accept it right away but remember the details so later to compare to other sutta and vinaya if it doesnt fit well with other sources then it is time to reject it.  One sample i can think of is about holy water.  in at least 12+ sutta, Buddha rejected and prohibited monks to make holy water but in a sutta where vesali was afflicted by a famine, Buddha gave Ven. Ananda his alms bowl to make holy water to sprinkle around the city to get rid of the illness.   IMO, I reject this sutta.  There are many sutta especially from Lanna/shan tipitaka that don't really fit well.


text:
Perception of light - a twist in the Bhaya Bherava sutta?
In the Bhaya Bherava Sutta MN 4 translated by Bhikkhu Tannissaro this is stated as said by the Buddha.
"There are some brahmans & contemplatives, brahman, who have the perception of 'day' when it is night, and of 'night' when it is day. This, I tell you, is their being in a dwelling of delusion. As for me, I have the perception of 'day' when it is day, and of 'night' when it is night..."
However in the Capala Sutta A 7.58 and several other suttas the Buddha encourages meditators to develop the perception of light so that one "dwells by night as by day, and by day as by night."
How are we to reconcile these two statements?

There is a famous quote in the ancient Hindu tradition, "what's day for the worldly is night for the sage" - meaning, the worldly and the spiritual people have the diametrically opposite sets of values, what's considered good by one is considered bad by the other:

What everyone considers night is wakefulness for the renunciate, and that in which all are wakefull is seen as night by the wise sage (BG 2.69).

The quote in Bhaya Bherava Sutta is a sarcastic joke on Buddha's part:

There are some brahmanas-shramanas, oh brahman, who see the day in night, and night in day. This, I tell you, is their delusion. As for me, I see the day in day, and night in night.

What Buddha says here is that his teaching, the True Dharma, actually reconciles the two value systems and demonstrates how ethical and skillful action, sensual restraint, concentration, emotional intelligence, and wisdom - are the path to positive outcome for both the worldly as well as spiritually motivated people.
The quote in Capala Sutta A 7.58 is simply a casual reference to the serious meditator's preference to spend the nights in restful vigil, while spending days in meditation (SN 51.20):

"And how does a monk dwell by night as by day, and by day as by night? There is the case where a monk at night develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion by means of the same modes & signs & themes that he uses by day, and by day he develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion by means of the same modes & signs & themes that he uses by night. This is how a monk dwells by night as by day, and by day as by night.

Bhaya Bherava Sutta

some recluses and brahmins who perceive night to be day, and day to be
  night

Perceiving the unskillful and skillful and skillful as unskillful.

But I, brahmin, perceive night as night, and day as day

Skilful as skillful and unskillful as unskillful
The context of the Sutta is what you should have fear and terror which is unskilful means. Buddha says he has the opposite quality hence there is no fear and terror.

Pacalā Sutta /  Capala Sutta
What is discussed here is developing the Perception of a Light like in the āloka kasiṇa to drive away drowsiness.
The principle here is if you are in a well lit place or imagine your are drowsiness goes away.

Comy to Iddhi,pāda Vibhaṅga S (S 51.20,10/5:278), SD 28.14 on the perception of light (āloka,saññā), gives
  the following instructions: “A monk [meditator] sits in an open space [aṅgaṇa] attending to the perception of light, now
  shutting his eyes, now opening his eyes. When, having opened his eyes, he closes them and, it appears just as if he
  sees (olokentassa viya), then the perception of light has arisen. It is also called "the perception of day" (divā,saññā),
  and with its arising in the night, it is said to be well mastered.” (SA 3:260).

Footnote 44, translation of Pacalā Sutta /  Capala Sutta by Piya Tan


text:
When the Buddha changes his mind to teach
I remember reading a sutta (possibly in Majjhima or Samyutta) where a passage has the Buddha talking about his teaching attitude towards certain people when talking to them. Then, he says something to the effect of "... but when a person is a fool, the Tathagata changes his mind".
What sutta is this?
I'm positive it's not AN 4.111, where there's an analogy with horse trainning:

“[...] But if a tamable person doesn’t submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn’t regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing.

It is the Asibandhakaputta Sutta- SN 4.8.6
It was Asibandhakaputta , the disciple of Nighanta-Natha-Putta, who raised the question for which Buddha gave the
parable of the three fields, the good , the middling, and the poor.   In this parable Buddhist laity rank as the moderate field, between the Bhikkus (excellent) and the men of other creeds (poor).
Within this Sutta look for the Khettûpama Sutta - SN 4.8.7. where Buddha took this parable of the three fields: the greatly fertile field, the fertile field, and, the unfertile field.   This Sutta explains as to why the Buddha does not teach all people with the same level of effort. The greatly fertile field is prioritized over the fertile field and the fertile field is prioritized over the unfertile field.  The greatly fertile field as monks and nuns; the fertile field as laymen and laywomen; and, the unfertile field being adherents of other doctrine and methods. It also includes the parable of the three pots; the parable of righting the upside down thing; the parable of the uncovering; the parable of the right road; the parable of the lighted lamp.

“Venerable Sir, doesn’t the Blessed One dwell compassionate towards all living beings?”
“Yes, headman, the Tathagata dwells compassionate towads all living beings.”
“Then why is it, venerable Sir, that the Blessed One teaches the Dhamma thoroughly to some, yet not so thoroughly to others?
“Well then headman, I will question you about this. Answer as you see fit. What do you think headman? Suppose a farmer here had three fields: one excellent, one of middling quality, and one inferior – rough, salty, with bad ground. What do you think, headman? If that farmer wishes to sow seed, where would he sow it first… in the excellent field, in the field of middling quality, or in the field that was inferior – rough, salty, with bad ground?

You could read further on this in the Connected Discourses of the Buddha pages 1338, 1339, 1340.

I like the three pots parable: upturned, with holes, with poison in it.


text:
How Māhāvihāra Theravāda Buddhists learning method for over 2600 years?
How Māhāvihāra Theravāda Buddhists learn kammaṭhāna and dhamma for over 2600 years?


text:
Did Lord Buddha teach, or do Buddhist sects teach, about Ghosts?
The existence of Ghosts is taught in many religions. And Buddhist sites (mainly Tibetan Buddhists) claim the existence of "Hungry Ghosts".
However I didn't see sites saying that the Buddha claimed that ghosts exist.
Did Lord Buddha teach about Ghosts, or is it only Buddhist sects which teach that?
Also do ghosts exist here on this earth, do they affect or possess people, are they visible? Or are they only in some other real of existence?

There are many such stories in Petavatthu, which appear in canonical texts. Buddhist Cosmology mentions 31 Planes of Existence. The realm of Hungry Ghosts is one of these realms. Average people cannot see any of these realms other than the parts of the human realm and animal kingdom. This does not mean, what we see do not exit.
Also see:

From preta to hungry ghost by Piya Tan
Who are the hungry ghosts? by Piya Tan

Thanks for answering Friend but you are saying other dimensions of Life where they are BORN AS GHOST but you will be aware many places you can see people affected by Ghosts in THEIR BODY so i am asking about that GHOST IN EARTH ?

Average person cannot see ghosts so we do not know if it the effects of ghosts, flickering mind or coincidence.

Yes, the Buddha did. Here is one place: Tirokudda Sutta
Another such incident (told in the Petavatthu) is when Arhat Sariputta encountered his mother five births before who was now in one of the ghost worlds.

Spiritual Science Research Foundation that is there to bridge the known and unknown worlds says that around 30% of the world’s population is possessed by ghosts. You will find their web page a very interesting read. It will tell you as to how do people get possessed by ghosts.
Ghosts are real, as real as there exists life after this life. When people talk about ghosts this subject is avoided because of the uncertainty related to this topic. Questions are many, with only a few answers. Are these people good or bad, why they are here, what they want... are few such that are in the mind of us all.
How can someone be born in the realm of the hungry ghosts can be explained through “paticca samuppada”. Paticca = pati + icca, can be interpreted as getting attached to something through a liking for it or something related to it”.  Then Samuppada, =  “sama” (same or similar) + “uppäda” (generation), i.e.,  an existence (bhava) of similar quality or kind.
Thus “when one gets attached, it sets up likelihood of a new birth of similar characteristics”. For example, when someone acts with greed out of habit, and act that way during the lifetime, then it could lead to a future birth as a hungry ghost.
Thus when one cultivates such greedy (abhi)sankhara, it leads to a corresponding “bhava” in the realm of hungry ghosts. Jane Roberts once wrote a series of books based on “Seth”, a being who could “possess” her body with her permission, and spoke to her husband about various things about the world; see, for example, “Seth Speaks” by Jane Roberts (1994). Seth commented on various issues and made many predictions too.
In Sri Lanka we often come to see or hear bizzaire instances of hungry ghosts possessing some one's body. Possession is when a spirit or entity breeches your active free will in some way to get inside and take control of your body. When a desire is there whether it’s good or bad, desire is desire. At the time of death if unfulfilled desires are there, the vinnana of the said dead persons travel on pretha loka only, possess those of the living in order to fulfill these unmet desires.

Lord Buddha didn't say that there is Soul. In case of Ghosts in earth the one which gets killed in accident or etc,... the soul stays here and as you explained tends to possess a living body. If NO SOUL is true then how Ghosts are Possible. A trainer for me a year ago told me that he does not believes in god and his family worshipps many religion Father = Hindu, Mother and Sister = Christian and he said his relative girls body was possesed by ghost and he told me if we experience it in real we will know it. So Soul or Atma or Life is true or Philosopy

The two links that I’ve given may talk about a ‘soul’ as they may not be of a Buddhist background, but nowhere did I mentioned of a soul. When even philosophers through the ages have struggled to figure out how consciousness arises in a humans and other beings being, it is natural that you did not get the meaning of what I wrote.  Be it as ghosts or humans, there is no traceable beginning to life- life always existed, and it will exist forever on earth.

SSRF doesn't appear to be Buddhist. The OP's question (and this site in general) is specifically about Buddhism.

Do give me a couple of days for me to look into it. I'll try to give some examples from the Vinaya, Sutta & Abhidhamma Pitaka (the Scriptures).

@ChrisW, I posted it as a second answer to the OP.

Welcome back S V.

What Buddha had to say about Ghosts (Preta)

“Bhikkhus, those who depart from the human realm, those will be reborn as humans or devas can be compared to the few grains of sand that I pickup on my fingernail. Those who are reborn in the lower four realms are exceedingly many, compared to the sand on this great Earth”. – Nakhasikha Sutta- The Tip of the Fingernail – SN20-2

The Samyutta Nikaya (Saṃyutta Nikāya SN, "Connected Discourses" or "Kindred Sayings") is a Buddhist scripture, the third of the five nikayas, or collections, in the Sutta Pitaka, which is one of the "three baskets" that compose the Pali Tipitaka of Theravada Buddhism.  Descriptions of Pretas and pretis (female ghosts) in this Samyutta Nikaya and Petavatthu show that they come in various shapes and sizes depending on their past unwholesome kamma.
Petavatthu is part of the Khuddaka Nikaya: The "Division of Short Books" (Pali khudda = "smaller," "lesser"), consisting of fifteen books (eighteen in the Burmese edition): Petavatthu — Stories of the Hungry Ghosts.
In Petavatthu it is said that Pretas are ghostly beings devoid of happiness. They live a life of misery, being subjected to incessant pain and suffering, lack of food and clothing. The vivid descriptions found in Petavatthu highlight the extreme suffering experienced by Pretas as a result of their unwholesome kamma.
The Milinda Pañha ("Questions of Milinda") is a Buddhist text which dates from approximately 100 BCE. Milinda Pañha records a dialogue between the Buddhist sage Nāgasena, and the Indo-Greek king Milinda. According to Milinda-Pañhā, there are 4 classes of Pretas:

Vantasikas who feed on what have been vomited by others.

Khuppipasinos who suffer from being continually tormented by extreme hunger and thirst for very long periods of time.

Nijjhamatanhikas who are consumed by thirst, being tormented by a continual burning feeling within their bodies.

Paradattupa-jivi who depend on what others offer for them:   They remember their living relatives and see what they do. Only this class of Pretas can receive and share in the merits when offerings are made on their behalf.

Though we believe that if we live a “good, moral life”, a rebirth in the human or even higher deva worlds is guaranteed, this is a misconception.  It is because we do not know what kinds of bad kamma we have accumulated in past lives. This is why Buddha has mentioned over and over in many Suttas that it is very hard to even get a human existence (bhava) let alone a deva or a brahma rebirth.
In the “Saccasamyutta” under “Passing Away from the Animal Realm” It is said that:

... “So too, bhikkhus, those beings are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm, are reborn among human beings. But those beings are more numerous who, when they pass away from the animal realm, are reborn in hell ... in the animal realm ... in the domain of ghosts...."
under “Passing Away from the Domain of Ghosts” it is said that: ... “So too, bhikkhus, those beings are few who, when they pass away from the domain of ghosts, are reborn among human beings. But those beings are more numerous who, when they pass away from the domain of ghosts, are reborn in hell ... in the animal realm ... in the domain of ghosts...."

In the Book of Causation ( Nidanavagga ) it is said that:

… produced among the ghosts, etc., having as its object the residue of that kamma or the sign of the kamma. Therefore, because that rebirth comes about through correspondence of kamma or correspondence of, it is called "a residual result of that same kamma." It is said that at the time he passed away from hell, a heap of flesh-
less cows' bones became the sign (i.e., the object of the last conscious process, which then becomes the object of the rebirth-consciousness). Thus he became a ghost (in the form of) a skeleton, as if making manifest to the wise the hidden kamma.

There is this story in the scriptures, about an old woman who was very careful about not breaking the five precepts. But she was extremely greedy; she was quite stingy, did not give much to charity, and kept all her money under her pillow. Because of that greed, she was born a peta (a hungry ghost).
Yet in the Great Book (Mahavagga) - Friends and Colleagues -  Buddha says:
"Bhikkhus, there may be alteration in the four great elements — in the earth element, the water element, the heat element, the air element — but there cannot be alteration in the noble disciple who possesses confirmed confidence in the Buddha. Therein this is alteration: that the noble disciple who possesses confirmed confidence in the Buddha might be reborn in hell, in the animal realm, or in the domain of ghosts. This is impossible.
Paticca samuppada (PS) or “cause and effect” can describe various stages of life. The Buddha said that the PS is deep as a deep ocean and it can be applied to any situation, because everything “in this world” obeys the basic principle of cause and effect.
As per to PS, whenever we willingly grasp something, whatever results from that action has a corresponding nature. Because one got attached willingly, a similar bhava will result: i.e., pati+ichcha leading to sama+uppada.  From this, a “greedy state of mind” will result when we get attach with greed.
An excessively greedy person is like to get a “peta bhava” and be born as a peta (hungry ghost); a person who is often engaged in hateful actions towards other beings is likely develop a “hateful bhava” and is likely to be born in the niraya (hell) where there is lot of hate due to extreme suffering; an animal bhava is developed with both greed and hate.
A built-up vinnana can form a habit; as the habit gets stronger, it can be carried over to the next life, possibly in two ways: a really strong habit could lead to a “patisandhi vinnana” at the dying moment and can lead to a corresponding “bhava”, and thus one could be born in the corresponding “jati”. For example, an extremely greedy person, may acquire a “peta bhava” at the dying moment and be born as a “peta” or a hungry ghost.

Yes, he did. The example, it is one big problem of bhikkhu, who live in forests, so buddha taught to manage ghost in vinaya, many time.
But the most of western people hate ghost theory, so the tipitaka translators often avoid to translate sutta about ghost into english.
Everything such as ghost, human, deva, etc., are just causes and effects (paticcasamuppada), so ghost also is causes and effects. Ghost is not a special stuff in theravada buddhism.

Hungry ghosts are addicts afflicted with craving. The world is full of visible hungry ghosts.

thanks for answering friend but if there is soul ghost can exist and as there is No soul how can ghost exist and is visible ghosts only exist and unvisible ones are true or TV programs created them please make it more clear ?

@Sakthi I think Buddhism was teaching about ghosts, before TV programs were even invented. And I think that the characteristic of a "hungry ghost" isn't "soul or no soul": it's to do with "craving" or "hunger", perhaps the opposite of "satisfaction".

Do only addicts fall under that category? So if one indulges here and there in activites it isn't considered 'hungry ghost realm'?

Remember a lot of spiritual teachings are metaphorical, i.e. they are to help people in their lives by creating an easy way to understand a concept, like a children’s story, if we always look at things as literal, or strive for something like perhaps ghosts to be real, then perhaps we are completely missing the point, maybe they are real or maybe not


text:
No insight happening
I'm not sure why but insight practice isnt feeling very insightful to me. I've been practicing for over half a decade every day and I'm not having any profound insight into reality as I have read about many times. Goenkas method they talk a lot about dissolution of the mind and body and seeing the ultimate reality of the subatomic particles etc and Sayadaws method they talk a lot about anicca and the rising and falling always being different etc. maybe I'm missing something but after all this time I still have not really had any profound insight into anything.  When I was on retreat I had some pretty freaky and blissful experiences but I had no clue what occurred. All I knew was that it felt good and I wanted more of it. When I spoke to the teachers they also seemed clueless about what occurred. For all I know it could have just been a combination of sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation causing me to go slightly insane. Sometimes I just get really bored of being told to keep watching the rising and falling. So the breath is impermanent, big deal.  How long am I meant to keep doing this before I have so called "insight". It seems a bit like Christianity the way they tell people you aren't getting results because you just need to pray more. I also feel like I cannot be really honest about how I feel without others kind of wagging their finger at me in a condescending way and saying its my fault for not doing this or that properly.  I feel like I need to have insight into the so called true nature of reality pretty soon or I'm not going to continue. I can't just keep on doing this based in blind faith that what I'm being told is true..

If you really want clear results within six months at the most, then you will have to break away from the accepted norms and rules. Would you like to take in good faith what I will tell you and follow through with it even if the whole world tells you otherwise? I will give you a very different meaning to the very words that you have used in meditation. The meanings that you and others have given have not worked for you thus far. So why not start seeing things in a whole new way?

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=28999

What whole new way?

To me the insight is just that impermanence. Beyond that, any thing considered needs to be considered as it is - dependent on conditions and frames of references, usually slower and for longer. II think in our time impermanence is just more visible, so not as much of a profound thing when discerned. It's a matter of maintaining that understanding throughout imo.

I think Satipattana Sutta can help you. I would try the first part, mindfulness of body, following the instructions in the Sutta without any expectation of strange things to happen. Just be with the instructions.

Sure, no harm in taking a break from it. Consider a practice that interests you. I think that more people could gain from trying self-inquiry. I didn't really start to get a lot of 'insight' until my entire life became overwhelming, unworkable, dangerous, and finally unravelled completely and I had to start over around age 50. Then, lots of things got very obvious. "Out of intense complexities, intense simplicities emerge." - Churchill

IMHO, you should stop this nonsense. Sitting and waiting for insight is not going to work.
Insight meditation is not meant to be waiting. Instead, it is meant to be examination of the elements of your immediate experience:
Look at your thoughts. Where do they come, how do they switch. Who is watching? How do you get distracted and how do you recover focus? Examine these for a long time, until you really see it.
Look at your emotions. Where are they located? What triggers them? How do they subside?
Now, think about this insight you are looking for. Assume at some point you'll get it. Now what? Why do you need it? What's wrong now? What do you want?
Now, think about dukkha, suffering. They say, "suffering comes from craving". What does this really mean? Try remember something that you really really want (or really really don't want). What happens? Now, force yourself to think about something else. What happens now?
Now, think about causes and results. Take objects and events and trace all causal forces that bring them together and then take them apart. Think how this works on the global scale.
Now, think about yourself in terms of causal chains. How many different things come together to make up you and your immediate experience? Were you made once or are you being made daily? What causal elements contribute to that?
This is insight meditation, in my opinion. Sitting and watching how your experience comes together - for hours and hours, until you clearly see how it works. Not sitting and waiting like a log.

I'm not sitting and "waiting like a log" at all. I'm trying my best to follow the instruction given. I'm doing exactly what I have been told to do from the courses, retreats and  sanghas I have attended and from the things I have read and listened to.

But you can't just follow instructions all the way to enlightenment, that would be too simple, there's gotta be an element of independent rediscovery.

Wellcome to the club.
This a common problem for many of us.
I suggest you start reading Sutta directly.
Also, remember it is gradual training.
You have some insight already, otherwise, you won't be here posting this question.

Insight meditation cannot occur as a stand alone practice, it needs Morality and Wisdom too, the entire Noble Eightfold Path must be practiced together.
All Path factors strengthen and support each other.
There are a different reasons as to why insight might not arise.
Some of them are:

The Five Hindrances (and how to work with them)
Lack off or weak Concentration
Not practicing the technique correctly
Not enough Morality
Non-balanced (the Five) Faculties
Non-restraint of the Sense-doors
Wrong Mindfulness
Non-appliance of Right Effort, thereby giving rise to the 5 hindrances
Falling into the Ten Corruptions of Insight
Not having a Teacher to guide one of the Path (optional but might help if one is unsure of the path)

It might be due to one of those reasons or several of them in conglomeration.
A good Teacher can often guide and support one on the Path, e.g. to help one identify the impediment(s) to progress.

How is a normal lay person meant to fulfill the impossible list of requirements? Sure if you live in a cave you might have some hope but otherwise good luck

It might look intimidating but its doable. Its a gradual training.. One factor boosts another one. That is the beauty of the Noble Eightfold Path. Its a complete teaching in and of itself.

I've read and listened to talks about the eightfold path and it still seems very confusing to me.

The 'insight' you seem to be searching for doesn't exist. Reality is just what you see in front of you. Accepting it is difficult, so it's easier for many people to cling to dreams - for some worldly dreams, for others spiritual dreams of special states.

Generally if you are not progressing, you are not practicing insight as you are supposed to. If you listen to and follow the instruction properly then you will make progress. If not you are not practicing the wrong technique because you have misunderstood it, or perhaps mixing other techniques, or intentionally or unintentionally missing out parts of the instruction.
1st you have to understand how insight is developed with all subtleties. Insight should cover all the following bases:

internal (ajjhatta) = physical sense-organs, or in oneself;
external (bahiddhā) = physical sense-objects, or another person;
gross (olārika) = that which impinges (the physical internal and external senses, with touch = earth, wind, fire);
subtle (sukhuma) = that which does not impinge (mind, mind-objects, mind-consciousness, and water);
inferior (hīna) = undesirable physical sense-objects (form, sound, smell, taste, and touch), or the sense-world or sense world experiences;
superior (panīta) = desirable physical sense-objects (form etc), or the form and the formless worlds or experience of Jhana;
far (dure) = subtle objects (“difficult to penetrate”), or distant objects, other universes;
near (santike) = gross objects (“easy to penetrate”), or things close by, or anywhere in this universe.

As regards the terms “internal” (ajjhatta) and “external” (bahiddhā), it should be noted that they have two applications:

the aggregates (khandhā) composing a particular “person” are “internal” to them, and anything else is “external”;
the sense-organs (ayatana) are “internal,” but their objects—which may include aspects of the person’s own body or mind, which are “internal” in the first sense—are “external.”

In the commentarial tradition (including the Abhidhamma), “gross” (olārika) refers to the nature of the five physical senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body), while “subtle” (sukhuma) refers to the nature of the mind. The physical senses are said to be “impinged on” while mind does not function that way.
Adopted from this answer and its references.
If you listen to the instructions care fully it mentions:

piercingly and penetratingly which is see through gross (dure, olārika) experiences
external and internal experience at the surface of the body and within
dividing and directing which is to see through gross experiences
be equanimous what ever experience (hīna, panīta)
in breath meditation narrow down the concentrate on the centre of the upper lip. This is to more from gross to subtle. It might be easy to feel the breath around the districts or tip of the nose as the touch of the breath is more gross and on the centre of the upper lip it is very subtle.

These cover the totality of how you should practice insight.
Also you should see if you are most of the time just sitting that meditating. Many people daydream while doing meditation. For this reason when say scanning the body bring you attention to it. Re affirm your attention is on it and has not wandered away. When you move to a new area ensure you mind is focused in feeling this areas. Re affirms that it is and not distracted. If your concentration is not strong Insight does not arise.
Also see you are leading a moral life. If not there will to too much distraction and your mind may get scattered. Because you do not get concentration you do not get insight.
Also keep in mind you should not evaluate any experience as favorable or unfavorable. From what I gather in your mind you are searching for a fabulous experience which you want to call "insight". This is not insight meditation. Also teachers do not give importance to these experiences because it is not related to progress. If you feel sweaty then this also is insight because you do not pay attention to it. The humidity may be unpleasant and you mindd reacts to it. This also is insight. If you want to go to the toilet and you feel unpleasantness until it and the relief afterwards. That also is insight. Insight is knowing what is happening and how your can keep your mind from not reacting negatively to these esperces. Insight is not a pleasant experience or some experience you seek to get. Insight is knowing what spontaneously happens around you and adjusting your mind not to create negativity.
Also do not mix techniques. If you look at one of the reasons for the decline of Dhamma it is people practice techniques not fully based on the teaching of the Buddha. More on this see this answer. This is when you do you do not get results and people lose faith. If you mix other technique this might not give intended results. So practice the pure dhamma as proclaimed by the Buddha! Then results would sure to follow.

i don't do body scans. I practice Mahasi Sayadaw technique.

This seems to happen a lot. See: Doubting the quick attainments of the Mahasi Tradition and the relevant links.

I cannot feel breath on the upper lip nose area.mi have tried many times. How am I supposed to focus on the sensations there if I can't feel it?  If I say I cannot feel anything there then I need a solution not told to just keep trying endlessly. The post you have linked to may aswell be in a foreign language it's that convoluted.

A beginner will not feel this. To start with a large triangle from the top of your nose and the base of the upper lip. Once you start feeling something continuously you narrow down the region to tip of your nose and the base of the upper lip. Once you start to be able to feel sensation in this area narrow it down base of the upper lip. Once you are sensitive enough to feel feeling in this region then narrow it down to the centre of the upper lip. By doing this you are training yourself to feel gross sensation and slowly progress to more subtler sensations.

As I said I don't feel anything

Best is you do a course at International Meditation Centres or dhamma.org which is the correct technique. Pay attention to the instructions carefully and do what is told exactly. Also try to compare the instructions with the Suttas. There many who teach different techniques as Buddhist techniques which does not have any relationship to what and how the Buddha taught. So always go to the source and see if this is the right teaching and practice accordingly.

Choosing the right techniques and also practicing it the right way will make all the difference. it is like if you take the wrong medicine for a disease you cannot get the results. You should apply the right therapy for the disease to get results.

If I'm not meant to visualise the area and I can't feel anything then what am I meant to focus on?

flow of the air and 2) the touch of the passing air 3) if the breath is long or short 4) If you are breathing fast or slow 5) the stage of the breath's cycle (start, middle, end)

Please let me offer a few suggestions from the lay person's perspective.
First, a little theoretical/scientific background. Academic and other institutions in the west have began to utilize meditation for students and professionals alike. They do this because they have found numerous physical and mental advantages that may be achieved by taking advantage of the "still mind effect" of meditation.
Our brains are nothing more than sensory interpreters, albeit complex ones. They take sensory input from our frail, limited form and compare it to past sensory inputs to recognize patterns. It's like a computer that is on all the time but it will change modes if the input given to it is slowed down (sleep) or completely comes to a halt (sensory deprivation). In both of those cases the mind will eventually fill the lack of input in with dreams in the case of sleep or random manifestations in the mind in the case of sensory deprivation.
But before the mind gets to those extremes it encounters a resting state where it can focus intently if the stimuli is controlled with a secure, familiar, non-threatening or even non-changing input. Something that requires no thought and is no threat. Like a mantra hummed in a constant tone at a medium pitch or a singing bowl even. kind of like background noise helping someone study. Same principle.
While the back of the mind is occupied with the low-resource using background "noise" its' other resources are free to wander or focus or be easily guided. A state of high susceptibility and deep reflective thought if so guided. This is what powers meditative practice and it is scientifically and empirically supported.
So the first step is reaching that state. It requires relaxation and effort to focus on a simple familiar stimulus. It doesn't require perfect focus. Every little step you take achieves a benefit to your mind. Each step taken opens you a little more.
Now you still need prior sensory input for your mind to compare and contrast (as is its' nature) as your mind wanders or is gently guided. This is where your past experiences or the dharma become important. Your mind will be able to explore sides of thoughts that you dont normally get access to. This is where the insights come from. Once the chaff is blown away we receive the benefits.
So trust the physical side of it if you think the other is failing you. This certainly helped me get past my hesitations and reservations like you seem to be encountering. I hope this could help.

Very beautifully stated. I don't know if this is "Buddhist", but on first glance it appears to be helpful.

I am a skeptic at heart so it became easier for me when I found some plausible physical description that jibed with modern neurology. Is it 100% accurate? We don't know yet, but the empirical data suggested and the benefits accrued are all cited and categorized scientifically. A body of work is developing quickly that supports hindu and buddhist ideology alike ... much like the support confuscianism found in modern educational theory.

The moment we talk about awareness, we must know we need to transit from being enjoyer (Object) to being knower (Subject). Insight won't help unless we are knower. Meditating being enjoyer won't work. From my own experiences, I will suggest these.

While eating, just know who is eating & witness the act of eating rather than enjoying. E.g, you are not the one who is eating, teeth & mouth are eating & senses are tasting. So become knower only rather than enjoyer. You're indeed something different from the eater.
Do the same for every act like breathing, walking, bathing etc.

Note that the journey is always like this.
Enjoyer (Object) { Worldly people } -> Knower (Subject) { Meditators } -> Neither Enjoyer nor Knower ( neither subject nor object) { Enlightened being}.

I've tried all this many times and none of it changes anything. I do not see that I am "not the one who is eating" etc. all I see is me sitting here eating and feeling bored about trying to see that it's not me. It's not profound in any way.

I like the question.
Right view is the first step in Theravada Buddhism, so it makes sense that you're not getting anywhere, supposing you lack it. If you don't have "right view" you have a few obvious alternatives to choose, not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Read the literature, talk with Buddhists, try to work out for yourself what is reasonable to believe.
Give up your insight practice.
Find a tradition which doesn't ask you to hold a view you don't have.

etc. I gather that the merit from reaching dhyana means that "you" will be reborn in a heaven (for a while) anyway, so even if you give up you may have gotten something out of your 1st retreat, at the very least.

Obviously you are doing it wrong. To gain proper insight, you have to practice all 4 Satipattanas: bodily actions, feelings, metal activity and phenomena.
If you feel bored, note it as bored... bored... bored...
If you are expecting progress, note it as expecting... expecting... expecting...
If you are annoyed, note it as annoyed... annoyed... annoyed...
If you feel blissful, note it as blissful... blissful... blissful...
Here's a simple guide book to get you started on the correct technique.

Even "doing it right" it could take time. Everyone's tendencies differ.

Before looking for your next teacher read Käläma sutta, the original translation, from the beginning to the end. In it Buddha takes a practical approach of explaining how one can pick a proper religion / approach to follow. Especially note how Buddha shows, before certainty, the five ways one uses to chose a practice / religion (Faith, Liking, Schools of Though, Contemplating, Views)

Can you please link me to it as I can't seem to find it.

I don't know what was meant by "the original translation" but there is a translation here: Kalama Sutta translated from the Pali by
Soma Thera

Thanks for the link Chris. Original translations are those that were translated out of the original pali (written in sinhalese) sutra. This is how the modern world got Theravada Buddhism.