What does it mean when something has "no self-nature"?

The Pali phrase in the Suñña Sutta is,

suññam idaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā

... which Wikipedia translates as,

this world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self

The word attena is a declension of Attan, which is Ātman in Sanskrit/Hinduism:

Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.

... which is cognate to (or opposed to, to be contrasted with) the Buddhist Pali term Anatta:

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings. It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism, and along with Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three Right Understandings about the three marks of existence.
The concept of Anatta or Anatman in Buddhism, is a major difference from the Hindu concept of Atman (self, soul).

Maybe that helps to explain what "self-nature" might mean, or whence it's derived, in "the original sutras".
See also topics which are tagged anatman.

Furthermore, the term bhava appears a lot in "the original sutras" in that it's one of the 12 Nidanas and thus part of the theory of dependent origination.
In Svabhava (or the Pali sabhāva) there's the word Bhava plus the root Sa which means "own", a reflexive pronoun cognate to the Latin sui, suus.
In the Pali, "becoming" is dependently originated. The whole wheel of becoming is about how various things which shouldn't be considered 'self' sustain or feed each other, so I take it that (independent) self-becoming is a paradox, a contradiction, which explains the quote in the OP "all phenomenon have no nature of their own".
If this isn't clear, and/or this appears to contradict other answers, perhaps that's because there are (or there are posited) several categories of self-nature (see e.g. Tri-svabhava-nirdesa).
Wikipedia says,

In the Pāli canon, "sabhāva" is absent from what are generally considered to be the earliest texts.[a] When found in later texts (e.g., the paracanonical Milindapañha), it generically refers to state (of mind), character or truth.
In the post-canonical Abhidhamma literature, sabhāva is used to distinguish an irreducible, dependent, momentary phenomenon (dhamma) from a conventionally constructed object. Thus, a collection of visual and tactile phenomena might be mentally constructed into what is conventionally referred to as a "table"; but, beyond its constituent elements, a construct such as "table" lacks intrinsic existence (sabhāva).

I think that this example (of the non-self of a table) is analogous to the parable of the chariot from the Milinda Panha. Wikipedia dates the Milinda Panha to about 100 CE, which I contrast with the lifetime of the Buddha in about 400 BCE.
As you progress (forward in history) into the foundations of Mahayana you get to Nagarjuna (150 to 250 CE). The SEP says this about Emptiness and svabhāva,

The central concept around which all of Nāgārjuna's philosophy is built is the notion of emptiness (śūnyatā). Emptiness is of course always the emptiness of something, and the something Nāgārjuna has in mind here is svabhāva. Different terms have been used to translate this word into English: “inherent existence” and “intrinsic nature” appear etc.

Fwiw Wikipedia says of Svabhava,

In the Mahāyāna Buddhadharma tradition(s) it is one of a suite of terms employed to denote the Buddha-nature


Where does it say that venerable Moggallana got lost in space?

It is just a fable. It is not come from the ancient theravada pali cannon, both tipitaka and commentary. Because in Thailand we have many translated pali cannons, included those both, but no one found this fable in any cannon.

However, it maybe derived from SN Sagāthavagga, rohitassasutta, and KN Jātaka, javanahaṅsajātaka's commentary, which bodhisatta had helped the past life of moggallana.


The word 'samatha' ('tranquility') is not synonymous with 'samadhi' ('concentration').

Regardless, both 'samatha' ('tranquility') &^ 'vipassana' ('insight') occur in tandem when right samadhi ('concentration') is developed (refer to MN 149).

If fact, the ultimate paramatha reality cannot be observed or realized without samatha (tranquil) concentration (samadhi) meditation.


Yes. Since the question is reasoning from the point of a belief in the realms, I'll answer it as one.

In the realm of animals, it is difficult to earn good karma since it is assumed that animals life brutish lives of killing and savagery.  In Tibetan Buddhism, contemplating how lucky we are to be human where it is possible to practice Buddhism is a fundamental practice. In a typical contemplation, the unfortunate lot of the animals is a common theme.

As a side note from someone who sees the realms as myth and not necessarily the most valuable ones, I would speculate that if we were, say rather smart cats, and the Buddha were a cat, then we still could choose to eat fewer animals, be more humane in their raising and slaughter, or slowly switch from animals to plants. My own cat eats an omnivore diet, a product of how pet food is sold in the US. He eat enough corn gluten that when I'm eating corn, he wants to eat it. Cats are poorly adapted to a vegan diet, but do fine on an omnivore diet.

In biology, omnivores, carnivores and herbivores often evolve into a different category, although they ordinarily only make one jump at a time, from carnivore to omnivore, then to herbivore.


The mind when covered with the five hindrances is like clouding a clear bowl of water (still mind) with different contaminants or situations. – Sangarava sutta (SN 46.55) Also try to refer to Nivaranapahna Vagga. (The 5 mental hindrances: their causes and ending – A 1.2).

The five mental hindrances (nivarana) which obstruct concentration, are: (1) sense-desire, (2) ill-will, (3) sloth and torpor, (4) agitation and remorse, (5) skeptical doubt. For details, see The Five Mental Hindrances and their Conquest, by Nyanaponika Thera (BPS Wheel No. 26).

In the Samyutta Nikaya (Sutta 46.4.8), it is stated that when one listens to the Dhamma attentively, the five hindrances (nivarana) do not exist and the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga) are present. Through factors of concentration these five are suppressed (also when wholesome activities are done these five hindrances can be suppressed).

One 'pointedness' opposite of sense desires
Joy opposite of ill will
Discursive (applied) thoughts opposite of sloth & torpor
Happiness or comfort (pali term 'sukha') opposite of restless & worry
Sustained thought opposite of doubt

A person becomes mindful about:

Existence of a hindrance (sense desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & worry, or doubt)
Non-existence of a hindrance
When a non existing hindrance arises
When a hindrance that has arisen is removed
When the removed hindrance does not arise again

This widespread harmful influence of the five hindrances shows the urgent necessity of breaking down their power by constant effort. One should not believe it sufficient to turn one's attention to the hindrances only at the moment when one sits down for meditation. Such last-minute effort in suppressing the hindrances will rarely be successful unless helped by previous endeavour during one's ordinary life.

One should carefully observe how, and on which occasions, these hindrances usually appear. One should further know the positive forces within one's own mind by which each of these hindrances can best be countered and, finally, conquered; and one should also examine one's life for any opportunity of developing qualities to counter these. In some cases, subjects of meditation have been added which will be helpful in overcoming the respective hindrances.

By the "worldling" (puthujjana)  however, only a temporary suspension and partial weakening of the hindrances can be attained. Their final and complete eradication takes place on the stages of sanctity (ariyamagga):

Doubt is eliminated on the first stage, the path of stream-entry (sotapatti-magga).
Sensual desire, ill will and remorse are eliminated on the third stage, the path of non-returner (anagami-magga)
Sloth and torpor and restlessness are eradicated on the path of Arahatship (arahatta-magga).

Hence the reward of the fight against the hindrances is not only the limited one of making possible a shorter or longer spell of meditation, but every step in weakening these hindrances takes us nearer to the stages of sanctity where deliverance from these hindrances is unshakable.


Awakened Great Zen Master Seung Sahn - is it possible he lost the state of Nibbana?

Perhaps different buddhist traditions lead to different state of nibbana
Even within one tradition there are different stages or degrees of enlightenment -- see for example Four stages of enlightenment.
I think that this answer implies that the "awakening" which you quoted, i.e. ...

According to his book Dropping Ashes on the Buddha, he came to the understanding that “the rocks, the river, everything he could see, everything he could hear, all this was his true self. All things are exactly as they are. The truth is just like this.” In 1949, at the age of twenty-two, he attained enlightenment. This was confirmed by the great Korean Zen Master Ko Bong, who gave Zen Master Seung Sahn “inka” or transmission of the dharma. Ko Bong’s transmission publicly certified and authenticated Zen Master Seung Sahn’s enlightenment experience, giving him the authority to teach and train students.
Following his enlightenment experience, Zen Master Seung Sahn spent three years in silence, strengthening his Zen practice. He then became active in etc.

... is not "complete enlightenment".
I think there are instances of misbehaviour -- a teacher having affairs with students is not unheard of -- some people (or groups) even claim that's a good thing, getting over inhibitions or something, maybe Tantric justification, I don't know. To quote one example (and maybe not the best example):

On this level, if we are capable of seeing something pure in every human being, our sexual lives can be tools to create enormous joy. If it happens on the level of purity, if we have respect for each other, if we experience ourselves and others on a beyond-personal level, then enlightened energies can move and we learn something in the process—it’s totally amazing!

Others (outside the group, or ex-group-members) may condemn it (e.g. as exploitative ... or perhaps as hedonistic). See also "Celibacy in the Vinaya" in this article, Celibacy in Buddhism.
I read once -- see here -- that there may be quite a difference between what different people or different schools perceive as enlightened or nearly-enlightened or perhaps blameless behaviour (but beware that summary may be wrong, based on a misunderstanding, not well-explained, etc.).
Also (to get back to the question) I think that different schools may have slightly different doctrines about what nibbana is and whether it is (once attained) permanent. Instead of speculating, or "going by reports", perhaps it's important to experience for yourself what is "skilful", effective (what are the results of this or that), and ethical.


Elsewhere in the Dhammapada it suggests to cultivate good "drop by drop":

Think not lightly of evil, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the fool, gathering it little by little, fills himself with evil.

Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

Buddhism is called a "gradual training" -- and I think that's because it's taught gradually, step by step -- but I also think it's practised gradually, e.g. you might learn from moments of kindness or moments of suffering.
As for "what is good" one hint might be found in MN 61

Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it:

'This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?'

If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

There are different Pali words being used in different verses, for example puñña
, kusala, and sampadā


how to respect older/elderly people who are conceited and demand respect because of age?

Situations triggering resentment present challenges. To abandon such resentment and act freely requires mindfulness of body, speech and mind. For example, the conceit you describe is heard and resisted as coercive, impure speech. In this particular case, Venerable Sāriputta details the following advice:

  AN5.162:2.5: In the case of a person whose behavior by way of speech is impure, but whose behavior by way of body is pure, … you should get rid of resentment for that kind of person.

This alone is astounding in its uncompromising assertion that it is our own resentment that is a hindrance needing to be abandoned. Venerable Sāriputta continues and provides a more detailed example:

  AN5.162:4.2: Suppose there was a lotus pond covered with moss and aquatic plants. Then along comes a person struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched. They’d plunge into the lotus pond, sweep apart the moss and aquatic plants, drink from their cupped hands, and be on their way. In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of speech and focus on their pure behavior by way of body.

In this way one may gently ignore the strident teachings of such people while praising their silent kindness, caring and generosity to others. If you're curious, AN5.162 has more detail for study.


May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy foods and avoid unhealthy ones?

Few can do and most can not.

Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise for the sake of retaining their health?

When you say for the sake health. Is this closer to rehabilitation after suffering a stroke or jogging for general exercise? I think this question isn't supposed to be answered categorically.

Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.?

I think most monks have access to these things.


The more insight one gains by meditation and studying the suttas, does one also gain a higher proficiency in teaching the dhamma?

You could be misunderstanding or misinterpreting your meditative experiences. So meditation on its own does not make you fit to teach. (Many wrong views in Brahmajala Sutta arise due to meditative experiences.) You should have theoretical knowledge also and validating the experience with the teaching. Also you should have good communication skills.

  To put up an extreme example, if someone attains nirvana/full enlightenment, is he as proficient/competent in teaching the dhamma as the Buddha himself was?

Dūta Sutta discusses qualities of a good messenger or teacher of some which I glossed over above. Nobody will have skills in teaching compared to the Buddha but if you were to aspire to become skilled what you should cultivate are the analytical skills related to teaching:

connotative meaning
denotative meaning
verbal expression
analytic insight

Mahā Vedalla Sutta, (Saṁyojana) Kotthita Sutta

Also see: THE TEACHING METHODS OF BUDDHA by Piya Tan

  I read that there can be Buddhas, which attain enlightenment by themselves, but neither have the fellowship nor the necessary skill to teach the dhamma, is this true?

Yes I believe to to be true. They are Paccekabuddhas.


How would/should a perfect monk appear, act and possible serve you?

There is no perfection can be found in the realm of forms. Only Nibbana is perfect. Even an Arahant who attained Nibbana permanently and have great wisdom, higher goodness and intelligence still has to live in the limitations of a human form until s/he dies.

So a monk mustn't try to be perfect, or try to be better than he is. I think that a monk's first duty must be adapting more and more to meditation. Meditation doesn't necessarily mean formal meditation, but a monk must try to adap himself more to mindfulness. That's the only way for any human being-not only for a monk-to better himself/herself. If a monk realizes Nibbana he mustn't hide his situation from his community and must immediately share his situation with the abbot and other qualified monks in the monastery. That is absolutely necessary. (The people who realized Nibbana before they ordain must do the same thing too)

Other than that everything will take care of itself. The monks who makes mindfulness the priority in their lifes will eventually become better human beings, act better, serve better. Trying to reach to the "perfection" can be harmful. Monks are human beings and they mustn't be too hard on themselves.


When and how should someone practice Patikulamanasikara meditation (reflections of replusiveness)

Ven. Bhikku Bodhi writes about this type of meditation in his book "The Noble Eightfold Path", p. 77-78:

  The next two sections on mindfulness of the body present analytical contemplations intended to expose the body’s real nature. One of these is the meditation on the body’s unattrac- tiveness, already touched on in connection with right effort; the other, the analysis of the body into the four primary elements.

  The first, the meditation on unattractiveness, is designed to counter infatuation with the body, especially in its form of sex- ual desire. The Buddha teaches that the sexual drive is a mani- festation of craving, thus a cause of dukkha that has to be reduced and extricated as a precondition for bringing dukkha to an end. The meditation aims at weakening sexual desire by depriving the sexual urge of its cognitive underpinning, the perception of the body as sensually alluring. Sensual desire rises and falls together with this perception. It springs up because we view the body as attractive; it declines when this perception of beauty is removed.

  The perception of bodily attractiveness in turn lasts only so long as the body is looked at superficially, grasped in terms of selected impressions. To counter that perception we have to refuse to stop with these impressions but proceed to inspect the body at a deeper level, with a probing scrutiny grounded in dispassion. Precisely this is what is undertaken in the meditation on unattractiveness, which turns back the tide of sensuality by pull- ing away its perceptual prop.

  The meditation takes one’s own body as object, since for a neophyte to start off with the body of another, especially a member of the opposite sex, might fail to accomplish the desired result. Using visualization as an aid, one mentally dissects the body into its components and investi- gates them one by one, bringing their repulsive nature to light. The texts mention thirty-two parts: head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, stomach contents, excrement, brain, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, snot, spittle, sinovial fluid, and urine.

  The repulsiveness of the parts implies the same for the whole: the body seen closeup is truly unattractive, its beautiful appear- ance a mirage. But the aim of this meditation must not be mis- apprehended. The aim is not to produce aversion and disgust but detachment, to extinguish the fire of lust by removing its fuel.

There is also a reference to The Visuddhimagga, chapter 8: "Mindfulness occupied with body", verses 42-144, p. 236-258. Here it gives in-depth instructions on how to perform the technique and it takes all body parts and describes each in detail.

Lastly, Pa Auk Sayadaw gives a description of this type of meditation in his book "Knowing and Seeing", p. 44-46:

  The Thirty-Two Parts of the Body

  If you want to develop meditation on the thirty-two parts of the body, you should first re-establish the fourth ànàpàna-jhàna. When the light of concentration is bright, brilliant, and radiant, you should use it to try to discern the thirty-two parts of the body, one at a time.

  The thirty-two parts of the body are twenty parts with predominantly the earth-element, and twelve parts with predominantly the water-element. The twenty earth-element parts should be discerned in four sets of five:

  1-5. Head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin. 6-10. Flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys.

  11-15. Heart, liver, membrane, spleen, lungs.

  16-20. Intestines, mesentery, undigested food, faeces, brain.

  The twelve water-element parts should be discerned in two sets of six:

  1-6. Bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat.

  7-12. Tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.

  Discern the parts in the given order, but one at a time. Try to see each of the parts, as distinctly as you would
  see your face in a clean mirror.

  If, while doing this, the light of concentration
  should fade, and the part of the body being discerned become unclear, you should re-establish the fourth ànàpàna-jhàna. When the light is again bright and strong, you should return to discerning the parts of the body. Do this whenever the light of concentration fades.
  Practise so that you are, from head hairs down to urine, or from urine back to head hairs, able to see each one clearly and with penetrating knowledge; keep practising until you become skilful.

  Then, again using the light of concentration and with your eyes still closed, you should try to discern another being close by. It is especially good to discern someone in front of you. Discern the thirty-two parts of the body in that person, or being, from head hairs down to urine, and from urine back to head hairs. Discern the thirty-two parts forwards and backwards many times.

  When you have succeeded, discern the thirty-two parts once internally, that is in your own body, and once ex- ternally, that is in the other person’s body; do this many times, again and again.

  When you are able to discern internally and externally like this, the power of meditation will in- crease. You should thus gradually extend your field of discernment bit by bit, from near to far. Do not worry that you cannot discern beings far away. Using the brilliant light of the fourth jhàna, you can easily see beings far away; not with the naked eye, but with the eye of wisdom (¤àõacakkhu). You should be able to extend your field of discernment in all ten directions: above, below, east, west, north, south, north east, south east, north west, south west. Take whomever you dis- cern, be they human, animal or other beings, in those ten directions, and discern the thirty-two parts, once internally and once externally, one person or other being at a time.

  When you no longer see men, women, or buf- faloes, cows, and other animals, as such, but see only groups of thirty-two parts, whenever and wherever you look, internally or externally, then can you be said to be successful, skilful, and expert in discerning the thirty-two parts of the body.


Did anyone ask the Buddha what their rebirth will be?

Ven. Ananda had the habit of asking Buddha the future destinations of people who passed away. So Buddha gave him the mirror of Dhamma so now you can decide this yourself.

The Mirror of the Dhamma

"But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
"And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself?

"In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.'

"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, [18] inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'

"He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration — the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.'

"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind.

"This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
And also in Nadika, in the Brick House, the Blessed One often gave counsel to the bhikkhus thus: "Such and such is virtue; such and such is concentration; and such and such is wisdom. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by virtuous conduct; great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration; utterly freed from the taints of lust, becoming, and ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom."
When the Blessed One had stayed in Nadika as long as he pleased, he spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "Come, Ananda, let us go to Vesali."

"So be it, O Lord." And the Blessed One took up his abode in Vesali together with a large community of bhikkhus, and stayed in Ambapali's grove.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html


Did the Buddha really say that "life is suffering"?

The first noble truth is actually amazingly relatable for the most part, as in no reasonable person could find fault with it. Since it doesn't appear to have been mentioned, I will post a full literal translation of the first noble truth from the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:

  jātipi dukkhā
  Birth is dukkha

  jarāpi dukkhā
  Old age is dukkha

  byādhipi dukkho
  Sickness is dukkha

  maraṇampi dukkhaṃ
  Death is dukkha

  appiyehi sampayogo dukkho
  Association with the disliked is dukkha

  piyehi vippayogo dukkho
  Separation from the beloved is dukkha

  yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ
  Not obtaining one's wishes is dukkha

  —saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā
   dukkhā.
  In brief, the five clinging aggregates are dukkha

People have a tendency to focus overly much on the final one, which is terribly difficult to translate into english, it can be explained but can't be rendered in a pithy way which does justice to the meaning. Putting aside that which is difficult to translate, the rest of it is very straightforward, and are about the actual physical and emotional sufferings in life we can all relate to.

These points are easily understood at a conceptual level, and make an excellent starting point of investigation. For example with the emotional pain of "being separated from the loved", I noticed I would experience a piercing pain the chest in association with being rejected by someone I loved, and I would note that that person was not in fact stabbing me in the chest and that therefore the painful feeling warranted serious investigation since it did not make sense.

It should be noted that the first noble truth does not make irrational statements such as "Association with the beloved is suffering", we may reason that being separated from the loved is inevitable and so that kind of pleasure is like a honeyed barb, it is pleasant at first but will cut us later. Nevertheless the first noble truth does not deny the reality of that pleasure.


If I start doing Vipassana now, how long will it take me to achieve Nirvana?

There is a lovely zen saying, a dialogue between new student and master:

"Master, if I put in great effort every day to attain awakening, how long will it take?"

The master replies, "20 years."

"What if I work really really hard?"

The master replies, "40 years."

Wanting enlightenment is paradoxical, because enlightenment is the absence of defilement, not the presence of need.

It would be of great benefit to study the six perfections.  You may find this reference useful: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Six_paramitas

Often people assume enlightenment to be the result of something. If you are happy following causes and their results, then practice the six perfections as much as possible.  You must ultimately pair them with wisdom which transcends conceptuality in order to arrive into a state which is beyond.

It will greatly depend on your attitude and your motivation.  Thus, I encourage you to study the Buddha's words and keep a superior motivation.

No one can guarantee for you how long it will take, and when you "get there" so-to-speak, there will not be any conventional sense of time to speak of, so instead of asking "how long will it take" we should all ask "what can we do to accelerate the process?"

A skillful question is one which illuminates the how.

If you come with great faith in the teachings and practice with a single-pointed mind, freedom shall dawn.  Until the gravity of our imperiled situation in samsara is seen for what it is, benefit yourself and others with study and reflection.

One aspect of enlightenment is freedom from doubt.  Clear away all your doubts with the stainfree mirror of the teachings.  The Buddha proclaimed that "in the future" [in this era] to come face-to-face with the teachings is the same as coming face-to-face with the Buddha.

At any rate, even if someone told you that it will take 3 long aeons to come to awakening practicing diligently every day all day, what is that in comparison to an unending cycle of dying and being born?  What is 3 long aeons in comparison to the nonceasing spin of the wheel of life?


Does any real existent or genuine person end with parinibbana?

I think you (the OP) have mistakenly assumed that the Pali Yamaka Sutta supports the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness that nothing is substantially real.

Actually, the Yamaka Sutta quote of the Bodhi translation indeed confirms emptiness, but it's the Theravada emptiness and not the Mahayana emptiness. And what is the Theravada emptiness? It's that all phenomena is empty of a self (see Suñña Sutta). Before parinibbana, there was no self (as in an eternal self or soul at the core of the Buddha's being) that has suddenly ceased to exist after parinibbana.

However, the Pali suttas do not explicitly support the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness. The  Buddha's body was considered to be real but not constant or permanent. It is subject to change, arising and ceasing. But that does not mean that it's not real in Theravada.

To prove this, I'll quote Itivuttaka 44:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.

  And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)

  And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)

  Note1 and Note2 by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
  With fuel remaining
  (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy
  here is to a fire. In the first case, the flames are out, but the
  embers are still glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out
  that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five
  aggregates. While the arahant is still alive,
  he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn
  with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant
  passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or
  anywhere else.

Next, to answer the question:

  OP: So does this mean death is just like any moment in this very life where moment to moment nothing truly ends or changes because it
  doesn't truly exist in the first place?

Before and after the Buddha's final passing, all phenomena is empty of a self. The Buddha's five aggregates existed and was subject to change, arising and passing. Nibbana existed and does not change, arise or pass away. But the self (in the sense of an eternal self or soul at the core of our being) never existed at any time, in all phenomena, including the five aggregates and Nibbana. This is the interpretation according to Theravada.

Your interpretation appears to be different and based upon the concept of Mahayana emptiness.


In the arupa worlds you cannot hear the Dhamma as you do not have this faculty, also the mental process is too subtle making it not possible to meditate on it. But if you have experiences even the 1st state of sainthood you can progress from here to the final goal.

  By the way, living in an arupa world would imply in my understanding that it is possible the arising of a mind consciousness (manovinnana) without a physical sense base (such as our heart base or hadaya-vatthu): is this assumption correct?

My thinking is also that the heart base does not have a physical associated location in the arupa realm as there is nothing physical or corporeal here.

In addition, in the brahma world as you quoted you to not have physical sensation relating to the elements but sensations are present in the arupa cittas. See 121 cittas in Abhidhamma.


How do you contemplate delight you get due to action that leads to detachment?

how do you contemplate this delight?

From MN1, we know that...

  MN1/en/bodhi ...delight is the root of suffering...

Therefore, rather than contemplating and nurturing delight, it may prove more fruitful to contemplate emptiness:

  MN8:3.6: A mendicant gives up and lets go of these views by truly seeing with right wisdom where they arise, where they settle in, and where they operate as: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

MN8 is a wonderful sutta that explores the relationship between practice and action that you have brought up in your question. Notice that what is contemplated is NOT delight:

  MN8:12.30: ‘Others will be stingy, but here we will be without stinginess.’


Do meditative "exercises" and "mental workouts" enhance the ability to reach enlightenment?

All the abilities you have might work as a tool to benefit others or an obstacle on your way. It really doesn't matter what abilities you have, Buddha gave countless of teachings for people with various capabilities and they all are able to reach enlightenment.

Personally, years ago I developed really good memory. Many people are astonished that I am able to recall details of events that happened years ago or that I remember long sequences of numbers, words etc. Maybe not a super power, but something I gained while deliberately practising some specific cognitive techniques. Does it help in my Buddhist practice? Well, when reading texts I easily remember many details so I need much less time to read and understand some teachings of my masters. But on the other hand, I also remember lots of bad days of my friends. While others already forgot some unpleasant things, I still keep it and my good memory doesn't want to let it go. This is a real obstacle on my way.

If you want to develop great abilities to benefit others, it implicitly means that you feel compassion to other sentient beings. But to benefit others you really don't need super powers, you can simply be kind. Try to smile to strangers, say some nice words to cheer people up, offer some time to your friends so you can listen to them and give some comfort. There is lots of people around us who suffer and very often all they need is someone to offer a little bit of interest and support.

To answer your 2 questions directly:

No, super abilities won't enhance the ability to reach full enlightenment. To be fully enlightened you need to get rid of ego and understand the emptiness of all phenomena. You need to embrace the impermanence of all compounded things - your brain is only a tool you can use and one day it will die. The enlightened mind, on the other hand, is a clear space without the limits. To reach enlightenment you will need to give up your ego and brain. So it really doesn't matter if you have to give up a normal ego or super-mundane ego. In terms of ease and time needed to reach enlightenment - it all depends on how much pride, attachments, compassion etc. you have. So better start with working on that.
Super-mundane abilities are only tools so on their own they won't help you to benefit other beings. Imagine having a knife - you can either cut bread to feed others or you simply can kill them. It all boils down to whether you have more compassion or anger.

If one wants to quickly reach enlightenment there is no point developing super-mundane powers. The fastest way to enlightenment is to use techniques to give up ego and understand emptiness. The fastest way to benefit others is to develop compassion and start with being kind to people around us.


Logical thinking about Buddhism is like route / trip planning. The practice of Buddhism is the journey which will take you to the desired destination.

The Buddha has his for or adventure over countless lifetimes and found a long lost path and said this take you to this place. Thinking and pondering on how to take the trip is at the realm of logic. Travening is the realm of pratice. Arriving at your final destination following the direction and landmarks is the final realisation. As not body can fully describe the city to the minute details he just mostly mentioned how to get there with some attributes of the destination to entice you to try out the journey.


Use a timer for the following reasons.

Worrying about whether your session is done is a distraction.  A timer will free you from this.
A resolution to sit for X minutes may not work.
Even if the resolution does work, you could end up mistaking that for progress.  Don't laugh -- people mistake side effects of practice for the goals of practice. They'll ask if meditation can improve their grades, lead to particular hallucinations, etc...
There's no harm to using a timer. After all, group meditations also use a timer, it just happens to be a human who hits a chime.  There's nothing magical about people that makes chimes hit by them any less disruptive than those generated by an electronic device.


How does the story of General Siha's Meal for the Buddha at Vaisali vindicate the Buddha?

Here is a version of the story as told by Ajahn Brahmavamso ("a British Theravada Buddhist monk"), in an an essay titled, What the Buddha said about eating meat:

Once, a rich and influential general by the name of Siha (meaning 'Lion') went to visit the Buddha. Siha had been a famous lay supporter of the Jain monks but he was so impressed and inspired by the Teachings he heard from the Buddha that he took refuge in the Triple Gem (i.e. he became a Buddhist). General Siha then invited the Buddha, together with the large number of monks accompanying Him, to a meal at his house in the city the following morning. In preparation for the meal, Siha told one of his servants to buy some meat from the market for the feast. When the Jain monks heard of their erstwhile patron's conversion to Buddhism and the meal that he was preparing for the Buddha and the monks, they were somewhat peeved:

"Now at the time many Niganthas (Jain monks), waving their arms, were moaning from carriage road to carriage road, from cross road to cross road in the city: 'Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gotama (the Buddha), the recluse Gotama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake'..." [1].

Siha was making the ethical distinction between buying meat already prepared for sale and ordering a certain animal to be killed, a distinction which is not obvious to many westerners but which recurs throughout the Buddha's own teachings. Then, to clarify the position on meat eating to the monks, the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." [2]

There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. One of the most interesting of these passages occurs etc.

I think that answers your questions: I think it's basically that meat was bought from the market, instead of animals "killed on purpose for him".
You could probably find more references to the story using this Google search: vinaya siha meat

See also this explanation of meat-eating, in The Bhikkhus' Rules —
A Guide for Laypeople.
Another explanation I read (I don't remember where, at the moment) is that the Buddha wanted monks to be easy for the laity to support: i.e. not too demanding/fussy about what kind of food they will accept.


What is the difference between Sakkaya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?

They are just the synonym.

Sakkāya is an object of anu-diṭṭhi. So, sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta and
attānudiṭṭhisutta have the same content. This is the english translated version of those suttas,
attānudiṭṭhisutta is next of sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta.

Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other like this:

Diṭṭhi means misunderstanding of causes and effects, clinging-aggregates which is anattā as attā.

Anu is prefix which means often.

Micchā is prefix which means mistake.

Sakkāya is a name of clinging-aggregates follow to many sutta, such as Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.

  These clinging-aggregates are the Sakkāya described by the Blessed One.

So, sakkāya-micchā-anu-diṭṭhi means often mis-understanding,  micchā-anu-diṭṭhi (verb act as noun), of sakkāya (object), causes and effects, clinging-aggregates, which is anattā, as attā. See note0 below for more information.

Note0: (I have to use image, because I can not make underline in stackexchange. The same format are relating to the same format.
)

Above pāli appear in these suttas:

Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Isidattasutta:

For "dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhigatāni brahmajāle" above refer to micchā-diṭṭhi in Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto saṅghabhedakasutta:

brahmajāle:

saṅghabhedakasutta:

So, what I said:

It is completely from pāli.

Note1: Sakkāya is not only internal, because there are internal clinging-aggregates, internal sakkāya, and external clinging-aggregates, external sakkāya, which are contemplating by the practitioner in Cūlavedallasutta and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ (<< this link is a good translation of this sutta).

  they meditate by observing an aspect of the principle inside and outside.

The inside and outside aspect of the principle in this term is sakkāya (clinging aggregates), sakkāyasamudayo, sakkāyanirodho, and sakkāyanirodhagāminīpaṭipadā.

Note2: Santo kāyo sakkāyo. Kāya, clinging-aggregates, is sacca, santa, vijjānana, the reality, truth, possible to arise in causes and effects cycle. So, buddha said sakkāya is sacca and clinging-aggregates in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans].

"Sakko kāyo sakkāyo" and "para kāyo sakkāyo" is allowed in Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ as an internal anupassī, but it is not the primary meaning when compare to Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans], which sakkāya meaning is defined by buddha directly. And "para kāyo sakkāyo" never found in any where else except in  Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ.

So, if you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in Sakkāyasutta, Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, which has both sakko and paro.

But by the "Santo kāyo sakkāyo", there is no conflict like that between the co-context sutta, such as micchādiṭṭhisutta, sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta, and attānudiṭṭhisutta, which using the same context and near by each other. Also, there is no conflict between those sutta and the faraway suttas such as Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta,  Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.

Note3: Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other. Mostly words of them can use in the other sutta, such as anicca, dukkha, anatta, of these 3 sutta contexts all refering to saṅkhata (clinging-aggregates), which means arisen by causes. So, it can use to explain each other like appeared in Vinaya. Mahā (1) Anattalakkhaṇasutta:

  ‘Now what do you think, O bhikkhus, is the body permanent or perishable?’

  ‘It is perishable (anicca), Lord.’

  ‘And that which is perishable, does that cause pain or joy?’

  ‘It causes pain (dukkha), Lord.’

  ‘And that which is perishable, painful, subject to change, is it
  possible to regard that in this way. ‘This is mine, this am I, this is
  my self (atta)?’ ‘That is impossible, Lord.’

So, those 3 suttas is synonym of each other. For the example:

You never have to see "I often(1) mis(2)-understand(3) of you-ahaṃ tuvaṃ micchā(2) anu(1)-passāmi(3)" sentence. But is it the right, if I tell you A, B, and C have the same meaning?:

A: I often understand of you as permanent person.

B: I misunderstand of you as permanent person.

C: I understand of you as my dear forever (misunderstanding sakkāya as attā).

In this case the buddha can predict, because buddha maybe his teacher, the listening-bhikkhu will enlighten by animitta-vimokkha, so the buddha taught  impermanence to him. And this bhikku maybe memorized micchādiṭṭhi from buddha before, so the buddha taught micchādiṭṭhi in this sutta. If the buddha teach the other words, they cannot enlighten, because the listening maybe never memorized before.

It looks like when I said หนึ่งคูณสองเท่ากับสอง, you cannot enlighten what I said. But if I said "1x2=2", you can get it.

This is the same way which atthakathā described  SN Salāyatanavagga aniccatādisutta:

  Iti idaṃ suttaṃ chasu ajjhattikāyatanesu tīṇi lakkhaṇāni dassetvā
  kathite bujjhanakānaṃ ajjhāsayena vuttaṃ.

  For these 3 sutta, buddha taught 3 characterizes of 6 inner-āyatana
  depend on the enlightening-possibility of each listening-bhikkhu.

For more information, you can see naya in netti.

Note4:

Note5: Sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi in mostly suttas such as sakkāyasutta.

Sakkāya is 5 aggregates, which is engaging by diṭṭhi-clinging (diṭṭhi-upādāna).

But sakkāya-diṭṭhi is diṭṭhi-clinging, which engaging 5 aggregates.

So, mostly english version, which I random checked, translated wrong as "self view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)", but it should be just "sakkāya".


Does the Lankavatara Sutra exist anywhere online in Tibetan script, Sanskrit (Devanagari), or Chinese?

Per Wikipedia there's a Multilingual edition, Bibliotheca Polyglotta, University of Oslo.
You can use its UI to select how much is displayed -- i.e. one sentence or one chapter at a time, or the whole text at once -- and which laanguages.
The Tibetan and Sanskrit versions are in Roman text, plus there seems to be three Chinese versions/editions, written using Chinese characters.
http://www.dsbcproject.org/ has machine-readable Sanskrit editions of various suttas, you could also try browsing there and/or writing to sanskrit@uwest.edu to ask them.
I think that Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra might be also known as the Saddharmalankavatarasutram.
You're right though that what I see online is mostly non-text image scans.

Is my tibetan link correct do you know? http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/kt/catalog.php#cat=d/0108
It might be -- see the "Non-Tibetan Title" -- but I can't read the Tibetan to confirm that.
Also here is a copy from the link you posted:

That more-or-less matches what the Tohoku catalog says on page 25:

I say "more-or-less" because the page numbers match i.e. pages 56 through 191, however the section number is off by one (i.e. 108 instead of 107).


What are the rotating cylinders in monastries, and why are they there?

These are Tibetan Buddhist prayer wheels and they often have 'Om mani padme hum' engraved on them:

  According to Tibetan Buddhist belief, spinning a prayer wheel is just as effective as reciting the sacred texts aloud. This belief derives from the Buddhist belief in the power of sound and the formulas to which deities are subject. For many Buddhists, the prayer wheel also represents the Wheel of the Law (or Dharma) set in motion by the Buddha.

  The prayer wheel is also useful for illiterate members of the lay Buddhist community, since they can "read" the prayers by turning the wheel. Prayer wheels come in many sizes: they may be small and attached to a stick, and spun around by hand; medium-sized and set up at monasteries or temples; or very large and continuously spun by a water mill. Prayer wheels at monasteries and temples are located at the gates of the property, and devotees spin the wheels before passing through the gates.
  Prayer Wheels


If everyting comes from emptyness than what is energy

Emptiness doesn't mean 'vacuum' or 'nothingness' (this view is refered to as nihilism sometimes in Buddhism). It means empty of self, or 'self-existence'.

In other words things are what they appear to be, and nothing else. The names you give to things, the thoughts, opinions you have about them, woven by your desires, fears, speculations etc. are transitory fabrications of your mind.

These fabrications are useful for remembering where you left your car keys, but become troublesome if you begin to believe in them as reality. So the Buddha reminds us that everything is in fact empty.


How does one deal with the 'fear of rebirth'?

Its not death but rebirth that I have developed aversion towards.

How do I address this? How do I get equianimous towards this idea?

By recognizing a few things:

Unless one's already enlightened, rebirth will happen anyway, regardless of whether one likes it or not. Recognizing that one's dread or favor over it won't help would hopefully gives one some peace of mind and equanimity.

Try to conduct oneself with wholesome deeds thru the 3 gateways: body/speech/mind. If rebirth will happen anyway, it'd be better to have a more peaceful and favorable rebirth due to wholesome kamma than a horrific one due to evil kamma.


Are there any translations available from the Gandharan Buddhist Texts? When will they be available?

Like these ones?

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Gandhari
https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/richard-salomon/877720
http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/138/1386654811.pdf

Amazon lists 3 pages of books. I didn't check all three pages though.
But it should be enough to get you started.

Have fun. :)


Zen koans, is there any point in thinking about them?

That type of koan is called a breakthrough koan. It is meant to lead to a sudden, initial insight that is direct awareness.

I have heard practice of breakthrough koans described as, "becoming one with the koan", which implies concentrating on it like a mantra.

The insight it leads to is beyond concepts. So by becoming one with the koan, in a flash, you will actually experience "Mu"/tao/the way. As opposed to just conceptualizing it.

Wuzu Fayan said, “It is like an Ox that passes through a latticed window. Its head, horns, and four legs all pass through. So, why can’t its tail also pass through?”

The ox, being conceptual thought, has been transcended; "Mu"

  I think it's the way

Don't think. Transcend thinking. That is the way.

edit: Venerable Chong An Sunim explains there are different ways to approach koans. His suggestion is to do regular meditation (e.g., mindfulness of breathing). Sometime later, either while meditating, or just in everyday life, you will have an epiphany in regards to the true meaning of the koan.


Is there a reason not to practice jhana?

Absolutely not! Go for it! (Assuming when you say first Jhana, you actually mean first Jhana and not something else).

  "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

  "Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; just so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...


Is a prior human existence required for a current/subsequent human existence?

As I see it, if we assume a linear, unidirectional temporality, it is logically impossible that a prior human existence be necessary for a human existence since there could never be a first existence.

Concerning the beginnings of existence, according to, e.g., the Assu Sutta:

  "A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."

According to Buddhism, it is not only possible to be reborn as a human many times but, as I take the Mata Sutta to declare, certain that each person has:

  A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not
  easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your
  brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the
  past is not easy to find.

I cannot think of any specific references about consecutive human births in the Pāli Canon, but one may, given the appropriate conditions, e.g., having practised generosity, achieve their desires for some kinds of birth. So, it seems that one could theoretically be reborn several times in a row as a human if they desired it and accomplished the necessary conditions. (cf. AN 8.35)


3 deliverance 8 liberations and stages of enlightenment

According to Classical Theravada (that is, the Pali Canon as interpreted by the Commentaries and the Visuddhimagga) the three deliverance just refer to which of the three characteristics is the most prominently contemplated the mind to attain enlightenment, and there isn't much of a practical difference.

The eight liberation are mostly an alternate way of describing the progression of samadhi. You can describe it in a lot of different ways, the Jhanas are just one way of talking about it.

You also ask how to switch to the contemplation of the five aggregates after attaining concentration, especially using anapanasati. The most general description of this is given in the Visuddhimagga:

  One who wants to accomplish [insight], if, firstly, his vehicle is
  serenity, should emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhána,
  except the base consisting of neither  perception  nor
  non-perception, 3   and  he  should  discern,  according
  tocharacteristic,  function,  etc.,  the  jhána  factors  consisting
  of  applied  thought, etc., and the states associated with them, [that
  is, feeling, perception, and so on]. When he has done so, all that
  should be defined as “mentality” (náma) in the sense of bending
  (namana) 4  because of its bending on to the object.

  Then, just as a man, by following a snake that he has seen in his
  house, finds its abode, so too this meditator scrutinizes that
  mentality, he seeks to find out what its occurrence is supported by
  and he sees that it is supported [588] by the matter of the heart.
  After that, he discerns as materiality the primary elements, which are
  the heart’s support, and the remaining, derived kinds of materiality
  that have the elements as their support. He defines all that as
  “materiality” (rúpa) because it is “molested” (ruppana) [by cold,
  etc.]. After that he defines in brief as “mentality-materiality”
  (náma-rúpa) the mentality that has the characteristic of “bending” and
  the materiality that has the characteristic of “being molested.”

(Visuddhimagga XVIII.3-4)

In other words, after attaining concentration, your switch your object of meditation to the mental qualities in the mind caused by such concentration. You put your attention on and observe the qualities of peace, clarity, joy, etc... and see them very clearly. After that, you turn to the body, watching and observing the physical sensations of the body such as hardness, cohesion, movement, heat, etc...

If you want detailed instructions on how to do this especially for Anapanasati, this section of Ajahn Buddhadasa's book on Anapanasati is one of the best in my opinion: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu-Anapanasati-Fourth_Tetra.pdf


It doesn't say that it is the same king Brahmadatta. It's probably a different king with the same name or a descendant of the original Brahmadatta. Just like king Edward the 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th...

Samsara is very long and it's not unlikely that the Bodhisatta met many kings with similar names ruling the same land. Once there was a Brahmin who wanted to bury his corpse in a place where no other person has been buried. He found a large tree with roots sunk deep into earth. He thought "surely there can be none buried here". But when he was ready to uproot the tree, the Buddha told him that he had been buried in the same place with the same name for fourteen thousand times in his previous lives.


Samatha vs Vipassana. What are the mechanics?

Vipassana (insight) is direct clear seeing thus does not requiring any thinking; therefore it is not antagonistic to samatha (tranquility). Both samatha & vipassana are natural results of the silent collected stable mind called "samadhi". Suttas such MN 149 say samatha & vipassana are products of the noble eightfold and are developed in tandem.

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of their development. The four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening go to the culmination of their development. [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.
MN 149

"Samatha" ("tranquility") is not "one-pointed focus" ("samadhi") nor is genuine "one-pointedness" ("ekaggata") an obstacle to vipassana. Its appears you are reading the typical non-sense of modern teachers.
I will read the question more thoroughly & completely at a later time and probably add to this answer.


Is lack of inherent existence the same as 'not real'?

Things do exist just not in the way they appear to be existing.
Lacking inherent existency means that things/objects/phenomena are not set up by themselves. They are set up dependent on other factors. In other words they are conditioned.
That can be seen with e.g. a tree. A tree changes during the different seasons. Why does it change? It changes due to being set up dependent on other factors which again is set up dependent on other factors etc. That means that objects are in a constant flux. They do not stay constant or stable.
If a tree where inherent existent it would never change. It would stay green with flowers on it forever. If it truly were inherent existent then it would be uncaused. It would be completely defined by its own nature. Nothing could be removed or added to it since that would change its inherent existent nature. It would be both eternal and indestructible.
If we take a look at samsara the conditioned existence then we see that all physical and mental phenomena are caused by other factors. They are not stand-alone units. That does not mean that they are not real. It just means that they do not exist in the way they appear to be.
The Dalai Lama has written many great sections on Emptiness in his book "How to See Yourself As You Really Are". Here is a short quote on the existence of phenomena. The quote is from chapter 19: "Viewing Yourself As Like an Illusion", p. 187-188:

"A face in a mirror appears to be a face, but this image is not a real face in any way; it is from all viewpoints empty of being a face. Likewise, a magician can conjure up illusions that seem to be certain things, like a person in a box being skewered by a sword, but they are not at all established as those things. Similarly, phenomena such as bodies appear to be established from the objects' own side but are empty of being established that way and always have been.
It is not that phenomena are illusions; rather, they are like illusions. Even if a mirror image of your face is not really your face, the reflection is not utterly nonexistent. Through its appearance you can understand how your actual face looks. Similarly, although persons and things are empty of existing the way they appear to be established in their own right, they are not utterly nonexistent; they can act and be experienced.
Therefore, being like an illusion is not the same as appearing to exist but actually not existing, like the horns of a rabbit, which do not exist at all."

Here is another one with the title "Emptiness does not mean Nothingness". The quote is from chapter 5: "Appreciating the Reasoning of Dependent-Arising", p. 71-73:

"There is no question that persons and things exist; the question is how, or in what manner, they exist. When we consider a flower, for instance, and think, "This flower has a nice shape, nice color, and nice texture," it seems as if there is something concrete that possesses these qualities of shape, color, and texture. When we look into these qualities, as well as the parts of the flower, they seem to be qualities or parts of the flower, such as the color of the flower, the shape of the flower, the stem of the flower, and the petals of the flower - as if there is a flower that possesses these qualities or parts.
However, if the flower really exists the way it appears, we should be able to come up with something separate from all of these qualities and parts that is the flower. But we cannot. Such a flower is not found upon analysis, or through other scientific tools, even though previously it seemed so substantial, so findable. Because a flower has effects, it certainly exists, but when we search to find a flower existing in accordance with our ideas about it, that is not at all findable.
Something that truly exists from its own side should become more and more obvious when analyzed - it should be clearly found. But the opposite is the case. Nevertheless, this does not meant hat it does not exist, for it is effective - it creates effects. The fact that it is not found under analysis just indicates that it does not exists the way it appear to our senses and to our thoughts - that is, so concretely established with itself."

I would really recommend reading this book since it has a lot of insights about emptiness. I think sometimes its greatly beneficial to study another buddhists school's take on e.g. Anatta/Emptiness in order to "get it" cooked and prepared in another way. Of course the basic doctrine is the same but when reading about it in other terms and ways of expression that gives variety and nuances on the topic.
On purpose i did not go into the insight-meditational aspect of this profound teaching that emptiness is since you asked for an intellectual opinion. Hope this might be of some help.
Lanka


Reference request: blame as the source of anger?

He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me of my property. Whosoever harbor such thoughts will never be able to still their enmity.
Never indeed is hatred stilled by hatred; it will only be stilled by non-hatred — this is an eternal law.
— Dhp., vv. 4-5

(Source: The Elimination of Anger: With two stories retold from the Buddhist texts by Ven. K. Piyatissa Thera)
The bolded text implies they blame the other for one's plight.


Dependent Origination and Impermanence in Buddhism

Impermanence includes everything. For the record, Buddhism only uses the references like inside and outside as compromises with unenlightened way of thinking. In the strict sense, these notions of Inner and Outer arise as result of Dependent Origination. When you go out of subjective frame of reference and speak about Mind Processes at large, everything is unfolding all the time, with some patterns emerging as seeming Inner and Outer.

Technically, this Unfolding IS Being IS Time, as explained by Dogen in his famous lecture on the topic. In other words, it's not that Time is a container for Everything. It is identical with Being or Unfolding, but we sentient beings like to delineate certain aspects, because our minds are reification machines that work in terms of entities and their background. So for us it's only natural to think of time as background or container of events.

Dependent Origination unfolds over time, just like everything else. However, it would be incorrect to talk about concrete time scale, because DO talks about high-level principles in terms of functional relationship. Yes, the seedling comes from the seed and this happens over time, but we don't have to talk about a specific seed, we talk about the principle at large.


For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self
is basically I am a collection of atoms

The wrong view is: "The body is a/the self; I am the body; the body is me".
The right view is: "The body is a collection of atoms (elements/dhatu)."

self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand,
maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?

Yes, the above appears correct. The wrong view is: "I have a body; I own gold & silver".

self as in material form: hard to understand.

The word "form" ("rūpasmiṃ") in Pali, above, is in locative case. The above appears to mean to regard the self as located in the body. Possibly, for example, "my liver; my finger; or my heart"; or the common belief: "the soul/self abides in the body".
In Hinduism and also probably later Buddhism, there is found the terms "dehi" and "deha". "Deha" means the "envelope or shell" the "dehi" dwells in. "Dehi" means the "soul" or "creature" dwelling in the "deha". For example, in the Bhagavad Gita:

vāsānsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya navāni gṛihṇāti naro ’parāṇi tathā
śharīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇānya nyāni sanyāti navāni dehī
As a person sheds worn-out garments and wears new ones, likewise, at
the time of death, the soul casts off its worn-out body and enters a
new one.

Or the Christian Bible says: "You are the body of Christ. Each one of you is a part of it."

material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are
taking place in my head?

I assume the word "self" ("attani") above is also in locative case. This appears to mean believing: "I am made of mind & body and the body is a part of myself".
For example, when my uncle passed away, at the funeral, i ended up in the car of the Christian Orthodox Priest travelling to the cemetery. The priest said to me it was wrong that my father (an Orthodox) was cremated because in the Orthodox religion they believe the person is made up of both the soul and the body rather than merely the soul. Therefore, it is improper for an Orthodox to cremate the body of the deceased. The view of the priest here was the self is made up of two parts and the body is part of the self. This appears to be an example of: "form in the self".
The Pali is below:

rūpaṃ (nominative or accusative) attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ (nominative), rūpasmiṃ (locative) vā attānaṃ.
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
Sujato translation


Are the Pali-words Patinissagga and Vossagga synonyms?

While not always, paṭinissagga is often used for more lofty situations, such as connected to Nibbana (in SN 56.11; AN 3.32 & MN 118).
Vossagga appears always used in less lofty situations and appears more 'personal'.

vo
enclitic from tumha
to you; of you; by you

Each use of each word in the suttas should be examined; as for the etymology of each word. A post on the topic is here.

MN 118 contains both words. 'Vossagga' is found describing the maturation of the qualities each factor of enlightenment relies upon. Therefore, 'vossagga' appears used with path factors Anapanasati relies on.
'Paṭinissagga' is used to describe the end of the path of Anapanasati. Therefore, 'paṭinissagga' appears more lofty than 'vossagga'.
Start with 'vossagga' and end with 'paṭinissagga'.

It’s when a mendicant develops the awakening factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy, rapture, tranquility, immersion, and equanimity, which rely on seclusion, fading awa, and cessation that ripen as letting go.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu satisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ. Dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … pe … vīriyasambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … pītisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … passaddhisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … samādhisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ.
They practice breathing in observing impermanence. They practice breathing out observing impermanence.
‘Aniccānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘aniccānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing fading away. They practice breathing out observing fading away.
‘virāgānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘virāgānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing cessation. They practice breathing out observing cessation.
‘nirodhānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘nirodhānupassī  passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing letting go. They practice breathing out observing letting go.
‘paṭinissaggānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘paṭinissaggānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati.
MN 118

In conclusion, 'vossagga' may possibly mean when the 'self' or 'will' lets go by employing mindfulness to bring to mind right view. Where as 'paṭinissaggā' may possibly mean when the mind itself lets go due to direct seeing or vipassana.


Why do beings, even in lower/hell realms, like their lives?

Yayam tanha ponobbhavika nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandini, seyyathidam, kamatanha bhavatanha vibhavatanha

It is this craving(tanha) which produces re-existence and re-becoming (Punobbhava) and which is bound up with passionate greed’ (Nandi raga sahagatha) and which finds fresh desire now here and there (tatratatrabhinandini) namely (1) thirst for sense-pleasures (kama tanha) (2) craving for existence and becoming (bhava-tanha) and (3) craving for nonexistence, self annihilation (Vibhava tanha)


Are multiverses real according to Buddhism

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.


Buddha Statue Identification and Explanation

That fits the description of the "the Medicine Buddha",

  Bhaiṣajyaguru is typically depicted seated, wearing the three robes of a Buddhist monk, holding a lapis-colored jar of medicine nectar in his left hand and the right hand resting on his right knee, holding the stem of the Aruna fruit or Myrobalan between thumb and forefinger.

... but I have no better explanation than that.

I suppose the "medicine nectar" is 'the deathless' e.g. as in this answer -- see also 'nectar' is mentioned in other topics on this site.


What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta?

'Citta' (the C is pronounced as ch in cheetah) is a generic word for mind, including thoughts as well as emotional state. When the Chinese translated Buddhist texts they often used 'shin', the heart-mind, to indicate citta.

'Manas' (both As are pronounced as in Adam) is the "inner eye" that can see thoughts, memories, and one's state of mind (citta).

'Vijnana' (jna is pronounced as jnya - i.e. with soft n) is experience of reality that arises from mind's ability to recognize and interpret new stimuli by relating and comparing them with memories of past experiences.


According to various internet sources, 5000 years ago, or approximately 3000 BC, references to the form of mediation used at the time is found in Hindu scriptures.
According to Lovetoknow.com, A recent archaeological find in the then capital city of Moheyo-dara, capital city of the Indus Valley civilization, by John Marshall of a seal of a meditating yogi is dated at 2600 BC approximately. Of course , it may be assumed that meditation was taking place for an indefinite period of time prior.


Looking for an online resource of the commentary(SNA.ii.476; SA.i.155) which says that the Brahma Sahampati was an Anagami from the Suddhavasa realms

The Sutta Nipata source is Sn-A 3.10:

Roman Pali:

http://tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0505a.att2.xml

Sinhalese Pali:

http://tipitaka.org/sinh/cscd/s0505a.att2.xml

The relevant passage is:

Atha kho brahmā sahampatīti ko ayaṃ brahmā, kasmā ca bhagavantaṃ upasaṅkamitvā etadavocāti? Ayaṃ kassapassa bhagavato sāsane sahako nāma bhikkhu anāgāmī hutvā suddhāvāsesu uppanno, tattha naṃ ‘‘**sahampati brahmā’’ti sañjānanti.

අථ ඛො බ්‍රහ්‌මා සහම්‌පතීති කො අයං බ්‍රහ්‌මා, කස්‌මා ච භගවන්‌තං උපසඞ්‌කමිත්‌වා එතදවොචාති? අයං කස්‌සපස්‌ස භගවතො සාසනෙ සහකො නාම භික්‌ඛු අනාගාමී හුත්‌වා සුද්‌ධාවාසෙසු උප්‌පන්‌නො, තත්‌ථ නං ‘‘සහම්‌පති බ්‍රහ්‌මා’’ති සඤ්‌ජානන්‌ති.

Roughly:

"And then the Brahma Sahampati" - Who was this brahma? And from what [cause] did he, having approached, say this? This one, a bhikkhu named Sahaka in the sasana of the Kassapa the Blessed One, having become an anagami, arose in the Pure Abodes; there, they knew him as "Sahampati Brahma".


So far as I know it's defined -- defined by example -- in AN 10.176

(Impurity in speech)
And how, Cunda, does one become impure in vācā in four ways? Here, Cunda, one is musāvādī. When he has been brought to the meeting hall, in front of an assembly, among his relatives, his guild, in the midst of the royal court, on being asked as a witness: 'come, my good man, what you know, tell us', if he doesn't know, he says: 'I know', if he knows, he says: 'I don't know', if he has not seen, he says: 'I have seen', if he has seen, he says: 'I have not seen'. Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.
One is pisuṇavāco, he is one who tells there what he has heard here, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion, who tells here what he has heard there, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion. Thus dividing those who are in unity and further dividing those who are disunited,{3} delighting in dissension, devoted to dissension, gladdening in dissension, he is one who speaks a vācā that creates dissension.
One is pharusavāco, he is one who speaks such a vācā which is rough, hard, bitter to others, abusive to others, connected with anger, and conducive to non-samādhi.
One is samphappalāpī, he is one who speaks at the wrong time, who speaks of what is not actual,{4} who speaks unprofitable words, who speaks of what is contrary to the Dhamma, of what is contrary to the Vinaya; he is one who speaks words which are not worth treasuring, at the wrong time, that which is nt reasonable, not moderate, or words which are related to what is not profitable.
These, Cunda, are the four ways in which one becomes impure in vācā.

So "Musa" is one of four types of wrong speech -- false speech is wrong speech, plus there are other types of wrong speech (e.g. divisive gossip) that's wrong even though it isn't false.
The footnote for "deliberately" there says,

deliberately: sampajāna - here the word has a wordly meaning. Its other meaning, spiritual, is of fundamental importance in the Buddha's teaching.

The presence of the word sampajāna, in that context, might imply that speech isn't false unless it's deliberate -- or that false speech isn't impure unless it's deliberate -- I'm not sure which. Taking it literally it's even more specific:

Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.

... i.e. it's done for some kind of "gain" and maybe even in a court. So maybe more specifically equivalent to "bearing false witness against a neighbour".
I'm still not certain which is implied by DN 27:

Is that implying that brahmins are lying deliberately?
Or that bad karma can be made by other forms of false speech?

I'd have guessed that the speech is divisive and rooted in conceit, but what do I know ... perhaps (as implied) it was seen as rooted in some intentional deception for profit.
There's another word mentioned later ...

what is not actual: a-bhūta-vādī - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates 'what is not factual', and Bhikkhu Bodhi: 'what is not fact'.

... in the fourth general category i.e. of useless and unprofitable. Maybe that's more specifically "non-factual".

Piya Tan wrote:

The fourth precept is against falsehood, against communicating what is untrue, harsh, disharmonious and useless. This is again something natural: if there is no truth, then it is no use of my writing about all this. You would have wasted your time reading this! Truth is the very basis of wholesome human communication.

So possibly musāvādā -- false speech, one type of wrong speech -- is sometimes also used to refer to wrong speech in general, any or all of the four types.

I expect that the Pali word for wrong (by which I mean, the opposite of Right, or sammā) is probably micchā -- see micchādiṭṭhi.


What else do people who have realized Nirvāṇa do besides teach?

They do what is right.

If they have family to support, they support the family. If they need money to survive, they work. If they are hungry, they eat. If they need a car, they drive a car. etc.


Is there a real difference between "not-self" and "no self", and if so, which one is correct?

I can't easily tell a difference between "no self" and "not self" in English -- and if there is a difference (if you can construct a distinction in meaning) I think it's too fine a difference to be significant -- like if someone tells you something is "a mile away" and you get out your micrometer.
I mean, the "a" prefix in Pali is a negator, which appears on all sorts of words:

kalika ("time"), akalika ... how do you translate akalika? I say "timeless" because I think that happens to be a felicitous word in English, but equally be "without time, "outside time", "not subject to time" or "not controlled by time" or "nothing to do with time"
verena ("hatred"), averena ... how do you translate averena? I say ""non-hatred" (because I hope that's the most literal translation even if it isn't idiomatic English) but some translations say "loving-kindness" -- i.e. not just an absence of hatred, they substitute one of its "polar opposites"

Maybe "selfless" could be a translation, however in English that's an adjective used to describe "altruistic" behaviour (so that's not an appropriate translation).
anatta is grammatically a noun. I don't, I wouldn't, normally equate two nouns -- "a dog is a cat" for example doesn't make sense. So I usually read anatta as if it were an adjective ("a dog is hairy"), i.e. as if "form is anatta" is describing a property or characteristic of form. And lakkhaṇa
 (translated "characteristic") in Anattalakkhaṇasutta suggests that seeing anatta as a characteristic -- an adjective not a noun -- isn't bad.
One time is it appropriate to equate two nouns is when you're talking about categories -- "a dog is an animal". Perhaps anatta can be seen as a category of things, especially in phrases like Sabbe sankhara anatta.
I think of "self" as a verb in that kind of context ...

Calvin and Hobbes - Verbing Weirds Language - by Bill Watterson for January 25, 1993

... i.e. "selfing" is an action, it's something you do to things -- you "take as 'self'" or "perceive as self" or "attach to as if it were self" -- and an anatta thing is something which you shouldn't "self" in that way, something which isn't fit to be selved.
Perhaps you can see that the Anattalakkhaṇasutta is about the five aggregates. The Dhammacakkappavattanasutta mentions aggregates too:

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

So I think of "selfing" as "grasping" or "attaching" (especially to aggregates).
I think that colloquially the word atta had two meanings:

atta -- me, myself
Atta -- my Soul, the Soul -- see Ātman (Hinduism)

I think that informs the meaning too -- to say that the aggregates are anatta is to say that they shouldn't be regarded as "soul" or "permanent self", which fits in with such things being anicca (impermanent).
Since you're asking I don't think it goes so far as to say "there is no soul" or "there is no self" -- instead see e.g. How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- that would belong to the "thicket of wrong views" cited here.


The reason to this state is actually not bound to things that's been taken, it's the worthiness (treating it's the best) that you given to the action of politeness. In simple word, asking permission or informing before taking something.

So the core of the buddhism is this. If you try to keep things the way you want (way you want means is the worthiness you have assigned to -> it can be anything like an action, an attitude, a person, a thing, etc..), you are doing a mistake. Because the things in the world are not in our control. Everything happens as a result of a reason.

Of course we can make reasons and control it right? But there are incidents that though we control (make reasons) things won't go the way we want right? If you think about this further the reason for that is,

First case -> Our actions had some space to impact on the existing
state
Second case -> Our actions had no space to change the existing state, because existing state had stronger reasons

So simply, though we think, we can 100% control things, actually we cannot. Without knowing this, we label things as politeness and we expects it from others, it won't happens the way you want it to be. Our foolishness is (not mean to offence) we crazily expect things like that from others and the world. And as a result we get angry. Which is bad for us. Why bad for us -> just have a look on this video which you can get an idea.

That's where the Buddhism comes useful. If we give worthiness to the world and expects things to be the way we want and when we try to control things the way we want, it results in anger which is bad. (Of course there's another side of the same on attraction to the things also doing bad for us, I won't speak about it here, since not relevant to the question)

So let it go, there are things that you can't change because the things are not the way you want, they behave based on their own reasons. So by getting angry by trying to change won't do any good for you but bad. You still can try to change without anger, if there are reasons it might be success.

With Metta..!


Does Nirvana really means stopping of birth and death? Does it ensures that no new one will arise again?

Nirvana/Kensho/Satori is only a "goal" as long as you haven't experienced it. The experience conveys the one-ness, emptiness and interconnectivity of all phenomena. In some Buddhist schools, this is referred to as "the Great Death", as this reveals the "I" as an illusion.
But from that point onward, attainment has been achieved and is no longer the "driving goal" of practice. In Zen, for example, this is illustrated in a sequence of drawings called the "Oxherding Pictures". The first nine pictures illustrate the stages toward attainment. The tenth however, shows the practitioner:

10. Return to Society Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I
am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me,
the dead trees become alive

A good book about life after attainment is Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry".
As to whether attainment stops the cycle of birth and death, the answer depends on what you ask is being born and dying. If you ask for the "I", then attainment will show this "I" to be an illusion. If you ask it for the emptiness of all phenomena, the most honest answer is "we do not know". "I"


Am I following Buddhism as a sort of Escapism?

This is a profound question.  Somebody may want to delve into spirituality because he is a "loser" and isn't prospering in life.  This is not a new concept.  In fact, the Ratthapala Sutta addresses this very point.  You should go to the link and study the sutta in full.
In Majjhima Nikaya 82, we are introduced to the ascetic Ratthapala, who took up the life of the holy man even though he was from a privileged background, and wealthy, athletic, successful, in the prime of his youth.  We are led to believe that, in the secular life, he had countless opportunities at his disposal.
In the Sutta, the king asks the ascetic Ratthapala, in effect, Why are you joining the spiritual life with the other ascetics, when they are not rich or strong and successful, and you are?

King Koravya sat down on a seat made ready and said: "Master
Raṭṭhapāla, there are four kinds of loss. Because they have
undergone these four kinds of loss, some people here shave off their
hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth[.]  What are
the four? They are loss through ageing, loss through sickness, loss of
wealth, and loss of relatives.
And what is loss through ageing? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is
old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last
stage. He considers thus: ‘I am old, aged, burdened with years,
advanced in life, come to the last stage. It is no longer easy for
me to acquire unacquired wealth or to augment wealth already
acquired....
And what is loss through sickness? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is
afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill. He considers thus: ‘I am
afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill. It is no longer easy for me
to acquire unacquired wealth....  This is called loss through
sickness.  But Master Raṭṭhapāla now is free from illness....
And what is loss of wealth? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is rich,
of great wealth, of great possessions. Gradually his wealth dwindles
away. He considers thus: Formerly I was rich, of great wealth....
But Master Raṭṭhapāla is the son of the leading clan in this same
Thullakoṭṭhita. Master Raṭṭhapāla has not undergone any loss of
wealth.
And what is loss of relatives? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone has
many friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives. Gradually those
relatives of his dwindle away. He considers thus: ‘Formerly I had
many friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives....'

Answering the king, Ratthapala more or less responds that worldly success and prosperity is overrated, and not worth chasing.  It doesn't bring peace.

“Great king, there are four summaries of the Dhamma that have been
taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully
enlightened. Knowing and seeing and hearing them, I went forth from
the home life into homelessness. What are the four?
“‘Life in any world is unstable, it is swept away’: this is the
first summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and
sees, accomplished and fully enlightened. Knowing and seeing and
hearing this, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.
“‘Life in any world has no shelter and no protector’: this is the
second summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and
sees…
“‘Life in any world has nothing of its own; one has to leave all and
pass on’: this is the third summary of the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One who knows and sees…
“‘Life in any world is incomplete, insatiate, the slave of
craving’: this is the fourth summary of the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One who knows and sees…"

Personally, I see nothing wrong with somebody taking up the spiritual life simply because he is a "loser" in the "real world".  Don't feel self-critical; don't feel lonely.  There are a lot of "losers" in the "real world", almost all of whom cope with severely dysfunctional forms of escape (alcohol, drugs and whatnot).  It is better to have "escapism" with something that is actually an escape, and more importantly, develop the ability to help others to truly escape, losers and successful people alike.
Remember that losers and unsuccessful people, suffering people, full of confusion and despondent from lack -- are the very reason that the Tathagata appeared into the world.
Don't let anybody, especially non-Buddhist, criticize you for following Buddhism for the wrong reason; they don't know any better.  Grow yourself.  Decide for yourself whether you "need" more material prosperity than you currently have, but don't be stressed or distraught about it.  Practice skepticism towards ideas that aren't life-sustaining, and that weren't developed with your interest at heart.  Choose good role models, people who actually have empathy and inner peace of mind -- not just the the temporary trappings of what passes for status or success.  Learn what is beneficial for this life, and the hereafter, and follow that.


How to determine the end of a meditation session without a clock?

If you have a smartphone, consider using a meditation timer app for keeping track of sessions. Simple ones like Meditation Helper (Android) or Meditation Timer (iPhone) are free and do the simple job of keeping the time, ringing a bell when finished. This cen perhaps let you just focus on the meditation for the entire session.

Note: I only have experience with the Android Meditation Helper, which is why the link is provided. It has reminders and a log, quite simple.

UPDATE regarding the use of timers and bells:

Using a meditation timer can be beneficial, especially for beginners, where hearing repeated bells at intervals (starting out as frequent as 2 minutes, increasing to 5, then 10, and so on) can work as a reminder to gently return to the meditation object. However, there is a point where the bells become a hindrance, where they may disturb a deeper meditation, so the recommendation is to phase out the use of the bells.

Meditate for as long as you can, each time. Only if you have limited time for a setting, then use the bell as a reminder. The app works well for this, where you can first set the bells at intervals, then to end the session. If you only look at the meditation timer (locking the screen during meditation) after the meditation session has ended, you can use it to evaluate the session. You may find that sometimes a 30 minute meditation can be challenging, and other times you're surprised to find that an hour and a half passed while in deep meditation.


I hate human beings how can I develop metta?

I have posted a few times recently, to focus on developing equanimity (upekkha). Unlike Abrahamic religions, Buddhism teaches what creates the (social) world is ignorance. In Buddhism, that people are ignorant is just the way things naturally are. It is the true nature of the world (refer to the Lokavagga). Buddhism teaches people who are truly humane or human are "rare" (SN 56.47).
Therefore, Buddhism instructs to practise equanimity (upekkha) to free the mind of irritation & aversion. Once this is done, more positive mental states can be practised, such as forgiveness, to remove hatred & cruelty. When hatred & cruelty are removed, metta & compassion will arise.
'Metta' ('friendliness') is a social value, which can be difficult to practise in today's world, which has become extremely immoral & corrupt over the last 30 years or so.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "The Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has two Dhamma discourses given in sequence. Which two?
'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse.
These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence."
Iti 39