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

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

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

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

Nisargadatta Maharaj

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Gautam Buddha concludes finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you ask:

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

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

Oh. From where can I understand this wheel concept?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(T1564.24a15 Madhyāmikaśāstra)


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

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

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

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

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

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How much time it takes to experience 4th jhana?
Right now sometime if i try to concentrate i can feel the calmness in mind. Before 2 years i used to feel inner joy after doing meditation. If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana?
Or simply, is their any time intervals in which meditator experiences all the jhanas one by one?

"Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn't cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her — 'O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!' — still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. Why is that? Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html

If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana?

It depends on the person. But this this amount of practice I would presume you might not be able to get Jhana. You might perhaps get the 1st Jhana, since based on initial and sustained application to which there is metal activity (active action), but beyond this is will be difficult, as there is not metal activity or there is nothing you are doing (passive / inaction). Even 1st Jhana would be very difficult. Once a monk told me that reaching the 1st Jhana is possible if you practice about 10 to 12 hours a day for about 15 days. And perhaps going beyond this you might have to endure similar practice for years.

15 days seems like overkill.  If you have a dedicated practice outside of retreat, arriving at the 1st jhana after a couple of days to a week of 10+ hours a day isn't out of the question.

How much time it takes to experience 4th jhana?v
Right now sometime if i try to concentrate i can feel the calmness in mind. Before 2 years i used to feel inner joy after doing meditation. If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana?

One cannot put a time perspective on such practices.
Just practice diligently, systematically and with great effort.
Undertake the (samatha) meditation practice for the sake of the practice itself - not for gaining anything. The minute one is thinking about achieving and gaining something, one has fallen into the hindrances.. As a result of that, one has moved away from the primary object of meditation and thus are not cultivating concentration.
Its a good idea to regularly clarify and affirm ones intentions for practicing - especially with Jhana meditation, that is very important. Its easy to become attached to the pleasant sensations this type of meditation practice can result in.
One should ask oneself why one takes on this practice. A wholesome intention is essential. Wholesome intentions for engaging in Samatha meditation could be:

Collecting the scattered mind (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)
Deepening serenity
Purification of the mind stream
Cultivating a high level of concentration (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)

Entering jhana states will  be significantly  hindered by the will to do so. It is natural process brought on by right efford, right intention and right understanding during the meditation. Achievements in former lives and karma produced in the current plays an important role in whether or not jhana's can be achieved and in which period of time.
W. van den Boogaard

There is no short answer to your question. The outcome depends on your dispositions or personality traits.
The sutras explain the difficulties to enter the dhyana realm in terms of five hindrances. The faster you manage to deal with these (very practical!) obstacles, the faster you will progress. Daily meditation time and progress may be correlated, but some people may never overcome a certain hindrance.
A few additional factors may affect your speed of progress:

Your capacity to concentrate on a single object: Computer programmers or chess players may score higher on this than marketing types :-)
Your capability to stay awake: Many meditators start to doze away once they manage to lock onto some object and the first cozy feelings start to appear.
Your curiosity/openness/fearlessness: Every dhyana transition requires entering uncharted territory, which may give rise to different kinds of fears. "Buddhism is not for the faint-hearted."
Your capability to "let go": You will have to let go the pleaseant feelings of 1st, 2nd and 3rd dhyana in order to advance. You also have to let go of the sense of self and many other features...
Your "conditions": You won't be able to sit below a tree cross-legged by yourself. Make sure you live in a quite place and act ethically to avoid shame, guilt, remorse and other intensive emotions that will instantly kill your concentration.

And then there is the opinion (couldn't find a reference) that in order to get to the arupa dhyanas you have to get to terms with your impermanent existence, so you would require some progress with the six element meditation or similar insight practices.

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

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


text:
Is their any reference in buddhism about time travell and parallel universe travell?
As i've seen in hindhism their are lot of written things in hindu scriptures that a person or gods used to travel in different universes and time. But is their any mention of such powers in buddhism also? Where it is mentioned that a meditator has traveled time and to different worlds?
Is this possible to do this two things physically or its just mentally possible?

One Sutta which such reference occur is Rohitassa Sutta.

Rohitassa’s astral journey
Once in the past, venerable sir, I was a seer named Rohitassa Bhoja,putta [son of Bhoja], possessed
  of spiritual power, able to travel through the sky [space].  My speed was such, venerable sir, that I
  could move just as fast as an archer with a strong bow,
  trained, skillful, well-practised, experienced,
  could easily shoot past the shadow of a palmyra tree with a light arrow.
My stride was such, venerable sir, that it spanned the eastern ocean and the western ocean.
  Then, venerable sir, the wish arose in me, ‘I will reach the end of the world by going.’
Possessing such speed and such a stride, and having a lifespan of a hundred years, without pausing
  except to eat, drink, take meals and snacks, to void and pee, to sleep and dispel tiredness. Yet I died
  along the way without reaching the end of the world.
It is wonderful, venerable sir! It is amazing, venerable sir! How well this was stated by the
  Blessed One: ‘As to that end of the world, friend, where one is not born, does not age, does not die, does
  not pass away, does not arise—it cannot be known, seen or reached by going, I say.’”

Moral story of this is that space travel is not a way to find a way out of unsatisfactoriness and you would be dead before you real such goal through space exploration.
Also such references are found in the Abhidhamma. More on this see this answer and others.

is this only possible through conciousness or the person can do it physically also?

I think both physically and through consciousness. Also related: abhiññā and [iddhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9Addhi}


text:
If someone have experienced supernatural abilities through meditation, than why don't he shows it to world?
If somebody goes beyond fourth jhanas and has received super knowledge and also powers, than why don't he shows it to world and shares his knowledge and experience to world or say scientist and science community so that the general humans will believe in dharma and religion?

If the story of Jesus is believed to be true, Jesus did what is suggested in the question and look how Christianity turned out; thousands of years of killing over a (narcissistic) personal saviour.
Acts of magic or witchcraft will not change the majority of people for the better. This is why DN 11 teaches with proper wisdom the 'miracle of instruction' is superior to the 'miracle of psychic power'.

The objective of Dhamma is the work yourself out of stress and misery which is to follow the Noble 8 Fold Path. These kinds of practices diverts from this focus. If someone start practicing being attached by such display then most likely their goal will not be tied with the Buddhist goal.
Perhaps for this reason monks are not supposed to display such abilities. Even for lay, through there is not rule, it is not advisable as you are diverting the attention and focus from the true purpose of the practice. Also then meditation practitioners will be no different from magicians and illusionist, like David Copperfield. People will go to them to learn magic tricks and not to learn the dhamma with a view to Nirvana. People go to see David Copperfield for entertainment and not spiritual guidance! Also when displaying these abilities one might develop pride which would lead to one's downfall.
Displaying these abilities may attract a following and belief, but for the wrong reason.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html
Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta
This Sutta talks about the drawbacks of displaying magical powers.
tl;dr it mostly just does not prove anything other that you do have the powers, people will still try to argue that it is not what you say it is.

Of Leonardo da Vinci it is known that he invented the principle of submarine boats - but also it is transmitted that he explains "why I do not give this to the open: because they would use it for even more warfare on the sea" (paraphrased from memory). Similar caveats have been sometimes explicated in science (for instance with atombomb by Einstein and others - documented in a biography I've read).
Anyway... the best answer on this has surely been given by @Suminda and the idea with it should be a frequent topic in self-observation and meditation.


text:
Can a person with harmful thoughts still meditate?
If a person has enemies and wants to take revenge, then can he meditate? Will those thoughts stop the person from meditating even if he doesn't think those things while meditating?

If a person has enemy's and wants to take vengance, than can he do meditation?

Of course he can. Insight meditation is the only way to permanently uproot the causes for those thoughts, i.e. the root defilement of hatred and namely Ignorance (avijja).

Will such thoughts never let the person do meditation even if he don't thinks such things while meditating?

All formations are impermanent so its not possible for something to "never let" anyone do something. That's an extreme view.
It might be more challenging to do meditation while the hindrances are present. But it is necessary. One can only purify the mind by dealing with the hindrances. It just means that there is work to be done.
Loving-kindness meditation is a great way of over coming thoughts of hatred, vengeance and the like. See my answer here for a detailed description on how to practice Metta meditation.

Think about the reverse.  Having enemies or thoughts of revenge at some point in a persons life is not really a rare thing.  How many people who meditate do you think have completely avoided this in their lives?  Grist for the mill.

If you have harmful thoughts Metta meditation is the antidote for such thoughts. It might be difficult to do but this will help in alleviating such thoughts.
If negative thoughts arise they also can be displaced using the following method:
(1) Thought displacement - turn his attention to a different sign connected with the wholesome.
(2) Aversion therapy - should examine the disadvantage [the danger] of those thoughts
(3) Non-attention - he should not mind them, he should disregard them
(4) Thought reduction - should attend to the stilling of the thought-formation
(5) The last resort: Sustained effort - with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate, he should subdue, restrain, attack the (bad) mind with the (good) mind
Adopted from: Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta
One objective of Metta is breaking down the mental classification you have towards individual beings or classes of them into groups which you deem favorable, unfavorable or neutral and reacting to them with pleasant, unpleasant and neutral feeling associated with each classification. One such classification systems would be me, beings I like, neutral or unknown beings and being you do not like. When you break down the classification you will like everyone like yourself. Another classification could be same country, neutral country and enemy country. When you break down the mental classification system you will love everyone as your fellow country men. Another classification could be higher life forms, lower life forms and same level life forms. When you break down this classification you will love all living beings equally.
When you classify if a being is from a favorable category you react with pleasant sensation, unfavorable category with unpleasant sensation and neutral category with unpleasant sensations. These sensation lead to the unwholesome roots of craving for the favorable and pleasant, aversion towards the unfavorable and unpleasant and ignorance towards the neutral, as discussed in the Pahāna Sutta. When such reaction stops you stop creating negative mental states and come out of misery.
In order to develop Metta you should wish every one in every category you can imagine to be well and happy. Also know how the classifications are woulding in the back of your mind and know mental reaction and sensation. Say you remember and foe look at the mental reaction and sensations that follow. If you remember a loved one see the mental reaction and the sensations that follows. Try to be equanimous knowing the changes and and arising and passing nature of the sensations.
Once the favorable and unfavorable categorisations are broken you do not despair if you meet with non loved one and with equanimity you do not get attached to others. Beings cannot cause you stress. You are free from negative thoughts about other and also this itself can take you to the final goal of Nirvana.

well what if a person don't want to forgive his enemy's but still want to do meditation just to get more power inside?

Not forgiving means there is aversion which is and unwholesome root as well as a hindrance. So you cannot go deep with your meditation. As you meditate more you will find that you can forgive more. Meditation aso help to forgive. Sometimes it seems hard to forgive. In which case you have to work on it so you eventually is done. This is no easy that it needs effort. This might mean mediating more and when in meditation ill will or aversion comes up trying to displace the thoughts with more positive thoughts.

"If a person has enemies and wants to take revenge, then can he meditate? "
---------
Yes you can.
It is called Mitya Samadhi. (wrong concentration)


text:
how can spirts/sould see physical things without eyes
I was listening and watching the Tibetan Book of the Dead (Audiobook) and i got one question in my mind. When soul/conciousness leaves physical body how can it see all the physical things without a physical eyes?

Why does it need to see physical things?

You need the eye faculty to see. In Humans and animals you have a physical eye made of gross material. In finer material spheres you will have eyes with finer material. Only in immaterial realms you will be without sense faculties.
In finer material realm your sense faculties are finer / shapere than being gross faculties. This is why in super normal powers this one of the power is know are divine [godly/heavenly] eye.
In all realms you have the 6 faculties in some for or the other except in the immaterial realms where you do not have the physical faculties.
Being in some finer material realm (heavens and hells) can see people in our realm and perhaps other realms also.
Perhaps in other realms also there might be being without an eye faculty like the blind in our realm. I don't this there being would be able to see.


text:
Why deos 'rebirth' imply there is no soul?
Buddhists avoid 'reincarnation' instead of 'rebirth'. Especially if we don't mean rebirth into an intermediate state, the term 'reincarnation', to me, seems OK.
Why does 'rebirth' imply there is no soul?
Is it an etymological thing? Or something about putting the emphasis on 'birth' rather than the body?

I have answered at the duplicate link.

Related meta-topic


text:
How can we know what is mundane?
How can we know what is mundane? Mundane life contains many components that superficially overlap with the Buddhist path:

religious belief
unusual experiences
changes to character
epiphanies
etc.

Aside from taking a poll of monks or devout Buddhists, is there a means to test whether we have made any progress?

i quite like the reply it doesn't matter, and hope someone answers that way

Unless you are, at least, a Sotapanna, everything you experience is mundane.

i can't stress enough that this seems to have dissolved all my sad questions about the "path". thanks!

i hope that the edit is fine. i liked the answer very much as it is, but i don't want to confuse anyone with its typo or declamation haha. all the best, and thanks

In Pali Buddhism, what is not mundane is defined by the word 'lokuttara', which means 'beyond the world', 'supramundane' or 'transcendent" &, most importantly, equates with the realisation of 'emptiness' ('sunnata'), 'not-self' ('anatta') or selflessness. To quote:

Ye te suttantā tathāgatabhāsitā gambhīrā gambhīratthā lokuttarā suññatapaṭisaṃyuttā
We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness...
SN 20.7

Therefore, unless the mind is, at least, Sotapanna, everything experienced is 'mundane'.

Contrary to the above, what is 'mundane' in Pali Buddhism is described as follows:

What is right view affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions?
There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions (kamma); there is this world and the other world (paraloka); there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously (sattā opapātikā); there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins (samaṇabrāhmaṇāsamaṇa) who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world & the other world.
MN 117

Therefore, included with the ordinary world of common conventions, the following Buddhist topics are also 'mundane':

Kamma & rebirth

Other worlds

Blind faith in words of teachers & gurus


text:
Is there anything I can read about the Buddhist tradition today?
I've read the book Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism, and it was really interesting to read about the recent history of Buddhism, in Korea. And there's quite a few books on how Buddhism came to America etc.. And I have a few biographies of important monks. And I've read a bit about Bodhidharma, ch'an history in China, Tibetan dissemination, and the like.
But is there any other scholarship, like the book on Korea above, I can read about recent Buddhist history, rather than personalities, today?

The Broken Buddha isn't exactly a history -- more of a snapshot, a description, an account of the author's personal experiences -- his description of people he met and their attitudes and behaviours which he saw ... not about "personalities", in that the people he describes are unnamed or not famous.
Seven Years in Tibet is history (ending in 1950) -- but by a non-Buddhist, and more about the culture, society, geography and politics of Tibet at the time, than about Buddhism.

I found this helpful. Not sure if this is the direction you were seeking or if it's too general.
http://www.sangharakshita.org/pdfs/a_buddhist_manifesto.pdf


text:
Do Buddhas have precognition?
Do Buddhas have precognition? Do they know what events are going to happen before they do?
Obviously, the Buddha knows that he will not be reborn, and he knows what will generate a good rebirth, and what a bad. Are any of these destinies both assured and knowable?
According to Early Buddhism and the Bhagavadgita, By Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, p84, the Buddha "seems" to have claimed that he does not have "unlimited" knowledge of the future.
But I wondered if Buddhas had any certain knowledge of the future, aside from their not being reborn. Or perhaps, though the future is not fully predetermined (ibid), they can have certain knowledge of events aside from not being reborn.

Apologies for stating this, because users of the site may have noticed that I ask many similar questions, but, from wikipedia...

Think not of the past but of the future. Constantly maintain the
  future thoughts to be good. This is what we call the Sambhogakāya.
Just one single evil thought could destroy the good karma that has
  continued for one thousand years; and just one single good thought in
  turn could destroy the evil karma that has lived for one thousand
  years. If the future thoughts are always good, you may call this the
  Sambhogakāya. The discriminative thinking arising from the Dharmakāya
  (法身↔fashen "Truth body") is called the Nirmanakāya (化身↔huashen
  "transformation body"). The successive thoughts that forever involve
  good are thus the Sambhogakāya.

if they don't, and the Buddha-nature is identical to the body, then maye it could be said (likely not) that rebirth has no phenomena whatsoever?

Do Buddhas have precognition?

Some Buddhist may have precognition if they develop abhiññā. Precognition is not limited to Buddhism. Hindus also have meditation techniques which develop these kind of powers. Though not frequent there are cases outside Buddhism also which such phenomena has been seen. See studies in parapsychology.
Having said this only a handful of people even among Buddhist have precognition as an ability.

Is it possible that abhiññā includes knowledge of the past (former abodes), and the present (including e.g. the present state of someone who has died, whether they're in heaven) ... but not the future?

Abhiññā is inclusive of all Supernormal powers. Iddhi vidhā nana is catch all. All Supernormal phenomena come under Abhiññā if it does not fit in the other categories it can be put under Iddhi vidhā nan which is super powers. Seeing the future can be put under divine eye and also  also Iddhi vidhā nan. The Divine Eye (Clairvoyance)- this power allows one to see beings in other realms as well as see the future in iddhi

thank you to you both. i might add a note on what i know so far, i think to the question


text:
Buddhist perspective how humans can communicate with spirits?
I have seen lot of paranormal activities videos about scientists who have done lot of research in spirit communication and are successful in doing so. Can this be done or possible? What are the ways this can be achieved according to Buddhism?

Yes this can be done if you develop abhiññā. It will be through ceto-pariya-ñāṇa. In order to do this you have to develop at least the 4th Jhana.
Also there are more recent documented instances where this has been done in Venerable Ãcariya Mun Bhuridatta Thera's biography. The general training that was followed recorded in Patipadā Venerable Ãcariya Mun’s Path of Practice. (Ajahn Mun Bhuridatta Thera was a teacher of Ajahn Chah)
Also refer:

p369, CH. XII THE SUPERNORMAL POWERS, The Path of Purification, 4td Ed., Bhikkhu Nanamoli (trans.)
p206, The Path Of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) of Arahant Upatissa Translated from the Chinese by Rev. N. R. M. Ehara, Soma Thera, Kheminda Thera
Ways of Attaining Dhyana by Piya Tan
Miracles by Piya Tan

Also be warned that only a few a successful in developing supernormal powers and this can become a hindrance, hence you are better of working towards liberation.

Like animals, petas, gods, angels and so on?


text:
How/Why to be moral without believing God or any supernatural entity?
Being believer or dependent on God so far in my life, I'm clueless how exactly can I become independent without turning morally Bankrupt? Being devotee I'm automatically moral & lovingly but When I start believing in experience I become somewhat immoral, without any good feelings. How & Why to be moral without believing in supernatural entity like God? What are the ways to become independent because I want to be moral without being devotee or dependency on the God?

You don't have to, but the question might be clearer if you gave some example[s] of what you mean by "moral" and "immoral".

An interesting approach would be to explore how you rely on God for morality, and explore the question of how aware you are of what that process entails.  An awareness of this will help if you wish to depend less on the support of an external supernatural entity.

You may find The Way to Happiness to be extremely valuable.  As it transcends all cultures and religions, it is even used by Buddhist monks.

@CortAmmon I'm moral automatically in devotion.

Are you moral when not in devotion?

Well let's take an example of deliberately causing someone pain. If not in devotion, would you ever deliberately hurt someone for your own pleasure or gain? Your posts seems to suggest you'd have no problem doing this. Would you be OK with someone doing the same to you? Society benefits from people treating others they wish to be treated themselves. At the very least, you should act in a moral way in good faith that your peers will do the same, to prevent a barbaric society. I may not have a problem with stealing, but I do have a problem when someone steals from me, so I don't steal.

How can you set aside your current beliefs and replace it with something else so quickly? Make that into a teaching! I would love to find out your mental processes on how you can (if you can) put aside your current belief system, by mere choice.

If you can't determine right from wrong you lack empathy, not religion.

@DeepSpace - Great point. When expanded It's probably the answer to the question. .

I feel the question highlights the importance and usefulness of a belief in God as an approximation. The belief may not be quite justtfied or correct but it works -  just as Newton's physics works for most purposes but is not quite correct. Theism is not necessary to morality but if we have no better theory or deeper knowledge to guide us then a belief in God has immense utility. On this view monotheism is morality for the layman - practical, worthwhile and largely effective but not fully informed and with a tendency to be egoistic. .  .      . .  .

Fire

In Buddhism, fire is used to describe the destructive & harmful mental defilements of greed/lust, hatred/anger & delusion/ignorance, such as in the Fire Sermon.

Being believer or dependent on God so far in my life, I'm clueless how exactly can I become independent without turning morally
Bankrupt?

Yes. Buddhism explains immoral (harmful) mental tendencies occur due to ignorance, not-knowing or cluelessness, as follows:

Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an
unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In
one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve,
wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of
wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong
effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong
mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.
Avijja Sutta

The rationale here about needing God is similar to a violent dog that needs to be kept behind a fence or in a cage; or a evil person that must be isolated from society in a prison.
In Buddhism, it is taught people have an evil disposition due to nature. We can observe the tendency to merciless violence in animals. People have obviously evolved from animals (rather than were created by & in the image of a god).
Buddhism teaches the minds of people can dwell in different mental states called:
(i) human (moral);
(ii) godly (powerful);
(iii) animal (immoral);
(iv) hungry ghost (addicted); and
(v) hell (suffering).
People who are immoral in nature & behaviour dwell within a mind in the animal world & eventually end up in hell (suffering).

When I start believing in experience I become somewhat immoral, without any good feelings.

Genesis 6.5 of the Bible states:

the Lord saw how wicked everyone on earth was and how evil their thoughts were all the time, he was sorry that he had ever made them
and put them on the earth. He was so filled with regret

This seems to show following the Abrahamic god creates an evil nature. In other words, the immoral feelings are due to how your religion created you, as explained in Genesis 6 of the Bible.
The history of the world seems to show people who believe in a supernatural entity like God are more evil than those that don't. For example, Christians have been at war among themselves & with others for hundreds of years & have destroyed many indigenous cultures with their imperialism. Even today, the American prison system contains more theists than atheists. I would suggest this is because God-believers want to exercise violent power over others; following the example of God as depicted in various scriptures that show God excising violent absolute power. Even the evil of atheist dictatorial Communism was created by Jews, with a violent dictatorial yet classless ideology similar to Judaism. Thus theistic religions have a tendency to attract evil people who lust for power and who want to act on this earth towards the humans as though they are gods.
Unfortunately, the good human people of this earth have to endure these wanna-be gods, like we must do, such as endure the evil politicians who today run the USA and are God-believers, both Christian & Zionist; who finance & arm Saudi terrorists that murder people while screaming: "Allah U Akbar" or "God is Great".

How & Why to be moral without believing in supernatural entity like God?

In Buddhism, morality equates with harmlessness. Morality is not a commandment or doctrine but, instead, harmlessness. To understand morality, one must comprehend harmlessness. If harmlessness is not comprehended, it is difficult to maintain morality.
Buddhism explains when you are moral, you no longer harm yourself. Being moral is a method to love yourself & benefit yourself.
If you examine with reason & intelligence the behaviours Buddhism considers to be immoral, such as killing, stealing, promiscuous sex, lying, drug taking, gambling, etc, you will find people who engage in these actions bring suffering & problems to their own lives (and, of course, suffering to the lives of others).
For example, men go to war, return with PTSD & even commit suicide. People who steal, end up in prison or lose their jobs. People addicted to promiscuous sex end up with broken relationships & mental disorders. People who lie are not trusted (even though they make money as evil politicians or business leaders). People who take drugs destroy their lives with bad health. People who gamble & borrow money greedily end up ruined.
Therefore, in Buddhism, we reflect or think deeply about the harmful consequences of immoral behaviour.
In addition, in Buddhism, another method to become moral is to develop 'empathy', namely, 'putting oneself in the place of another'. For example:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
hereafter.

Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.

When the fool commits evil deeds, he does not realize (their evil nature). The witless man is tormented by his own deeds, like one burnt
by fire.

Dandavagga: Violence

What are the ways to become independent?

To become independent, the Buddhist scriptures (SN 56.120) explain an 'animal' mind must realise the Four Noble Truths & practise the Noble Eightfold Path to become 'human'.
The full development of moral empathy is explained in the Veludvareyya Sutta, as follows:

"I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to
oneself. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak."
"Yes, sir," those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The
Blessed One said this:
"What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself?
Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who
wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am
averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not
wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if
someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable
to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes
to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse
to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other
either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from
the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the
destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in
three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to
commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I
were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit
theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either.
What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from
taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from
taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified
in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with
the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the
other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is
displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon
another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected
thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to
abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence
from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in
three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would
not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the
welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and
agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to
me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict
upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having
reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others
to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from
false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three
respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that
would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide
another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and
disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too.
How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to
me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech,
exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise
of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his
is purified in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with
harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other
either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh
speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus
this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter,
that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to
address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not
be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and
disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too.
How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to
me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter,
exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of
abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is
purified in three respects."

In Buddhism, morality is evaluated by the fruits of our actions. Grossly speaking, actions that are observed to promote or mature into suffering or added burden are regarded as immoral, while actions that promote or mature into happiness and ease are regarded as virtuous.
But actions themselves are not just judged by their outcome, but also by the intention that manifested it and who they harm or benefit. Buddhism emphasizes the study of our actions in order to become skillful in creating happiness -- that is, in order to become virtuous.
This question also has an echo in the Pali literature. In one sutta, the Buddha tells his audience to consider a person who exercises and fulfills four virtuous characteristics: equanimity, compassion, benevolence and sympathetic joy (happiness from other people's successes):

“This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won four assurances in this very life.
“The first assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is another world, and if there is the fruit and result of good and bad deeds, it is possible that with the breakup of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.’
“The second assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble.
“The third assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil comes to one who does evil. Then, when I have no evil intentions toward anyone, how can suffering afflict me, since I do no evil deed?’
“The fourth assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil does not come to one who does evil. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.’
-- AN 3.65

In other words, no matter what a person may believe about the after life or about the laws of karma, this person who has such virtuous behavior has, at the minimum, created for herself a less burdening, happier and blameless life here and now as a direct result of her conduct -- without having to wait for death to realize the benefits of it, if any. Moreover, if the laws of karma are true or if there's an after life where the results of our actions affect us, then such a person will also enjoy happiness after death, as a result of her conduct in this life.

Putting faith on an external entity lightens the burden on the mind. You would believe that an external source would work things out for you than doing it yourself. This give a sense of comfort.
Also when you are mentally burdened discussing these problems with other lighten the burden. Similarly mentioning this in prayer also lightens the burden.
Though this is mentally conferring, what you might need to asses is does everything you pray for materialise as your wish. Also see if this leads to procatination where you do not do what need to be done when it needs to be done. If it does not have you ever had a feeling of being let down. Buddhism gives a solution for this through the Noble 8 Fold Path which is on account of how things playout keeping you mental state and emortions in check.
When it comes to morality, it is completely in your control. Since you have free will the choice is yours. In this case there is not God who makes you moral. One has to make the effort.
Faith is based on ideas and there is a human tendency to get attached to ideas. E.g. many wars have been fought for ideals, politics and religion. In some cases the attachment to and ideal or idea far exceeds that of the value of one's own life. These ideas are very hard to stake off but there is a techniques called Vipassana which might help. Vipassana meditation has its roots in Buddhism but is practiced by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc. alike. You can try it out. Following are some pointers where you can locate a course:

http://dhamma.org/
http://internationalmeditationcentre.org/
http://www.buddhanet.info/

I'm already a Vipassana meditation.

@Suminda One of the better explanations I've read on why people believe and the importance of personal responsibility with regard to morality.

How to become independent of any external moral authority? The Southern Baptists ask me this one a lot.
What makes people think they will turn to a life of crime and debauchery absent the moral compass provided by religion? You know ... we DID have villages and even some social order prior to "established" religion. So how did that happen without us killing one another?
Human beings have an internal sense of morality. In its absolute BAREST form it is revealed in toddlers as they comprehend the golden rule and, thus, develop empathy. You'll see them behead toys and kill a bug - that's how they learn it. It's actually hard wired into our brains in the frontal cortex for communication purposes. That formulation they make (or more precisely don't) is actually a leading psychological suspect for sociopathic behavior.
So you start off with a hard wired golden rule ... then you begin adding in the "social" moral codes. Ones made so that we respect boundaries. These change with culture so the line between them and the biological one is blurry and shaded. This is followed by changes as a matter of belief. This changes not only by culture, but then by specific beliefs within that culture.
So of those 3 stages of moral construction one is completely independent of religion . . and it takes a biological defect to stop it. Thus there's no total breakdown of morals in society as so many theists seem to fear.
Like some proof? Turn to youtube and research actual mourning done by the animals on this planet who have a frontal cortex brain structure such as our own. Elephants, orcas, primates, corvids, dolphins - all of the animals on this planet with a highly develop communication structure such as ours exhibit empathy in this fashion. It's biology and it's a fact.
As for further examining how morality is advanced within Buddhism - not necessary to answer your question. Plus the guys above me are much more familiar with that side of it. This, however, is my specialty. Comparative animal behavior. And it says you have innate morals.

True but for the record we have a lot of people who lack empathy and are still able to survive just fine even without a moral compass. Plus the way humans develop most people don't have a fully formed Compass when it comes to morality until they reach the age of 25. That is kind of why we created civilization in the first place though this seems the mostly be an evolutionary quirk that happens when you reach a certain level of intelligence because we only seem to find creatures born with a lack of empathy or that have to be taught it in humans and apes

Undertaking actions simply because they are decreed by a super-natural rule maker is hardly being moral at all. It is simply doing what you're told for fear of punishment - equivalent to Kohlberg's pre-conventional stage of moral reasoning.

Not out of fear of punishment but out of love.

Arguably a love-based motivation is more sophisticated than a fear-based one, but regardless such morality still falls well short of principled ethical reasoning. Also, it should be noted that many religions do explicitly call upon the faithful to be fearful.

IMHO (an oversimplified idea to think of it in another way)
You could do a simple logic game (maybe oversimplified but will give you an idea).
1) you need other people. You are submerged in a social system, is built on trust and rules, the more you cheat the harder it is to get your goals, because you'll be wasting a lot of resources into avoiding being cheated.
2) People work better when they feel happy.
3) People is not happy when you break their trust, or do harm to them (very oversimplified), because it will mean they'll have to waste or have wasted resources as in 1)
So, In order to achieve your goals efficiently, you need other people to be efficient. For that you need trust, and basic satisfaction. So basically is in your best, egotistical interest that other people is happy.
That's basically what capitalisms does, sells you happiness so you conform to a system and keep doing your work.
This way you can build a parallel to the other awesome and extensive answer about Buddhism, that states that harmfulness is a way of ignorance. When you frame it as the logic I've stated, if you harm someone, you are being ignorant of the ways it will come back to you and make your life harder (i'm not referring as karma per-se, but the physics of the energy of interactions).
Recently i've read this book "Ethics for Amador" which basically explains my idea but properly and with good basis (among several other things).
I recommend a read to it. I wish i had read that book before.
http://fp.reverso.net/tustareasdesociales-over-blog/6225/en/pages/etica-para-amador-4867607.html

Morality is human not divine
Human morality basically derives from human experience. Our shared experience includes an instinct of self-preservation, aversion to pain and harm, empathy and the value of community. Because humans are communal animals, any actions we take which harm the community are harmful to ourselves as well, not just when we feel empathy for the suffering of others, but also because we cannot be happy in a broken and violent community, at risk of harm from others.
Human morals don't therefore come from some deity, but are a natural response to the human condition. If you are feeling a lack of empathy or outright indifference for the suffering of others when not devoted to a god, the problem is most likely an in-group/out-group feeling. Humans are naturally protective of their in-group, while can be aggressive/indifferent to people outside the group. To be moral outside of the commands of/dovotion to a deity, requires you to identify as a member of another group of humans (or humanity in general).
Just realizing all humans are related and part of one large family and that moral behaviour towards others will be more likely to create a society where others behave morally towards you should be sufficient. On the other hand if you dehumanise others or dismiss and other them as part of some "out-group", you will be less likely to include them in your moral considerations.

Morality is independent of religion, but yet inherent to it. The concept of a particular deity, with its likes and dislikes encourages certain behaviour, and much of this behaviour can be called social law. In buddhism, you adhere to the teachings of several buddhas, and from these teachings are also derived morality. But any morality can be invented ad-hoc  (mormons are a good example, as are scientologists), and most often - to make this morality more authoritative, a deity is invented/reused in the process.
I consider buddhism to be a philosophy, and while I do not practice it (as I am a jew, and such heresy is strictly forbidden!), I understand that it does not require any concept of a divine patriarch, or pantheon, for its followers to behave in a manner that isn't harmful to other members of the same society.
The concept that such and such benevolent acts yield benevolence from
one's surroundings is not misguided. It is usually a direct cause-effect relationship, but it is not a guarantee. Nor are malevolent acts similarly punished. It is a reference for people to subscribe to the philosophy.

The ultimate aim of Buddhism is to discard both moral and immoral.

Isn't it to shed the self?

Perhaps I would have said that ultimate aim of Buddhism is to discard both wholesome and unwholesome.

How astute. It is like other some other systems of belief in essence an escape from reality. That is the ultimate aim. That the processes of evolution crafted us imperfect omnivores who must reproduce or perish does not enter into any buddhistic texts.

What is the reason for the minus vote?

Your lack of faith. 'I believe in the god of carnage. The god whose rule's been unchallenged since time immemorial' - always happy to mentor buddhists.

In Noble Eight fold path there are two aspects. Lokiya and Lokutara. Lokiya is the wholesome path. Lokuttara path is a gradual elimination of wholesome aspect as well. These are the deep teaching of Buddhism. I am not sure of your level of understanding. By the way in your case please stick to wholsome aspect of the path.

Aha? What path is best?

It is gradual training. We all have to start (climbing the mountain) from base camp one. -)


text:
difference between material pleasure and spirtual happiness
What is the difference betweenchappiness which we can get from this world and the spirtual joy or happiness which buddha taught us?
Is the spirtual joy more greater than sensual pleasure like drinking, eating, having sex, riding bikes, cars etc? If yes why and how so? Why should someone ignore everything in this world just to achieve that joy?
As i know the spirtual joy is continious, without any disturbance unlike material joy which comes and goes like wind. But in scientific way is spritual joy which person gets after doing right concentration as buddha told is more stronger and pleasures than the sensual joy?

The ultimate happiness which Buddha taught is not like strong pleasure:

“Brahmin, I was firmly energetic and had clarity of mindfulness; my body was tranquil and my mind unified.
Fully secluded from the five senses, secluded from unwholesome mental qualities, I entered and remained in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and happiness born of seclusion, accompanied by movement of the mind.
Through the stilling of the movement of the mind, I entered and remained in the second jhāna, which has internal confidence and unification of mind and consists of rapture and happiness born of samādhi.
Through the fading away of rapture, I remained even-minded, mindful and clearly comprehending, experiencing happiness directly, and I entered and remained in the third jhāna of which the noble one declare, ʻhe is even-minded, mindful, and abides in happiness.ʼ
Through the abandoning of happiness and suffering and the earlier ending of joy and displeasure, I entered and remained in the fourth jhāna, which has neither suffering nor happiness and consists of purity of mindfulness and even-mindedness.
- The Book of the Discipline (Vinayapiṭaka), ch.1: "The origin of the Vinaya" (Bu-Pj.1.1.5 MS.14)

So if this ultimate happiness is not as strong as sensual pleasures, then why it is so good? Maybe it is not so good? If it is neither suffering nor happiness, then isn't it just too bland?
Is it worth the efforts? Maybe it's better to enjoy strong sensual pleasures, even if they alternate with suffering?
Many people say so when they hear about Buddhism. Maybe they are right?
Through the practice of meditation and investigation of our feelings, we can spot something interesting: our heart in its depth does not actually like so much those strong pleasures. Because they are virtually always mixed with a grain of suffering. We don't feel totally easy when we experience them.
So Buddhism says that the worldly pleasures we chase are actually not happiness, but a form of "the suffering of impermanence". On the surface it seems pleasant, but there's always some uneasiness deeply inside.
We chase such experiences only because we try to escape our usual condition of dissatisfaction.
So even when we enjoy worldly pleasures, uneasiness remain. We might see it particularly clearly watching those who lead a dissolute life. If a person drinks a lot, has a lot of sex here and there, gambles in casinos, tries drugs, rides fast etc., does that person look happy?
We can feel pretty easily that despite the lifestyle full of sensory pleasures, so devoted to chasing them, such person must be very unhappy.
Happy people just wouldn't need such way of life.
On the other hand, imagine a person who lives in very simple conditions, satisfied with minimal things like little food and shelter, very calm, would such person seem unhappy?
We might feel intuitively who is happier, even though our restless mind associates pleasure with throwing money, big cars, nightclubs, expensive wines, random sex etc. rather than with simple life.
So the happiness pointed by Buddha is said "being beyond happiness and unhappiness, and that's why it is called real happiness".
It's beyond that worldly image of happiness - with incessant chasing, inner constraints, tensions, vexations, never completely satisfying.
The ultimate happiness is being satisfied. The chase is dropped. Vexations ceased. Tensions relaxed. The uneasiness is completely relieved.
It's feeling free, very natural, unencumbered, alive.
In harmony of all things, with fresh, clean senses.
Compassionate and responsive.
Wise and not limited.
That's why real happiness is superior not only because of being constant and free from impermanent conditions, but it's superior also because deeply in our heart we like it more.
When we experience it, we realize that we like being free, natural and easy more than we would like strong pleasures combined with those inner tensions of samsaric encumbrance.

Material pleasures are based on sensations. Ultimate spiritual pleasures of Nirvana independent of sensation.
Regarding material pleasure, or pleasure of a householder, there are 6 types which is elaborated in Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta.
At an intermediate state or spirituality (still working towards Nirvana) there are 6 kinds of pleasures associated with renunciation which is elaborated in Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta.
In simple terms the difference is the householder pleasure is through acquiring and getting pleasant experiences while spiritual pleases is thought renunciation and understanding / wisdom / seeing things as they are.
Since the ultimate spiritual pressure does not end or pass away and independent of any external factor or cause it is far superior than any pleasure based on sensations which are temporary and not in one's control and cause by or dependent on any other factors and causes.
The intermediate pleasures or pleasures of renunciation,  are still based on understanding and wisdom, hence they are also superior.

are those spirtual pleasures more better than sensual pleasure?

Updated to answer this.

"Monks, there is rapture of the flesh, rapture not of the flesh, and rapture more not-of-the-flesh than that not of the flesh. There is pleasure of the flesh, pleasure not of the flesh, and pleasure more not-of-the-flesh than that not of the flesh. There is equanimity of the flesh, equanimity not of the flesh, and equanimity more not-of-the-flesh than that not of the flesh. There is liberation of the flesh, liberation not of the flesh, and liberation more not-of-the-flesh than that not of the flesh.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.031.than.html

Please refrain from posting low-quality answers like this. The question(s) should be addressed and the links described. The answer does none of the above. This is a Q&A-site where we are looking for high-quality answers. For inspiration on how to write a good answer, see. "How do I write a good answer?".