text:
Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism?
I am interested in Buddhism and the book Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu in c. 600 BC. Is there common ground between these two Eastern philosophies?
link to audio of Tao Te Ching

Commenting because this is not worth being a full-blown answer, but I'll refer you to the superb Great Minds of the Eastern Tradition audible course. It's usually expensive but is currently on sale for under $50 (e.g. at audible.com). Suffice to say that there are extensive cross connections between Buddhism and Daoism, and this course explain them in a really accessible way.

@tkp Can I thank you for the great minds recommendation. Have just bought it and listened to the  first few. Fantastic. Very cheap if you can get it as part of the audible.com intro offer

You might also consider Frithjof Schuon's 'Transcendent Unity of Religion'. Philosophical Taoism endorses the same neutral metaphysical description of Reality as Nagarjuna. This is made clear by Lao Tu's comment 'True worlds seem paradoxical'.     .

There is common ground. But there is common ground between Christianity and Buddhism, too. So...
A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite.
Your question is broad, and so it's hard to answer. There are just too many sects... some Chinese ones like Huayan were influenced by Taoist philosophy so there is more common grounds... and then there are Taoist sects that were significantly influenced by Buddhism, like the Quanzhen School...
In the Pure Land tradition, the great patriarch Tan-Luan, was initially a Taoist teacher. He wanted immortality but couldn't achieve it. Then he met the Indian Bodhiruci who gave him the Infinite Life Sutra, and Tan-Luan was so delighted by this sutra that he burned all his Taoist texts and followed Buddhism alone. If this story is true, then we can say at least one person didn't think the two were compatible. Tan-Luan sought immortality, but it occurred to him that when Taoism speaks of immortality, it does so from a point of view of attachment to existence, while Buddhism's ultimate point is nirvana which is neither-existence-nor-nonexistence (suchness). Something far removed from existence and non-existence.

I feel you are taking your view of Taoism from limited sources. I've heard Taoists criticise the views you contrast with Buddhism as being incorrect. I'd say a correct view of Taoism and Buddhism allows them to be syncretised. Lao Tsu tells us that existence and non-existence are just as Nagarjuna describes, extreme views to be overcome. The sages all obtain their knowledge from the same place. .  .   .  ,

I've read that one of the things that Taoism and Buddhism have in common is a sense of the ineffable. The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching go

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
  The name that can be named is not the eternal name

meaning perhaps that the Tao is beyond words so everything that you read about it ... well that's not the real thing.
Contrast that to the Flower sermon where the Buddha does talk and instead just holds up a flower. When he did this ...

The disciples were greatly confused. Buddha quietly displayed the
  lotus to each of them. In turn, the disciples did their best to
  expound upon the meaning of the flower: what it symbollized, and how
  it fit into the body of Buddha’s teaching.

however Mahakasyapa understood and smiled. The Buddha said

“What can be said I have said to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what
  cannot be said, I have given to Mahakashyapa.”

So again beyond words.
I don't think it is too much of a stretch to see the Taoist influence within this Chineses Buddhism sutra. Certainly if it isn't a direct influence then it is something that the two religions had in common.

The first line of the Tao Te Ching seems to me to be saying, among other things, that the map is not the territory, i.e. that the description or the thing-described is not the thing. Whereas the Flower Sermon is 'direct seeing', i.e. "here is a thing".

@ChrisW Where did you get this interpretation from? The first line of the Tao Te Ching doesn't say that. It rather says that "the territory that can be mapped is not the true territory". I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but that seems to be the closest analogy to the map-and-territory metaphor.

@michau It's just my interpretation. I get it e.g. from the 3rd line, "The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth" ... IMO the 'nameless' is the (whole, eternal) thing itself before it's described or analyzed, before things are identified; and the 'named' are the myriad mental 'formations' i.e. the map. Unfortunately I have no special insight into the Tao Te Ching itself: I find it so gnomic that it's only by interpreting it as Buddhist doctrine that I find I can make much intellectual sense of it.

@ChrisW my lens is science, so I interpret both by it. In the case of "the map is not the territory", it seems to be about tacit knowledge. It's like saying "a YouTube tutorial on car driving is not the driving itself", which in its turn sounds like a zen koan?

@michau - The first line of the Tao Te Ching tells us that Reality is beyond conceptual fabrications, just as Nagarjuna tells us. When the former says 'True words seem paradoxical' he is telling us that we need to use Nagarujana's method of 'Two Truths' to speak about Reality. The two clearly share exactly the same world-view, as we would expect given their method of enquiry. . . .   . ,

Wuwei, as how I understand it, has these understandings, depending on the context:

You do something because you are born for it and do it without wondering why you need to do or learn how to do it (e.g. trees produce oxygen not because oxygen is needed for animals, but because they need photosynthesis)
When you are doing it you are being present in the moment, and allow life to lead you to something unexpected, yet you do not get confused and unprepared when the unexpected occurs
Your action has been simplified to its most basic parts so it can be accomplished in the most efficient and effortless ways
You don't need to do anything because you see the order from the chaos, and you see the big picture from above
You do something impossible or insane with confidence and fearlessness, because you have the knowledge (e.g. sailing into a storm with a smile)

Therefore, I think while Buddhism is about avoiding attachments to not having sufferings, Daoism is about attaching and having no suffering at all.

Taoism is also about detachment. There is, after all, only way to transcend suffering.  .

I think this is just a language game? The concept of wuwei is about detaching to the source of suffering too

In the Dao De Ching it is stated that:
"Therefore it is said:
He who desireless is found
The spiritual of the world will sound.
But he who by desire is bound
Sees the mere shell of things around."
One whose mind is filled with desire only sees the surface of things as they really are. A mind filled with desire sees the world as something to be controlled and used as tools or means for achieving one's will. And so, the mind does not understand that nature, in its deep mystery, is beyond the scope of language and reason.
The world does not need to be controlled, but the mind to be tamed. The wise one understand the changing and ever flowing rhythms of nature, and let's him/herself to go with it: that is Wu-Wei, or effortless action.
Early Buddhism and Daoism (as expressed in the DDC) point to desire/greed and instrumentalization of nature/the world (as defined in SN 35.116) as the causes for unbinding with the Tao/Samsara.
Have a wonderful day!

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


text:
Sūkarakhata sutta and the "arahants seeking benefits they already have"
I stumbled across this sutta yesterday (SN 48.58) with a dialogue between the Buddha and Sariputta, which has the following passage:

Considering what benefit, Sariputta, does a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conduct himself in a way that shows supreme honor towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching?
It is, venerable sir, considering as benefit the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching.

So far, the question and answer seem a little curious. In the edition I have by Bhikku Bodhi, he added a note pointing out this was puzzling. But there is more. It continues:

And what, Sariputta, is the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed considers as the benefit when he conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching?
Here, venerable sir, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed develops the faculty of faith, which leads to peace, leads to enlightenment. He develops the faculty of energy [...]
Good, good, Saripputa. [...]

Now, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is, as far as I know, an arahant. Also, even if I were to doubt Bhikku Bodhi's translation, skimming through the pali version (with a dictionary, my pali knowledge is 0) indicated they are not talking about an ordinary bhikkhu ("who has work to be done"), but an arahant -- a khīṇāsavo bhikkhu.
I tried googling for discussions around this text with no success.
So my question is: Are there any clues that shed light into this confusion? The confusion of the Buddha approving Saripputa words (and that Saripputa himself would say them, though its not clear if he was already an Arahant himself at the time), which imply that an Arahant still seeks a state of being, devoted to the development of faculties and to reap assiciated benefits.
While on a practical side this mostly concerns arahants (ie. if I'm to clear my doubts, I better become one), I'm also curious to know other (possibly notable) suttas that present problems (inconsistencies, etc).

www.palikanon.com has a clearer translation.

The Buddha questions Sāriputta at Sūkarakhatalena as to why a monk who
  has destroyed the āsavas should revere the Buddha and his teachings.
  Sāriputta answers that it is because such a monk has secured freedom
  from the yoke. "What kind of security is it?" asks the Buddha, and
  Sāriputta explains that it is security obtained by the cultivation of
  the five indriyas of faith, energy, etc. S.v.233f.

An Arahant reveres the Buddha and his teaching not because he/she has anything left to attain, but because the Buddha and the Dhamma are what led him/her to Nibbana. The faculty of faith peaks out when a being attains Arahantship. The closer you get to Nibbana, the more respect and appreciation you will have for the Buddha and his teachings.
Incidentally, venerable Sariputta attained Arahantship by listening to the Dīghanakha (or Vedanāpariggaha) Sutta at the Sūkarakhata cave.

This description does make much more sense. I'm still looking for different translations to have a better understanding of the text itself, since the fact that Bodhi himself was puzzled indicates that it wasn't an accidental translation or interpretation, but that he saw that meaning in the pali words.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What exactly are the last two of the Arupa Jhanas? How can we transcend them and for what?
In the words of Buddha, the world in which we are living is generated as the following:

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form...

And, additionally, the following loop is also expounded:

"From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form..."

The full understanding (awakening) of this knowledge is given through the eight jhanas (particularly the last four Arupa Jhanas;) which relates to what was said precedingly as follows:
From the complete transcending of each following states, the bhikku enters & remains in the dimension of:

Infinite space
Infinite consciousness
Nothingness, then at last
Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception.

My question will be about the last two. What are they exactly, the Sphere of Nothingness and the Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception? How can they be transcended, and what for?

It's not clear that any of the above explains the Buddha's words at the end of the Bahiya Sutta. What say you?

this question is over 6 years old..

The middle length discourse of the buddha (mn)... chapter 106 the way to the imperturbable... Describes the jhana in detail

Nothingness is transcended by seeing the relative coarseness of perception even of nothingness. By observing the perception repeatedly, one sinks into a state of quasi-perception. As per the Vism:

When, however, he wants to develop the base consisting of
  neitherperception nor non-perception, he must first achieve mastery in
  the five ways in the attainment of the base consisting of nothingness.
  Then he should see the danger in the base consisting of nothingness
  and the advantage in what is superior to it in this way: “This
  attainment has the base consisting of boundless consciousness as its
  near enemy, and it is not as peaceful as the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception,” or in this way: “Perception is
  a boil, perception is a dart … this is peaceful, this is sublime, that
  is to say, neither perception nor non-perception” (M II 231). So
  having ended his attachment to the base consisting of nothingness, he
  should give attention to the base consisting of neither perception non
  non-perception as peaceful. He should advert again and again to that
  attainment of the base consisting of nothingness that has occurred
  making non-existence its object, adverting to it as “peaceful,
  peaceful,” and he should give his attention to it, review it and
  strike at it with thought and applied thought.
Path of Purification X.40

Transcending the sphere of neither perception nor non perception is not directly accomplished in the same way as the others; it is considered the height of tranquility meditation, there is no further one can go with that type of practice. To transcend it means to switch to insight meditation; since insight meditation is considered higher than tranquility, it can be seen as the "next step", even though it is in a new category of practice and attainment.

Well there is nirodha samapatti "beyond" the other formless attainments - namely the extinction of consciousness.  I think it's even mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana sutta.  At the very least, I've heard it mentioned that that absorption was the only place the Buddha found peace for bodily suffering towards the end of his life.  Describing it and how to get there is a bit beyond my pay grade at this point, though.

The answer is found in MN 106:

(THE BASE OF NOTHINGNESS)
6. "Again, bhikkhus, a noble disciple considers thus:1014 'Sensual pleasures here and now and sensual pleasures in lives to come, sensual
perceptions here and now and sensual perceptions in lives to come,
material forms here and now and material forms in lives to come,
perceptions of forms here and now and  perceptions of forms in lives
to come, and perceptions of the  imperturbable - all are perceptions.
Where these perceptions  cease without remainder, that is the
peaceful, that is the sub- lime, namely, the base of nothingness.'
When he practises in this way and frequently abides thus, his mind
acquires confidence in  this base. Once there is full confidence, he
either attains to the  base of nothingness now or else he decides upon
[perfecting]  wisdom. On the dissolution of the body, after death, it
is possi- ble that this consciousness of his, leading [to rebirth],
may pass  on [to rebirth] in the base of nothingness. This, bhikkhus,
is  declared to be the first way directed to the base of nothingness.
7. "Again, bhikkhus, a noble disciple, gone to the forest or to  the root of a tree or to an empty hut, considers thus: 'This is void  of a
self or of what belongs to a self.'1015 When he practises in this  way
and frequently abides thus, his mind acquires confidence in  this
base. Once there is full confidence, he either attains to the  base of
nothingness now or else he decides upon [perfecting]  wisdom. On the
dissolution of the body, after death, it is possible  that this
consciousness of his, leading [to rebirth], may pass on  [to rebirth]
in the base of nothingness. This, bhikkhus, is declared  to be the
second way directed to the base of nothingness.
8. "Again, bhikkhus, a noble disciple considers thus: 'I am not  anything belonging to anyone anywhere, [264] nor is there any- thing
belonging to me in anyone anywhere.'1016 When he prac- tises in this
way and frequently abides thus, his mind acquires  confidence in this
base. Once there is full confidence, he either  attains to the base of
nothingness now or else he decides upon  [perfecting] wisdom. On the
dissolution of the body, after death,  it is possible that this
consciousness of his, leading [to rebirth],  may pass on [to rebirth]
in the base of nothingness. This,  bhikkhus, is declared to be the
third way directed to the base of  nothingness.
(THE BASE OF NEITHER-PERCEPTION-NOR-NON-PERCEPTION)
9. "Again, bhikkhus, a noble disciple considers thus: 'Sensual  pleasures here and now and sensual pleasures in lives to come,
sensual perceptions here and now and sensual perceptions in  lives to
come, material forms here and now and material forms  in lives to
come, perceptions of forms here and now and perceptions of forms in
lives to come, perceptions of the imper- turbable, and perceptions of
the base of nothingness - all are per- ceptions. Where these
perceptions cease without remainder, that  is the peaceful, that is
the sublime, namely, the base of neither-
perception-nor-non-perception.' When he practises in this way  and
frequently abides thus, his mind acquires confidence in this  base.
Once there is full confidence, he either attains to the base of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception now or else he decides  upon
[perfecting] wisdom. On the dissolution of the body, after  death, it
is possible that this consciousness of his, leading [to  rebirth], may
pass on [to rebirth] in the base of neither-perception-
nor-non-perception. This, bhikkhus, is declared to be the way
directed to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception."

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:
Does teaching Buddhism work?
Why did the Buddha bother to teach? Why does anyone teach today? Is there evidence (a charged word) or scriptural support that it really does any good? I read here many things that accord with my experience, but it also seems to "multiply entities" and so we wind up with lots of words when perhaps fewer would be better. Perhaps it would be more effective to simply have places of teaching, and those who wish to know would go there. A friend was saying to me recently that describing advanced experiences or ideas to family or friends only makes them think that one is deranged, it does not "light the way" for them if they are not looking.

Background to my question: I am actually a teacher, of computer programming. I find that there are so many possibilities, ways of doing things, subtle distinctions, pitfalls and so on even in a practical subject like programming that I wonder if all I am doing is watching while they accumulate their own experiences, like how I self-taught back in the early 80s with early computers. If it is all self-teaching anyway, why stand up there and lecture? How much more so with spiritual progress!

It seems that you support constructivism, that is, the view that every learner constructs knowledge on their own. This is opposed to cognitivism, which saw the teacher as the source of some objective knowledge, which is then transferred to the student. It does indeed seem that constructivism better describes the reality of learning, but it doesn't mean that there is no room for teachers. It means that teachers must facilitate the student's own development. And you say that there should be some places of teaching, so you do already see that students won't figure everything out on their own.

How do we interest people in attending the school?

well... i dont know about you but im glad everyone who ever taught me something useful bothered to teach.   Just sayin.

@ANonimous: did a teacher ever rouse your interest when you did not have any to start with? That is really my question. Does teaching "bring them in", or just give them something to work with after they have already shown up unbidden? If not, then I must reconsider teaching.

@Avaloka, yeah, people have sparked my interest in new things unexpectedly plenty of times. According to the vinaya (if im not mistaken) its best to only teach those who come looking though. Generally i am private about my practice and dont answer live questions, so (of course) it depends a lot on the individual and that specific situation.

It's possible worth adding that there is the tradition of direct transmission as evoked by the flower sermon. This is an important sutra within Zen Buddhism stressing wordless insight and perhaps the ineffability of the teaching. In this the Buddha holds up a flower and only Mahakashyapa understands, smiles then laughs. From here

When at last the Buddha came to his follower Mahakasyapa, the disciple
  suddenly understood. He smiled and began to laugh. Buddha handed the
  lotus to Mahakasyapa and began to speak. “What can be said I have said
  to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what cannot be said, I have given to
  Mahakashyapa."

It's not always the Buddha sitting in front of his disciples exorting then to be a bit more mindful.
But to address the question directly, even here (or especially here) the emphasis seems to be on the receptivity of the individual. It's the right word at the right time. I've heard it been compare to being struck by lightening. You got to be on the hill waiting in the thunderstorm and lightening might strike. You could be struck at home (i.e. not really looking for the Dharma) but you are far more likely to the struck if you are out looking and standing on that hill.
If someone isn't interested in the Dharma then they are unlikely to benefit from the teachings. But if someone is (they might have had an real feeling of dhukka for instance) then teaching will benefit them greatly.

One of the non-dual teachers on the retreat I attended recently said something like this about putting oneself in the right place to be "struck". But I am not allowed to drag my family and friends out into the storm... It is up to them : ) There is no "advertisement" or "general teaching" that will appeal. We rely on self-selection, and in my experience, that is rare.

@Avaloka the (non?)evangelical nature of Buddhism is interesting. I think as far as family and friends go just them seeing you and your engagement with Buddhist practice is enough really and people sometimes become interested on that basis (IMHO of course)

To use your own analogy, if you were trying to learn how to implement an OO design pattern in JavaScript, would it be more expedient for you to try and figure it out for yourself or to learn it from someone who had already mastered the concept?  Buddhism can be a very technical religion.  There are some problems that will arise (and meditation alone is chock full of them) that you just won't be able to get past without someone there to guide you along.  What's worse, sometimes you don't even know what questions you should even be asking!  You might be doing something totally wrong, but without a teacher there to point it out, you'd never be the wiser.  You likewise might master somethings, but not know where to turn your attention next.
I don't think the importance of a teacher can be overstated.  One of the qualities of the Buddha is that he is an anuttaro purisadammasarathi - an unsurpassed teacher of persons to be tamed!  That wouldn't be in the Buddhanussati Gatha if it wasn't important!

So it seems that "tutoring" (individual instruction) is necessary, but that general instruction might be much less useful. I guess I am facing the problem of lacking a tutor (when my Guru is not nearby). General instruction is less useful for me at this point, and I wonder how useful it is overall: Are people more advanced than they were in the Buddha's time? Are people in general making progress?

There are two side to this. The teaching works when there is a eager recipient ready to receive the Dhamma. (Ripened in perfections.) And the recipient practices the Dhamma to reap benefit.
Also Buddhism is a practical religion where you have to practice the 3 fold training to reach Nirvana. As you said the best is that you choose a meditation center and star the practice with lesser discussion.

I appreciate your straightforward answer. In my experience, being in the presence of realized people is helpful, and other things, including reading, is not as beneficial or even makes me feel lost. I have not seen my Guru in 10 years (she lives far away) and there is much I could learn by being around her, without even asking questions. If I am not such a person, what could I teach? Where I live now, I don't know of anyone such, that I could spend time with. "Transmission" and teaching are different...

As Buddha himself said (AN 3.22), there are three types of people:

Those who can figure it out themselves, without a teacher.
Those who can't get it, even after having received the teaching.
Those who can get it, but only with teacher's help.

It is for the sake of the third category, however small, that we teach.

I was thinking of a 4th class of people: those we wish to help, who are not yet interested. Only by presenting it to them can I tell which of the other three classes they fall in to. Or, I can wait. Is a greater proportion of people seeking the teaching now than formerly? Is Humanity at large "getting the message"? I ask because I am trying to decide what is best to do. Pushing the river usually does not work, so I am testing it.

If we shine, someone will notice :) This "shining" is being awesome mixed 50/50 with hints useful to them. That's my practice these days.

I like this description of your practice. I find it awkward that the people I wish to reach are far away, and my hints are probably too cryptic, or unwanted. I wonder if others experience the same thing?

Enlightenment is ultimate disenchantment.

Chogyam Trungpa? I thought he said, "For the ego, enlightenment is the ultimate and final disappointment" But I read that about 13 years ago.

For reference: the set of tasks that the student can do only with the teacher's help is called the zone of proximal development, and is an important concept in the currently mainstream sociocultural learning theory. This is the place where teaching becomes important for the student's progress, not only while teaching Buddhism, but while teaching anything.

Eyal Chowers? "The outcome of both paths is therefore the ultimate disenchantment with the world and the rejection of any religious significance that may be embedded in it." He did not go far enough.

@Avaloka since you are not a buddhist... I invite you to go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ and search for "disenchantment" in sutras. Non-duality is an intermediate step. If you follow non-duality all the way through its implications, you get to disenchantment.

Thank you Andrei, I will look at the web site. I know it is an intermediate step. I look forward to disenchantment, it must be that much better than disappointment : )

It is called the "miracle of instruction" for a good reason; it is easy to impart information; it is much more difficult to actually teach:

‘And what is the miracle of instruction? Here, Kevaddha, a monk gives instruction as follows: “Consider in this way, don’t consider in that, direct your mind this way, not that way, give up that, gain this and persevere in it.” That, Kevaddha, is called the miracle of instruction.
‘Again, Kevaddha, a Tathāgata arises in the world, an Arahant, fully-enlightened Buddha, endowed with wisdom and conduct, Well-Farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed. He, having realised it by his own super-knowledge, proclaims this world with its devas, māras and Brahmās, its princes and people. He preaches the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle, lovely in its ending, in the spirit and in the letter, and displays the fully-perfected and purified holy life. A disciple goes forth and practises the moralities (Sutta 2, verses 41 — 63). He guards the sense-doors and attains the four jhānas (Sutta 2, verses 64 — 82); he attains various insights (Sutta 2, verses 83-84); he realises the Four Noble Truths, the path and the cessation of the corruptions (Sutta 2, verses 85-97),236 and he knows: “...There is nothing further here.” That, Kevaddha, is called the miracle of instruction.
-- DN 11 (Walshe, Trans)

Still, I find this question baffling. Unless you think that Buddhists have gained nothing from the past 2500 years of following the Buddha's teachings, how could one think it not useful to teach?
Admittedly, some people (perhaps like yourself) are able to find the path to enlightenment themselves; a far greater number of people follow the wrong path simply because it agrees with their predisposition, mistaking it for the true path and mistaking a non-enlightened state for an enlightened one. Many such people, upon meeting and conversing with an enlightened Buddha or one of his enlightened disciples were able to correct their practice and attain the right path and final goal. That, in a nutshell, is what teaching is for.
At any rate, the Buddha himself seemed to think teaching was a good thing, and that discouraging those who have realized the truth from sharing it was a very bad thing:

‘In the same way, Lohicca, if anyone should say: “Suppose an ascetic or Brahmin were to discover some good doctrine and thought he ought not to declare it to anyone else, for what can one man do for another?” he would be a source of danger to those young men of good family who, following the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathāgata, attain to such excellent distinction as to realise the fruit of Stream-Entry, of Once-Returning, of Non-Returning, of Arahantship — and to all who ripen the seeds of a rebirth in the deva-world. Being a source of danger to them, he is uncompassionate, and his heart is grounded in hostility, and that constitutes wrong view, which leads to ... hell or an animal rebirth.
-- DN 12 (Walshe, Trans)

Thank you. I suppose my question was more to ask whether interest can be roused in people who are not predisposed, which I suppose would be "no" in any field. I was hoping to interest people that I know, but was advised that it could wind up driving them away from the teaching instead.

@Avaloka I would think the answer would be "yes" in any field... with the right impetus (in Buddhism, suffering is that impetus).

apparently the Truth of Suffering has not come to the attention of the people I am wishing to talk with. I attempted to Delete, but it was not allowed.

@yuttadhammo Let's not forget that even the Buddha himself didn't want to teach initially - "As I reflected thus [on how hard it would be to convey his realization to those overcome by passion], my mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma (MN 26)..." so I think Avaloka concern isn't without precedent.   Sadly, not everyone has a Brahma Sahampati to twist their arm!  :-)

What a beautiful and profound question. As a fellow teacher (Middle School) I share your wonder. Can we ever really learn from each other? Can we really ease another's path by sharing what we have learned so far?
There are some moments when I think I might have made a significant difference in another's life, but it was not solely my doing. I was fortunate enough to be the right person, at the right time, in the right mood, and with the right turn of phrase. That is all. Teachers live for such moments, but they are painfully rare and unpredictable. They can not be engineered.
The example of the Buddha shows that having a teacher is not essential for learning, and that it is the dedication of the seeker that matters most. In fact, I think there is no hope if this is not true, simply because if having a teacher were essential, then the first teacher would have already needed a teacher, ad absurdum.
As far as I can see, learning begins when the student is ready, and painful as it may be, would we really want it any other way?

Thank you Ron, for your lovely answer. The question "can we ever really learn from each other?" is basically the question that would unask my life at this point. Like Byron Katie's beautiful "Is it true?" Perhaps this is why it was so important to me. I see it as not simply conveying information, but more like insight, as in the answer referring to the Flower Sermon. My thought is: If I cannot represent the truth of the Flower Sermon to someone (note that I did not say explain it) so as to interest them, then I cannot see what I am really doing here. I want to invite people to "be ready". <3


text:
Is Nirvana eternal?
In the book, What the Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula writes on page 65, "It is the vague feeling 'I AM' that creates the idea of self which has no corresponding reality, and to see this truth is to realize Nirvana, which is not very easy."
I understand this to mean that 'Nirvana' is "seeing a particular truth". Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that not seeing this truth is to not achieve Nirvana, and that losing sight of this truth is to lose Nirvana.
So, is Nirvana an attitude or capacity or insight that can be lost, or is it a solid destination or eternal achievement as some claim/hope?

This question is different because it starts with an unambiguous quotation from a highly respected monk who does much to debunk the Eternalist perspective that so often dominates less specific questions on this subject.

It'll be very difficult to define Nibbana within our mundane scope of dualistic concepts of temporal/eternal. That's why the suttas refer to Nibbana as an "apophasis" (the use of negation language to express a transcendental supramundane state that is ineffable that we can only 'touch' by personal experience truth or reality, such as awakening or nibbana). An example from Samyutta 43 where the Buddha said: "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. Just this is the end of suffering."

Completely in agreement with @santa100.
If I am to add to it, it is like a singularity where all conventional laws break down. So what happens beyond on in this state cannot be communicated through conventional wisdom or language.
Nirvana is the experience beyond the singularity. Once you experience it you have experienced it. You cannot unexperience it. Say you have gone and see Rome. This is a fact. Is it possible to turn back time so you have not seen Rome. Not possible. Likewise once you have seen what is beyond the singularity you cannot be made to be brought to the state where you have not seen it.
Also you experience Nirvana when you are in Pala Samapathi. When you come out of it you don't experience it but the fact you have seen it will not change. Since you know how you got there you can get to it when you want. This experience has a lasting impression / imprint on you. So your ways will change once you come out of the Samapathi.
To further elaborate. The lasting impression is like once your where in Rome had a life changing experience. This sticks.

If it is experience, can I forget it? Because I can forget how it was in Rome.

No you cannot. Will update answer.

When Public Broadcasting recently televised a documentary about the Buddha, one of interviewees mentioned to the effect that states of Nirvana come and go. Observing people walking down the street: "Is that person Buddha, Is that Buddha ? Buddha ?" Asking ourselves may be a healthy search for truth.
Also, many people often experience transitory moments of extreme clarity such as when they are near death or even doing very ordinary things.
http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/


text:
Thoughtforms in Buddhism
I've recently discovered the concept of Tulpa or "thoughtforms", and I have some questions.
Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms?
Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism?
From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous?
For those with personal experience with thoughtforms:
Are your thoughtforms permanent?
Knowing that they are illusions, how "real" do they feel? Are their voices different to that of your mind's voice? Do all of your interactions with the thoughform take place in the mind, or have you experienced them in a physical way?
Have you ever felt attached to a thoughtform, and has being a host for one ever cause you emotional strain?
Does your thoughtform take on a physical shape or image, and if so, was this a conscious decision by you, or did the Tulpa decide it's own form?

This book whose title is,
BUDDHISM
Critical Concepts in Religious Studies
Edited by Paul Williams
Volume III
The Origins and Nature of Mahayana Buddhism;
Some Mahayana Religious Topics

says on page 365,

That an adept can employ an advanced meditation technique to create a body made by his or her own mind is an opinion found in ancient Buddhist scripture and elaborated in later treatises. This is a pan-Buddhist notion. The power to transform ones own body into another form and the power to create bodies "made of mind" are two among the ṛddhi, or supernormal powers, explained in the Visuddhimagga.
Few can achieve vikurvana-rddhi; it is a difficult attainment. But Buddhas,
  Pratyeka-Buddhas and chief disciples are said to attain it automatically when
  they become Arhats, that is, when they attain liberation from the cycle of
  rebirth.

You can use the hyperlink above to read more from those pages of that book, or here is a copy as a PDF.
So, to answer your questions:

Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms?
Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism?
No, apparently not: it's a "difficult attainment".
From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous?
They're not something you create in order to have an imaginary friend, which you can talk with and which acts a gateway to your own subconscious. Instead they're something which a Bodhisatva might create as a tool to help liberate someone else:

The Bodhisattva cultivates
  rddhi-Abhijñā in order to advance a great many beings toward liberation;
  without it, relatively few beings can be matured. For this purpose, a Bodhisattva
  can make for him- or herself the body of a cakravartin, a Sakra, a Buddha, or
  whatever is required to effect someone's liberation. Such transformations
  (nirmita) are true and not false, for no dharma has a fixed characteristic

They're created consciously, not subconsciously:

Having
  entered dhyiina, using one or another meditation-object, one should arise from
  the meditation and contemplate oneself having the form of-for example-a
  boy. Having done this one should re-enter dhyiina and resolve, "May I be such
  and such a boy." With resolve, one becomes so. Similarly, in order to exercise
  manomayii-rddhi, the power of creating a body by mental powers, arising from
  dhyiina and contemplating the body one should resolve "Let the body be a
  hollow." The body becomes a hollow, one contemplates another body within
  one's own, resolves again and there is another body within oneself. One
  removes it, as a reed from its sheath, and the two are distinct but one is the
  duplicate of the other. Thus, one uses a progressive visualization exercise, in
  either case, and the end result is said to be the production of a new body, visible
  to others.

Beware that I'm reading this from a book: I don't know Tibetan Buddhism (and Wikipedia's article on Tibetan Buddhism suggests that it requires a teacher, an "authentic lineage of transmission" from "a lama who is fully qualified to give it"). The footnotes (on page 379) reference the Visuddhimagga.

@Kirby Furthermore Lamas themselves are described as Tulkus i.e. aspects of Buddha. The Dalai Lama describes that here: http://www.dalailama.com/messages/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation

If you look at this through the Zen aspect of Buddhism and other aspects as well, creating a thoughtform if this is even possible would be a failure to follow instructions.
In meditation following the breath and counting is a way to stop running after thought forms. Thought forms are as imperfect as imagination allows.
Take someone on psychotropic drugs that sees things they do not see in regular life. Where does that come from is not important to the Buddhist as how to get back to the breath and the beginner's mind.
Milarepa is an example of someone who could use black magic to kill people.http://www.thranguhk.org/buddhism/en_milarepa.html
You can read about his black magic, but here is a more relevant detail, the outcome of his karma, remorse.

Seeking the Dharma
Milarepa was filled with remorse for the evil he had done by magic and
  by hailstorms. While he remained in the lama's service, he asked
  himself unceasingly and passionately by what means he might practice
  the true teaching.
The lama replied, "All composite things are impermanent. I have done
  harm to many beings by evil spells, magic, and hailstorms. You also
  have accumulated crimes of magic and hailstorms. These crimes will be
  on my head. Since you are young and have a great faith. You must
  practice the Dharma yourself and help us all achieve the higher realms
  and liberation. I will support you with all the provisions you need."

So all of Milarepa's black magic only leads him into a karmic mess that must unwind. So what is the benefit of creating Tulpas or thoughtforms or black magic when it only brings us deeper into the karmic mud?
If you can imagine an enlightened master and he helps you to awaken, then perhaps there is some value in this practice, but be careful because what claims to be a master might only be someone to enslave you in passion. Be very careful. Some sites on the internet actually talked about creating women and men to be lovers with Tulpas. This is as foolish as following the desires in the body. It only leads to suffering.
Ask yourself deeply what is your intention in this pursuit if you must pursue it. If it is only to satisfy desires, then you only sink deeper in the mud.

The question is about "Tibetan Buddhism": it is tagged [tag:tibetan-buddhism].

I was of the belief that Milarepa is a beloved figure in Tibetan Buddhism.

I'm afraid it might be impolite to classify Tulpas as "black magic", if they are what were created by Gautama Buddha as mentioned in the Wikipedia article: Commentarial texts such as the Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga state that this mind-made body is how Gautama Buddha and arhats are able to travel into heavenly realms using the continuum of the mindstream (bodhi) and it is also used to explain the multiplication miracle of the Buddha as illustrated in the Divyavadana, in which the Buddha multiplied his emanation body ("nirmita") into countless other bodies which filled the sky.


text:
Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual?
Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual? Are all persons' realities joined in a seamless whole, or is each person a window onto nothingness that can never be seen by anyone else? I am not finding easy words for my question which seems clear to me...
I see two real things (only), that are one: the Void, and Experience. So for me, everything in Experience is one thing, whether I perceive that or not. Yet each is also unique. Are we all connected like fingers on one hand, or more like ants in a colony: each distinct and un-mergeable with the others?
Please provide a reference that I can read. Thank you!
EDIT: I have this well-known quote attributed to the Buddha: "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the World." So, my question is:
The word "We" - does it mean collectively, as a plenary (not by assent but in fact), or does it mean each of us individually? The word "The" World - does it mean the common reality, or each of our individual "realities"? Simple, yet subtle.

Please note that I am not asking for an answer, I am asking how Buddhism would answer this question.

I think you are looking for a word other than "consensual", since this word means "with consent" (i.e. the opposite of against one's will)

Consensus reality

Here is a definition of consensual that I like: "If something is consensual, all parties are in agreement that they approve of it." I mean, approve in the sense of participating, not in deciding something with the mind. Consensual would include all beings and manifestations.

The quote is fake though. To quote Bodhipaksa, the expert on fakebuddhaquotes.com - "The Buddha certainly didn’t teach that we make the world with our thoughts, that all we are arises from our thoughts, or that we are what we think."

Apparently that's Thomas Byrom's translation of the beginning of the Dhammapada, which is on accesstoinsight as, "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox." As Andrei said, this link suggests you use a more literal (and less poetic) translation.

Perhaps my question arises from the perspective of "I" and is therefore pointless. I found the quote very powerful and helpful for a while. But now I cannot make sense of it anymore. Trying to recover the sense behind my question before it got tangled up... Thank you for your contributions.

This reminds me of Donald Hoffman's interesting hypotheses that reality is the result of entangled conscious agents. Find a TED'ified summary of his work here - Do we see reality as it is?

@Devindra: or Bohm's Implicate Order (sounds like Egyptian Ma'at) or Prigogine's Self Organizing Complexity, or "That which is, is that which is" - Zukav... I say that everything is aware to some degree, that is why the 2 slit experiment comes out the way it does.

From Buddhist perspective, phenomenal (experiential) reality is dependently co-arisen phenomena. In other words, experience depends on convergence of a number of factors. Some of those factors are common across multiple cases of perception, and some are specific to an individual case of perception. To the extent that some factors are shared, realities are similar. To the extent that some factors are unique, realities are dissimilar.
This topic is discussed in depth in a very advanced work of 19th century Buddhist philosopher Mipham, called Beacon of Certainty (topic #6). For a more casual read, check out The Prayer of Kuntuzangpo. Also see Lamp of Mahamudra section one, "Ground Mahamudra".
P.S.
The objects (and subjects!) appearing in each of the realities are not truly existing. But there is only one ground underlying them all. To realize the true meaning of this ground is to be Buddha.
There is an infinite number of valid, internally not inconsistent, but not necessarily compatible with each other, ways to cognize this ground. Although all cognitions (including cognition of the true meaning of the ground!) are construed on the basis of temporarily combined elements (so in this sense no one cognition is fundamentally better than any other), however, since there's a case of being aware (vs. being unaware) of dependently-coarisen nature of objects (and subjects!) of perception, there's a sense in which we can speak of an awakened cognition. Or as Master Dogen said in Genjo-Koan:

When all dharmas are [seen as] the Buddha-Dharma, then there is delusion and realization, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings. When the myriad dharmas are each not of the self, there is no delusion and no realization, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.

With regard to the ground underlying it all, it's a tricky subject, because there is this passage from MN1 which says this: He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

@Sadhana very true, thank you! But with this we hit the limit of words and all we can do is speak in approximations.

regardless of subject/object differentiation, would you describe that ground you speak of as reality?

in a manner of speaking, it is the only reality, other realities being mere Umwelten.

Reality is neither consensual or an individual perception. Of course when one practices Vipassana and realize what reality actually is, then your individual perception of reality coincides with the actual reality. Until then there is a divergence. Practice of Vipassana is to close this divergence where you move from gross reality to the subtlest realities until you have realized the ultimate reality. Also if we see reality as it is then your would be enlightened or as an individual an Arahath, which is achieved through Vipassana. As many individuals are not enlightened their perception of reality in different from the actual. Also note, consensus view on any things is cultural and time wearying and definitely will not coincide with reality. Even science is in a flux of change with new theories and old being dispelled. So scientific understanding is not reality per say through it is and approximation of reality.
E.g. When you play doctor in kindergarten then you are not a doctor but when you actually become one then this is the reality. Many are in the kindergarten stage of understanding of reality but have not progressed. Similar to a person not going to school. Once you learn and then go to medical school then you only become a proper doctor. Similarly when you practice Vipassana only you progress to higher stages of understanding of reality.
Also see: Reality in Buddhism

When people distinguish "actual reality" from what we see each moment, then I don't follow. I am just asking: what we see each moment - is it common or individual? For everyone, even people who have no idea of Buddhism or spiritual growth. Even animals, plants, everything. Does the same sun shine on every plant? Or does each plant "make" a sun? How does Buddhism describe this universality? Calling it error or deception misses the point, for me. It would be like a PhD student calling kindergarten an error. No, just less awareness and experience. It must be there or what are we talking about?

What is the "reality" in your question?
Are you asking about Sacca,

Sacca (Pāli; Sanskrit Satya) word meaning "real" or "true".[1] In early Buddhist literature, sacca is often found in the context of the "Four Noble Truths", a crystallization of Buddhist wisdom. In addition, sacca is one of the ten pāramitās or "perfections" a bodhisatta must develop in order to become a Buddha.

In the context of the "four noble truths" I guess Buddhists see (that kind of description of) "reality" as "applicable to everyone" or "general".
Pāramitā suggests that insight (into reality) and ability to speak truth (about reality) is Buddhist: i.e. it is something which the Buddha can do.
This may be another question-and-answer about that topic (i.e. "sacca" or "satya") here: What is Sat-Dharma?
If you're asking about "physical reality" then I don't think so -- I think that Buddhism describes a reality that's more complicated than merely 'physical' reality.
If you're asking about conscious or experiential realities then, well, I won't try to answer that. Maybe that's getting into material in the Abhidhamma.

By "reality" I mean what you see you when you open your eyes each morning. Is it one for all, or a separate instance for each? This is not about perfection or practice, it is about what is there, unbidden.

Perhaps you're looking for Rūpa then.

OK, Rupa: is it individual or collective? Where is the distinction spelled out?

Rūpa is Anattā isn't it?

Anatta - No self - no thing or being has a self. But does "all thing" have one, or many, or does
Anatta mean that "all thing" is zero? What do I see when I open my eyes? 0, 1, many?

It sounds like you are asking about "self" more than about reality. You seem to be asking, "Am I the same as other people, or similar, or different? Are we one, or separate? Are we connected somehow?"

Perhaps the word "I" is the source of my question. Maybe the question makes no sense?

In the early suttas, this sort of question is deemed irrelevant for the practice; that is, as long as there's a problem, and you can do something about it, then any time wasted on wondering whose problem is it, what constitutes a problem, does it have an inherent existence shared by all beings, etc, is categorized as falling victim to Mara. [1]
That being said, here are a few things to consider:

The Buddha said that each being is the heir of their own actions - not others' actions. And that we experience rebirth from life to life, i.e. death isn't the end of our heritage. [2]
He suggested developing equanimity for people who are hopeless, so that implies that there isn't any inherent dependency on others' states of mind. [3]
When the Buddha and his noble disciples gained awakening, nobody but them was awakened. It's an individual accomplishment.
There are documented cases in the canon of arahants synchronously experiencing things which ordinary people don't. [4]

I wondered if my question falls under the category of "Vexing". I was not so much concerned with problems or selves, but simply what Buddhism says about what I call "Experience." Thank you for the reply.

@nocomprende I understand, and maybe the relation of my answer to this question isn't clear. Maybe you can help: when asking your question, would you say that if reality were strictly individual, or conversely existing inherently by itself (e.g. if there were at least 2 beings, their experiences would necessarily intersect at some level), and that claim would have any practicality in and of itself, then it would have to entail corollaries which would also have to be true for the sake of that practicality?

That is supposing, by the way, that I understood you correctly in that you weren't talking about qualia (i.e. is your blue the same as my blue).

E.g. if reality were inherently completely consensual, as you put it, then we'd have no individual control over it. Because reality encompasses all forms, feelings, perceptions, etc, we'd have no way to just decide for everyone how our experience is going to be like.This is in fact the view of determinism, which is one of the grossest forms of wrong view.If it were strictly individual, then why can't we all attain awakening by snapping out fingers? And why would other people manage to be obstacles in our path, if they wanted to (which is part of the reason Buddhists focus so much on morality).

Thus, the question which you ask, either this or that, is framed such that it leads to an endless discussion and zero utility for purposes of the path. Sticking to it, seeing it as of any relevance, is an obstacle.

What I was trying to say in my answer was that there's a certain theoretical minimum you need in order to go on, in order to latch onto something while you make your way forward. At the very least: that your individuality matters for the sake of the path, however it's ultimately defined.

Thank you for your comments. I think you came down to it when you said that the question is inherently divisive of view, and so not helpful. Also, the "theoretical minimum" idea: that we have to start with some kind of view and just push forward from there, because it is necessarily wrong anyhow. Why can't we be enlightened so easily? Wel, why can't we make art so easily? Whether individual or consensual, there is growing skill and expanding awareness, yes? (I love the word 'sadhana' by the way).

Speaking as one who has practiced several forms of art, I can say that at many stages of the path I actually was an artist, until I got to hear the opinions of others, or just see others' works. :) So even there one is still constrained by the world, and again that experience is not only limited only by individual wishes. At the same time, an unenlightened person can also think they're enlightened until they see someone more accomplished.

Regarding our present knowledge being necessarily wrong: I've heard several people, who were said to be arahants, maintain that after awakening the world remains just the same, but then there's also the dhamma, and they're separate, each with its own level of truth. Specifically, I've read this from transcriptions of Ajaan Lee and Ajaan Maha Boowa.

The use of the word delusion in Western circles often implies that when one reaches awakening, one is supposed to realize that "everything is a delusion." However, in the canon, delusion is spoken of in terms of "I think that by doing this I'm going to get that," when that isn't the case.

I thought I had reached the shore, but with your next-to-last comment, I dreamed that I was drowning again : ) Julia Cameron says: "Artists love other artists." I think that un-vexes my question, and your answer. Thank you.


text:
Is Enlightenment a misleading ideal?
Is Enlightenment a misleading goal? Is it more of a thought-form than just an experience? I am asking because there is a lot of discussion of awakening, enlightenment, satori, differences, levels, etc. and I think that this distracts from the simple truth of growing in awareness, which is both individual and collective.
In other words, is it better to stop thinking about "how to get to 'it' " and just get on with life? In any field, we don't try to attain a specific goal, because - then what? Artists don't try to reach a level, they just make more art. So I would say, is it more helpful to not talk about enlightenment and talk instead about simply becoming more aware?
My prompt for this question comes from what I read (long ago) about how people asked the Buddha after his enlightenment something like: "What are you? Are you an angel? Are you a devil? What?" and he said "I am awake." So, his answer was about a condition of being, not an endpoint. Like how a rainbow is an arrangement of circumstances, not a thing that you can touch. This is not coming out right... I think that the word "enlightenment" focuses on a rainbow - something that does not exist. Talking about it prolongs ignorance, perhaps?
Is this addressed specifically in the Buddhist literature? Thank you.

Just my 2 cents: it's going to be very hard to practice if you don't consider the path as the path to the end of suffering, which is exactly how the Buddha put it. You start getting entangled in "when will I finally know how everything works and why," and you might never get out. It's not part of the path. You work to get out of the cycle. That's what the Buddha taught. After that, it's your business.

Now,if you look at the path the way he taught, then you don't need to feel overshadowed by a goal defined as "knowing everything."Because that only gets you asking the wrong questions,e.g."What's the underlying nature of this very moment?" everywhere you go.You can go crazy like that.However,if you have faith in the Buddha,then your job is noticing "Is there any stress here?" and working to alleviate it,in whatever way you can,within the framework of morality.Develop your morality;be persistent with your practice and your appropriate attention to how you're feeling.Work your way on from there.

Watch the movie "Lucy". I like that better than my old favorite of "The Matrix". I can relate to it better, because it is less thought-oriented, and more experience-oriented. A rainbow is an experience.

It's not just enlightenment. It may be 'misleading' to think in terms of any goal. I feel you might be misunderstanding what it means to be 'Awake'. As much as a 'condition of being' this is a condition of not-being' and it is not a 'thing' like a rainbow. Rather it would be the realisation that all things are like rainbows.

I'd like to add one phrase from Larry Rosenberg in his book Breath by Breath. The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation (2012), p.45:

Finally, enlightenment is the experience of intimacy with the entire universe. There is no separation whatsoever. You totally disappear in the process of uniting with the raw content of the present moment. And because you do, you have never been more alive.

When you see it this way, enlightenment can never be a misleading ideal.

Thank you, very succinct description. Perhaps no one should say more than that. My experience of explaining this to people is that they cannot take it in or align with it. Either they have already felt the possibility on an intuitive level, or it is never going to get in.

@nocomprende - the only thing we've to do is: going beyond...gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha..

beyond what? Even that is a mystery.

@soulsings - beyond our ego; beyond our senses...

This is a very well know paradox, perhaps the main paradox of Buddhism. On one hand, there is no Enlightenment -- on the other hand, Enlightenment truly occurs! Most of Zen lore revolves around this very pivot point.
You are right in your intuition that thinking and talking of Enlightenment is counterproductive. At the same time, to simply go on with life is not Enlightenment either.
Enlightenment requires getting to the very bottom of things. Once you get to the bottom of things, you're no longer fooled with words such as "Enlightenment" -- instead, you directly see what is being referred to. And then in the practical sense, Enlightenment means mastery of skillful action rooted in the right understanding.
When such a master acts, the skill is quite obvious to everyone. Because the master is in harmony with all things, her action is very efficient. Needless to say, the master knows how to act as to avoid hurting herself or others.

Thank you. I liked your definition at the end of 3rd paragraph. 4th paragraph reminds me of my Guru. I have not seen her in a long time.

Enlightenment is an experience, which you get here and now, when you practice Vipassana.
Like an artist, if you do not take some effort to paint, there will be no art; likewise, if you do not do Vipassana, there will be no enlightenment. This cannot be achieved with by tying too hard, craving for it, thinking about it, etc. It is the natural realization from the practice of Vipassana.
Enlightenment is not a conditioned existence, but when you have achieved something beyond conditioning, or an unconditioned state. When you achieve this state, you are no longer creating new fabrications. This is because you have understood the law of cause and effect and 4 noble truths with regard to our mind matter phenomena.

Thank you. If I understand you, I think you are saying that the word enlightenment means something like "what is happening now", a verb rather than a noun? I thought that the conventional meaning is of something like a state, which is perhaps my misunderstanding. Maybe that is a common misunderstanding?

You stop creating new fabrication

That is a nice way to look at it, thank you. I love hearing all these excellent ways of looking at things, sometimes one will come to mind at just the right time.

In Zen, Shunryu Suzuki talks about enlightenment as beginner's mind in his book, Zen Mind, Begginer's Mind.
Over and over he says enlightenment is not something we attain, but when we stop trusting in false senses of self, then who we are and always have been and already will be apparent.
It is necessary to stop trying to achieve or attain, but we must keep practicing or the goal slips further away. It is not easy to talk about, read the book linked to or a hard copy. Roshi Suzuki's words will do far more for helping you drop the mask and see what is here right now than I can possibly hope to.

Thank you. Some people cannot seem to conceive of not "trusting in false senses of self" as a goal. To them, it is just a non-sequitur. Like the advice to fly: "throw yourself at the ground and miss."

Or throw yourself at the ground and not miss. There is no logic in beginner's mind. It is a world of mystery. When asked a question a master replies "uncertain." That may be all we can say.

If Enlightenment is taken as an all or nothing thing that must be achieved to be "successful" at Buddhism, then it is a bad idea.
If it's taken as an ideal to strive towards to ensure maximum gains, then it's a good idea.
What one gains from practicing can be achieved in degrees and the pseudo-paradoxes of Enlightenment vanish once one abandons this all or nothing view.  If perfect Enlightenment is not possible, so what?  Isn't it worthwhile to have a life that's better than what you have now, even if it's not perfect?

Thank you, I like what you are saying. "Achieved in degrees", and "so what?"

In any field, we don't try to attain a specific goal, because - then what?

I don't think that "no specific goal" is true of medicine, for example. If I go to my doctor with any complaint (for example, a complaint about my shoulder), then there is a specific goal.
Similarly I suspect that Buddhism has a specific goal: its goal is the third noble truth i.e. cessation.

I think that the word "enlightenment" focuses on a rainbow - something that does not exist.

To an extent that's true, but maybe that's a good thing.
I.e. everything which exists is "conditioned": for example a feeling, a person, a table, a mountain "exist because of" (or "dependently co-arise with") this and that, and will cease to exist when those conditions change (all things are conditioned and impermanent and unsatisfactory).
Whereas "enlightenment" is supposed to be none of the above: i.e. it's unconditioned, timeless, and satisfactory.

In other words, is it better to stop thinking about "how to get to 'it' " and just get on with life?

I think that at least some elementary Buddhist doctrine is helpful with its generic advice about "how".
You wouldn't tell doctors just to get on with treating patients, without teaching doctors "how" to do that.
You teach them skills ("wash your hands") and useful theories or views (for example, about "germs").

If I understand you, I think you are saying that the word enlightenment means something like "what is happening now", a verb rather than a noun?

Hmm, grammar. Do you know the word "reify"? I suspect that grammar encourages us to do that: "enlightenment", "love", "pain", "I" and so on are nouns and pronouns.
You're thinking maybe it should be seen as a verb?
How about seeing it as an adjective instead?
Instead of seeing "a dog" see "a location or a being with dog-nature" or "dog-like properties" or "dogginess".
Instead of seeing "enlightenment" (noun) or "enlightening" (verb) how about seeing "enlightened" (adjective)?
Note that enlightenment is characterized as an absence or negative:

Not conditioned, not unsatisfactory, not impermanent
Not ignoble (nor base, vulgar, common, or unprofitable)
Out-blown, extinguished (like a blown-out candle)
Cessation or liberation (from suffering)
Dis-identification (contrast with Hindu nirvana which is 'identification with God')
Absence of defilements (kleshas)

Talking about it prolongs ignorance, perhaps?

Maybe you're right.
Going back to the doctor-and-medicine analogy, maybe "health" can be defined as "absence of any disease" (like "enlightenment" is "absence of any defilement").
I don't go to the doctor to talk about "health"; instead I only go to:

Talk about specific disease
Talk about lifestyle habits/skills (e.g. diet and exercise) to avoid disease

The doctor has (in my experience) nothing much to say about health itself. For example I would go for a yearly check-up and once the doctor said (part-jokingly), "You're very healthy. Go away: I don't want to see you again for another two or three years."

Excellent. If I may add to Chris's answer... let us rely on the Truths and learn to attain the Emptiness of the Prajnaparamita.. let us not give up hope for We shall never attain Awakening by either wanting it strongly nor by not wanting it strongly!

"Dogginess" - ha ha! "It's a doggie-dog world." I don't see health as absence of disease, but I will consider your metaphor of enlightenment as empty. Still, difficult to make "no thing" a goal. I agree about the noun-ification problem. I think that is what my question is really about. When has a doctor learned "enough"?

'Enlightenment is ego's ultimate disappointment.' Chogyam Trungpa

Yeah, I love that quote. Is it from "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism"? I read that about 15 years ago.

Not sure. I've been listening to these audio lectures.
http://www.chronicleproject.com/CTRlibrary/index_CTRlibrary.html

I upvoted to cancel the downvote. I like this answer. Thank you, Barry. A little nutshell like this gets stuck in the mind and wont back down, like the sand grain that makes a pearl. That is why we have Masters.

I think you are at it with your idea, it just needs more accuracy.
Enlightenment is the way and the goal. If we go deep into samsara, then enlightenment is our goal. If we are enlightened, then enlightenment is our way.

Thank you, I agree, I think it just quite missed the nail somehow. Can't explain.

Contemporary literature is enough for you? There is a Dzogchen text from Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche called "The Mirror: Advice on the Presence of Awareness":
http://www.fudomouth.net/thinktank/now_nnawareness.htm
He starts saying:

A practitioner of Dzogchen must have precise presence and awareness. Until one really and truly knows one's own mind and can govern it with awareness, even if very many explanations of reality are given, they remain nothing more than ink on paper or matters for debate among intellectuals, without the possibility of the birth of any understanding of the real meaning.

Certainly the subject of enlightenment or The Dharma can become hindrances. But we need guidance to achieve the proposed states of mind. Saying that we should "just become more aware" sometimes isn't enough, usually we need some insight.
He makes the following metaphor:

If a sick person knows perfectly well the properties and functions of a medicine and is also expert in giving explanations about it, but doesn't ever take the medicine, he or she can never get well.

He says that we can get lost in the theory, but he never says we shouldn't study it. The point is that theoretical knowledge alone can't produce any enlightenment.

So, without chattering about it, or getting caught up in trying to hide behind an elegant facade, one should try really and truly to cause the presence of awareness actually to arise in oneself, and then carry it into practice. This is the most important point of the practice of Dzogchen.

There is a handful of words, ink and pixels pointing us to the right direction. It is a two edged sword.

Thank you. You quoted: "... without the possibility of the birth of any understanding of the real meaning." Yes, that is what I find when talking, such as with friends. But what of the people who do not relate at all? No kind of fishing lure will catch a bird.

You are right, people unrelated to Buddhism needs to learn the Dhamma, if they seek enlightenment of course. But point of the text is that Buddhist people sometimes get lost in Dhamma. They talk and discuss about it, but they don't put it in practice.

All excellent answers to an excellent question. I wish to add my two cents.
The literal meaning of nibbana is "quenching", or "blowing out" like a candle that has been snuffed out. Since it is impossible to define the sublime because it happens at a level inaccessible to words, a negative definition is the only possible metaphor. Thus, it is not something that one achieves, but something that one can create conditions for it to happen.
When you plant a seed, you cannot force it to grow: you just can provide water, fertiliser, care and protection until, in due time, it offers its fruits.


text:
Progress in meditation
If one progresses in this lifetime, but doesn't attain enlightenment and doesn't become totally free from suffering, what can happen in future lives?

Welcome to Buddhism SE! Please note that on this site we prefer questions that are objectively answerable and asking for people's opinion is considered off-topic. Could you please rephrase your question? Also can you explain how the question title is related to your actual question?

I've edited the question to attempt to make it clearer, hopefully that's what Mariam had in mind.

Nothing is lost. However a person below the level of Streamwinner is still subject to rebirth below the level of human being. The good kamma of having made an effort will eventually surface again and bring one back to a place where practice can be resumed.
The non-streamwinner is subject to stray and unskillful thoughts that can lead to a bad destination. Should such a tendency occur at the time of death, it's: 'Have a nice day!'
The principle is something like standing at the downtown platform in the subway. Up until the time one enters a car and the doors shut one can go over to the uptown platform, but once the door has shut on the downtown train one is going downtown at least for one stop.
This is the concern when it comes to attention to death, that is that one not be thinking, as the ordinary person thinks, that ok, death will come, but some time later. One should train to think that death is a possibility as close as a breath in and out or the chewing of a mouthful of food.
See for the above idea: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.019.hare.pts.htm
and see for the practice:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.020.hare.pts.htm
This is why one should strive for Streamentry. At stream entry, the knowledge is firmly fixed that 'that which comes into existence comes to an end.' This idea at that point is so vivid as to present itself at the time of death and acts as a barrier to making a foolish decision at that time, and the ball has been set rolling for an inevitable attainment of Arahantship within a period of no more than seven further rebirths in various heavenly states and among men.


text:
Buddhism and organ donation
Thank you for creating this website.
I have a question regarding organ donation.
How is organ donation understood in theravada buddhism? Is it okay to do it?
Have a good day.
May all beings be happy and peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.
Lanka

I found this article (by
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi) recently when I was looking for a description of "compassion".
It says (beware that the following quote is taken slightly out of context),

Lay people support the Sangha with their simple material needs of food, robes, dwellings, and medicines. They also give generously to the poor and disadvantaged. In Sri Lanka, for example, blood donation campaigns are common on Buddhist holidays, and many people donate their eyes to eye banks and their bodily organs for medical research after their death. I learned recently that in Sri Lanka, more than 200 monks have donated kidneys, without any thought of remuneration or any other personal benefit, solely for the privilege of giving a bodily organ.

I infer that the "kidney donation" is from living donors.
In summary, I think that Theravada Buddhism says it's okay to do it (perhaps with some limitations which I hope are obvious regarding harmlessness).

This Buddhism and organ donation page from the UK claims that it's ethically okay, for example here is one of several quotes,

Organ donation is acceptable in Theravada Buddhism. It is a Buddhist virtue to generously extend help to other sentient beings and this covers the case of organ donation." (Phramaha Laow Panyasiri, Abbot, The Buddhavihara Temple)

It also says,

There are no injunctions in Buddhism for or against organ donation. The death process of an individual is viewed as a very important time that should be treated with the greatest care and respect. In some traditions, the moment of death is defined according to criteria which differ from those of modern Western medicine, and there are differing views as to the acceptability of organ transplantation.

I tried to ask about "the moment of death" in this separate question: How long to leave a body undisturbed after death?

Hi Chris. Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate it:)


text:
The Abhidamma Pitaka
Can anyone help me with finding The Abhidamma Pitaka or some of the 7 books from it?
I seem not to be able to find anything when searching on google. Maybe im just not skilled enough to find books/pdf's about it. I can find only descriptions of what The Abhidhamma Pitaka is and what it contains.
I would like to find it in english since i cannot read other languages.
I really want to begin studying this Pitaka. Help would be much appreciated.
May all beings be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.
Harshani
--Update--
I just found this: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhaultsci.pdf
I think its a condensation of the most essential teachings from The Abhidhamma Pitaka. Can anyone confirm this?

Apologies for a nearly identical post to another question, but:
You can get a hard copy text of the Pali Text Society edition from:
The Pali Text Society: http://palitext.com
(they also have sets of the translations) Become a member and receive a nice discount.
You can find an on-line version of the BJT text at:
Metta Net Lanka:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html
You can get a searchable CD from the Vipassana Research Institute:
http://www.vridhamma.org/Chattha-Sangayana-CD-ROM-Update
These have the Abhidhamma texts.
EDIT: In response to your revised question. I have the Abhidhamma texts. The books are:
Abhidhamma Pitaka
Dhammasangani: Buddhist Psychological Ethics
Vibhanga: The Book of Analysis
Dhatukath¤: Discourse on Elements
Puggalapannatti: A Designation of Human Types
Kathavatthu: Points of Controversy
Yamaka: —
Tikapatthana: Conditional Relations
Dukapatthana: —
I believe the book you have linked to is a new work constructed along the lines of the Abhidhamma. There may be others that can inform you better about that.

Wow thank you so much Obo :) Have you gotten a hardcopy? I mean if its an entire pitaka that must be thousands of pages, right? I forgot to say that i can only read english. Can you read my question again - i just found a link to a PDF.

Also check out suttacentral.net, Abhidhamma section and Ven. Bodhi's great lecture series here

Hi Santa and thank you so much for your help:) I really appreciate all the help i get.

I have now watched the first video (1/15) of the Adhidhamma retreat by Ven. Bodhi. Im in middle of the second one. Im amazed of how much he knows its really a joy to watch and learn from him. I feel so lucky to have the oppertunity to listen to this teaching. Again thank you Santa for showing me this buddhist monk. Wish you well:)

He definitely knows his stuff...:oD

Yes he does. Im at the 4/15 now and i have his book on Abhidhamma Sangaha also. The abhidhamma is very deep and complex so im happy i have Bhikkhu Bodhi as a teacher:) You can get his book here: http://store.pariyatti.org/Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma-A--PDF-eBook_p_4362.html

I just found 79 dhamma talks by Bhikkhu Bodhi. http://bodhimonastery.org/a-systematic-study-of-the-majjhima-nikaya.html


text:
Memories in frames
I have a question regarding my insight meditation practice. When i practice and my mind becomes still then when memories pop up i see them in frames. When my mind is not stilled i see memories fluently, like in a movie.
Is it normal to see them in frame by frame when meditating? What does it mean that they are seen in frames. Is that because conditioned and compounded phenomena is build by component parts and thereby im seeing the impermance?
May all beings be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.
Harshani

What does the frame around your memory look like? Like a picture frame? Or like an architectura/structural frame?

Im sorry, what?

In your mind, when you see these frames surrounding your memories, what do the frames look like?

I just see a picture of the memory and there is no frame. I think i used the wrong word maybe. When i say frame i mean "still picture". I see the memory in still picture and then another still picture. Its not fluently at all. You know like a movie on Television it consists of many independent still pictures.

Well then, seems like you are quite normal then :) Here is a link on how memory works in a fun video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUoJc0NPajQ

So when you see the memory of "2x2=4" I see it as a still image. A single picture or photo of the equation. Same with lots of my memories. I am picturing the book cover of a favorite book and it appears as a "still picture". I am remembering my car and it appears as a "still picture" as well.

Thank you for your answer Christopher:) Im still wondering about how this "still picture"-thing is relating to the nature of the mind. By the way - great video you gave me.

What happens is
Sense door > Sense contact > Metal image > Contact with metal image > Recognise > Evaluate > Sensation > Proliferation of metal form > Mental contact > ...
So there is a chance that at some stage you start seeing things in quantum.
NB: This is my personal opinion any sense contact is followed by metal contact as physical creates a metal impression also.
As a final note. Don't get carried away by this as it will cause you to regress. Keep up your meditation.
Following is and alternative image from Formations by Piya Tan. This also shows that thoughts are cycling in nature hence why you might see things in quantums or frames.

Thank you for this explanation Suminda and the PDF file about how formations work in daily life and the warning about regressing. I value that a lot.

No worries. If you have any other question don't hesitate to ask.