text:
The process of reintegration back into society after a retreat
I'm in a period of my practice where i feel ready for a retreat. I have been looking into different types of retreats and have found the Goenka 10-day retreat the most suitable one for me as a first-timer. I do however not now when i will be able to attend one due to long waiting time in the area close to me and my current job do not allow me to travel.
I was wondering about the reintegration-process back into society after 10 days with silence and minimal contact with people and no contact with the outside world. I have done small "retreats" by myself where i would buy food for 1-2 days and then stay inside and meditate. When i went outside after a couple of days and talked to other people i found that i had some aversion towards people and felt uncomfortable in their presence. I would rather stay for myself. I do not know how a 10-day retreat will affect me or if it will.
Personal experiences and methods for dealing with people when comming out of a retreat is what i'm looking for. A side note - i will be doing the 10-day retreat in another country than where i live. I dont know if that has something to say but now the information is there.
Thank you very much.

I attended a meditation course taught by Venerable Yuttadhammo which was, in total, a 21 day course. Due to inability to take 21 days off from work all at once, I had to split the course into two parts, 7 days & 14 days, giving me two periods of going from the busyness of daily life to the quiet of a monastery and back to busy daily life again in a 6 month period.
I also wondered about how it would feel, after the course, to resume daily activities and to deal with people. I tried to provide a buffer period of quiet time for myself (for when I returned home) by making arrangements ahead of time to take off an extra day from work, stock up on frozen and non perishable groceries to avoid having to go to the store right away, running errands ahead of time when possible. It was helpful just to not have too much piled up needing to be done when I returned home.
I was surprised actually at how challenging it was to adjust to the quiet at the monastery. Being away from internet, music, and most noise in general proved quite challenging to me and it took me a few days to adjust. For future retreats, I plan to build in a buffer period of being offline and quiet for a bit before I go to the retreat too. After a few days though, the quiet felt normal and continued to feel normal until it was time to go home.
I didn't find myself with any strong aversion to people after the course. People seemed loud perhaps, laughing too much, crude sometimes, but nothing that I hadn't noticed or felt even before the retreat. On my way home I had a one hour layover at the Port Authority in New York City. Going from a quiet monastery to the New York Port Authority bus station is about as different as you can get. But it was fine. I was standing, smiling, noting things, while everyone else was running around, yelling, getting stressed out because the bus was late. I was so happy to have had the opportunity to practice mediation and feel so calm in the midst of such busyness.
My best suggestion would be to try to build in buffer zones both before the retreat and after where you are not especially busy, social, (or spending lots of time online or listening to music before) to ease the transition both to the retreat and back to society afterwards. Best wishes for your retreat! :)

Thank you for sharing this. It was this kind of answer i was hoping to get. Very useful. Especially about the pre- and post-retreat management and buffer periods. I certainly need to prepare something like that. Can i ask what happend to your practice after the retreat? I mean did it become deeper and more focussed.

It deepened my commitment to daily mediation no matter what. Tough days, sleepy days, busy days, no matter what just keep meditating. Also very lucky to have an affiliated open online mediation community for support. http://meditation.sirimangalo.org/

Hi Robin. I got into the 10-day retreat in Sweden and it's this october. I'm very happy about it and now i will use the advices you gave me. I wanted to ask you about 2 things. They write that one should wear loose fitting and non-striking clothes. I was thinking about wearing adidas training pants and a black hoodie. Do you think that is acceptable? The problem is that the hoodie i have has a tag on the back, i.e. the place where i work (it says Aalborg Martial Arts) and it's a big tag with white letters.

Second thing is that one is not allowed to use strong scents. So what about deodorant for the armpits. Do people just go and stink in these 10 days? I would like to keep some level of personal hygiene, not just for myself but also to not disturb other meditators.

Congratulations! I'm happy for you. :)  I don't really know for sure what the expectations are on either question. But when I had read the rules for the S.N. Goenka retreat; my impression was they don't want you to do anything that would distract others. So strong scented toiletries might be better replaced by unscented ones? And maybe a plain shirt might be better that one reminding others about martial arts? Again, I'm not really sure; but plain might be better. Best wishes for a fruitful practice. With metta. _/_

Thank you Robin:) I think you're right about this. I will try to keep it plain and simple. Wish you a fruitful practice too.

Hello Robin. Would you have time for a chat? Hope you are doing fine. Take care.

I used to run a charitable retreat center that hosted scheduled Silent Retreats and also provided a retreat anytime someone requested. We always would explain the dynamics of going on retreat as it started, were available for questions that arose, and provided a closing talk to give suggestions on how to avoid unnecessary stress to one's being after. (And we would answer questions any time afterward.)
Suggestions were: to not do anything loud or disruptive for a while after (check that your car stereo was switched OFF before starting the car, lest it startle you), let people you live with know that you are assimilating your experience and not avoiding them, avoid news programs and TV that tends to bring up a lot of emotion or buzziness (a technical term), caffeine, alcohol and anything else that would send you for a spin. Heat, hot baths and showers can be depleting, heavy food might not digest well, etc. All common-sense, but nice to have a list.
If you have gone still and quiet for a while, anything jarring or energizing (inappropriately) will be especially disruptive. That said, I agree with Robin111 that the insight and calmness gained is immediately applicable and very empowering. Best Wishes on your retreat!

Given the good hint of Dhammadathu: "psychiatric hospital", if using a retreat, the Buddhas teaching, just to funcion for the world, e.g. as a compensation, not really up to go beyoung, it's nothing but missuse of gifts.
It's not good, not adviced, to get torward a an unexcelled gift with the inspiration of function for the world.
As Psychiatrist Lanka might know how the matter of reintegration and earnings with such works.
Having this basic fear possible change to a better, it would be nothing but hindrence to gain right view but as often a door to develop strange wrong views, willing to use high Dhamma for the world. This often "schizophrenic" way of live that is further leaded, a broad visible phenomena of so called Vipassana doer, is for the most not of benefit and those people are usually very unvirtuose, not ashamed to perform even grave missconduct, often continue wrong livelihood, having developed such as householder equanimity, a equanimity not based on penetrating the world, e.g. sensuality, matter.
So my person advice is to simply lead a proper lay-persons life, focusing much on generosity, service for worthy and Sila and when the day comes that actually seeing the danger in the world, taking on the going forth if the conditions outwardly, previous cased, are avaliable.
Todau even monks make retreats in same way... look at them. Today a very open remark of a, to that extend, very wise nun. Accidentally from the same lineage (if my person is not wrong) as it seems: A silly Nun, she calls her self, sadly.
Here a share of the (hidden) comments on the "luck" of reintegration, her resume:

Sure? A silly person, even meeting, having Nissaya, but not taking on it, just “how lucky amI, how lucky am I”, seeing form as constant, feeling as constant, fabrications as constant, memories as constant, knowing as constant, will return again and again. How is it, that a wanderering returner is blessed?
It’s not possible to uproot bhava-tanha if kama-tanha is not uprooted. For best possible support, sticking firm to vinaya is most conductive and taking on the Buddhas and Savaka-Sanghas invitation before following the many Maras in- and outwardly. Meaning, not taking what is not given and reject that with strings to the world, even if given.
And what is the cause of gaining right view? To do not associate with the common beloved fools, those who make a livelihood on talk.
Best wishes. It’s not easy if not letting go of unsupportive bounds. Why does one not? Because of this cravings, longing for it, not seeing the backwards, after the joy of becoming giving by sensuality.
Btw., it’s seldom that one is honest to one self and as the Buddha told “seeing ones foolishness, is to that extend, be called wise” so to that extend the silly isn’t silly at at in this case.
Mudita for that is actually really a matter of “lucky” and reason to rejoice benefical with it.
But now, how to get ride of being attached to fakes and cheater and find the Noble ones?
Not sure if known Upasika Kee Nanayon, but as it came to mind as possible supportive, here a share (with string to Nibbana attached):
Stop, Look, and Let Go

Assuming that this retreat might be done already, maybe give also a own answer.
Assuming that not, may Lanka do the best to be soon able to go forth.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

Thank you Bhante. Two things; a) I'm a physiotherapist, not psychiatrist and b) the retreat is done now. I attended it in december 2015. It is my plan to go forth into homelessness when the time is right.

Nyom @Lanka , Is there realy a different? And mudita with you aspiration, sadhu!

Conventially, yes there is a difference. Ultimately, no there is not. Thank you Bhante.

It's good to know the difference betweens those help to stay bound and those giving release. Mudita.

Yes, I agree. Its easy to loose oneself in conventions and concepts if one is not mindful, heedful and guarding the sense doors.

Off-topic: what is @Lanka s normal first name?


text:
What are the Eighteen Buddha Attributes?
There are Eighteen Buddha Attributes, that belong only to a perfectly enlightened Buddha. What are they?

The Eighteen Unshared Features of a Buddha:

The eighteen features of a Buddha that are not shared with those of lesser attainment – specifically, with shravaka or pratyekabuddha arhats – concern four general aspects of a Buddha: his behavior, realization, enlightening influence (‘ phrin-las, Skt. samudacara, Buddha-activity), and deep awareness.

The Six Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Behavior

(1) A Buddha’s physical composure can never be ruffled. Wherever he goes and whatever he meets, he is never fooled by appearances. He is always calm and clear.
(2) A Buddha’s enlightening speech never cries out or makes meaningless sounds. No matter what happens, he is never shocked or surprised, and never exclaims anything in anger, pain, or pleasure. Furthermore, a Buddha does not have any melodies, songs, or meaningless phrases compulsively going through his head, and he never mindlessly hums or mutters to himself.
(3) An omniscient Buddha’s enlightening mind never forgets anything or anyone.
(4) There is never a time when his mind is not totally absorbed on voidness.
(5) He never has even the slightest recognition or feeling of anything existing in a way other than the way in which it actually exists. Having rid himself of his cognitive obscurations concerning all knowables, he never experiences his mind giving rise to discordant, deceptive appearances of true existence.
(6) A Buddha is never so indifferent as not to check on others. He always cares about everyone equally and keeps a constant watch to see who is ready to make spiritual progress so as to help him or her accordingly. When someone is ripe, he never forgets to show him or her the way.

The Six Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Realizations

(7) His intention to help everyone never declines. This is due to the force of his great compassion, as he cares for everyone as a mother would for her only child.
(8) His joyful perseverance to help everyone never declines. He is never reluctant to go anywhere or do anything, even for the sake of one wandering being.
(9) His mindfulness of everyone’s situation never declines. It requires no effort for an omniscient one to be aware of all beings. His awareness is like an enormous clear mirror reflecting the total extent of what exists.
(10) His absorbed concentration never declines. He is always totally focused on voidness, no matter what he does.
In the list of these unshared features given in The Furthest Everlasting Continuum, this feature is omitted and replaced by the fact that the sight of his deep awareness, which is utterly freed from all mental obscuration, never declines.
(11) His discriminating awareness of voidness never declines.
(12) His state of being utterly freed from the two types of mental obscuration never declines.

The Three Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Enlightening Influence

All the actions of a Buddha’s enlightening (13) physical, (14) verbal, and (15) mental faculties are preceded upon and carried through with deep awareness.
Because he has deep awareness simultaneously of both appearances and their voidness of true existence, he can exert an enlightening influence on everything around him while always maintaining his omniscient awareness.

The Three Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Deep Awareness

A Buddha’s deep awareness permeates everything, in seeing (16) the time already-passed (‘ das-pa’i dus), (17) the time not-yet-come (ma-‘ongs-pa’i dus), and (18) the time presently-happening (da-lta-ba’i dus), all without any attachment or impediment.
Time is an amount or length of duration measured in the continuum of the occurrence of a karmic causal action and its result, and is a nonconcomitant affecting variable (ldan-min ‘ du-byed) – a nonstatic (impermanent) factor that is neither a form of physical phenomenon nor a way of being aware of something and which is imputable on the mental continuum of a being.
A Buddha has no attachment to what he can see because he has rid himself of all emotional obscuration, and no impediment because he has no cognitive obscuration.

Would you happen to know if non-Buddhas like arahats, bodhisattvas or other noble ones can at least temporarily attain them? Should be possible since the key feature of most in the list is the part about "never declines" and "always".

As far as i know these 18 attributes only appear in a Samma Sambuddha and not in arahants or silent buddhas. I do not know if they can temporarily attain them though. You can also read about it here in "The Fourteen Buddha Knowledges", p. 1166 in "The Great Chronicles of The Buddhas".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Which are considered to be the oldest suttas?
Though I've seen dating of mahayana suttas here and there in passing with some analysis, I understand the pali canon has suttas of many ages. For example, one collection I've often heard to contain many old suttas is the Itivuttaka.
However, I've don't recall seeing any information about dating of specific suttas, or what criteria for estimating the age are used. Is there a set of suttas which has been identified as the possibly oldest texts?

On criteria for dating, I've recently read that certain pali styles are criteria for determining age. Also, cultural and geopolitical references may determine the age of a text (e.g. mention and description of certain cities and kings, mention of writing [in Buddha's time, it's believed writing was not widespread], etc). For an interesting read, see The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts

I was told that the Sutta Nipata is a one of the oldest collections. I'm no Buddhist scholar so I can't help with any great textual analysis of the sutta. However Thanissaro Bhikkhu says here that the The Parayana Vagga is quoted in other (more recent) parts of the Pali Canon so this makes it a good candidate to be considered one of the oldest. To quote the relevant part of the passage

There is evidence that these sixteen dialogues were highly regarded
  right from the very early centuries of the Buddhist tradition. [...]
  Most of the Cula Niddesa, a late addition to the Pali canon, is
  devoted to explaining them in detail. Five discourses — one in the
  Samyutta Nikaya, four in the Anguttara — discuss specific verses in
  the set

Indeed, i made a confusion; it was the Sn that i heard was the oldest. Thanks for the references!

The first Sutta preached by Lord Buddha was Dhamma Chakka Pawaththana Sutta, the sutta which is about the Four Noble Truths. You can read it in detail here. The sutta was preached to the Five Ascetics. Konadanna Ascetic could become Sotapanna after listening to the Sutta. Other four Ascetics became Sotapanna after Lord Buddha guided each ascetic with "Kamatahan". And the second Sutta preached was Anantha Lakkhana sutta which was about Not-Self. The second Sutta was also preached for the Five Ascetics(Or now the Five Sotapanna) who became Arahat after listening to the sutta. Adittapariyaya Sutta is also one of the oldest suttas which was preached for 1000 monks.

There are several collections of texts in the Khuddaka Nikaya that are very old. The Sutta Nipata and the Itivuttaka have already been mentioned, but possibly the Udana is very old as well. Also some of the short fragmentary material in the Samyutta Nikaya and the Anguttara Nikaya are hypothesized to be from the oldest stratum of the Canon.

According to Pande, T.W. Rhys Davids places the chronology of the nikayas midway between the parnibbana and Ashoka, which accepting the modern date for the parinibbana of circa 400 BCE would place the composition of the nikayas about 325 BCE, merely 75 years after the death of the Buddha, but after the Parayana Vagga, Octades (Atthakka Vagga), and Patimokkha. The Atthakavadda and Parayanavagga may be found in the Khuddaka Pitaka, as the fourth and fifth sections of the Suttanipata. The pattimokkha is of course a summation of the Vinaya. Thus, these appear to be the oldest parts of the Pali Canon. (G.C. Pande, Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, 5th ed., Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 2006, p. 20.)
Gombrich suggests that the nikayas are mid-4th century BCE. Rupert Gethin criticizes this view and suggests that they are somewhat later, "a few generations" after the parinibbana. ("Gethin on Gombrich: What the Buddha Thought")
According to noted University of Toronto Buddhologist A.K. Warder "the order of the five 'traditions' [referring to the agamas, a.k.a. nikayas] happens also to be the order of their authenticity." The first of these is the Digha Nikaya (Skt. Dirgha Agama). Warder claims that this is proved by "comparing the various available recensions." B.C. Law divides the Digha in half, placing the first part earlier than the second and third parts, which postdate the Four Great Nikayas, and distinguishes between an earlier pattimokkha of 152 rules and a later pattimokkha of 227 rules. Warder also considers the Ksudraka or Minor Tradition to be the least authentic portion of the Canon. At the same time he recognizes the Khadgavisanaghata, Munigatha, Sailagatha, Arthavargiyani Sutrani, Parayana, Sthaviragatha, Sthavirigatha, and Ityukta to constitute the "original nucleus of the Ksudraka common to all the schools," whereas the Udanas, Jatakas, and Avadanas "seem at least in origin to have been nothing but anthologies from the Tripitaka." (Warder, Indian Buddhism, 3rd rev. ed., Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000, pp. 196ff.).

many Buddhist scholars agree that the oldest collection must be Samyutta Nikaya/Samyukta Agama, which however doesn't mean that all its contents are the oldest because the process of modification and addition was ongoing

This is why the Atthaka and Parayana vaggas are so interesting because, being written in verse, they are probably closer to the original than the nikayas. Warder suggests that it was also harder to edit the longer suttas than the shorter suttas.

authors: Баян Купи-ка

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


text:
Quick-overview lists of Dhammas within Buddhism
This community wiki post is about gathering lists that serve as a quick-overview of the different Dhammas in Buddhism. We are looking for dhamma-lists from all traditions.
If you have found a list and want to post it please follow the same formating style.

Theravada Buddhism
Dhamma List that contains an overview of the most essential dhammas in theravada buddhism. They are ordered and downloadable in PDF-format.
In here you will find the different theravada dhammas, pali-to-english translation of most used words and a quick-guide to the Tipitaka.


text:
What is the Theravada Buddhist lay lifestyle?
I am thinking about becoming a Buddhist, particularly a Theravada Buddhist but I must know about the lifestyle so I can change my lifestyle a bit. There is no Buddhist temple around where I am so I have nobody to ask. I do not wish to become a nun so the question are for more non-ordained Buddhist. So here are my questions.

What exactly is a lay Buddhist and what rules do they follow?
Are all non-ordained Buddhist considered a lay person?
Do certain things apply in Buddhism since I am female?
Can I handle money? (cash, coins, cards, etc.)
What time of day are considered inappropriate to eat? How many meals can I have a day? Can I drink liquid any time? (Milk, Water, Juice, etc.) No alcohol.
Do I need a shrine? What are considered luxury items? Should I not have luxury items?
Can I have entertainment? (TV, Computer, Phone, Music, etc.)
Do I fast? If so, when do I fast?
Do I need to wear certain clothing if I become a Buddhist? Do I need to shave my head?
Do I chant and meditate daily?
Can I meditate without a monk/nun and without a temple?

That is all I want to know. I hope all my questions can be answered. Thanks you and all may be happy.

Generally, we try to submit each question individually, but I'll do my best to answer these briefly from the Theravada tradition and give links for further information.

A lay Buddhist follows the teachings of the Buddha and observes the Five Precepts. A lay Buddhist also Takes Refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.
The Buddha defined 4 types of followers: monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The special name for a lay man is Upāsaka and for a lay woman is Upāsikā.
All four types of followers listed above are important. Buddhism was the first religion to accept women as equals. A woman can become enlightened. A Buddha however is always a man. However, with rebirths, we'll all be men, women, etc. at one time or another, so nothing needs to be ruled out. ;-)
As a practical matter, a woman in the Theravada tradition needs to keep some distance from an ordained male and a man needs to keep some distance from an ordained female. There is no physical contact such as a handshake with an ordained person of the opposite gender. Really the most appropriate way to greet a monastic is with palms together at the heart or at the forehead.
You can handle money, only monastics have rules against that.
On ordinary days you eat as normal, though mindful eating is always good. On Uposatha Days (or during a meditation course or retreat) you may wish to observe the 8 Precepts instead of 5 Precepts. In that case you would eat only between dawn and noontime. And yes, no alcohol at all.
You don't need a shrine. Some people like to have a statue of the Buddha or an area dedicated to meditation. But it's optional.
Yes, you can have entertainment although if you are observing the 8 Precepts you would avoid entertainment during 8 Precept observation. Buddhists who are concentrating on beginning or continuing a meditation practice often limit entertainment as it's not conducive to meditation.
If you observe the 8 Precepts you wouldn't eat after noontime. But you would generally eat a full meal before noontime. So extended fasting is not really part of Buddhist tradition. It's considered an ascetic practice and Buddhism is more about the middle way.
Ordained Buddhists shave their heads. It's not necessary for lay followers; but not disallowed either. The only clothing that is different for lay followers is sometimes at intensive meditation courses or on Uposatha days or other special occasions, lay followers wear all white. It's a tradition in Thailand and other Buddhist countries in Asia and sometimes that tradition is followed in the West as well. But not always.
A regular meditation practice is considered very important. Not all Buddhists chant, but that too can be considered an important part of the practice. Some people feel chanting helps settle their mind for meditation.
Yes, you can meditate at home and find support for your practice online in communities such as this and others. But the funny thing is, there can be Buddhist temples tucked away in lots of Western communities that people don't even know about. Many are smaller and don't really stand out. Some don't have websites or do any advertising or promotion. So it can take a while to know for sure whether or not there are any local Buddhist temples, groups, or meditation centers in an area. If there is a University near you, you might find a Buddhist group that meets there. I hope you'll be happily surprised to find something near you to support your practice. But if not, the online Buddhist community is a great help as well. Best wishes. :)

Regarding point 5; has Lord Buddha explicitly forbidden alcohol consumption?


text:
Do Buddhism and Atheism contradict each other?
Can a person be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time? Or are some beliefs in deities too important to the practice of Buddhism?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

You don't have to believe in deities all the way until you start seeing them everywhere ;)

Possible duplicate How compatible are the beliefs of atheists and Buddhism?

There's something called "Secular Buddhism" in which, according to Wikipedia,

Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that can't be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc.

After removing these elements of doctrine ('beliefs'), a lot remains; for example:

None of the elements in this set of Dhamma Lists depends on any supernatural doctrine (except perhaps the "four stages of enlightenment" which presupposes rebirth)
Ditto the doctrines listed in the answers to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? (except perhaps the "supernatural powers").

So I'm inclined to agree with other answers. Sankha's answer ("you can't really be called a Buddhist") I would modify slightly: to say instead, for example, "you can't really be called an 'orthodox' Buddhist".
People tend to see "going for refuge" (and not explicitly "beliefs in deities") as the defining difference between "a Buddhist" and "not a Buddhist".
Even so it's also more-or-less possible to practice Buddhism without taking refuge.

Another possibility is that there's a sutta called the Kalama Sutta, which famously says,

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

The sutta then goes on to talk about a core aspect of Buddhism, i.e. whether greed causes suffering.
Still the part about "don't go by reports" is often interpreted as license to believe only what you know, what you can verify, what you have verified. So even an orthodox Buddhist view might be that you can (perhaps should) acknowledge devas etc. as a matter of faith, but that you're not required to. If you classified "belief in devas" as "doctrine" and as "hypothesis", and practice Buddhism, then you may eventually develop the ability to determine the truth of that doctrine for yourself.

Within the canonical texts of the various schools of Buddhism there are various beings that roughly correspond to that of deities, in particular Devas and Brahmas. Both Devas and Brahmas are particular types of beings who have taken very high rebirths as a result of their good Karma. They have very long lifespans and many wonderful benefits.
However they aren't the objects of reverence that they are in other religions. Although one might pray to or request one of these beings for help in worldly matters it is understood that these beings are rather limited, and they eventually die like any other being.
In practical terms rejecting the existence of such beings doesn't really present major problems as it isn't an essential doctrinal teaching. One can be a practicing Buddhist without believing in them.

There is the Secular Buddhist movement that would be very compatible with atheistic beliefs. Secular Buddhists tend to reject any supernatural beliefs within Buddhism in favour of pragmatic or evidence based solutions. A good (short) text to look at if you are interested is Buddhism without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor.
Of course you could say 'Aha but these aren't real Buddhists'. But then you could take that attitude to any group of Buddhists that you find a bit unpalatable and to my mind this is getting towards the No True Scotsman fallacy. In short, if you identify as an atheist then it is perfectly possible to practice as a (secular) Buddhist and be part of a community identifies as both atheists and Buddhists and feel the same way as you do.

It's not that they aren't' "real" buddhists, they are not buddhists in any way.

@Davor which is an opinion that you are entitled to but an opinion nontheless. If you want to ask whether secular buddhists are 'real' buddhists then I would encourage you to ask the question on the site. It could be seen as inflammatory which we don't encourage on the site but I would be happy to assit with editing or formulation of the question as I think it is an interesting subject if we could think of a neutral way to ask it. Metta

I don't want to ask anything. Just because someone says they are something doesn't make it so. I can call myself a unicorn, will you agree with me?

@Davor Same argument works for your statement "the are not buddhists in any  way". Just because you say something IS NOT something doesn't make it true in any way. Use your own logic, bro. ^^

@CrabBucket - but I'm not asking whether they are "real" buddhists.

I'll take an almost certainly unpopular tack here, and say that atheism enhances Buddhism. What I mean by that, is that atheists tend to reject authority in favor of personal experience and investigation, and I think this goes hand-in-hand with the Buddha's teaching. I believe Buddha would be pleased if we critically examined the esoteric "supernatural" aspects taught by some Buddhists schools, and to determine the veracity of them for ourselves, through practice. I actually am of the opinion that the tenets of Buddhism, including kamma, punabbhava, and even Buddhist cosmology, fit into an atheistic viewpoint. To me, "atheism" is a particular way of looking at the mechanisms by which various things occur.
I remind you, this is an unpopular viewpoint.

Unpopular perhaps but original I think. +1

One can be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time, if being atheist just means rejecting the concept of an almighty, all compassionate, creator God.
But if you mean rejecting swarga(higher realms), niraya(lower realms) and Samsaric existences, you can't really be called a Buddhist as you are rejecting the teachings of the Buddha. But you can still practice Buddhism at a certain level.

Atheism is a position that rejects existence of all kinds of gods and deities, not only the existence of an almighty God of the middle-east monotheistic religions.

But I don't think it rejects the existence of beings higher than humans who are not immortal.

I would say that to a vast majority of atheists taxonomy of all types and categories of supernatural beings that are posited by various religions is a moot task. Atheists often subscribe to some form of naturalism and disbelieve in anything more than the natural world that is accessible to our senses and to the natural science.
(If you would excuse a bad pun, I saw in a zoo that giraffes exist and they are in fact higher than humans.)

So by that definition, atheists should reject the existence of aliens too. :)
Higher in the sense like humans have a higher standard of living compared to animals.

I would say that to the degree that we can speculate about possible extraterrestrial life the consensus is that any such life forms would be bound by the same laws of nature that applies to me and to you. Humans sent spacecraft to several other worlds (today's news: to Pluto too!), and the laws of physics turned out to be the same on each of them.

Yes, the gods in Buddhism are bound by the same laws of nature: impermanence, suffering and being uncontrollable

One of the primary tenets in Buddhism, across nearly all forms of Buddhism is part of this list:

Whether Theravada or Mahayana, we do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will.

So, strictly speaking, one may believe and practice a form of Buddhism, and also believe and practice a form of Atheism without conflict.

Hi Adam and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Ressource section for new users that you might like.

The other answers have covered this from the Buddhist side, I'll try to answer from the Atheist side.
"Atheism" in general is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.  It's a convenient label for an absence that is sometimes treated as a 'thing'. In this respect it is like "vacuum" (absence of matter), "dark" (absence of light), or "freedom" (absence of restriction).  "Atheism" is the absence of theism (Belief in one or more gods).  Atheists include people who have some idea of what a god is and believe none exist, people who think the word "god" is meaningless, and people who are unsure if gods exist and any other set of beliefs that does not include "at least one god exists".
So you'll pretty much have to decide if any of the entities claimed to exist in Buddhism (or in any particular variant thereof) are "gods".  I'm in the "god" is a nonsense word camp myself ("theological noncognitism" if you really want the formal term for it) so I think the whole question is pointless.  You may disagree.
"Atheist" is commonly conflated with other terms like Freethinker/Skeptic, Irreligious, and Agnostic.  In case that's what you are after, I'll address them.
Agnosticism is about knowledge rather than belief, and it can be applied to things other than the existence of gods.  Knowledge in this sense is belief justified by evidence and reason.  Belief without such justification is faith.  Of course whether something thought to be justification really is makes things complicated in a way that's way beyond the scope of this answer.  It's entirely possible to believe in a god while recognizing that that belief lacks justification.  Many Christians even claim faith to be superior to knowledge.  My understanding is that Buddhists generally see faith as less desirable than knowledge, but an acceptable alternative where knowledge is unavailable.
Freethinkers and Skeptics are concerned with making our beliefs as close to reality as we can, no matter what that turns out to be. We want to verify those beliefs, and try to keep reverifying in case we made a mistake.  We seek knowledge and reject faith and dogma.  Ideally, we prefer to admit ignorance over clinging to a belief that lacks proper justification.  Although this is distinct from "atheism" it is the group most likely to self identify as "atheist".  Buddhism makes unjustifed claims (Existence of a soul, reincarnation of those souls, etc) and so is not compatible with freethought.  Were all the claims to be justified by sufficient evidence, this would change. (Ideally, all free thinkers would then accept the claims of fact made by Buddhism.  We might still reject the ethical claims.)
Irreligious just means "not religious" and the same way atheist means "not theist".  Buddhism is a religion and so, obviously you can't be Buddhist and irreligious at the same time.  There is sometimes argument over exactly what constitutes a religion, and Buddhism is probably more amenable to this sort of semantic wiggling than many other religions (see the 'Secular Buddhism' described in some other answers)
Naturalism (In the context of Metaphysics and Epistemology) is the philosophy that the world behaves in a way that we can understand in terms of rules which we can then use to make predictions.  Where Freethought is the position that we should seek knowledge, naturalism is the belief that we have a chance (in principle) of succeeding.  That which can not be understood this way is "supernatural".  Many of Buddhism's claims seem to be supernatural and so incompatible with naturalism.  Claims about the supernatural also mean that sufficient justification for those claims is never possible, so this would make it impossible to ever be compatible with Freethought.

Welcome to the site. Although you wrote that Buddhism makes unjustifed claims (Existence of a soul, reincarnation of those souls, etc) and so is not compatible with freethought, the statement, that "Buddhism claims existence of a soul", is contradicted by the articles on this page, Egolessness (Anatta),  as well as elsewhere in the canon. Though it may be a long page, with several articles, a search of it will highlight places where it mentions the word "soul".

@ChrisW - it's just semantics. Is there anything to a human besides the physical body? If yes, that is a soul.

@Davor Yes, there are things to a human besides the physical body, e.g. there are sense-impressions, consciousness, etc., but that's not a soul.

@ChrisW - those are biological functions of the body. Aaaaaand again, you're nitpicking the wording, instead of focusing on what matters. Is there anything left of you after you die besides the dead decomposing body? Does anything continue your existence? That would be a soul.

Well, you can call buddhism a religion, I can see it as some psychological practice.

Well, my body continues after my existence albeit in a decomposing form.  Does that make it a soul?  Hair persists for a long time, but it won't collect my pension check.  The dust of my bones doesn't get my social security number.  In the same way, my karmic continuum doesn't keep my name, my family wouldn't recognize my volition, and my skandas wouldn't be very good at my job.  All of them would be useless without my consciousness or body.  Where's there a soul in all of that?

I don't see ChrisW as nitpicking here.  What he lays out is fundamental to understanding the Buddhist conception of consciousness, enlightenment, rebirth - basically everything having to do with Buddhist thought.  The notion of a soul smacks of a Cartesian, Eurocentric bias and betrays belief in a lasting, personal identity.  That's something the Buddha argued [at length!] against.

@Davor "Does anything continue your existence?" Assuming there is a "me" and a "my existence", then yes and I think that (immaterial) "thing" is called "karma". I was wondering what the difference is between "karma" and "soul": part of the difference is that karma itself isn't unchanging: it's not a permanent "me" with unchanging characteristics. Wikipedia's Soul -- Buddhism has more details.

@nemo - which part of the "besides the physical body" you don't understand?

@Davor - there is no "besides the physical body" in Buddhist thought. The mind/body duality is a Western construct. Any quality, be it mental, karmic, or what Westerners would call "physical" fall under the category of dharmas or constituent elements. A moment of happiness is an elemental part of the aggregated self just as much as a carbon atom in your big toe. If you want to say that only certain dharmas can be observed, quantified, and described by our current scientific understanding, that's fine. The model you are using, however, is extremely problematic in Buddhist terms.

@nemo - I think that is the biggest word salad I've ever seen. Elemental part of aggregated self? Are you trolling? :D

Hah!  Very well.  I do encourage you to read some of the Abhidhamma.  The Dhammasangani specifically would be of some use to you in unraveling the Buddhist view of dharmas and how these elements aggregate to form what we would conventionally call a "person".  It's interesting stuff, quite frankly.


text:
The formless jhanas in this world
When a meditator achieves e.g. the 5th jhana of infinite space, is he or she still in this world?
Obviously the body is, but what about the mind?
I ask this question for a broader one: can sentient beings perceive the world of form as something formless? i.e. can we imagine a termination of form as something which can happen to this mind?

The first two questions seem clear, but I am struggling with your last sentence... Any way you can clarify what you are asking? "termination of form as something which can happen to this mind" - meaning, can I imagine that I will cease to exist? Like, REALLY imagine it? I think I have read that an Ego cannot really posit that thought, that it is simply impossible for an ego to hold it. The Nondual perspective is that form cannot terminate, having not properly been. Then there is the Heart Sutra: "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." Am I getting warm?

yes i was asking about the "ego" in the (broadly) cartesian sense. i've looked into more secular philosophies which make the claim you can't "posit that thought" but the results were sparse. what about buddhism?

I always thought that "I think therefore I am" was fishy, or outright nonsense. It appears that the one Answer does not touch on this aspect of your Question. I am not sure if Buddhism addresses it. My guess would be that it is regarded as Vexing.

however it's stated and whatever metaphysics you have, i think that sentience is a tangible quality which overlaps both in buddhist and european philosophy

When a meditator achieves e.g. the 5th jhana of infinite space, is he
  or she still in this world?

Yes, he doesn't disappear. When you sleep, you are not aware of what's happening around you. But that doesn't mean the world is gone.

Obviously the body is, but what about the mind?

Yes, the mind is still associated with the body. Just that it's focusing on the space element.

can sentient beings perceive the world of form as something formless?

Atoms are 99.9999999999999 percent empty space. They say If you remove all the space in the atoms, the entire human race could fit in the volume of a sugar cube. That gives you an idea of how much our senses fool us. It's mostly empty space.

i'm almost sure this answers the question. thanks you

is the answer the same for mind only schools of buddhism?

" mind only schools of buddhism"? That's not Buddhism!


text:
Emptiness and one taste
Might it be true that emptiness can be conceived of as the one taste of mind: that the world of mind has only one reality which is everywhere and always the same, unchanging.
Who (which groups or individuals) say so?
And: what reasons are there to believe it is a correct charaterisation of mind?

hey can you explain the downvote please ?

Yes of course. I downvoted the question because i think it's too philosophical in nature and might be better of asked in Philosophy SE. Asking for what "groups or individuals" says what is more of a philosophical approach. In Buddhism one does not rely on opinions, instead one go and verify or falsify phenomena for oneself through the practice of insight meditation. Hope that makes sense.

I agree with Lanka. At best, words can point towards truth. This question is asking if the mind can be thought of in a certain way. "The mind" is just a concept that means different things to different people. Experience through insight is what brings about understanding of the mind, not asking questions about it.

I think such experiential truths should not be intellectualised. Any intellectual stance - of permanence or impermanence will be outside of non-dual reality.
Silence is the right answer. cf. Vimalakirti sutra (Wikipedia).

Vimalakīrti remains silent while discussing the subject of emptiness
  with an assembly of bodhisattvas. The bodhisattvas give a variety of
  answers on the question what non-duality is. Manjusri is the last
  bodhisattva to answer, and says that "by giving an explanation they
  have already fallen into dualism". Vimalakirti, in his turn, answers
  with silence.

p.s. I didn't downvote, I don't object to the question.

ok that's to the point, i will think about it, thanks :)

If one focuses on the emptiness of things, it will be the object of the mind at that time. Those(non Buddhists) who attain the Ākiṃcanyāyatana(7th Jhana) could get the false view that sphere of Nothingness is unchanging and permanent. But it isn't.

hi, i wouldn't call "unchanging and permanent" space the reality or nature of things. i will edit the question a little, thanks :)

but unchanging is the same as permanent :)

ah i don't know how i should edit it. i was specifically asking about a supposed (hidden) nature of every realm; i was asking if the idea of emptiness can be stated as nothing more than the fact that the reality of all things is emptiness - that the concept of "emptiness" can be said to be the same for everything, unchanging, but cannot be said to be anything else at all

Everything is empty of a soul or a self. Apart from that there's a Datu called Akasa in every Rupa. But that is not unchanging.


text:
Are actions in computer games bad for karma?
What if I play a bad person in a computer game, cheating people. Or I play an assassin who kills people. Or my character in a game belongs to some evil cult. Or I roleplay a thief and steal. Or my character has an affair with a woman without being married.
How are all these actions in a virtual reality close to actions in a real world from a buddhist point of view? Yes, I do not do them for real, but I still make these choices using my free will. So is it the same if I did all this in real life from? Are they bad for my karma?

Like Grand Theft Auto? :)

You didn't specify if this is offline or online. If it's the latter, you'd also better specify if in that game you are supposed to behave like that, or if you would be actually be "harming" someone else (i.e. attacking someone in a war game is quite different from griefing in Minecraft, and even in both of those cases, it would heavily depend on the specific server).

I understand that griefing in online games is actually dealing bad things to a real person, not to a character.

Good meditation with lots of metta bhavana makes one very sensitive to violence. One who has enjoyed realistically violent war movies may no longer like even the fights in cartoons. One who has felt completely unaffected by the violence in a first person shooter game may even shudder at the non-obvious violence in a RPG like Civilization. Meditation will change the person in deep ways if it is proper.

Now this question and @Buddho's comment made me wonder whether there are any computer games that are "good" with respect to Karma (or Buddhism in general)

As Andrei Volkov aptly put it

Actually, when it comes to karma, "subtle" does not mean "weak". Some of our deepest hung-ups come from our subtlest preconceptions.

There are already plenty of answers on this question, but I felt the need to add my two cents, as my view on this is slightly different.
In Tibetan Buddhism there is an emphasis on purifying ones karma.
In a common mantra OM AH HUM is contained within it a load of symbolism and varied traditions.
The order in which to purify ones behaviors was in these 3 syllables.
OM - Body
AH - Speech
HUM - Mind
Within these 3 "bodies" as they referred to them, one must purify the actions of...
The body is considered the easiest of the 3 to control.
The speech the second easiest.
The mind of course, is the most difficult to master.
The kind of karma that video games would create, if any, would fall under HUM.
Except some fringe conditions of course, like if you swear at relatives when you miss a re-spawn point. That would fall under AH.
If you punch your dog because you got head shot in match of Call of Duty, then that would fall under an action of OM.
If those prior two examples resonate with you, you might want to take a step back to the basics.
If however they do not (I will just take your word for it) you might be concerned with the subtle aspects of mind.
In which I would argue that video games can be used as a tool, just like any other tool.
Roleplaying games allow you to see your mind act as if it would if you were in situations you cannot be in within real life. If you observe your mind while you play, in a way it could become a kind of meditation.
If for example there was a hypothetical video game called "Bodhisattva" or
"Monk" where one played those roles. Bodhisattva would essentially be the opposite of Call of Duty, think magical monks running around blocking bullets. (Keep in mind this is a hypothetical)
Would these games have benefit ?    Depends on who develops them.
But all this brings me to the point I want to make. A game like Bodhisattva is just simulation. You aren't saving lives, you are pretending to do so.
Same with Call of Duty. Doing and pretending are not equal.
In fact if playing GTA is the worst thing you have done in your life, your karma is quite nice in comparison.
So let's be reasonable, yes there is an influence that like any other art form, book, music, painting, etc will have. However Buddhism is about neither acceptance nor rejection. The dharmakaya as described by Chogyam Trungpa is what I refer to here.
The video game is empty of any inherent being. Our interaction with it is what we must watch. The video games influence on you might be null, it might be vast. You must be aware of what influence it has on you. The karma that you reap from those moments could be good or bad. Your reaction to it is what matters.
In conclusion I will more directly answer the 3 questions you asked:

How close are all these actions in a virtual reality  to actions in a real world from a Buddhist point of view?

Slightly reworded your question, but the answer is they are not close at all. Those scenarios would require action of body, speech, and mind. Doing them in real life would have much vaster karmic effect.

Yes, I do not do them for real, but I still make these choices using
  my free will. So is it the same if I did all this in real life from?

It is not the same.

Are they bad for my karma?

It really just depends. There are so many factors, the game, your thoughts while playing it, and the influence it has on you. If you are playing Professor Layton games, I'd say the answer is most certainly a no.
Call of Duty is more likely a yes. But it is still not necessarily so...
Bottom line / TL;DR : Analyze your life before your video games. Changes there are more likely to have karmic impact. But do not deceive your self, if video games are part of your life, you must include them in the analysis.

@SergZ. I'd like to get the rest of the stacks view on it as well.

There are two parts to karma: 1) external forces/energies you set in motion with your action and 2) latent tendencies and inclinations in your psyche - that later become your action and reaction, that then sets external forces in motion.
If you step away and look at it from a distance, there is really no hard line between "external" and "internal"; karma is a network of subtle potentialities.
Some of the potentialities are pretty subtle, yeah - like the ones involved in playing videogames - but they are still real. Very few of them translate 1:1 to analogous actions in real life though.
For example, mass-shooting in games is not even remotely the same karma as real murder, but you still separate "yourself" from "others", and you still desire good for one's own character at the expense of everyone else's. Amassing golden coins in game is not real, but you still go after "fruits", get frustrated when things you like a taken away and so on and so forth. Guess what kind of latent potentialities, however subtle, all this creates/reinforces?
Actually, when it comes to karma, "subtle" does not mean "weak". Some of our deepest hung-ups come from our subtlest preconceptions.
So I'd say in general the games you play may not create a lot of new karma, but they certainly reinforce your inner tendencies and preconceptions that keep you chained in samsara.

"Very few of them translate 1:1 to analogous actions in real life though." Wondering if you had examples of these few? Great job pointing out the subtle/weak distinction.

I meant statistically, not by type. Couple years ago there was a news of a guy murdering his father after a week of binge-playing an FPS, but these are few and far between.

It might be worth adding to this wonderful answer the idea that karma is accrued in proportion to the awareness one has of doing harm. A person who is in a state of delusion (a dreamer, child, or someone who has lost mental capabilities) may hardly be aware they are doing harm, and will create less negative karma than someone who should know better. Perhaps a gamer is acting in a state of delusion.

@QuinnComendant what you said is the opposite of Buddhist traditional position, which assigns greater demerit to action of an ignorant/deluded person. So Dalai Lama playing a violent videogame may create less negative consequences than an ignorant/confused teenager playing the same game.

Consider Alan Wallace’s answer in this talk (at 00:41:00) to the question, do we accumulate Karma when dreaming: “As the Dalai Lama said, the greater the clarity, the greater understanding, the greater intelligence, discernment, the more responsibility you have because, for better and worse, your actions have a more powerful impact, heavier karma, stronger karma.” Insofar as a video game is like a dream, weaker karma is generated, and perhaps least of all by the ignorant teen. Thubten Yeshe adds perspective in his reply to the same question.

Thubten Yeshe's response boils down to "it has the potency to lay down karmic seeds in the mental continuum especially when the intention is strong." - which is my main point above. I'm afraid Alan Wallace did not quote Dalai Lama very precisely, I think he's just saying with more clarity comes more power and hence more responsibility. I believe the traditional point is that a wise person proceeds carefully, and therefore can minimize effects of a mistake, while the fool misbehaves eagerly and full-steam - hence the different amount of negative karma.

Also on the topic please see the Salt Crystal Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html

There weren't PC games in the Buddha's time, but there were stage shows and music, and he asked people to eschew them both.
One time an actor approached the Buddha and asked him if he would go to heaven with the devas because he made people happy and forget their worries The Buddha tried to dodge answering, but at the actor's insistence, he had to tell him that he'd probably go to hell or the animal realms. Talaputra Sutta. See also this question: (Will actors really go to hell?).
This seems pretty odd and incompatible with our age of ubiquitous entertainment and distraction - would the Buddha say the same of Facebook?
"So you're happy your selfie just got a 1000 likes eh? Consider this, You're going to hell!" :-)
I am sure the Buddha would have phrased it better, but this is pretty much the same thing.
Karma theory says one's dreams can also affect karma - if we harbor evil intentions towards someone in our dreams, that is enough to destroy accumulated merits.

This is a fundamental question about all entertainment - why must entertainment be eschewed?
First, the nature of boredom is that it arises out of a mind that isn't at ease with itself. The nature of thought at the moment a bored mind arises is to gravitate towards the outside world - towards sense pleasures.
Distracted thought gets reinforced with every application of distraction.
A hundred years ago people read 700 page books for entertainment, today people find twitter too verbose and send each other Vine videos.
If we make a habit of mindfulness, then the opposite is true, at every opportunity the mind will seek mindfulness.
Second, the nature of boredom is that it gets excited by violence rather than peace - it is an existential threat mechanism that is woken up and makes us come alive. Thus entertainment is the enemy of equanimity.
Third, entertainment reinforces duality, of the entertainer and the entertained. It makes us lapse into being controlled by external forces, rather than taking control of our mind.
It is thus a quality of mind to be safe guarded against.

I am still struggling with your explanation for "Why must entertainment be eschewed?" Is not any action we take, even mentally, technically a source of entertainment - even practicing mindfulness? (even though it is a much healthier choice)

Fundamentally we all fear knowing that there is no self, and no inherent existence, yet even if we cannot notice this explicitly, our unenlightened actions betray this knowledge. Entertainment is the distractive cure for fear masked as boredom. Even in mindfulness of breath, if one keeps at it for a long while without getting into the piti/sukha one can get bored, this is why some beginner meditators keep switching their object of attention. Thus one of the marks of insight is when fear grips the meditator after noticing nothing has a separate existence.

I think its the definition that causes me to struggle. "Entertainment is the distractive cure for fear masked as boredom" - I consider boredom and entertainment to be opposites, but that definition suggests otherwise. If one was doing nothing, yet was fine (not bored) - I would consider that as being entertained. If it is not one or the other, what is it when one is not bored, and not being entertained?

I made my own question, and asked these same questions there. I figured they would require more than the comments could allow.

@Buddo "So you're happy your selfie just got a 1000 likes eh? Consider this, You're going to hell!" :-)"
Great line. Very funny. The specific realm though would probably be the hungry ghost realm for the vainity of 1000 selfies, and it all depends on what the agent was thinking and intending at the time right? The hell realms are caused primarily by anger and violence.

The important thing to keep in mind is our own mind state. We try to purify ourselves of the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion. That's not really going to happen in a typical video game where our mind states can spike into intense feelings of:
greed - (I should have won that loot! I deserved it!)
hatred - (I can't stand that guy! He's such a jerk!)
delusion - (I should have been at the top of the chart, I am the best in this group, the meter must be broken.)
When we open ourselves up to knowingly experiencing these intensely unwholesome mind states while we are trying to purify ourselves of the same; it really doesn't make much sense. It's also not Right Effort which specifies "The effort to prevent future disadvantageous mental states from arising.."
Lastly, it's a waste of time. There is a colorful quote from the Buddha about putting out effort "as if your head was on fire". Here is the whole sutta, Sacitta Sutta: One's Own Mind. It's short and well worth reading to understand the priority of choosing how to direct your efforts.

this answer is a good case for celibacy - what are your thoughts on that ?

Yes.
The mind-state one is in is crucial, if not the most important thing.
A mind-state that is free from the Three Poisons and the Six Root Afflictions is good.
One that is practicing Three Poisons and afflictions, even in a virtual setting, will retain those seeds in his mind, attitude, and neurology.
Unless that is of course one is mindful and detached from such gaming in the first place and is doing it for exercise purposes (for example playing a puzzle game). It is hard to be detached for longer, more immersive video games.

Who downvoted this and why?

If one performs negative actions against another soul, like another video game player, then yes, there would be karmic consequences. If it's regular competition during the course of a game, like player versus player combat, you're all willing participants, so very likely there would be no adverse  consequences. But bad sportsmanship, bullying, mean spirited communications, etc. would be bad karma.
One should consider the effects on your consciousness of protraying villains. Actions performed in a game may have an effect on one's self. I'm not one of those people who condemns violent video games, but I believe engaging in villainous, murderous acts continually in a video game will inevitably form a samskara within the person.

Here is the thing about games and violence (I am a life long gamer too).
Violence causes a bad stream of thoughts like anger,vendetta,enmity.So if you are one of those people who slam the controller/keyboard on the table when you get killed or defeated i would not recommend games with violence to you.
I am quite sure you are referring to games like GTA, Sleeping Dogs, Castlevania etc.
So the one thing you need to realize is if you are not in it to get out of boring life. If you feel good when thing go down and burn or when that guy who killed you in Battlefield take a head shot from you.That is not healthy for the path.Not to mention games are very addictive.And that is not good because it creates a bond.
If you know what's evil don't do it,If you want to kill in a game go for it with mindfulness and you will see it is no longer exiting (Because what made it exiting was your ego getting fueled by anger).You can still play games without being evil.Choose a different genre.or play it knowing that it is just a game and keep your feelings checked at all times.

Please don't post links to http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/ except in your profile. You can post links to specific pages or articles or resources within the mahamevnawa.lk site, if the page is relevant to the question and your answer.

Sorry i did not saw your countess advises (I was not on the site),i stopped it,Can i mention those links in the comments section? please advice me on this issue. thank you for your kindness. May triple gems bless you.

Consider it from the perspective of intention:
I once had a guru who explained it thusly...
Which intention will have the greatest effect on future actions?
Shooting a crossbow at a pumpkin sitting on a fencepost late at night, then realizing that it is actually a boy popping his head up over the fence..
Or shooting a crossbow at a boy's head popping up over a fencepost, then realizing it is only a pumpkin.
Different intentions, different end results. Christianity has a specific view of which is the sin (action) while buddhism considers more factors (right thought, right action, right intention etc)
You have to ask yourself honestly:
Does this thought or action, as it comes into being, lead to suffering. If it does, we should avoid doing it.

Hi Darren and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

"So is it the same if I did all this in real life from a spiritual perspective?". I did not get that part of the question. There is no way of doing evil deeds from a spiritual perspective if I understood the question.
“Discard all that is  immoral, what should not be done
Take in what is moral by sorting out “san”
Do this by controlling one’s own thoughts (mind)
This is the doctrine of the Buddhas”
Clearing mind is a component of spirituality so "Discarding all that is immoral" is also a part of the teaching of all the Buddhas, no one can reach Nirvana while performing evil deeds.
I will give a detailed answer such that you can apply it in many other contexts too.
Please first go through the list of ten evil deeds.
There are five conditions that must be fulfilled to happen the evil deed of killing. All of these should be fulfilled.
1. Being should be living.(From this point itself you don't do killing karma on the virtual life.)
2. Knowing the being is living
3. Will to kill
4. Planning to kill
5. Living being dying due to the plan
And the being should not be self, therefore suicide does not effect killing karma. But depending on the situation and in most of the times suicide comes with delusion.
For the evil deed stealing all below should be fulfilled.
1. Owned by someone else
2. Knowing someone else's property
3. Desire to take away
4. Planning to take away
5. Taking away
Simply things on games are not owned by someone, owners are not real. So no evil deed happens.
The third part, affair with a woman without being married. Actually in Buddhism unlawful sensual/sexual misconduct is not synonymous with marriage and affiliated although they have some in common. Men are not supposed to have sexual relationships with these women. (However rape is sexual misconduct and the strength of the evil deed is often high)
1. She being nurtured by her parents or other close relations(from this point itself no harm because the virtual women have no real owners)
2. She being nurtured and protected by another man.
There is only one instance of men where women can get sexual misconduct. If the woman has a protector, she cannot seek for another protector.
For a person to fulfill these conditions to have done sexual misconduct evil deed.
1. Man or woman should belong to the groups mentioned above
2. Desire to have sensual pleasures with him/her
3. Trying for pleasure
4. Undergoing and feeling the pleasure.
Different variables affect the strength of the karma described above.

Suicide does have a karmic effect in every place I've encountered in my studies. It is not the same as murder, but it is not "positive" either.

It is not positive, and it is negative in most of the situations. but it is not completing the killing karma. It may do other karma such as delusion, but it does not complete the conditions for killing Karma. thank you for pointing it out, I will edit the answer so it can be more precise. You can read those conditions in midway of this article. http://www.dharmanet.org/DellaKarma.htm I could not find a good source in English which discusses on suicide. But in a handbook of lay followers written in Sinhalese, Most Venerable Rerukane Chandawimala thero clearly states suicide is not killing.

I think ending your own life when you are human carries with it some of the killing karma. You are removing a human life from living, even though it is your own. I will have to politely disagree with Most Venerable Rerukane Chandawimala on this matter.


text:
Are there other people, according to Buddhism?
When I was on a Self Inquiry retreat last year, I was explaining why I wanted to help other people. One of the two teachers looked at me and said, "There are no other people." That sort-of made sense to me. The next day I had a realization which made it make sense completely.
But the other day (is there another day?) I saw it in a different way: that it simply does not matter whether there are other people or not, because I can never have real insight in to them, so I am completely alone in my path. My image of two people is like spheres touching at one hypothetical point (Indra's Net). I cannot see much through a point-sized window on to (hypothetical) someone-else's world. This is like Vivekacudemani #515:

I am Actionless.
  I am Changeless.
  I am Partless.
  I am Without Purpose.
  I am Eternal.
  I do not require any prop.
I am One, without a Second.

If I am One, can I know anyone else? What does Buddhism say on this point?

This question is predicated on the assumption that there is a "you" that is a "person". On what basis do you make this claim?

@Ryan: I said that I see it both ways. The question is about functioning in everyday life, not about the absolute, which I am not arguing. I have a Chariot, er, car, also. How about you? "Have you had breakfast?"

Here is a link to the Sedaka Sutta, which I took from an answer by @Robin111 to another question. I think it adds to this Question. Perhaps someone can turn it in to an answer?

In Theravada Buddhism the Abhidhamma Pitaka teaches that there are 2 kinds of realities, i.e. the conventional reality (sammuti sacca) and ultimate reality (paramattha sacca).
Conventional reality consists of concepts and entities, e.g. a man, woman, animal, car, planet, galaxy etc. These do not really exist since they are merely concepts with no real point of reference. A car or a person is merely a designation given to a collection of parts put together in a certain configuration.
Ultimate reality consists of Citta (consciousness), Cetasika (mental concomitants), Rupa (materialty) and Nibbana (unconditioned realm).
So when speaking about people we are dealing with conventional reality. In conventional reality concepts exist meaning that people exist.
In ultimate reality people do not exist.
Here is a quote from the Palikanon.com:

"The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance with undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohāra-vacana).
It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammā). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desanā), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhātu) or sense-bases (āyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc."

If you would like to read a bit more about what the Abhidhamma and ultimate reality is there is a well written chapter called "What is Abhidhamma" in the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 105-111. Here is a quote from the chapter:

The Abhidharma teaches that the egoistic beliefs and other concepts such as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘person’ and ‘the world’ , which we use in daily conversation, do not adequately describe the real nature of existence. The conventional concepts do not reflect the fleeting nature of pleasures, uncertainties, impermanence of every component thing, and the conflict among the elements and energies intrinsic in all animate or inanimate things. The Abhidharma doctrine gives a clear exposition of the ultimate nature of human beings and brings the analysis of the human condition further than other studies known to them.
The Abhidharma deals with realities existing in the ultimate sense, or paramattha dhamma in Pali. There are four such realities:

Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as ‘that which knows or experiences’ an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of consciousness.
Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta.
Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form.
Nirvana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final
  goal.

Citta, the cetasika, and rupa are conditioned realities. They arise because of conditions, and will disappear when the conditions sustaining them cease to continue to do so. They are impermanent states. Nirvana, on the other hand, is an unconditioned reality. It does not arise and, therefore, does not fall away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of the names we may choose to give them. Other than these realities, everything—be they within ourselves or without, whether in the past, present or future, whether coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near—is a concept and not the ultimate reality.
Citta, cetasika, and Nirvana are also called nama. Nirvana is an unconditioned nama. The two conditioned nama, that is, citta and cetasika, together with rupa (form), make up psychophysical organisms, including human beings. Both mind and matter, or nama-rupa, are analysed in Abhidharma as though under a microscope. Events connected with the process of birth and death are explained in detail. The Abhidharma clarifies intricate points of the Dharma and enables the arising of an understanding of reality, thereby setting forth in clear terms the Path of Emancipation. The realization we gain from the Abhidharma with regard to our lives and the world is not to be understood in a conventional sense, but is an absolute reality.

So, apparently the Abhidharma would say that my question is wrongly put, although conventionally, it can be asked. This is perhaps why the teacher said what she said: it was like a Koan, intended to awaken insight.

It depends on what reality one is referring to. Conventionally the question can be asked and answered. Ultimately it cannot. The Buddha once said that it's okay to use conventional language but do not be fooled thereby. Because humans use nouns to describe stuff it can give the impression that there exist substantiality and solidity.

That's funny, I was thinking that conventionally, the question can be asked, but any answer must be necessarily untrue, and absolutely it has an answer (what you said). This is why I quit Philosophy: useless for finding out the truth.

Philosophy also deals purely with conventional reality meaning that there is no real point of reference. Here we are dealing with intellectual knowledge (book knowledge). In ultimate reality we are dealing with experiental knowledge (insight knowledge) which is based on objective observation and non-interaction with mental and physical phenomena. Philosophy can be used for thinking and imagination but it cannot issue Liberation from suffering.

The practice of a bodhisatvva
The entire practice of a bodhisattva is divided into six perfections, which are generosity, discipline, patience, effort, meditative concentration, and wisdom.
  In order to fulfill the hopes of others, it is very important to engage in the practice of generosity, which in turn should be strengthened by a strict observance of ethical discipline, that is, of non-violence.
  The practice of discipline must itself be complemented by that of patience, because you will need to have forebearance when facing the harm inflicted on you by others.
  In order to succeed in these practices, your endeavour must be strong and stable.
  And without meditative concentration that effort will not be so effective.
  Finally if you do not have the wisdom that realizes the nature of all phenomena, you will not be capable of guiding others on the path that leads to enlightenment.
The sweet taste of bodhicitta
If there is one practice that is sufficient to bring about buddhahood, it is the practice of great compassion.
  Chandragomin, a sixth-century Indian poet, said that it is stupid to expect to change the taste of a very bitter fruit by simply adding one or two drops of sugar to it.
  In the same way, we cannot expect the fragrance of our minds, which are so contaminated by the bitter taste of delusion, to change instantaneously into the sweet taste of boddhicitta or compassion on the basis of just one or two sessions of meditation.
  Sustained and continuous effort is extremely important.
As the Buddha himself said, on th strength of their wisdom bodhisattvas abandon all delusion, but through the vigour of applying compassionate methods, they never abandon beings.

The Dalai Lama's Little Book of Inner Peace -- The Essential Life and Teachings

There was also a video in which the Dalai Lama said,

I never consider myself as something special. If I consider myself as something different from you, like I am Buddhist, or even more, I am His Holiness the Dalai Lama, or even if I consider I am Nobel Laureate, then actually you create yourself as a prisoner. I forget these things, I simply consider I am one of the seven billion human beings. We are mentally, emotionally, intellectually, we are the same.

He goes on to say that people get fulfillment of purpose, and "always feel happy", from helping others, etc.
It's not that other people "don't exist": it's that there are not "other" people, not different; i.e. "we are the same".

Thank you for the references. To me, saying "we are the same" presupposes that there are two. Saying "we are one" is a different idea. I like your quote of "not abandoning beings". But still, I don't abandon part of "my" body when it gets sick. Does Buddhism address this distinction?

which distinction are you referring to?

@Ryan: the distinction between self and others, in the sense of: [if there are others] can I ever know (have insight into) them? Or is the "wall" between my experience and theirs simply too great?

insight into yourself is insight into others. this is why chris said we are the same, i believe. if you want direct insight, you can develop and abide in the fourth jhana, and obtain psychic powers.

@Ryan: When I was a child, I wondered if anyone could have insight in to me. Apparently (except for my Guru) the answer is No. I suppose this is like what you are saying. But I have no real insight in to the experience of... ahem, other people. Even two people standing near each other do not see the same thing.

sure they can. they see impermanence, suffering, and non-self.

@Ryan: apparently, we do not see this the same way. Who is arguing with whom? But I have no insight into your thoughts, therefore the question. QED

@nocomprende I made a chat room Nonduality in case you'd like to explain your insight more clearly than is possible in a Q+A or comments.

There is no not-others and there is no others. Buddhism teaches a nondual perspective beyond either extreme, beyond the dichotimization that is the habit of the intellect.
There is not even that One because to mention that One is to already create a separateness. There is just is-ness.
There is not even just is-ness because is-ness implies separation from not-is-ness.
Being such, you may notice that the answers to these kind of questions are not given by words alone but the answer can only be tasted through experience and Insight, a process that obviates the intellect and uses intuition (primordial forms of awareness) to "get it".
Also, arrow analogy here

I was not aware that Buddhism in general teaches a nondual perspective. I thought it was something that people just happened across, and Buddhism does not much discuss it. Advaita does. Nonduality has become very well-known and I rarely see those people mentioning Buddhism.

Buddhism across many traditions does this as well as most notably Taoism, friend and brother of Buddhism. I would recommend the Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Nan and Heart Sutra and also Surangama Sutra.

I think the Heart Sutra is fun because it deliberately disavows all the basic tenets of Buddhism. Can't recall the Diamond, although I have read it before. I will look at Surangama. Thank you.

Well said friend Ahmed, I was about to say the same. Letting go of either extreme we grasp the truth. Je Tsongkhapa's "short essence of true eloquence" is a masterful analysis of non-duality. Early Buddhism was about liberation, it wasn't about intellectually explicating philosophical concepts. Later Buddhism with the luxury of time was able to textualise the felt sentiment of non-duality.

I just found it interesting that I had to create the Nonduality Tag. You seem to be saying that it is beneath consideration, assumed. Maybe I missed this idea in Buddhism all these years. Found it elsewhere though, and more understandable.

Not "beneath consideration." Nonduality is the most important concept to understand and is arguably the spiritual path itself! Through this, every other reuslt is gained. The 1st bhumi is attained from understanding nonduality of self.. On an experiential level of course--not conceptual. It is like Buddho said in his last sentence. Btw.. I would be great excerpts had i the time to read and share from the texts. Hope you didnt mistake my short post for lack of zeal. Oh and remember that Buddha himself is famous for espousing the Middle Way. Anyway nonduality is in every genuine  religion.

Well said. Well said.

@Ahmed - Duality is the composition of this and that and not separation of this and that e.g. I am a father and a husband. I don't see these being different to who i am. Polarity is a separation of this and that e.g. male, female, yours and mine, etc. Since we generally live-out polarized lives, a dissonance of sort arises with the concept of duality.

Right, and Buddhism is about cultivating and breaking free from these separating/compositioning self-definitions. Specifically, Buddhism and Enlightenment in particular is less about all the relative self-definitions and more about the Nondual understanding of self and other in an experiential sense (i.e. Enlightenment is a permanent, irreversible shift in consciousness caused by experientially understanding self-and-other, instead of being limited and bound by the illusion that is our ego).

There are no words.
There are no borders.
There are no countries .
There is no "other".
There is no "self"
But that doesn't mean we do not conceive of words, borders, countries, others and the self but we mix conceived reality with ultimate reality without even realizing it. Mindful Meditation on reality shows us how to untangle our perceptions of reality. We have to practice to understand this.

UUU, and what is the uposatha of the Jain?

no comprende, UUU, and those here possible interested,
assuming it's asked for the purpose of release, for it's purpose this answer follows:
Q: Are there other people, according to Buddhism?
According to the Buddha and his Dhamma, there are all around, all the time, other people, and to hold the perception of the two governing principles arosen, in cases that the perception of self is current out of sign, is a very needed to be reminded to keep right effort arosen and to gain deliverence, so be sure that I or others see UUU`s, or your actions, know what you think, speak or do.
Phenomenalical pondering and try to grasp this view or that are not conductive for release. One just will die, the arrow not removed.
An what is right effort, supported by one, two or three governing principles, not having abound them, not denying them?

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...

"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...

"And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve."
— SN 45.8

"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...

"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful — to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."
— AN 10.69

"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...

"Having thus gone forth, following the training & way of life of the monks, abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, kind, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He takes only what is given, accepts only what is given, lives not by stealth but by means of a self that has become pure. Abandoning uncelibacy, he lives a celibate life, aloof, refraining from the sexual act that is the villager's way."
— AN X 99

"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."

"'When brahmans or contemplatives who are unpurified in their livelihood resort to isolated forest or wilderness dwellings, it's the fault of their unpurified livelihood that they give rise to unskillful fear & terror. But it's not the case that I am unpurified in my livelihood when I resort to isolated forest or wilderness dwellings. I am purified in my livelihood. I am one of those noble ones who are purified in their livelihood when they resort to isolated forest or wilderness dwellings.' Seeing in myself this purity of livelihood, I felt even more undaunted about staying in the wilderness.
"The thought occurred to me: 'When brahmans or contemplatives who are covetous & fiercely passionate for sensual pleasures... I am not covetous... I have a mind of good will... devoid of sloth & drowsiness... a still mind... gone beyond uncertainty... I do not praise myself or disparage others... gone beyond horripilation... few wants... persistence is aroused... mindfulness established......'When brahmans or contemplatives who are unconcentrated, with straying minds... I am consummate in concentration.
— MN 4

— MN 117
"And what, monks, is right effort?
[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."
— SN 45.8

On significantly of the circumstances here:

The Contemplation of Dualities
Those who don't discern stress,
  what brings stress into play,
  & where it totally stops,
      without trace;
  who don't know the path,
  the way to the stilling of stress:
      lowly
  in their awareness-release
  & discernment-release,
      incapable
  of making an end,
      they're headed
      to birth & aging.
But those who discern stress,
  what brings stress into play,
  & where it totally stops,
      without trace;
  who discern the path,
  the way to the stilling of stress:
      consummate
  in their awareness-release
  & discernment-release,
      capable
  of making an end,
      they aren't headed
         to birth & aging.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Perhaps my question was poorly worded. My point was more that it seems impossible to know someone else's reality, so it is like solipsism. Other answers and comments here say that I can know someone else's experience through my own, but it still seems like speculation. "Useless to ponder."

Such would be "worthy" a question, thought that it could be, and many think they actually can. Mind reading.. It's good to know someones watching you, Comprehende. And whats the different between preoccupation, psychic power and the mirrical of instruction.