text:
Moderation of sensual pleasures?
In SN 56.11 we find a famous passage:

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

Laity frequently interprets the above as moderation of sensual pleasures, even though the above passage seems to refer to monks (those "gone forth into homelessness").
Are there suttas where the Buddha or his disciples teach specifically laity on the subject of sensual pleasures (e.g. to be in anyway cautious about them)?
Also, a minor curiosity: how the above passage is interpreted by the Theravada tradition, since the suttas clearly teach the abandonment of sensual pleasures for those who become monks/nuns.

Thanks for this neat question. It highlights the fact that "lay person" is a very broad term in the context of steps on the spiritual path. Think of someone who is frequently in bars and nightclubs and another person who is in mediation centers at every chance.  Passages like the first one that @ChrisW quotes are addressed to people closer to the former. And then there are statements addressed to monks. But what about lay people who are keen on leading a Dhamma life, right?

If there were such a sutta then maybe AN 8.54 would have been a good place to put it. It begins,

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One,

"We are lay people enjoying sensuality; living crowded with spouses & children; using Kasi fabrics & sandalwood; wearing garlands, scents, & creams; handling gold & silver. May the Blessed One teach the Dhamma for those like us, for our happiness & well-being in this life, for our happiness & well-being in lives to come."

But that sutta only warns against debauchery in sex, drink, gambling, and evil companionship; and against improper or immoderate use of wealth; and not against sensual pleasures per se. Also the warning is that these are "drains on one's store of wealth".
Conversely it also doesn't recommend sensual pursuits as being "qualities that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life" (instead it recommends good work, good friendship, etc.).

The more famous DN 31 is a little more wide-ranging -- it warns against frequenting "theatrical shows":

"There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in frequenting theatrical shows. He is ever thinking:
(i) where is there dancing?
(ii) where is there singing?
(iii) where is there music?
(iv) where is there recitation?
(v) where is there playing with cymbals?
(vi) where is there pot-blowing?

Playing with cymbals is a major drain on our intellectual capital these days. Oops, I meant symbols. Darn spellchecker....

This is great! Thank you @ChrisW. I also found AN 4.62 which speaks of "four kinds of happiness that may be achieved by a layperson who enjoys sensual pleasures".

I feel so free after giving up the incessant search for pot-blowing venues.

Above does not say moderation of sensual pleasures though it is implied since you should not see it. What it explicitly says is The pursuit of ... which is you should not seek either extremes. The Middle Way, in this case, is to accept both, whatever that comes, without seeking.

A Deva – Laity of another kind – once asked a Bhikku, “O Monk, why don’t you enjoy sensual pleasures?”, and the Monk replied:

”I don't know my time. My time is hidden. It can't be seen.
  That's why, not having enjoyed, I go for alms: Don't let my time pass me by.
  Samiddhi Sutta: About Samiddhi - SN 1.20

This Sutta is a good example of pointing out the difficulties of teaching more advanced Dhamma to a normal being who is obsessed with sensual pleasures.  The noble ones have eradicated sensual desires, and are entirely free of sensual desires. That is why a disciple would recollect the qualities of the Noble Ones from time to time. Then the mind would not get afflicted with sensual desire, with hatred or with delusion. In recollecting such, the mind becomes unshaken towards the Triple Gem. With perfect confidence in the Blessed One, inspiration is gained from the truth of the Dhamma. Gladness arises in the noble disciple. With gladness towards the Dhamma, rapture and joy are born. With joy, the body becomes tranquil. With a tranquil body, the noble disciple feels pleasure. With pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated.
Once there was a dissatisfied young Bhikkhu. He was not yet part of the Sangha, as he has not yet attained Sotapatti Fruition. The Buddha uttered the following Dhammapada (186-187) to this young bhikkhu who was unhappy with his life:

Not by a shower of coins can sensual desires be satiated; sensual desires give little pleasure and are fraught with evil consequences (dukkha). Knowing this, the wise man, who is the disciple of the Buddha, does not find delight even in the pleasures of the devas, but rejoices in the cessation of craving (i.e., Nibbana).

When the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta was explained for the first time there were no Bhikkus, but Devas – Laity of another kind – who were present. In that Buddha explained to those present of the two extremes thus:

The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldliness, ignoble, unbeneficial, and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial.

Then in the Mahadukkhakkhanda Sutta, Buddha explain about our distorted perception of the world. Is it possible for a wise person to turn away from the lures of sensuality, once we are shown the flows of the worldly life?
In the Dānupatti Sutta – AN.6,  Buddha shows how helpful it is to have deeds full of merits when one goes to a birth as a result of one’s own Kamma.

“Dear Monks, let’s say someone donates things like foods, drinks, cloths, seats, flowers, scents, and houses to monks (ones who attempt to free from defilements). He likes to get things that he donates as a result of that good deed. He heard something like this: ‘Deities who live in the divine world called Chāthummahārājika have long lifespans. They have great pleasures.’ Then he feels this way: ‘I would also like to get a birth in Chāthummahārājika divine world after my death here.’ He then focuses his mind on to that expectation. He develops that mind. Because he focused his mind to this this crude sensual world again, his mind will take him to a birth in the Chāthummahārājika divine world after his death. Even this kind of birth is only for a virtuous person and not for an impure person. Dear Monks, the virtuous person’s hope will be fulfilled because of his pureness.”

In Theragatha - Verses of the Elder Monks 16.4, Ven. Ratthapala explains why he's not in the least bit tempted to return to the lay life. The verses here fall into three sections, with the first two relating to Raṭṭhapāla’s story as told in MN 82. In the first, Raṭṭhapāla is addressing his father after the latter had tried to use wealth and Raṭṭhapāla’s former wives to lure Ratthapala into disrobing. In the second section, Raṭṭhapāla is talking to King Koravya, who had asked him why he had ordained when he was still young and healthy, and had suffered no loss of relatives or wealth.
The Way to end all suffering is called the Majjima Patipada – Way to Relinquish Attachments to this World -
 because it avoids the two extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. Then only the mind has the clarity and strength to meditate deeply and discover the Truth. This Majjima Patipada consists of the diligent cultivation of Virtue, Meditation and Wisdom, which is explained in more detail as the Noble Eightfold Path.
In the Maha Chattarisaka Sutta (Discourse on the Great Forty) discusses two eightfold paths: A mundane path that leads to rebirth in the “good realms” (at or above the human realm) and the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to Nibbana. Thus majjima patipada is “middle path” in the conventional sense; and it is a good first step. But the lokottara meaning is much different, and this sutta lays out the basic structure of how to explain the deeper meanings. Throughout his 45 years of his ministry, Buddha  explained the details in various ways.
One lokottara meaning of majjima patipada is to “avoid being intoxicated by sense pleasures”.  It is a gradual process: High levels of intoxication is removed via removing micca ditthi when attaining the Sotapanna stage. After that, lower and lower intoxication levels removed as one gains more wisdom in steps. It means “voluntarily giving up” and not to give up attachments to this world by sheer will or force. The mind will not give up things that it considers pleasurable, unless there is a good reason. Those reasons are what Buddha Dhamma is all about. One becomes a Sotapanna by truly comprehending why it is not only unfruitful, but also dangerous to attach to things that one perceives to be pleasurable. But even a Sotapanna only has “seen” the truth of the “anicca nature” of this world.
The actual “giving up” comes next, when one slowly start “giving up” voluntarily and progress through the next two stages of Sakadagami and Anagami, and eventually gives up all attachments at the Arahant stage. Thus one does not need to worry about giving up anything until reaching the Sotapanna stage. Giving up happens automatically when one realizes the true nature of this world.

I'm not sure what you're saying in this answer nor how this answers the question. I think you're saying that the Uttara Sutta is addressed to lay people. But does the Uttara Sutta mention "pursuit of sensuality"? And why is it relevant to mention that you don't think translations from the Pali are accurate (how is the non-translated version "very different")? And how does the paticca samuppada differ, for the sotapannas (ariya upasaka/ika) than for "anariyas"?

This is only half of the answer. I will complete the first draft/initial thoughts when time permits. What I meant to say was by Bhikkus, what the scriptures mean is the FOURFOLD SANGHA. Then the laity would include all those who have not attained even the Sothapanna stage. The majority of the present day Bhikkus would fall onto this normal humans (Anariyas) category. The paticca samuppada as interpreted in almost all books are meant for this group. This is another discussion for another day. This is a busy week for me. When time permits I will complete my answer. With metta...

I will take what you said in good faith @ Dhammadhatu, and I will do my very best to try to not create such friction. But to tell you, I am the very opposite of what you think of me. This Dhamma path is such a simple, beautiful straightforward way that we have unnecessarily complicated. It is all because of Buddhaghosa and Visuddhimagga. Sadly you and I are still stuck in the way that he has interpreted things, and continue to see things the way he got us to see. That's why the path is closed for a great many of us. In future whatever that I write I will refer to the original suttas. w/ metta!

Thank you @SapthaVisuddhi for your answer and the sutta references. I'm indeed not confused about the mundane or noble paths, but am looking for explicit passages where sensual pleasures are a topic where the listeners are beings that are not inclined to be renunciants. I fear, though, there are no passage where the Buddha instructs someone to be moderate in sensual delight -- instead of instructing to abandon it.

@Thiago Silva... Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare comes to mind if friendship, companionship and intimacy with the good can be taken as moderate in sensual delight.  There are SUKHA vipaka vedana.  They include sukha vedana such as bodily comforts one feels sleeping in a luxurious bed, eating tasty food,  smelling nice odors, seeing something attractive, etc. They arise via the five physical senses. If someone can be without generating somanassa vedana, it is OK. An Arahant will not generate such because there is no attachment to anything or anyone for an Arahant.

In AN 8.21, the householder Ugga says the Buddha gave him "a talk on giving, virtuous behavior, and heaven; he revealed the danger, degradation, and defilement of sensual pleasures and the benefit of renunciation."


text:
What does "I worship the Lord of the Thunderbolt" mean, in a translation of Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara?
Quoted below is from  Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara.

I cry aloud, looking for protection.
  And I worship the Lord of the Thunderbolt. When they have seen him,
  the messengers of death and the other evil beings are frightened and they flee to the four directions.
  I now go terrified to you for refuge—after having neglected your instruction,
  because of beholding fear. May you quickly extinguish fear.

What is the Buddhist explanation of this text?
Considering the list of excellence such as compassion, wisdom etc. mentioned prior to this text in the form of Bodhisattva, is it right to understand this as a personification of courage? or is it literally worship of the Lord of the Thunderbolt, be it Zeus or Indra, to extinguish fear?

I would think it refers to the author's main Vajrayana teacher. As ChrisW rightly notes: Thunderbolt is a translation of Vajra. the lord The student-teacher relationship is very important in Buddhist tantra and Santideva was an Indian practitioner of Buddhist tantra.
There are several reasons to think that it refers to his personal teacher:
1) in tantra one is supposed to see the teacher as one with the highest Buddha
2) in the text here it says that the author has neglected 'his instructions' - that is, the instructions of the Lord of the Thunderbolt. That makes most sense if it does refer to his personal teacher.

I'd guess that "thunderbolt" is a translation of vajra, which is found for example in the term Vajrayana.
I don't know what the symbolism is, but there's a description of it here and here on Wikipedia.

Sorry this isn't a good answer. I posted it mostly only to try to show that it's a good question, which maybe someone else can answer.

Thank you for your response.
Some translators are rendering it as “Vajrapani” one of the three protective deities or bodhisattvas surrounding the Buddha which manifests all the Buddha’s power.
If you carry on readying the text he also call him as “all knowing” or “Omniscient”, so I think the answer could be Vajrapani.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why are children represented as inessential in some Buddhist text?
There are multiple question related to this already asked, but none of the response or question address as to why children are presented in Buddhist text as inessential, such as these:

… That is not a strong fetter, the wise say, which is made of iron,
  wood or hemp. But the infatuation and longing for jewels and
  ornaments, children and wives — that, they say, is a far stronger
  fetter, which pulls one downward and, though seemingly loose, is hard
  to remove…

again

… Ten children I bore from this physical heap. Then weak from that,
  aged, I went to a nun. She taught me the Dhamma

and again

…. Those with children    grieve because of their children. Those with
  cattle grieve because of their cows. A person's grief comes from
  acquisitions, since a person with no acquisitions doesn't grieve…

again What the Buddha said to Visakha when she express her wish to have as many children & grandchildren.

“those who have a hundred dear ones have a hundred sufferings”

and many more can be listed.
With such representation, how do lay Buddhists reconcile have children ask skillful?

I apologize, I don't really understand this question. I think those Buddhist texts represent children as a "fetter" or as a cause of suffering ... which doesn't mean the same thing as "inessential" (the most common meaning of "inessential" is "unnecessary"). Are you asking why children are inessential/unnecessary? Or asking for an explanation of the Buddhist texts you quoted? Or asking something about how lay Buddhists reconcile having children?

@ ChrisW, I’m asking all three questions you listed. Yes I agree that these texts represent children as cause of suffering, but shouldn’t that cause suffering be avoided and if it can be avoided it is inessential? Or you think the desire for children is the same as desire for food which is also a cause for suffering, but we can’t avoid and thus is essential?

"Bloom where you are planted." - Saint Francis de Sales

You're asking whether "children" are unnecessary.
And I'm still not sure what that means. There are children in the world regardless of whether you're a parent yourself, so it's not as if children are an optional phenomenon.
You may be able to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent.
In some societies maybe you cannot (or could not, in the past) avoid becoming a parent: you were expected to marry who and when your parents tell you to marry, then you have children, etc. Choosing to become a monk or nun might once have been a socially-acceptable alternative to that?
Or I think it was a tradition in some countries (India) for people (or maybe it was only for men) to choose homelessness in later life, after completing your social responsibilities including parenthood.

In various countries these days some people find that it is possible to resist having, to decide not to have, children. Your ability to make this choice may depend on availability of "birth control", and/or whether you're able to earn a living without marrying, or finding a marriage partner who agrees with you on this subject (which I think historically hasn't always been feasible, for women especially).

I think I agree with Katinka's answer, that a lot of what's in the suttas is meant by and for monks. I recommend a book Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity, which is an anthology of and commentary on the suttas which are intended for lay people (including for example the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31)).
After reading it you may still think that you prefer to choose to live like a monk or nun. You may be right to say, as you said in a comment, that "the truth cannot be two". Nevertheless I think that the advice or definition of sila given in suttas was sometimes different for laypeople than for bikkhus.

Such texts should be read in context: written for and by the Sangha - and mostly for and by male-sangha, though you found one quote that sounds like a tired grandmother.
Buddhism is really a dual religion. The religion for lay-people is very practical: attend to your duties and avoid wrong-doing. That includes taking care of any partner and children. Traditionally things like meditation were limited to the Sangha, and a minority in there as well.
If you want to become a monk or nun, obviously children are an obstacle as long as they're young. And women do - especially when there is no good medical help - suffer physically from childbirth. Without proper medical attention women die in childbirth in alarming numbers. Women who survived that and grew to an age where they were free to become nuns (very much a minority at any time in Buddhist history) would be encouraged to meditate on topics that helped them let go of their attachment to their children and focus also on the limitations of the body that bore them. No wonder one writes:

… Ten children I bore from this physical heap. Then weak from that, aged, I went to a nun. She taught me the Dhamma

The Buddha himself walked away from his wife and son - which is hardly a good example to follow. The only mitigating circumstance was that his father was rich and quite capable of taking care of them.
As lay people we should read such texts within their context: written by monks, for monks. They're not written for lay people. Lay people did not have access to texts and most of the texts that survived don't portray even nuns very well.

Thank you for your response, although I don’t agree with you that these are said to the monks only; Vaisakha was a lay follower.
The truth can not be two, one for the monks and another for lay followers.

Having children is the opposite of enlightenment, as quoted in the question.
However, for those who cannot overcome sensuality & cannot find happiness in meditation, having children can be skilful because the lives of parents are (naturally & generally) devoted to family, unselfishness & virtues.
Both men & women, but particularly women, find purpose & completion in having children. This is the natural way of nature. The Pali suttas (AN 6.52) state:

...having children is the mainstay (security) of women....

Whereas enlightenment is not the way of nature but something that transcends nature, i.e., 'lokuttara' ('beyond/above the world').

More parental and social ties more the misery. Parents are more attached to their offspring than anything else in the world. This attachment is a source of misery.
This does not mean they are not necessary or you should avoid having children as implied by your question. If people do not have children of fend for them, society will break down. When you have children you should look after your children while trying to maintain composure and doing the best while parenting. I.e., if they get sick treat it but being equanimous, if they are not doing well in school do the best to make then study but be detached to the outcome, etc.

that, they say, is a far stronger fetter, which pulls one downward and, though seemingly loose, is hard to remove

This mentions attachment to them.

Those with children grieve because of their children.

Mentions they are a source of misery.

Are you saying, “Although children are source of misery lay Buddhist should have children to maintain society”?  Why is continuing human society necessary in Buddhist context?
Could this be because to be human is precious, and perhaps lay Buddhist have children for sentient beings to be born as human?
Many thanks!

Not everyone is ready to leave a householder's life to become a monk. Until you are ready you should be a householder. This entails raising a family and caring for your children and family members.

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


text:
Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas?
Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas? I found this, and I hope it suffices to demonstrate that's what the Buddha taught:

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in
  form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than
  feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In
  fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?...
  Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
  form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
  feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
  consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
  truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
  declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
  monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
  annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

The quote seems to say that the Tathagata is not without form feeling etc..
If nirvana were something in addition to the aggregates, then I'm thinking the Tathagata would be without the aggregates. On the grounds that nirvana is all that the Tathagata is.

What should "saṅkhāra" in cessation? And yes, for a long long time you have been wandering on, is it not time to let go, since "the past" is also now? Present, or what ever one grasps, does not arise for a Tathagata or an Arahat.

@SamanaJohann I'm really rational about things, or try to be. sorry.

I still don't understand the phrase "nothing in addition to the skandhas"; are you saying that "the argument" is that: 1) nirvana exists, and 2) nirvana is nothing, and 3) nirvana is something extra than, something different from, the five aggregates? But I suppose that even if they don't understand that phrase, people can try to answer by explaining what that sutta means.

@ChrisW I explained one reason.

Vexing Question.

In the Yamaka Sutta, Ven. Sariputta, made Yamaka to understand that the five skandas are anicca. If one truly understands this reality the extinction of the process happens in the form of ‘Nibbana’.   If we willingly attach to these five skandas with the nicca sanna, then we suffer. Only in realizing that nothing can be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run, can we arrive at Nibbana.
Nibbana is not sunnata or emptiness. The person who attained Nibbana is only empty of the five upadanaskandas. The five skandas remain. It is like this. if we take a water bottle and pour the water out, we say we have an empty bottle. But in reality there is air in the bottle, so the bottle is empty only with regard to water; it is not empty regard to air.
Thus what is meant was that “it is empty of”. There is no absolute “emptiness”. At Nibbana  one is empty of greed (raga), hate (dosa), and ignorance (moha). At Arahanthood, even the slightest bondage to anything material is discarded.
For one who has attained Nibbana, there is only "ditthē dittha mattan bhavissati- sutē suta mattan bhavissati- mutē muta mattan bhavissati” – There is only seeing in the ‘seeing’; only hearing in the ‘hearing’ etc. It is only you and I, that take nimithi & anu nimithi  (impressions of objects) from what we hear or see.
As long as there is greed, ill will & delusion we retain impressions of objects (nimithi anu nimithi) of self & pleasurable things. The impressions stimulate our senses and thus we see people & things around us. Only the minds that are polluted with greed, hatred & delusion associate four elements. The one who sees arising ceasing nature of aggregates sees the emptiness of any inherent meaning & will not retain impressions thereby abandoning the defilements of greed hatred and delusion.

The water bottle analogy is lovely. "Empty with regard to..." We are meant to be empty with regard to views.

As I often have to, I read your answer quite a few times before deciding how to vote. I think when you say that with nirvana there is "only seeing in the seeing" you're saying that nirvana is not something over or above, an entity in addition to, the skandhas

I think that the topic of the sutta you referenced is anatta.
For example the discussion with Sariputta starts with,

"What do you think, my friend Yamaka: Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, my friend."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, my friend."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

An important part of Buddhist doctrine is to not identify in this way with form (nor any other skandha).
Another way to phrase this is that we shouldn't become attached (nor try to become attached to) to any specific view of self (the answer to the questions which you quoted was "no", and "no", and "no").
The suttas are full of this: they mention "clinging-aggregates" in the first noble truth of first sutta; "non-self" as the subject of the second sutta; questions involving views-of-self being described as "attending inappropriately" and leading to "a thicket of views" in MN 2; "being" being identified with suffering in SN 5.10, and so on.
Given that anatta is recommended for us, presumably the Buddha has perfected that practice. So in the same way that we should not have some fixed of self (and in particular shouldn't identify it with the skandhas, nor identify it with something other than the skandhas), a similar doctrine is appropriate for a view of the Tathagata (note that the "Tathagata" is a title or a description of the Buddha).
So I think that's a summary, a brief explanation, of the sutta you referenced. People talk about it a lot (there are 60+ topics on this site tagged anatman, and others on the topic of "self" and "identity-view" and so on), but it's kind of fundamental, with not-self being one of the Three marks of existence.
You also quoted, "when you can't pin down the Tathagata" ... for more on a similar topic I recommend Why is the Buddha described as trackless?.

The last sentence of the question is, "On the grounds that nirvana is all that the Tathagata is".
I'm not sure it's right to identify the Tathagata with nirvana i.e. to say that the Tathagata is nirvana, nor than nirvana is the Tathagata.
Nirvana is commonly described by what it isn't, especially "not born", i.e. it's unconditioned (also "deathless" and so on), or perhaps more positively as liberation or as the end of stress.
There are suttas and essays about what nirvana is (e.g. here and here and here)

hmm i found the last part intriguing. i agree with your lead sentence, but would add that it's saying the tathagata is not a self, at least of that sort


text:
Sutta Question - Three Ways of Making Merit
In AN 8.36: Ways of Meritorious Action, the Buddha speaks about different ways of making merit.
He teaches that one can make merit by Giving, by practicing Virtue (Morality) and by developing Meditation. He also mentions in what sphere of existence a being will be reborn according to which meritorious deeds are practiced and to what degree (small, high, very high).
In the sutta the Buddha only mentions Giving in combination with Virtue. Making merit by practicing Meditation is not mentioned.

Why is that?
What are the merits made by practicing Meditation in combination with Giving and Virtue?

Below is the quoted sutta.
Thank you for your time.

WAYS OF MERITORIOUS ACTION
"There are, monks, three ways of making merit. What three?
"There are ways of making merit by giving, by (practicing) virtue and by meditation.
"There is a person who, only to a small degree, has practiced the making of merit by giving; and, likewise to a small degree, he has practiced the making of merit by virtue; but the making of merit by meditation he has not undertaken. This one, after death, when his body breaks up, will be reborn among humans in an ill-favored condition.
"Another person has practiced to a high degree the making of merit by giving as well as by virtue; but the making of merit by meditation he has not undertaken. Such a one, after death, when his body breaks up, will be reborn among humans in favorable conditions.
"Or he will be reborn in the company of the deities of the Four Great Divine Kings. And there, the Four Great Divine Kings, who had practiced to a very high degree the making of merit by giving and by virtue, surpass the deities of their realm in ten things: in divine life span, divine beauty, divine happiness, divine power, divine sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches.
"Or he will be reborn in the company of the Thirty-three gods. And there, Sakka king of gods, who had practiced to a very high degree the making of merit by giving and virtue, surpasses...
(The same statements are made for rebirth among the Yaama gods, Tusita gods, the gods of creative joy, the gods controlling others' creations, and for the respective rulers of these realms.)
"These, monks, are the three ways of making merit."
— AN 8.36

AN8.36 is mainly dealing with giving as it comes under the category of Dana Vagga.
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.36

AN 8.36 is for puthujjana (ordinary people), who have cravings & lusts for worldly pleasures, power & status. It is bribing puthujjana with promises of worldly rewards if they do good, as stated:

surpass... in divine life span, divine beauty, divine happiness, divine power, divine sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches.

For those who doubt my explanation, MN 75 makes it clear what divine sensual pleasures are:

Having conducted himself well in body, speech and mind, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy
  destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the
  Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the
  Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of divine sensual pleasure.

Meditation is not for puthujjana, i.e., not for those unwilling & unable to abandon craving. This is why meditation is not mentioned in the sutta.
This sutta is unrelated to the core essence (heartwood) of Buddhism but is a peripheral subject.
This sutta is similar to Islam, where a man doing good receives a reward of 72 virgins in heaven.

Has the news of the.. Resurrection...reached you?... Some faces on that Day shall be joyful, well-pleased with their endeavors, in a
  lofty Garden; there they shall hear no idle talk. In it there will be
  running springs; in it there will be raised couches, goblets set
  forth, cushions ranged in rows and fine carpets spread out.
Koran Surah 88

I can't imagine why a Buddha would bribe lay people. I don't have enough knowledge of the Suttas (or Islam) to comfortably comment on the content of your answer. Thanks for your time and effort though.

The sutta is clearly stating that generous & moral people will acquire a life of material & sensual luxury; namely, the five cords of divine sensual pleasure. It is not only about doing merit. It is about the results of that merit.

Whenever Buddha taught, nibbana is the aim, without nibbana, it is not Buddha teaching. For ordinary people, to achieve nibbana, attachment for worldly goods must be reduced, after that observing good virtue and only after that developing insight meditation, i.e, step by step approach for some but not all people. And also whoever prefer dana, talking about dana would lead to piti feeling based on this concentration and insight toward nibbana. The same applies to sila. It is not bribing the ordinary people. Some said ordinary people are bribed by celestial abodes and frightened by hell, it is totally wrong. All the dhamma talk aimed at some person to achieve nibbana. If somebody would achieve nibbana, in some instances, Buddha knowingly did give such dhamma   even some other people would turn against Him. Regarding insight meditation, noting rupa(matter),50 million merit occurring in a wink of time, while noting nama(mind), one billion merit in a wink of time, topmost dana, unsurpassable dana, dhamma dana, Buddha and arahant used to praise such dana because by insight meditation, one is just giving away, not taking for himself with delusion for all these mind and matter that come and go unnoticeably, it is the highest dana of all only with such dana one will definitely lead to  nibbana.


text:
How does human will fit with Pratītyasamutpāda?
On Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta the Buddha said that in the last ninety-one aeons, no fatalist who denies the power of volitional acts, has ever gone to heaven, except one, who happened to follow the doctrine of kamma and of morally effective deeds. How does this power of volitional act or volitional act happen with in the frame work of Pratītyasamutpāda?
My intension is not to discuss about non-self rather about the volitional act done by the self-doer as explained in Attakārī Sutta. Also not so much about the change or motion, the being stepping forward or backward, but the volition or intention that brought about the change.
Pratītyasamutpāda states that everything except Nirvana are conditioned, and from ignorance (Avijjā) comes mental formations (Saṅkhāra) which includes volition.
So if every mental formation is conditioned by ignorance including human volition (choice), how come a being by choice, which is volition, which has ignorance at its base root out ignorance?
On the other hand, if volition (choice) is not conditioned by ignorance, then the beings choice is out side Pratītyasamutpāda which has ignorance at its starting point?
Similarly, if the answer is yes and no, this still implies that volition (choice) can be out side Pratītyasamutpāda?
Many thanks.

User10552, the answer to your question is not found in the Sutta Pitaka – the first basket. You will have to look into the third basket - the Abhidhamma Pitaka – for the answer. To get a proper understanding of the different type of Saṅkhāras, and of other kinds of paticca samuppada (PS), you will have to study the third basket of the Tipitaka. In the Abhidhamma Pitaka, there is a special ‘vibhanga’ for PS, where it is explained in detail.
In reading the Attakārī Sutta, you are now aware of the fact that we all make choices all the time and act on intentions all the time. In this sense, the word ‘Sankhara’ would mean everything that we do to live in this world. That would include breathing, walking, eating, that even an Arahant has to engage in until Parinibbana. Some sankhara arise from alobha, adosa, or amoha as a root cause. The other set of sankhara arise from lobha, dosa, or moha as a root cause.  This is where it is important to know the difference between sankhara and abhisankhara.
In the Sutta Pitaka – the first basket – the PS that ordinary people are subjected to is explained, but not the PS that an enlightened being would experience. Akusala-mula PS describes the PS process for normal humans (Anariyas), who are trapped in the sansaric journey.  When one becomes an Arahant, since there is no more rebirth, all kamma seeds that do not get to come to fruition before the death of an Arahant become ineffective in producing a rebirth: Because an Arahant has removed avijja, the “akusala-mula paticca samuppada cycle” becomes ineffective and thus “bhava paccaya jati” does not get to initiate a new birth.
The Vibhanga describes the Kusala-mula version of PS for Ariyas. An Ariya would not commit the worst kinds of akusala. His avijja is less potent, because it is well below the moha stage for an Anariya (normal human). The sankhara done with this type of less potent avijja does not become a cause for extending sansara; it is just sankhara. In kusala-mula PS, tanha does not arise because of vedana. With kusala-mula as condition, one accumulates punnabhi sankhara. With punnabhi sankhara as condition, a punnabhi vinnana arises. This punnabhi vinnana is accumulated as kamma bhava and could lead to corresponding “good” namarupa.
At death, the kusala-mula vinnana prevents a birth in the lower four realms for a Sotapanna, and a birth in the kamaloka is avoided for an Anagami. The sansaric process or the rebirth process is fueled by abhisankhara for normal humans, as they are with lobha (greed), dosa (hate), moha (delusion). What they acquire is apunnabhi sankhara, as opposed to punnabhi sankhara. Thus Sankhara = san + kära = actions done while in existence, and they can be either good or immoral. Abhi sankhara = “Abhi” + sankära = strong/repeated actions for prolonging rebirth process, the kind that normal human beings do.

You have asked a very good question, I remembered if correctly it's in the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment Maitreya Bodhisattva asked similar question: 以幻修幻 - how can if phenomenal world is illusory construct and the "I" is also illusory that a practitioner realize the Ultimate Truth? I remember the Buddha answered 以幻修真 - using the illusory to rid the illusion, as if using a wedge to get out another wedge stuck in the hole. Therefore, I think to give some help of your inquiry is to think of: your volition is to get over ignorance by choosing actions of not ignorant... You find that the action that is not ignorant is still an ignorant action... so on and so forth. Until you finally know the action that is not ignorant, that you are enlightened. It could be a long practice, or it could be a sudden realization. A bit like someone doing a difficult math equation, volition discerns the answers are not correct, over and over, that the working out incorrect answers are the footings to finally have the correct answer. Volition the ability to discern doesn't get hindered by ignorance, although ignorance prevented it from knowing the correct answer immediately. The Sutra has very good analogy full of wisdom far better than I presented here, I just recalled to make an answer in convenience. I hope I didn't misunderstand your question, and I'm not quite familiar with the terms and the Suttas mentioned in the OP.

At the link of sensation you react due to ignorance.
Sensations are 3 types which are pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral. Pleasant sensations lead to craving, unpleasant lead to aversive and neutral there is still ignorance. In craving and aversion also here is ignorance. When ignorance is absent you maintain equanimity towards the sensations seeing their impermanence.
The unwholesome / wholesome roots lead to volition followed by action. Removing the roots both wholesome and unwholesome removes condition for future existence and experience.
The choice you have is when there is sensation you can react with craving, aversion and ignorance or be equanimous knowing impermanence.
Volition always arise due to a stimuli. This is the contact - feeling part of Dependent Arising.

Thank you Suminda, but you are running pass my question. I will rephrase the question using words from your answer. The question is ---- Does the being have to choice to be Equanimeous? If true how come this choice which is a mental formation based on ignorance can maintain equanimity, which as you say can only happen in the absence of ignorance?

Is this topic a variant of the Brahmana Sutta?
The Brahamana sutta asks, "How can you desire to end desire?"
You seem to be asking, "How can you have the volition to end ignorance when you're ignorant?"
Presumably the "opposite" of ignorance (and of volition based on ignorance) are right view (and right intention etc. based on right view).

On Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta the Buddha said that in the last ninety-one aeons, no fatalist who denies the power of volitional acts,
  has ever gone to heaven, except one, who happened to follow the
  doctrine of kamma and of morally effective deeds.

OK, if that is the case. I have not read this sutta.

How does this power of volitional act or volitional act happen with in the frame work of Pratītyasamutpāda?

It happens at the 4th condition. It will also arise with craving. Why don't you read the Pali suttas?

Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality (nama).
SN 12.2; MN 9

When the nutriment of volition is comprehended, the three forms of craving [for sensuality, for becoming, and for
  non-becoming] are comprehended.
SN 12.63

My intention is not to discuss about non-self rather about the volitional act done by the self-doer as explained in Attakārī Sutta.

O.K.

Also not so much about the change or motion, the being stepping forward or backward, but the volition or intention that brought about
  the change.

Sure.

Pratītyasamutpāda states that everything except Nirvana are conditioned,

It does not. Paticcasamuppada described the 12 conditions for the arising of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair.

and from ignorance (Avijjā) comes mental formations (Saṅkhāra)
  which includes volition.

'Sankhara' does not include 'volition' because the 'sankhara' are non-volitional since they arise from ignorance. 'Sankhara' are defined as the 'body, verbal & mind conditioner', which are defined in MN 44 as the breathing in & out; initial & discursive thought; and perception & feeling. This does not include volition.
For example, when you try to meditate & all of those discursive thoughts are spinning out of control in your head (which also make your breathing agitated), this is 'sankhara' in Paticcasamuppada. This obviously is not 'volition' since you are not 'choosing' to have these out-of-control thoughts.
Volition occurs at the 4th condition, nama-rupa (and also at the 8th condition, craving).

So if every mental formation is conditioned by ignorance including human volition (choice)

This is not true. Paticcasamuppada only describes when volition is tainted by ignorance. It does not describe when volition is guided by wisdom.

how come a being by choice, which is
  volition, which has ignorance at its base root out ignorance?

???

On the other hand, if volition (choice) is not conditioned by ignorance, then the beings choice is out side Pratītyasamutpāda which
  has ignorance at its starting point?

Correct. Paticcasamuppada is called "the wrong path" (SN 12.3). Paticcasamuppada does not describe wise or right intention/volition, which is the right path.

Similarly, if the answer is yes and no, this still implies that volition (choice) can be out side Pratītyasamutpāda?

Yes. Correct. Very good.
There are two types of volition: ignorant volition & wise volition.

"... Paticcasamuppada only describes when volition is tainted by ignorance. It does not describe when volition is guided by wisdom ..." - Well said.

@ Dhammadhatu Thank you for your detailed response. If Saṅkhāra doesn’t include all mental formation as you say then I’m content. But I’ll wait for a while to hear others opinion because I have read on many commentaries and articles that states that Pratītyasamutpāda includes everything excluding Nirvana and Saṅkhāra included every mental formation. Even the Wikipedia article on these state that it does include.

Wikipedia is written by a Jewish man living in Las Vegas. Wikipedia is not the Buddha. As for the word "sankhara", it is the broadest term in Pali. It has so many meanings. Read my answer here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12691/can-anyone-explain-sanskara-sankara-indepth/12707#12707 As for most of the other scholars, they are wrong. My explanation is correct, which is verifiable in meditation, similar to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's correct explanation here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/shapeofsuffering.pdf


text:
Did the Buddha really have snails on his head?
For a long time I was told that when the Buddha touched the ground and became enlightened that his hair went up and formed a ball on his head and that that is what we see on the statues. But recently I heard a different story, that they are snails!
That is something that really made my day, but is it true? Are there only snails or did his hair also stand up?

Welcome to the site. I think this topic has already been addressed...

@ChrisW: Ok, sure, I just didn't find it because I didn't find anything about snails in the potential duplicates... I guess I should have look further. But even after looking at the duplicate post I am still a little unclear on whether they were really snails or not? It seems to be still unknown. Unless I just didn't look closely enough?

This answer references a blog entry by a Theravada monk to say "no snails". Yinxu's answer is likely to be from a Mahayana perspective, and comments on the symbolism of "108".

@ChrisW: Ok, thanks! But when I get enlightened, I want snails!


text:
Has Sādhna ( Meditation practice) with closed eyes more benefits than with open?
Nowadays, I've been practicing Vipassana (Sometimes anaapan) with open eyes since I instantly start feeling sensations almost everywhere in my body including flesh & organs when I draw my attention there. Actually, I haven't fixed proper time for Sādhna in my routine rather I try to practice it 24hrs by being aware constantly like during eating, walking, listening, sitting (During activity I try to witness activity with detachment) with equanimity.

But whenever I give time to meditation with closed eyes, I feel my surrounding very dynamic, beautiful & loving once I open my eyes after meditation.  So far, I have been taking this as my hallucinations along with ego is the reason I haven't cared to give dedicated time for meditation practice with closed eyes.
But now, I want to ask whether I'm missing something?

Should I allot dedicated time for meditation with closed eyes? Are there some benefits?
Is feeling surrounding dynamic & beautiful after meditation a hallucination?

To your question, ”Should I allot dedicated time for meditation with closed eyes? Are there some benefits?” I would advice you to do otherwise. Each person is different. In your case it is when you keep your eyes wide open that you are most effective. So put more emphasis on the things that work for you, and that you consider favorable. Now I will give you some pointers to help develop this type of ‘meditation’ to another level.
In interacting with the world, we see visuals (rupa) with eyes, hear sounds with ears, smell odors with nose, taste with the tongue, touch (pottabba) with body, and think about concepts (dhamma) with the mind. Be mindful when you experience these while you are in any of the four main postures of sitting, standing, walking, or lying down. Then you will observe that kamachanda and vyapada are the main culprits for making a mind stressful, and for causing “inside fires”. Try to forcibly remove any thoughts of extreme greed and hate as they come to the mind. Make a habit of it. Then with time you will begin of “cooling down” or experiencing niramisa sukha.
Also in time you will abstain from committing an immoral act at any time. In any posture – be it sitting, standing, walking, and laying flat, you will be vigilant on what you are about to do or speak. This is being “morally mindful” at all times. get into the habit of contemplating their consequences. When thoughts come to mind to say something or to do something while sitting, standing, walking, or lying down, you will to get into the habit of contemplating their consequences. Then with time you will see a change in yourself, a sense of tranquility, a “peace of mind”. When you are at this stage, it will be easier to get into samadhi, even if you are just doing the “breath meditation”.

When meditating some past impressions can surface either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Their are like they are like dreams and should be treated so. You should not identify it with ego which always lead to suffering now (any egoistic throught has some sensation associated with it, and whatever the sensation it has suffering as an element of it) and craving which creates future existence hence suffering in the future.
Also keeping eyes closed will be helpful to reduce distractions.

Please refer to the instruction given to Potthila by seven year old Arahant,"six openings in a mound where an iguana make it home, to catch this iguana, close up the five exits, wait for to come out from last exit." So you will see the benefit of meditation with closed eyes. At the same time, during every day activities, you can do mindfulness practice in every moment.
Our mind is constantly disturbed by lobha, dosa and moha, once coming out of sitting meditation practice, your mind is so calm and undisturbed with Samadhi that clear the delusion previously covered. It is not hallucination.


text:
Is there any proof of Karma theory & rebirth?
Non Abrahmic religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism & Sikhism believe in Karma theory & rebirth.

I'm interested in knowing the proofs of Karma theory & rebirth presented by Buddhism.

Why downvote??? There were no evil intentions behind asking.

I see this is a nice question seeking knowledge asked from student aspiring for deliverance of living in a conditioned world. +1. My advice to the questioner is, this is a public forum knowledge/opinion should be taken with discern, these answers represented some of the schools' teachings. These schools are, such as Mahayana (teachings recorded in the Chinese Classical Sutras and very rarely trending in English Buddhist communities), Vajrayana (Tibetan), or, modern Theravada (based on the Pali Canon).

There is no evidence the questioner is not aspiring for deliverance of living in a conditioned world. If the questioner was aspiring for deliverance from the conditioned world; they would have asked another type of question.

@Dhammadhatu we can deliver to the world if we can give proofs of Karma theory.

In my opinion, Abrahamic religions also teach reincarnation, in that they teach that a permanent essence migrates to a different vessel/body (i.e. "heavenly body") upon the death of one body.

Buddhism differs from others in that rebirth is not a transmigration of a Soul, nor of any specific entity. It is more of a statement that perceived experience being subject to conditions - finding itself empty of any and all self referential properties - cannot logically be seen to either have a concrete beginning nor a concrete ending, whilst the conditions for the arising of said experience are present.
When the notion of an Essential, Independent and Unchanging Atman/Soul is taken at its word, then at birth and death, that Soul must either appear from somewhere, or disappear somewhere, respectively, as Essentialist religions infer.
The Buddha's aim was to show that what is directly perceived - impermanence and non-self - does not allow for termination of the conditioned (as that would be a process with a permanent conclusion), nor does it allow for some unconditioned and unexperiancable entity flirting off to invade somewhere else, as that is not directly perceivable by entities that depend on conditions for their perception..
The point is that there is no duality of 'cessation of the conditional'+'non-cessation of the non-conditional'. There is simply the continuation of conditionality. Ending the process of rebirth is the act of removing whatever conditions make up the necessary support for some conditionally-defined object: there is no 'rebirth' for my desire to drink, because I have removed the necessary conditions for this conditioned entity called 'me' to lunge for booze - the condition removed is craving for beer. This craving is removed volitionaly - volition being the arbiter of Kamma and its fruit: empty of volition? Empty of Kamma and hence empty of rebirth.
(I will be the first to say that this logic works a lot easier for 'beer' than for the entity labeled 'me'. But there is no concrete dividing line between the two concepts - as for any two concepts - given that true Independence is not possible within conditionality, so the beer example should be a decent starting point!)

Can you suggest me Sutta to understand this concept better?

Personally I would say that in order to start thinking about rebirth, as within the Pali Canon, one must have a very good grasp of anicca and anatta, as the theory of rebirth deals with a conditioned process. MN109, especially the last quandry: "So — form is non-self, feeling is non-self, perception is non-self, fabrications are non-self, consciousness is non-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is non-self?", as thought by a monk - is often how people attempt to tackle rebirth imo.. "If no permanent self is directly perceivable, then what gets reborn?"

But I don't think the Buddha would have framed rebirth solely on non-self (and certainly not 'self', as the above questions do to a degree), but on non-self and impermanence together. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel248.html#great I would read to get to some of the more intricate points the Buddha made on Kamma. Insight into rebirth is left within the canon for very advanced meditators (which to outsiders can sound like needing a theta level 12 or whatnot in scientology), but if you first focus on understanding anicca, anatta and kamma, rebirth should be less awkward!

I'm not one of those super meditators btw, my post is really more my current understanding of rebirth.. I mainly put rebirth aside when I found the suttas - at least until the core insights mentioned above were relatively well understood. (it's either one of the more advanced insights of the Buddha, or a later corruption of the texts - deciding either way, for yourself, requires a good base understanding of the whole message!)

Okay thanks. I've searched online. It is being a matter of debate whether not self is egolessness ( no identification ) or devoid of self. Both versions have their own explanations, even Gautam Buddha didn't say clearly - he said both extremes are hurdles...

There are many, especially in the western world, who’d rather have Buddhism without rebirth because they do not believe in rebirth. They are turned off by the concept of rebirth because most major religions are based on three levels of existence: This life, and one of two eternal stages of life thereafter.  It is either heaven or hell for eternity based on what one does in this life. Also they just cannot fathom the possibility of being reborn as an animal
The concept of rebirth is a paradigm-changing concept, and one needs to put aside all preconceived notions to understand this core message.  The reason rebirth is a core message is that this life is only but an insignificant time in the cycle of rebirths that we have been on from eternity.
The sense of urgency to follow diligently in this Dhamma Path comes when one realizes suffering in many of the lower realms of existence is much worse than that in the human or even the animal realm. When one gets more and more into Dhamma, one realizes that rebirth is an inseparable part of being a Buddhist in the truest sense.
The Pali word for Buddhist means “a person trying the stop the rebirth process” (“Bhava+uddha” = Bhauddha). One meaning of Buddha Dhamma is “path or method of removing bhava and thus stopping the rebirth process”. Buddha means, “one who has removed bhava (and attained Nibbana)”.
For evidence of Rebirth one can refer to the research done by the late Professor Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia. He has done over 20 years of research on the authenticity of rebirth accounts. Also refer to Professor Jim Tucker’s books about rebirth. A good book is “Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation” by Ian Stevenson.
There are hundreds of youtube videos on rebirth stories and also many on child prodigies and hypnosis-based curing of certain ailments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMfsjXiZGis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGHDpgBc9Dk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQHp9bGVDB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk7biSOzr1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w2MCpzE8u0
We can see various levels of human happiness/suffering around us. We see some people live with relatively higher levels of health, wealth, and happiness, while others live in poverty, ill-health, and misery. This in itself is proof of Kamma.
A child may die prematurely, or someone may get brutally murdered. What could be the underlying causes for such misfortune. Nothing happens in this world without a reason or without a cause.
Does it just happens that X is born healthy and wealthy, Y is born healthy but poor, and Z is born handicapped and poor? There must be REASONS why X, Y, and Z are born that way. Many times a person born rich can become poor, and vice versa. Or a person in good health can die suddenly in an accident or by a heart attack. The laws of kammā can explain all the above.

+1. "... they just cannot fathom the possibility of being reborn as an animal..." insightful and true. whilst Stevenson or Tucker's understanding is not the Buddha's so the Buddhist in exact, just a progress or hint. "The laws of kammā can explain all the above" is a bit abrupt, many factors are playing, its easy to be misinterpreted as a declaration of fatalism.

Non Abrahmic religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism & Sikhism believe in Karma theory & rebirth.

See my answer here. It explains how Buddhism is a practical religion and not based on blind belief.

I'm interested in knowing the proofs of Karma theory & rebirth presented by Buddhism.

The only proof obtainable is by practicing insight meditation thereby seeing with your own eyes how phenomena arise and cease and how they can cause new phenomena to arise.

"how Buddhism is a practical religion and not based on blind belief." - I didn't ask that. You got aversion when you saw names of other religions. Kashmiri Shaivism which I follow too have practical techniques & so other Indian schools like Sankhya, Advait Vedanta Etc. Rituals are not blind beliefs, just that can't be proved... "The only proof obtainable is by practicing insight meditation thereby seeing with your own eyes how phenomena arise and cease and how they can cause new phenomena to arise."- it doesn't prove rebirth & complexity of Karma theory, although gives hint to cause - effect.

@Aghori. The workings of Kamma is one of the Four Imponderables. The Buddha taught that one should not think about these things as they will only agitate the mind. Only a fully enlightened Buddha can understand Kamma.

Non Abrahmic religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism & Sikhism believe in Karma theory & rebirth.

Rebirth is not the same as reincarnation. Reincarnation refers to the belief that a soul at the termination of life enters a new physical body. Jainism, Hinduism & Sikhism may believe in reincarnation where as original Buddhism (before the later day variations) believes in rebirth.

I'm interested in knowing the proofs of Karma theory & rebirth presented by Buddhism.

In Buddhism, kamma & rebirth is a doctrine of moral efficiency. The teachings state:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions?
There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (kamma). There is this world & the other worlds. There are spontaneously reborn beings [due to actions/kamma]...
MN 117

For example, a free man robs a bank, is caught & is reborn as a prisoner is a prison. This is the proof of kamma & rebirth, where the free man later takes spontaneous (immediate) rebirth as a prisoner & treated like an animal in a zoo.
Or a normal person takes drugs & becomes a drug addict & then a thief or prostitute. Here, the humane being is reborn in a ghost & animal birth. They are reborn as a ghost because they always must search for drugs, never content, & they are reborn as an animal because they must always perform bestial depraved acts to obtain money for drugs. This is the proof of kamma & rebirth.
Buddhism teaches at least five destinations of rebirth due to kamma (motive & action), namely, humane (sane), godly (exalted), ghost (addiction), animal (lack of self-control) and hell (suffering), as follows:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & mind.
Sense contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
experienced in the humane world, kamma to be experienced in the world
of the gods. This is called the diversity in kamma.
AN 6.63

In Budddhism, the word 'birth' ('jati') refers to 'production' ('abhinibbatti') of the idea or view of a 'person' ('puriso'), 'self' ('atta') or 'being' ('satta'). 'Re-birth' is the continued production of these ideas or views of 'self', 'persons' or 'beings', which generally occurs due to 'kamma' ('motive & action').
For example, kamma is made to successfully make money. Here, the mind is 'reborn' as a 'god', thinking: "I am rich; I am successful; I am special; I am upper class".
Then later, there is a collapse in the stock market & loss of wealth. The same person in reborn in hell (suffering), thinking: "I am poor; I am a failure; why didn't I do this; why didn't I do that!".
Each thought of "I am" is a "birth' ("jati"), created by the craving & motive that drives kamma (intentional actions).
This is kamma & rebirth. People are reborn into different mental states of self-identification due to their kamma (motives & actions). They are reborn as rich, poor, husband, wife, divorcee, widow, etc, due to their kamma that leads to self-identifying. The teachings say:

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
pleasure, craving to be, craving not-to-be: This, friend Visakha, is
the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.
MN 44

Each act of 'self-identification' is a 'birth' or 'rebirth' & each 'birth' will bring suffering. In his first words, the Buddha said:

153. Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house. Repeated birth is indeed
suffering!
154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
craving
Dhammapada

You're saying there is no physical body after death? Only 1 life.

I am not sure that your question about biology is relevant. The Alagaddupama Sutta states: "Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering." In original Buddhism, the word "death" ("marana") means the idea or view that a "self-identity" has died, which is suffering. The termination of life without any self-identification is not suffering. To quote the Dhammapada: "21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already."

To quote again from Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta: "Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn." https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140

@Aghori What body? What "after"? What death?  Death is all the time. Where does one's body begin and end? Wouldn't any answer be an assumption based on past experience? What past experience?

Your questions here have no relevance to real Buddhism. Real Buddhism is about ending suffering. The kamma & rebirth teachings are peripheral (additional) to real Buddhism. Buddha taught such things to the ignorant people in the villages  so they would not harm themselves & others. These teachings are no different to Christianity or Islam teaching about heaven & hell. As I explained, "death" is an idea created by the mind. When the mind is empty, it will understand "death" is only a thought; nothing more.

@Dhammadhatu But I've been reading Buddhism believes in rebirth. Buddha too had many previous births, we find in Jātaka tales. I can't believe Gautam Buddha didn't believe rebirth. He clearly talked about other lokas & stages of enlightened where one go after death according to his maturity in Dhamma.

@Dhammadhatu. Maybe you could provide clarification to this question?

Rebirth is real not metaphorical

Yes, rebirth is not metaphorical. But to believe "rebirth" is physical (aka reincarnation) is metaphorical. Many suttas say love is born, hate is born, rapture is born, etc, None of these suttas are metaphorical. They are literal. My answer to the question is literal. But your comment is superstition because there is no evidence for it. What blocks the mind from verifying the truth of my post is this very birth of egoism. Ego opposes non-ego.

While this answer might be controversial on this site I myself have struggled with this question for a long time. This is my perspective, nothing more.
The answer is no, currently, there is not a proof of karma or reincarnation that I have found to be convincing.
However, the inverse is also true... there is not a proof that eliminates the possibility of karma or reincarnation that I have found to be convincing.
The conclusion I came to was that the timetables involved of lifetimes of rebirth made it impossible to set up an experiment that proved the issue one way or another. Believe me, I tried, for ~3 years I made myself the experiment. It was an existential adventure I do not regret.
Now it is said that some people after a certain point in the path remember all their past lives, and to them, that would be a personal proof. But to me it is anecdotal, and I could not accept it as proof unless I myself experienced it. Even if I experienced it myself, I would not consider it a proof for other people for the same reasons.

I feel as if there are some huge misconceptions regarding "karma" as described in the west. So many consider it like a kind of moral retribution and never recognize its true essence. Karma is momentum.
All things are interrelated ... like a massive wall of gears and pinions. Some turning one way, others another way, some shafts protruding at 45 degree angles, and some vanishing into space or even time. Once one turns one direction then it is affected and affects others (all others to some extent). Some things it will affect in a negative manner, some sideways, some additive, and some barely at all. Positive actions tend to do positive things on down the line and help in many areas while negative things tend to wreak more havoc or be more isolated. That is karma. Not some moralistic determiner.
As for rebirth. ugh. OK. The dualism we find specified between mind and body is also a bit of a misnomer. It's consciousness and body. Only the body is that identity that "rebirths". The consciousness, or chariot driver from the aisha upanishad, is itself limitless despite being housed by the vessel of the body. Limitless in space and time. When unconstrained it may merely reoccupy the same body it came from, or another, or something completely different. The why behind that ascension is debatable. We DO come back like we are now and we DON'T come back like we are now and we ARE back like we are now and this will continue until the damage is fixed to the universe and it goes back to unity.

I dont mind negging at all. Just please tell me where you disagree. I have no ego investment in this discussion. I am still a student of life as well and can use any pointers people might provide!! I come to learn.

Please dont place me in the middle of some tussle between different schools of Buddhism. My views are my own. My path is the one I have discovered on my own with no assistance other than my own curiosity. So I am not trying to one-up anyone else's views. This is just how I see it.


text:
What are the texts of Vajrāyana Buddhism? And where can I get?

What are the scriptures of Vajrāyana Buddhism? Or texts related?
Where can I get scriptures or texts on Vajrāyana Buddhism?

See also related question; "What are the core Mahayana and Vajrayana Sutras?".

This person – Andrea Pema will be able to help you on this. If asked just say that Saptha Visuddhi referred you to him.
Andrea Pema has translated many of  Vajrāyana Buddhism text to English. The follow are few of his notes:
The Progressive Stages of Meditation. From Shamata to the Beginning of the Mahasandhi
An Excerpt from my Book “Buddha Dharma”: Introduction to the Vajrayana (for Advanced Yogis and Yoginis as well as for Beginners)
On the three Buddha Bodies - the Buddhist Sutra and Tantra on the Qualities of Enlightenment
The Guru Yoga Practice of Padmasambhava, for Beginners and Advanced Practitioners
A short advice on how to do Deity Yoga in Buddhist Tantra
What is “Bodhicitta” in the Tantra ?
A Gem of Compassion from the Mahayana; The Practice of Tonglen, a “must” for those that follow the Bodhisattva Path
The Dharani of Lapis Light that generates the Power of the Tathagatas Meditative Absorption
On Shunyata ( Emptiness)
On meditation and sacred outlook
The Path of Bliss in Buddhist Tantra


text:
How to memorize suttas?
I was watching a video about the oral tradition in relation to how the suttas was first communicated and conveyed to monastics and lay people.
I was wondering what techniques buddhist monastics and lay people used/are using to memorize suttas. I know of chanting as an effective method.
Are there other methods used within Buddhism?
Thank you for your time.

Upasaka Lanka,
usually the teacher would give a stanza of a sutta be reciting it. The student would then try to rebeat it and the teacher would correct him. When it has been grasped, the disciple would seek for a proper place for him, but not to far from his teacher, or elders, so that they would correct him in cases of wrong, and rebeat the stanza. Once gotten, he would go out for the next and after a while he would be able to cite the whole sutta.
Today books and writting down as support or mostly even replacement, would be normal.
My self not really eager and interested in memorizing words and also because the usual way of transfere is very seldom (a proper given) and also not very gifted in that, coul master a "Blessing-Sutta" in two days. (Its quite disturbing when used to meditation, since it appears disturbing like if still carring music lyrics if not abound already)
How ever, the training it self is a really good concentration training and young monks would not do and train it on silent remute places, but in the middle of the "noice" of even hundred other chanting monks. An enviroment which would cause western or modern really problems but their concentration and mindfulness is very good trained to be able to turn off evertthing else.
It's also not seldom that jhanic states are reached and some also become somehow addicted, whould chante the whole night loadly, if their teacher would not restrikt it for a good.
Generally the learn method is total different to modern ways in still traditional countries. Children would learn also in school in a citing way first. Mastered words and remembering, then would be the time rippe to learn the language and other that the meaning while train in precepts.
The benefit is that concentration is trained by an certain object and the mind does not become so full of ideas and speculations, tousands of thoughts.
Modern learning does not really put much into basic mind training good for an easy life but more in making people effective in thinking how to still there desires and be productive outwardly.
Of course in just reciting memorizing texts, mostly without understanding even the language, does not bear much in regard of the path at first glimbs but given that most will not gain fruits or paths, one might leave this world with more ease and not so disturbed and confused like others having developed much ideas. Saññā (Rememberance) is gone anyway with the break up of the body but habits, such as being skilled in remembering, mindfulness and concentration will follow in some ways.
So if one searches for a good practice and finds some tendency to it, it's recommented if lighter objects of concentrations are not so graspable for now.
The more the five hindrences are dominant and people are used to contact and following them, the more difficult will bethis training. Especially when coming in contact with modern live and emense sensuallity.
Used to speak load, one trains also speech, in form of sound, metrics and words, which is also very benefical. Reading loud is also very recommended in regard of reading learning Dhamma and just in modern, wewtern wirld unusual. That is also the reason why most people (since many had ordained as kids) are very skilled in speech that is charming and pleasant.
So it's out of urgency in any case good (if avaliable) to get and understand the meaning, which Upasaka Saptha Visuddhi explained well in his answer.
We should not forget that in folk-buddhism, eg generally, monks are training chanting to have a means for their livelihood and "income", so its at lage, even traditional, a "acter"-traing without which most would not survive, like today modern learning much Dhamma, study it, and then teach people and "entertain" the layity with a other service for livelyhood. Both, how ever, is actually not really good and wrong livelyhood for monks but counts also for lay people, chanter or scholars: this Dhamma is not given to make a livelihood out of it and good right from the beginning, never to speculate to gain material thing, honore... or a punch of reputations on Bu-SE in citing the same, again and again.
Here a gift blessing "Mangala Sutta" (pali with khmer translation after each stanza) of some young former fellow monks as a amr-file attached. (Note that the Khmer Mahanikaya, or long time folk pronanciation is different to all other countries and in Cambodia it was till short a "pure" oral tradition, maybe even the longest "unbroken" lineage till Khmer-rouge time) The Ven. left, , "youngest and smallest, leading the chant, for example, is one, even young, one does good to pay respect like to rare Elders.

"Vast learning, skill in handicrafts*, well grounded in discipline, and pleasant speech — this is the highest blessing.

Maha-mangala Sutta: Blessings

of layman and or monks

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.)

The best way to "memorize" suttas is to get the key idea or sanna of the given sutta. It is the “learning” of true dhamma and not “memorization” that will help in the retention of key phrases. For that one needs to get the key idea or sanna of a given concept. When one gets the sanna of a concept, one will never lose it.
So, the best way to memorize is to grasp the concepts of dhamma. Then it becomes easier to analyze a given concept as one progresses. The more one grasps about a concept and the meanings and how to use them in other situations, things start to come flowing through. This is unlike memorizing the wording, but another will think that you’ve memorized a given thing.
The basic difference between “real learning” and memorization is that in the first case you have acquired the ability to grasp concepts, whereas the latter makes you just blindly follow rules/instructions.
This is a concept that is hard to grasp for many these days, because we are so much used to “book learning”. There are many people who can repeat certain tasks mechanically without even bothering to think through. And then when the situation changes somewhat they do not know how to handle the “new situation”.

My person thinks that he remembers right that Nyom is actually skilled in chanting & has also certain "love" in practicing it. So in this1 frame my person "ask" better "likes to encourage" not only to expand his answer also on a very technical level here (as profi, so to speak), but also likes to invite Upasaka to try to teach and give encouragement to practice it in the online vihara to be sangham.net since many westerns have no easy access and possibility to receive it from a teacher and Nyom might know that it is not proper for monks to teach chanting to lay-people. It would be good to try.

I would try the memorization technique that is recommended for bodypart memorization in Vsm. Mental and verbal recitation.

Actually as i believe those theros had better memory and very good concentration. That is the main thing to use the brain power in efficient manner. Calm mind which has practised meditation can do lot more things than typical human


text:
The Conditions of Lying in Fiction
I'm a writer, and I tend to write parts of factual information, such as insights or impressions, mixed with other fictional aspects. Therefore, I am worried about what constitutes a lie, and what isn't. My intention is never to deceive, but I feel others may gather things in my writings that I didn't mean, or that are untrue. They could easily conclude stuff which isn't factual through them.
What are your thoughts? Thanks.
Edit: I make many claims in my writings, grandiose or vast claims, which I cannot be truly certain of. Yet, I don't mean them to be taken literally. I'm unsure what is considering lying, or pride, or boasting: is fiction really a realm wherein these things are considered, or is fiction free of judgment? Thanks.

BTW, What are the books you have written? Just out of curiosity.

As long as you do not make claim of function being non fiction then you are OK.
For something to be a lie the following conditions must be fulfilled.

i) The statement must be untrue.
ii) There must be an intention to deceive.
iii) An effort must be made to deceive.
iv) The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.

Souce: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA) at https://www.urbandharma.org
In writing non fiction, you would not be having the second condition as you would know and also making know this is fiction.

It's good that Eggman feels that such might be not good for one self and for others and it's always good to follow ones conscious and rejoice in ones sacrify less would do.
Precepts are simple and straight and not telling the truth rather suggesting lies, how could one feel comfortable a long time. To speak very straight forward: especially when written in words and people might fall into the pitfall.
Think when years later one might come to the insight "it's not good, it could cause others harm, it was not good that I used such to just earn this or that", how difficult to cover them all so that nobody would fall into.
Sometimes, and that is the reason why not often talked about, certain truth in regard of livelihood can make one troubled but also released if having found certain doubts by oneself. In this regard this Sutta about an actor in doubt might be useful, since it is not so far away in kind and way of livelihood:
Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains)

The fourth precept on musavada (lying) in Buddha Dhamma includes all abuses done my speech, including harsh speech, slandering, and gossip which will harm oneself and others.
Thus the fourth precept encompasses all four akusala kamma done with speech.
The Buddha said, “cetana ham Bhikkave kamman vadami“. Thus, what determines the type of kamma is the cetana. Cetana is translated sometimes as “intention” and other times as “volition”. “Intention” is one of the dasa akusala in the case of an akusala kamma. Intentions vary. For example, one may lie about something because of greed (lobha); another person may tell the same lie because of hate (dosa); the consequences are worse for the latter.
The greatest negative consequences that one will reap when writing on Dhamma is when one “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ … Buddha has described in Sangha Bedha Sutta (AN 10.1.4.7 – in the sixth book) that this is what is meant by Sangha Bedha – an Anantariya kamma that is one of the five heinous deeds which certainly bear results after death (as one is misleading another in this dhamma path).