text:
What does "ease" mean in the phrase "dharma gate of ease and joy"?
What is the "ease" of the "dharma gate of ease and joy"? Can an unelightened person achieve it outside seated meditation?
Ought I imagine everything is difficult, or everything is easy? How can we be effortful in our everyday lay tasks?

See also What does “joy” mean in the phrase “dharma gate of great ease and joy”

Dogen means that when you practise zazen you let go of troublesome thoughts. When you do this your state is one of ease (in the sense of 'being eased' rather than 'easy').
I think Dogen would have agreed with Hui Neng on the subject of enlightened and unenlightened people : One foolish notion is enough to shut off Prajna, while one wise thought will bring it forth again.
When not doing zazen, we should still be practising awareness (some sanghas refer to work in the temple as 'working meditation'). Although sometimes we need to think about difficult stuff. Zazen is just a time when we don't have to and can let go of everything.

What does “ease” mean in the phrase “dharma gate of ease and joy”?

It means that ones five spiritual faculties are balanced.
In meditation practice, e.g. Samatha meditation it means that if the mind strays from the primary meditation object, i.e. the breath, then one does not force attention back onto the breath. Instead it comes naturally and without striving.
Joy related to practice, arises when ones practice gains momentum meaning that one spends little but right effort into cultivating wholesome habits and purifying the mind. Joy arises easily in beings that are non-attached. There is a lightness of mind because they do not carry any bagage from one moment to the next.
Ease and joy arises when one interacts with reality instead of reacting. One is seeing reality for what it is, thereby gaining freedom from mental proliferation.

The short answer to what is ease is sukha. The more unattached you are, the more effluent-free, and unbinding you are, you get to experience this positive aspect sukha.
Sukha can be translated as pleasure, happiness, bliss, or ease. It is a pleasurable experience to have. In  DN 9: Potthapada Sutta Buddha says how if one could outgrow ones gross self, and enter the mind-made – the sense of self that can be developed in meditation - your defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter into this state of ‘Ease’. Then there is there is joy, rapture, serenity, mindfulness, alertness, and a pleasant/happy abiding.
Even outside of meditation you can experience such a state if you are prepared to discipline yourself as per the scriptures. You can get an idea about what it takes to discipline self in the Ganhaka Moggallāna Sutta in Majjima Nikāya.
First Buddha will advice one to come and be virtuous first – to discipline yourself from virtue, to make your life pattern good. Then he will get you to protect your six faculties (eyes, ear, etc.). For eq. when you see a figure from your eyes, low defilements such as craving and anger could be formed in you if your eyes were not disciplined. Protecting the last faculty, the mind, is to safeguard your mind without letting defilements to arise – to discipline your mind well.
The next level of discipline is when it comes to food. This is how you go about it: Now you have to eat mindfully (with the realization of true meaning of eating), inquiring wisely. That is, I am taking this food not for the strength, not for the satisfaction, not for the good looks, or not to play. I am taking this food only to continue this life, to get rid of tiredness, and as to a help to continue the solitary life away from lay life. I will free from old pains and stop making new pains by taking this food. I will continue this life and have a correct and painless life by taking this food.
At this stage you are ready for mediation, and to experience true Ease.


text:
Seongcheol's parinirvana gatha
Seongcheol's parinirvana gatha reads:

Deceiving people all my life, my sins outweigh Mount Sumeru.
Falling into hell alive, my grief divides into ten thousand pieces.
Spouting forth a red wheel,
It hangs on the blue mountain.

Has anyone written about what this means? I see that Seongcheol had this explanation

I've lived my entire life as a practitioner, and people have always
  asked me for something. Everyone is already a Buddha, but they do not
  try to realize that fact and only look towards me. So, in a way, you
  could say I've deceived people all my life. I've failed to get this
  message across to everyone so I'm suffering in a kind of hell.

But I wonder if it is definitive?
You read people who think it's an admission that he's wasted his "entire life", whereas I thought it could be a statement about "saving all sentient beings".

gah i didn't see his explanation in that article, but worth IMHO keeping the question for elaboration...

You might want to edit the question content to reflect that.

My understanding of this is as follows;
Illusion is impure, but a water wave is beyond purity and impurity;
May I be reborn in a hell to purify it and save the living beings there.

not a bad answer

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
metta towards women
This related question already has an answer:
Avoiding Lust in Hinduism?
This is a bit strange to ask, but I'll proceed anyway.
In specifically Buddhism (I'm a Hindu though) there are prescribed ways to cultivate metta/loving-kindness towards women. I know that lusting for the flesh is bad, and I also know all the ethics of preserving chastity for marriage, but during my abstinence period, I can't stop thinking about women. I have tried "loathsome meditation" or to meditate on the unpleasantness of the body, even satipathana, but it still doesn't work. I tried to give the pedestal of mother or sister, but still it's difficult to imagine them as kin members without actually being so. This is all because of this oversexualized stimuli that the modern consumer world is exposing us to. What should a brahmachari do to deal with this?

Congratulations young brachmacharyi. I hope this article helps: http://www.meditationexpert.com/yoga-kung-fu/y_celibacy_difficulties_in_spiritual_cultivation.htm
I would also recommend mantak chia's methods of sexual retention which is what the rule is ultimately about.

Implicit in sexual fantasies is the underlying wrong view that the actions in the sexual fantasy are not harmful & will bring happiness to both sides. The Dhamma states in many places that sexual liberalism or sexual promiscuity harms, defiles & degrades women.

Unchastity/misconduct taints a woman.
Dhammapada 242; AN 8.15

And how, householders, does a wretch live together with a wretch? Here, the husband is one who destroys life, takes what is not given,
  engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in liquor,
  wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; he is immoral, of
  bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of
  miserliness; he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. And his
  wife is also one who destroys life, takes what is not given,
  engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in liquor,
  wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; he is immoral, of
  bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of
  miserliness; he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. It is in such a way that a wretch lives together with a
  wretch.
AN 4.53

There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any
  libertine, any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his
  friend and companion
DN 31

And as I remained thus heedful, ardent & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with
  sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to
  the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
  discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Nirvana...I foresaw
  in unskillful qualities drawbacks, degradation & defilement, and I
  foresaw in skillful qualities rewards related to renunciation &
  promoting cleansing.
MN 19

The Dhamma also teaches the goal of a woman is to have a husband, to not share a husband with another woman, to dominate the relationship & that sons are her support in life.

A man is a woman’s aim, her quest is for adornments, her mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and her ideal is
  domination.
AN 6.52

This is why sexual fantasies are 'misogynistic' according to the Dhamma because they are based on the intention to harm women rather than the intention to have metta (loving-kindness) for women; and they are based in making a woman submissive to the desires of men rather than giving authority/dominance to the woman in a male/female relationship.

A wife is ministered to by a husband by handing over authority to her...
DN 31

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways,
  including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility,
  androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women,
  violence against women and sexual objectification. Wikipedia

For thousands of years, women have been forced to serve as concubines, mistresses, prostitutes & sex slaves for men. This has probably not occurred because men intrinsically want to oppress women. It probably occurs because men are generally so ignorant, so blind & so heartless that they cannot see the intrinsic harm of the sexual exploitation.
Sexual fantasies are similar. In sexual fantasies, the man views his actions towards the woman that is the object of the fantasy is intrinsically harmless, when it is not. Sexual fantasies are misogynistic sexual objectification.
Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, much harm has come to women. For example, the 2nd wave feminism that arose concurrent to the sexual revolution promoted complete sexual liberalism for women. However, due to the consequences of this, the 3rd wave of feminism became divided over the sexual liberalism promoted by 2nd wave feminism.

Unlike the determined position of second-wave feminists about women in pornography, sex work, and prostitution, third-wave feminists
  were rather ambiguous and divided about these themes (feminist sex
  wars). While some thought these sexual acts were degrading and
  oppressing women, others saw it as empowering that women were owning
  their sexuality.
Third-wave feminism: Wikipedia

The following articles describe the 'dukkha' that impulsive heedless sex has brought to women, which are similar to the 'hungry ghost' & 'hell' worlds of sensuality described in the Potaliya Sutta.
Women And Prescription Drugs: One In Four Takes Mental Health Meds.
Failure of sexual revolution.
Or read about the lives of the world's most famous sex symbols, how many sexual relationships & sexual affairs they had and what it brought them:

Monroe's troubled private life received much attention. She struggled with substance abuse, depression, and anxiety. She had two highly
  publicized marriages, to retired baseball star Joe DiMaggio and
  playwright Arthur Miller, both of which ended in divorce. She died at
  the age of 36 on August 5, 1962, from an overdose of barbiturates at
  her home in Los Angeles.
Marilyn Monroe
In 1974, Bardot appeared in a nude photo shoot in Playboy magazine, which celebrated her 40th birthday. On 28 September 1983, her 49th
  birthday, Bardot took an overdose of sleeping pills or tranquilizers
  with red wine. She had to be rushed to hospital, where her life was
  saved after a stomach pump was used to evacuate the pills from her
  body.
Brigitte Bardot

In conclusion, returning to the Dhamma method of viewing women as 'mothers, sisters & daughters', for a woman to be a good mother, it is best she has a good mind. Women engaging in heedless sex does not contribute to a good mind for motherhood. This is a reason why the Buddhist looks upon women like mothers. Mothers love their family & want a strong stable family. Women engaging in heedless sex does not contribute to good families and a woman's true happiness. The Buddha explained this respect for mothers in the Lokapala Sutta.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I would presume you are male. In which case it is not advisable to practice Metta to women as this itself may arouse lust. You are generally not supposed to practice Metta on someone of the opposite sex, especially a specific person. Do not imagine are shape of form if you generally spreading metta towards a women. More on this see this answer. If it does not arouse lust may be you can do Metta towards all women, but if it arouses lust better avoid it. When you spread metta to all being this includes women.
Loathsome meditation may help the case in reducing lust towards women. For more in this see this answer.
Don't get overly obsessed with thoughts of reducing lust because then you are still dealing with the subject matter of lust and also perhaps developing aversion to lust. When doing this lustful thoughts may pop up. Some techniques to get rid of these distracting thoughts found in the Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta.
Though not limited to lust for opposite sex, methods to overcome kāmacchanda which is one of the hindrance is useful. Whenever sensation arise which may trigger sensual lust, try to keep a equanimous mind knowing they the stimulation is impermanent. At an intellectual level you can also contemplate the gratification is also impermanent. Essentially keeping you mind free from unwholesome roots and vipallasa reduces lust and other hindrances. For more on this see: Kāma-c,chanda by Piya Tan and The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera. In addition, see: Vipallasa Sutta
If you get aroused by seeing, hearing the voice, smell of scent, memories of someone. Then this form of lust can be avoided by guarding the sense door. What every experience you get avoid it leading to the unwholesome roots by being equanimous and seeing impermanence. For more on this see: Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Cha Chakka Sutta, etc.

but for a novice level, the studying of five mental hindrances is enough, isn't it?

and i completely agree with you sir, the more i  contemplate, the more i get entangled within it.

Study what every is easy for you and apply it to daily life.

At certain stages in our lives, such as adolescence and young adulthood, sexual energy levels are very high in the body, apparently due to some preconditioned need to mate and procreate. As we get older these sexual energies dissipate naturally.
For those on a spiritual path, the best thing to do with these sexual energies is to sublimate them by sending them up the channels from the sexual chakra to the higher energy centres. However, the problem with sublimation is that it does not necessarily cause these energy levels to dissipate, but can have the reverse effect and cause the energy to increase in intensity as a flowpath is opened up.
Once this energy becomes too difficult to control in this manner, we have no choice but to try to repress this energy; repression of energy in the body is necessarily a harmful thing, both to the body and the mind; this can lead to sickness caused by imbalance in the body, and a loss of mental equilibrium, and this can quickly lead to a spiritual blockage, preventing our ascension and weakening our bodies.
For those who are trying to pursue the spiritual path while engaged in the modern world, this is a particular problem. When we go on retreat, we are expected to dress moderately, even conservatively, to avoid the mind falling into the trap of sexual desire; out in the world sexual desire is one of the primary distractions modern consumer society seeks to stir up, encouraging us to believe that it is normal and healthy for our lives to be dominated by lust and greed.
In my view, therefore, and I do stand to be corrected if this is an incorrect view, when we are faced with an unsurmountable barrier of sexual energy, be it because of our environment or our hormones, we need to be able to release the surplus energy if we are not able to sublimate it.
However, great care must be taken in this act. We must release this energy mindfully, and not allow ourselves to be overtaken by sexual fantasy. We must do it, so to speak, in the moment, and be aware that what we are doing is a simple physical act, similar to urination and defecation, which we manage to do regularly without attaching any great importance to it. If we relive ourselves in this way, as a simple physical action devoid of significance or emotional attachment or feelings of lust or shame, then this excess energy will quickly lose its power over us.
This action is then analogous to ‘cleaning the mirror’ and permits us to return to our path free from the encumbrance of excess physical desire.

just curious, but why did the Buddha not recommend such releasing of energy? he solely relied on sublimation, or found that a release was simply never justified?

One who has read, seen and experienced suffering caused by STDs will know what lusting for sex does ultimately.

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


text:
Do we have conventional knowledge of the present?
I read the discussion between Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita, and there's a reference to "no cognition" (anupalabdhi) of emptiness, as liberative, though I forget which one of the two were supporting it.
e.g. Garfield and Westerhoff in Madhyamaka and Yogacara:

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
cognize, no cognition arises.

Or Eckel in To See the Buddha:

And obviously the heart sutra includes (emphasis mine):

No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.

Does anyone say that there is "no cognition" of the present, either at all times, or that only this "no cognition" has conventional validity?
Or, can we have conventional knowledge of the present?

could u explain "no-cognition"? name of the Treatise this discussion is recorded?

hey @Bhumishu米殊 seems to appear a fair amount in the indian literature. i think adding examples may hinder clarity, but will look into doing so

Your quote has it right: "The cognition... is non-conceptual" That is the word you need to grok to comprehend this statement.

hey, edited to clarify @Mishu米殊

The quote you give:

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
  of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
  cognize, no cognition arises.

Refers to wisdom directly realizing emptiness. Such a wisdom realizes emptiness in a non-dualistic manner. It is non-conceptual and explicit, since it realizes its object (emptiness) by way of emptiness appearing to it. Conceptual consciousnesses realize their object by way of a mental image appearing to them. Cognition arise (this wisdom is a cognition) but there is no acertainment of conventional truths (such as time, a table, persons, the basis of emptiness, and so forth).
By the way, Garfield is not the safest source.
Chandrakirti (same view as Buddhapalita) also talked about "non-seeing" and "non-cognition" or "non-perception." He does not mean that a buddha is free from cognition (that would contradict the typical Mahayana claim hat he is omniscient) but simply that non-existent do not appear to a buddha. A buddha is free from the appearance of true existence. It is not so much about "no cognition" as it is about "no cognition of something in particular."
It is explained in
Chandrakirti's Commentary on the "Supplement to Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle'.
Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

When said that they perceive it in the manner of non-perception, it
  does not mean that a buddha does not see anything at all. It means
  that he is not seeing any phenomenon arisen due to ignorance, that is,
  together with a false appearance of the conventional - an appearance
  of true existence. It is the omniscience realizing the final reality
  that perceives the emptiness, the absence of true existence. Since a
  buddha does not perceive what does not exist and knows all existing
  phenomena, when a truly existent conventional phenomenon were to
  exist, it should appear to a buddha, but it does not. What is not
  perceived by him is a non-existent. If it were existent it would
  appear to the Buddha. True establishment does not exist and therefore
  does not appear to the wisdom of a Buddha realizing the final reality.

so there's no sense in which the present is not conventionally established? that's a shame, oh well

No, there is no sense in which the present is not conventionally established. There are consciousnesses to which it does not appear, but that is another topic, though. Why would you need the present, or your car, or the moon, to be negated altogether?

:) cheers for the note, i really appreciate it

this is good: buddhas have omniscient knowledge of emptiness, so they do not have "no cognition (anupalabdhi) of emptiness"

Finally... let me try。。。
What is the use of discussing no-cognition as it defined as "the non-existence of a thing cannot be perceived by the senses for there is nothing with which the senses could come into contact in order to perceive the non-existence." wikipedia/Anupalabdhi
It negates the negated, i.e., the non-existence, the cannot be perceived. This is from Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (700AD) the Hindu philosopher. This rendered the whole sytax just as a don't-know. Now some scholars use it to fit into the Buddhist concept, or to explain the Buddhist concept, it is an error, IMO.

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to cognize, no cognition arises. --Garfield and Westerhoff in Madhyamaka and Yogacara

The Buddha/Nagarjuna doesn't phase Emptiness in this way. If there are things? Ultimate nature? Cognition or to cognize is a conditioned faculty, same as the 5 Aggregates conditioned by the human body and mind as in an Ordinary (凡夫). The quoted phrase is produced by an academic mind conditioned by education with those technical terms in prescribed syntax.

Eckel in To See the Buddha...

Again, object, reality, knowledge, these terms in such way of a paragraph written doesn't relate anything to what the Buddha taught, although it claimed Buddha here and Buddha there in the sentences. It is an un-beneficial hard work to explain how it was not making sense, same as to explain why a 1 or 2 or any number is not a 0.

And obviously the heart sutra...

Your understanding the Heart Sutra is far from getting it. When in the Heart
Sutra it said:

No Suffering Samudaya Extinguishing Path, no knowledge also no attainment. {無苦集滅道無智亦無得}

It is not a negation to describe "Ultimate Reality", in your term. It is because "In Emptiness it has no [such and such]... "{是故空中無...}, for these are dharma(s){法}, i.e., the laws created by us. Not the laws in law books, but laws of nature, physics, E=MC", law of gravity... all are dharma(s) - 法[則] - laws, the products of the intellect/mind. Therefore the Buddha said all knowledge of this world are "games theories" {戲論}, i.e., we set the rules, then we play against these rules. The Heart Sutra, of import is the beginning, "Observe the Self-present Bodhisattva, when professing in deep Prajnaparamita..." {觀自在菩薩行深般若波羅蜜多時...}, this is the condition a Dhyana practitioner is able to enter, then it goes on to give more instructions and describe the experiences etc... This is a long explanation and belongs to another topic I believe. Of note is almost all translated the beginning as Avalokiteshvara, it maybe so or it could be not as so. There is another definite name for this Bodhisattva in Chinese yet here this could refer to Him, or refer to anyone as long as this person who is able to reach the Self-present{自在}, one who is free, totally at ease, free from any bondage or restrain, mindful and, present. (see, this is the perfect condition one should enter during meditation.)
To conclude, I thought your formulating this question is not so beneficial in understanding the Buddhist Dharma, Emptiness, or the philosophy you intended. For it is like saying, does the cow have horse face? {牛頭不對馬嘴}. With no offence, if it does irritate you, apologize for my commend of language, since English is not my mother tongue.

i'm a bit confused why my "understanding the Heart Sutra is far from getting it" when i didn't present any understanding of the heart sutra, and you talk about Garfield etc. being wrong without saying how or why seems more polemical than anything. but i appreciate your "trying" :)

i do agree thought that it's not obviously a means of understanding the buddhist dharma, though

@user3293056 As I read your question, you are using the Heart Sutra to third time emphasize your "reality", or "emptiness" that is a "Anupalabdhi" - no cognition. The HS is about Emptiness, yet Emptiness is not a question of no cognition or not. I explaint "Anupalabdhi" is not originated from Buddhist teaching, and  Bhavaviveka  or Buddhapalita or else not sure if their ideas are accurate or not. I won't bother to spend time in studying them, I will spend time to study the Sutras originally spoken by the Buddha.

hey :) i didn't mean that emptiness is "no cognition". my question was just what i asked at the end, is there no congition of the present. i'd be disappointed if not, but not because i would have misunderstood the dharma so much as something else

@user3293056 "is there no congition of the present" unfortunately I couldn't understand your question. Maybe my mind refuse to decipher "no congition", since this is a lousy concept - IMO. "present" is the time, now?

:) i'm a little disappointed that i am so bad at explaining myself. i'm more interested in using buddhism to find out what i can work out about 'death'. i really apologise if that's at all bad, if i come across as ignorant etc. because of that. thanks for the answer

@user3293056 no, no offence :) i do try to help if i understand, and i'm studying, not enlightened yet ;0

i'm sure you're doing great ;)

@user3293056 for "about death", i've just written something for this question[link] http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19217/buddhism-vs-advaita-vedanta it may of some use to you, hmmmm....

thanks i like the surangama sutra a lot, just trying to (over) analyse its conclusion, which you state i think eloquently ("deceased yet living after the body")

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


text:
Buddhism accepts horoscope?
This can be a stupid question to ask as Buddhism is much superior than astrology. But my problem is in today's society the Buddhists are too much concerned with these horoscopes than any other religion just like it is a part of Buddhist teachings. Why is that? Is there a truth behind it or any connectivity with Buddhism ?

Is this topic a duplicate of What is the relation between Astrology and Buddhism?

It is a good question that you asked & not at all stupid @ Iresha Rubasinghe, but I was too busy last week to get to answer it. Today India has lost the Order of the Gautama Buddha. In the present-day Sri Lanka a great many who identify themselves as ‘Buddhist’ are really Hindus. It is because they have made the Triple Gem impure by worshiping Hindu “Demigods”, by believing in horoscopes, following auspicious times according to asterism, auspicious signs, horoscopes, malefic effects believed to come from planetary objects, and the twelve houses of astrology.
None of these abide with Buddha’s teachings. They even have a higher regard to being vegetarian than observing the Five Precepts to the letter. Then there are those who erroneously think “... even though we have a strong desire to put an end to rebirth, it depends on our parami ...” This is another distortion of the Saddhamma. I hope that you are one of the very few people who would stay in the finger tip, without getting caught to any of these trappings.
People cling onto all these types of beliefs or are only get ready to realize the Dhamma when they attain Buddhahood are following ignorant ways without respecting the Buddha or His teachings. If they consider what the Buddha had taught us properly by learning the Dhamma, these types of ignorant and short-sighted views will never be spread throughout the society.
In the Buddha's time there is an example on how a wise person recognized the teachings of the Buddha properly. There was a Brahmin called ‘Vangeesa’. He once went to the Gautama Buddha and told Him that he has the ability to tell about someone’s afterlife,  and that he needs a person’s skull to do that. The Buddha asked one of the Bhikkhus to bring a skull of a dead person. The Brahmin took the skull, chanted a charm (a Mantra) and tapped it few times. He then revealed where that dead person was reincarnated. The Buddha also confirmed that it was so.
The Brahmin then told the Buddha that he could reveal the rebirth of anyone just by tapping the skull of a dead person. The Buddha asked the Bhikkhu to bring one other skull and gave it to the Brahmin. Vangeesa Brahmin did his chanting again and tapped on that skull, but this time it was different. He could not find where that dead person was reborn. He tapped again, again, and again. But still, he could not get out of any information about the person that the skull was belonged to. He was anxious and told the Buddha, “Oh, Lord Buddha! This is so strange. My predictions were never gone wrong before, and I never came across any skull that I could not recognize the rebirth of the dead person. But, my talent became useless in front of you. I can’t guess the birth place of this person even if I tap on to this skull so many times.”
The Most Compassionate One, the Buddha, told him “dear Brahmin, this skull belongs to an Arahant.” The Brahmin was thrilled about the fact that the Gautama Buddha was teaching a way to overcome rebirth. He expressed his loyalty to the Buddha and his need to follow the Dhamma that the Buddha was teaching. Then, the Buddha told him to let go of what he was taking for granted and to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Accepting Buddha’s advice, Vangeesa Brahmin became a Bhikkhu. He became an Arahant after following the noble path.
People who take refuge of the Buddha with proper understanding know that there is nothing more important than the Dhamma of the Buddha. So please remember that a person who takes refuge of horoscopes cannot become Shraddhānusārī (one who has unflinching faith in the triple gem.). People who take refuge of asterism or auspicious signs, or the ones who live spending their time praying to other gods cannot be easily convinced otherwise of their wrongful attachments and devotions to the astrology, auspicious times, and the likes which consume their energy. Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in his essay “A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence” ahd this to say:

” … Spiritual eclecticism — omnipresent in the West today — is governed by the opposite logic. It aims to amalgamate, to draw into a whole a sundry variety of quasi-religious disciplines: yoga, spiritualism, channeling, astrology, faith healing, meditation, I Ching, special diets, Cabbala, etc. These are all offered to the seeker on a pick-and-choose basis; everything is valid, anything goes. This eclecticism often reveals a longing for genuine spiritual experience, for a vision of reality more encompassing than pragmatic materialism. It fails because it tears profound disciplines out from their context in a living faith and blends them together into a shapeless mixture without spine or substance. Its psychological mood is that of a romantic, promiscuous yearning for easy gratification rather than that of serious commitment. Owing to its lack of discrimination it often shades off into the narcissistic and the occult, occasionally into the diabolical.”

"stay in the finger tip"? Is that an idiom?

@ChrisW ... In  SN 13.1 Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his finger nail, said to the monks… “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize the Nibbāna is like this small amount of soil on my finger tip.”  when compared with the great earth.

@Saptha Visudhdhi Thank you so much sir for great explanation as always with so many facts and references.

@Iresha Rubasinghe, another bit of advice... Be genuinely faithful towards the Triple Gem. Be wise, brave, and dignified. Do not bow in front of other false views. Those who grasp every belief as true, slip away from the truth. Sadly we live in an unfortunate time where the Asura Forces are far greater and stronger. So to overcome these we need the assistance of Davas who are well established in this path. To tell you, do not to rely on astrology or horoscopes, but seek the protection of Dhamma, even when it comes to finding your life’s partner. Seek assistance of these other Devas for this.

Yes sir, it's really hard to argue with people as the majority support towards these other beliefs and they are quite blind in seeing the reality. And the saddest situation is now this astrology is quite binded with Buddhism by people as majority believe in them.

Never argue with another on such matters. It is a grave mistake. It is because the protective fence that was there in the first 1000 years of Buddha’s time is not there anymore. Today the world is influenced to a greater degree by Asura Forces. One example is that though I knew my wife-to-be in UofM, she said only if her father is satisfied with my horoscope will she marry me. So I had to comply. Keep the practice of Dhamma very close to your heart. Do not share details of your practice with lesser people – even if they are your loved ones.

Horescopes did exist at the time when the Buddha was born but they aren't mentioned often in the Buddha's teachings. One mention of horosopes is in the
Samaññaphala Sutta, this sutta lists many types of fortune telling as wrong-livelihood for monks.

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills, bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

Horoscopes existed in many cultures, the reason why it remained more prevalent in Buddhist countries is more down to speculation. It depends both on Buddhism and on other religions' attitude towards horoscopes. Some reasons might be:

The idea of seeing peoples' future is very present in Buddhism which gives credibility to the idea of seeing others' fortunes based on astrology.
In other religions it may be offensive to predict peoples' fates because it is believed that only God has the ability to do so.
The Buddha didn't say that predicting the future is wrong livelihood for lay people (probably because only holy men did such things in the Buddha's time)

There is truth to all these quasi-sciences because they are based on principles in astronomy, science, and medicine. Many benefit from it in small ways which can be cumulative.
Although it is divergent from the focused, intensive practice towards Buddhahood, it is quite complementary to handling one's issues--should one be a fast learner and not spend too much time with them.
The end result is one can make better decisions for one's life which will in turn allow one the better environment and life to Practice, free from qualm and issues. Everything will just fall in place and one can also challenge oneself and be prepared when an encounter with a particular person might be predicted to be dysfunctional.
Just like how in Buddhism there are different meditation methods (variations really) for different temperaments, the various temperaments in astrology have distinct differences that can inform oneself on the best for people of a certain nature.
That being said astrology is very complicated and other personality typing, Myers-Briggs, palmistry, and other idiosyncrasies, can often play heavily into it and balance things with a person one would think as one's enemy... so maybe it is all pointless!
Ultimately, astrology has nothing to do with Buddhism and spending that time that would be spent on regular Buddhist cultivation would be a mistake and depending too much on it is a mistake because karma is one of the things that Buddha said is too deep and pointless to muse upon--to instead just try one's best and cultivate.


text:
Can / how do we know what death is?
This question may read a little philosophical, Buddhist, and personal.
I've been a little obsessed with death for a very long time, and feel like I have zen answer. Less interested in "the path" (I would like to practice zazen) than whether my conclusion is sound, though to an extent, if it is, I can go on my way. As well as whether it conflicts with any zazen practice. A Buddhist friend keeps telling me I'm afraid and trying to outsmart death, and they say nobody really knows, which I definitely sympathise with, but equally I believe I'm right.
So how can we know what will happen to us at death? Do we ask a teacher, ourselves, not ask about it, not worry about it, or something else entirely?

'Death' happens to a 'person', 'self-entity' or 'self'.
When the mind is free from thoughts of 'self', it will know 'death' only happens to a 'self'.
It will also know when the mind is free from 'self', there is no 'death'.
The 'termination of life' is not the same as 'death'.
These things the mind can know when entering into 'emptiness' (śūnyatā - 空).

i liked this answer, thanks, it's actually a lot clearer and less enigmatic thank it may 1st seem

Being a Dhamma Skeptic, you may not believe in what is been said about what lies after death, but you cannot deny that — men, women, children, lay or ordained,
past, future, no matter what their level of being—are subject to aging, subject to
illness, subject to death, separation. Does it not give you a sense of samvega: a sense of dismay over the nature of the human condition because everybody is subject to these same problems, but no one has shown us how to deal with
aging, illness, and death, and we don’t have much training in that. The skills we have developed in life are not very helpful for dealing with aging, illness, and death when they come.
The death scares us the most because of the unknown factor. This fear is further aggravated because of our attachment to the body, our attachment to sensual pleasures, our memories and understandings that we’ve harmed others, and the fear that after death we’re going to be punished for it. And another fear is in not seen the true dhamma, and in having doubts about the true dhamma.
If you can learn to overcome these four fears of death, then you yourself will be able to find the answer that you seek. So you will have to sort through your attachments to the body,
sort through your attachments to sensual pleasures, and learn to focus on the
positive things you’ve done. It’s even better if you gain a dhammaeye, a vision of the
true dhamma. That’s when you can overcome your fear of death. It is at that time that you will come to know the answer to this question, as only then would you will accept the given answer.


text:
I have been meditating by myself since 2015 but nothing worked for me
Please help me, what to do. I've been meditating but not working for me anything. I get only tingling sensation on my forehead & constant buzzing sound. Besides, I have not gotten any slight improvements in my behavior.
Would be helpful if someone suggests me following things.

How to meditate finally? That one method that can bring peace and calmness to me.
When to do ? Prerequisites.
How much to do?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like. Enjoy your stay.

I get only tingling sensation on my forehead & constant buzzing sound.

Do not give too much importance to this for the moment, i.e., do not consider it as good and crave for it or do not consider it bad and be averse towards it. Just keep your equanimity knowing they arise and pass.

Besides, I have not gotten any slight improvements in my behavior.

Behaviour doesn't change overnight. In the past, given 10 situations you react in an unwholesome way. If this changes to 9 out of 10 or 8 out of 10 situations, this is an improvement. So if there is a slight improvement also, this is immaterial, so just keep doing what you are doing.
Also there could be no improvement because you are practicing wrong or the techniques you are practicing might not be suitable to you.

How to meditate finally? That one method that can bring peace and calmness to me.

When you meditate calmness and insight grows. So do both:

Anapanasati, and
Satipatthana

When to do ?

Whenever possible. But this might help:

5 - 10 minutes after waking up (awake but just not yet out of bed)
until you fall asleep (in bed but not yet fallen asleep)
1 hour session in the morning
1 hour session in the evening / night

Prerequisites.

The main thing is morality hence contemplate on morality and make a determination to be moral. In addition the following may would be helpful:

Develop some faith in the practice so you would be earnest in the effort you put into it
Develop gratitude towards the Triple Gem, otherwise you will not have got the chance to practice
Develop a sense of urgency to practice, think this might be the last chance
Develop Metta

How much to do?

Generally do 2 session of about 1 hour or more formally. Use this as a booster to continue the practice during daily activities. Ultimately it is being mindful during daily activities that gives the real results.
In doing 2 sessions, if one session is not productive then the other might be more productive. At the start of the session, you might not be meditating much hence it should be long enough to settle down and put some solid practice.

This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. Meditate one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. This regular, daily practice is essential. At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.
...
When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful.
...
Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

People experience all kinds of varied phenomena when trying to practice awareness / meditation. Getting itches or feeling other sensations like tingling or feeling of lightness or a floating sensation are some of the common ones. It is because, as relaxation sets in, the nervous system begins to pass sensory signals more efficiently. They are sensory data that were kept blocked before. When the body gets relaxed or more aware, it gives rise to these unique sensations. So try to see it as just sensation. Try not to get too excited about it. If you are practicing awareness, make it a part of the practice. Just observe as to how it come up and watch it pass away. The main thing is not to get involved. Keep your distance, and just observe.
Even if you don't feel at ease, or you can't relax, try to just observe it, without letting it rule you. Let those feelings arise and look at them mindfully. If you just sit still and observe your agitations, they will eventually pass. They come and they go. They have no real grip on you at all.
Sometimes a little tingling or a little stirring around that you feel could be that stirring of a thought beginning to occur. You must keep an eye on the mind to notice when it begins to show signs that it’s about to wander off. The mind could start looking for someplace else to go, something else to think about. If you’re really alert, you can catch it before a distracting thought is fully formed. The more quickly you can see that process, the better. The tingling that you feel could be either physical or mental. It could be either. There will come a point, though, when the mind decides that the stirring is a potential for a thought. It looks into it and turns it into a thought world. The more quickly you can see that happening, the more you’re able to catch it at the very beginning of the act.

This might be a good time for reflection: Like "Why am I practicing? What did the Buddha teach and how am I able to apply it? Do I want to achieve something? But isn't the goal of meditation to let go and not to get?"
How do you know that meditation didn't work? Only because it wasn't pleasant or peaceful enough or even physically and mentally painful? If the goal of meditation is to overcome suffering, should I expect it to be easy and pleasant all the time, just as I want it?
Watch out to fall into generalizing things like "it's all like this, nothing ever worked, ..." and really look and you'll possibly remember occasions when meditation did had a positive effect.
Good reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu3ajzTFGSg

Very important factor for preparation for meditation is to practice Sila. (at least the five precepts)
I think the buzzing sound is the tinnitus in your ear and I have the worse case of ringing ear, which does not bother me at all. Do not pay attention to it.


text:
What would Buddhists say about 'pantheism'
I take 'pantheism' to be the belief that all our talk about God can resolve into "the world", while retaining the divine status of "God", perhaps because our words about God retain their structure.
What would Buddhists say about the idea that the world or universe is God?

The people of the world can be categorized into two groups. The ones who believe in a single God, accept eternalism (sassata ditthi) after death. The other group are the ones who are in Communist countries, who do not believe in a single God, & accept nihilism. Nihilism (ucceda ditthi) is the direct opposite of eternalism. The Buddha, in many ways, has avoided these two extremes. The faith of the people who believe in a God is different those who have the confidence in the Triple Gem. Faith in the Buddhist perspective derives through proper understanding and realisation of truth and not through fear of the divine or a need to satisfy the emotions. Real faith appears in the mind when it reaches the unshakable state. Blind faith or religious beliefs have no place in the Buddha's Teaching. There is no such thing as ‘God’ in the Teachings of the Supreme Buddha.

hm, i think you are right, that pantheists would retain the idea of a self caused and substantive thing. thanks!

I think that Buddhists don't assume that there's a "one God". So there's no need to explain the relationship between God and World.
Wikipedia's Pantheism in religion mentions many religions, but not Buddhism. Maybe the concept (of "pantheism") is meaningless when there's no concept of (no meaning attributed to the word) "God".
I suppose the nearest Buddhist analog might be the concept of Buddha-nature.

What would Buddhists say about the idea that the world or universe is God?

That it is purely speculation, a belief, contained in the 4th aggregate of mental formations.
This is clearly visible through the practice of insight meditation.

Now I remember, that the Kyoto school of Buddhists / comparative philosophers claim that Buddhism is not "pantheism" but closer to "panentheism": especially the term "transcendental immanence".
See e.g. The Nothingness Beyond God, which is a commentary on Nishida's philosophy.


text:
What does the Pali canon say about "death"?
I'm just clinging to this notion that the small death (of prthagjanas) is never reversible, and never incomplete.
Leaving aside the notion of "karma" and "rebirth" and "continuity", what does the Pali canon say about "death"?

“Paticca Samuppada” is a discourse on the process of birth and death. As per the scriptures, a being is a stream of Mind connected ‘ Nama-Rupa’. When a person dies, no soul departs. The stream of consciousness ( viññana) upon death, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new set of five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas)  elsewhere.  In the Attakara sutta, you will find that you do exist. But there is no permanent self in you and the five clinging aggregates (panca upadanakkanda) which constitutes you is beyond your control, and therefore Anatta (non-self). (read  Anatta Lakkana Sutta).
The understanding of death &  impermanence is an antidote to desire and ill-will, is an encouragement to our practice of Dhamma, and is a key to understanding the ultimate nature of things, the way things really are.
Remembering death especially is said to be like a friend and a teacher to one, as it acts as a discouragement to excessive desire and ill-will. While death itself is certain, the time of death is uncertain. We can die at any moment. Life is like a candle in the wind, or a bubble of water. At any moment it may be snuffed out. At any moment it may burst. Thus, we ought to practice the Dhamma quickly so that we may not waste this opportunity and this precious human life.
The Buddha once gave a discourse on the impermanence of life at the village named ‘Alavi’. He admonished, 'Practice meditation on death. Reflect mindfully: Uncertain is my life, certain is my death, certainly one day I have to face death.'
The Buddha also exhorted his listeners to be always mindful and to strive to perceive the true nature of life. He also said, 'As one who is armed with a stick or spear is prepared to meet an enemy and some other poisonous and dangerous animals, so also, one who is ever mindful of death should face death mindfully. He will then leave this world for a good destination. – “Blind is this world. Few are those who clearly see. As few birds escape from a net, few go to a blissful state.” '
In many a suttas it is shown that beings in the un-ending Samsara (cycle of birth-and-death) are bound to eye as ‘me’ (considering eye as ‘me’). In a similar manner, beings are bound to ear as ‘me’, nose as ‘me’, tongue as ‘me’, body as ‘me’, and mind as ‘me’.
As long as they are bound to all these faculties, they are actually bound to Māra. In order for one to free from this bond of Māra, one needs to investigate the notion of ‘me’ about each faculty (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) separately.
We should see that there is nothing permanent in rūpa (figure), vēdanā (feeling), saññā (perception), sanskāra (intention; volitional effort), and Viññāna (consciousness). But, we are bound to these five groups of clinging because of the thought of ‘me’. That binding results in a birth. That binding results in our death. That binding results in getting another life (birth) after our deaths.

Death is about leaving a physical body, and continued to the another process of transformation according to your doings by the whole lives as you lived in after you existed in this repeating worlds.
This phenomenon takes 2 things to another transformation
1 - Your doings on good or bad (fate)
2 - sticky or holdings of your mind (such as hobby,habitat,interests,achievements)
(1) is cleared.
(2) to explain briefly, eg. everybody can speak native speaking without trying hard, this is a stack from your last lives. And you will have a skillful on something without trying hard or even not trying as the other are affording on it. Like feeling you auto understanding on it, you will see 2nd step of facts while learning on 1st step on something.
Why, because you already achieved and learned on those things. Much achievements can bring more powerful of mind success on it.
Death brings 2 of those things to your new life.
But according to Pali Pidagat, it cannot be assumed as bringing them to new life. There is no bringing in buddhism nature, all factors are appearing as new.
Like a flame on a candle, water from the stream , the flame now burning on you watching is not the same as 3 sec ago flame. and the water too, not the same as you touch on second time.
Like that, there will also be a change ,if how much you can take from the last lives. Eg, how much you are proficient at education on before this life, if you are not trying in this life, you will fail.
Buddha theories are very complicated and never get perfect on it.
There is numerous factors that can cause dynamic fate on death. But I think it should enough about death.
Thank you. My answer will not contain details about death, dying.

Can you reference specific bits of the Pali canon? I think that's what the question is asking for.


text:
Mendicants in the 21st century
Is a life of begging and poverty well suited to the modern world (21st century capitalism)? Not just the will to give it up, but to not suffer for it.
Aren't Buddhist monks traditionally mendicants?

What does "well suited to" mean? Are you asking whether and how monks' lives are in fact sustained? And what is "21st century capitalism"? If an answer explained how it works in (for example) modern-day Sri Lanka, or France, would that be answering what you're asking about?

@ChrisW that would go some way to answering the question. Or a discussion on what the Buddha said about alms. Or (especially) what if any differences there are betwene his advice then, and the ideal now

A bhikkhu is literally 'one who lives by alms'. However, it is not the same as a beggar because the laity that provide the alms get something in return - access to the wisdom and insight of the bhikkhu. Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta gives the Buddha's words to a confrontational Brahmin who refuses to give alms to the Buddha because he does not believe the Buddha 'works for it'.
The conditions for surviving on such alms depends on a laity that is interested in learning about the Dhamma (and hence supporting those that strive to gain direct knowledge of it). Really, the world is much more interconnected, there are far more people, and finding some who would be interested in your message would not be that tough imo! Finding a quiet and secluded spot would be more difficult imo! Here's a story I found: https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/alms-round-in-america/ I guess if the cultural knowledge is not there, it is a matter of educating your laity and getting them into the practice!

It isn't entirely a work-for-hire quid pro quo though, is it ... I think that alms-giving and Dharma talks are separate/distinct transactions, because Dharma isn't sold. Maybe that's reflected in the sutta you referenced, "What I receive by reciting verses, O brahman, I should not eat". I think it's true though that part of what motivates a monk is to be worthy of alms: for example, maybe, clean hands.

That's a good point, just spotted it too! Maybe saying the exchange is done in charitable good-faith rather than as some sort of contractual obligation of alms-for-insight is better!

Aren't Buddhist monks traditionally mendicants?
Yes I think that's clear from stories told in the suttas, as well as in the Vinaya.
what if any differences there are between his advice then, and the ideal now
I think that tradition is still followed by Theravada monks (and laity), with results including like this.
Or this: The Food of Kindness

My heart grew bright with compassion. I knew that I was standing there to let my bowl be filled again and again by those who love Truth. Hungry or not, I had every right to receive what they freely gave. I was not abusing that beauty because it was not for me that they filled the bowl.

A corollary is that these monastics can't abide where the lay community won't support them.
I think that a lay community will sometimes invite a monk to come and establish themselves in a place.
Also, over the centuries some non-Theravada schools of Buddhism have, by necessity, abandoned alms-going as a means of support. I suppose that's how stories like No Work No Food come to be.

This answer might sound idyllic. Sometimes it's a difficult life, for example you might find Laughter Through the Tears: Kosho Uchiyama Roshi on Life as a Zen Beggar is worth reading.
Conversely there's also a monograph called The Broken Buddha which suggests that, sometimes, monks and monasteries are given what could be seen as an over-abundance.

Traditionally monks are allowed to receive the "four requisites", for example food, but not money. That remains true in some schools; but not true in others (hence a story like, Tetsugen and the Sutras).
A monastery might have lay people, who help administer  money associated with a modern monastery (to pay for electricity for example).

I also recommend this paper (it's on-topic to your question): Growth and Development of Buddhist Organizations: An Organic Process of Cooperation. It's written by a Theravada monk, from Sri Lanka, who established a society and monastery in the United States. It details ways in which customs/expectation of lay society were (in around 1985) different in the States than in Malaysia or Sri Lanka, and some experience with asking or not asking for money.

You may wonder how the Theravada monks can do all these things, because we believe in strictly following the Vinaya. We did these things only to get the temple started, and the rules we broke were only the rules that do not hurt anybody, such as not handling money and not to drive a car. Actually, there was never any rule against driving a car, of course; the Buddha told the monks not to ride animals or be pulled in a cart by animals, out of compassion, because they are living beings. With the modern car, you are the only animal.
Some of the rules are just tools of etiquette. So among these minor rules, it may be acceptable. These must not be rules which concern our main principles of non-harm, non-greed, and non-hatred.

Aren't Buddhist monks traditionally mendicants?
Yes, it was so in the past. It is so in the Theravada Tradition in the present, and it will be so in the future as long as the true dhamma is alive. The scriptures itself describe that way of life as:

”A monk is content with his robes to protect his body and alms food to sustain his life; whenever he goes out he sets out taking only his requisites along with him. Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden; in the same way a bhikkhu is content with robes to protect his body and alms food to satisfy his belly.”

In the recent past when Ajahn Sumedho asked Ajahn Chah’s permission and blessings to establish a ‘Vihara’ in London, England, UK., he emphasized that the bhikkhus should go out into the streets on a daily alms-round – to keep the bhikkhus tuned in to the principle of alms-mendicancy. (What no one expected was that this would result in the sangha being offered a sizeable tract of woodland in West Success – as a result of a chance encounter with a jogger crossing Hampstead Heath in 1978).
Is there any difference in principle between then and now?
It is not so for the true disciples of the Supreme Buddha who walk this Noble Path. For them it is a form of giving for those fortunate few laypeople who will get this rare opportunity to give alms to the Sangha. The scriptures (The Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta) state that alms given to recluses who follow the Noble Eightfold Path yield great results just as seeds sown on fertile, well-prepared, well-watered fields produce abundant crops. The sutta gives a list of persons to whom alms can be offered and the merit accruing therefrom in ascending order.

A thing given to an animal brings a reward a hundredfold. A gift given to an ordinary person of poor moral habit yields a reward a thousandfold; a gift given to a virtuous person yields a reward a hundred thousandfold. When a gift is given to a person outside the dispensation of Buddhism who is without attachment to sense pleasures, the yield is a hundred thousandfold of crores.

When alms food is given to one on the path to stream-entry the yield is incalculable and immeasurable. So what can be said of a gift given to a stream-enterer, a once-returner, or a non-returner?


text:
If matter is just an illusion what is the source of it
If whatever we see and feel in the 3-D world is just an illusion created by our minds and every matter, even an atom, is related to each other (interrelated); what is the origin of it? Since consciousness or self or "I" is also just a thought, how is matter created by the consciousness? How does the mind create it? Whenever I think of these things, I remember the mythological god, Zeus, who can create anything he wishes just by thinking about it? It feels like this is actually possible. So what could be the possible logic behind this complex knowledge?

Buddha was against this kind of intellectual discussion about consciousness, rebirth, God etc. He asked people to witness it directly through his teachings. Consciousness cannot be discerned through words. Whether consciousness has created matter or these are two different things is a matter of experience of a Buddha. I suggest you take experiential route than intellectual one. Your existence in metaphysical or physical domain will be revealed to you through his teachings.

ok, seems like their is no other choice than to do meditate again, to understand this. but i think it would be good if some one would have wrote some book about this kind of things, because it would remove peoples ignorance and material desire/craving as a result world would be more peaceful. cas people dont like to do meditation generally. but if they would have understood its meaning though their intellectual level, how selfishness and cravings results in destruction, atleast by reading some books, than it would be good.

The world itself was not an illusion to the Buddha. Rather, given the true nature of experience - Anatta and Anicca, the actions of 'I' making or 'Mine' making facilitate the illusion of a Self, hence the arising of Dukkha. The issue of origin for any thing that lacks a Self, like this existence, is that the beginning doesn't make sense. At best the beginning can't be determined.

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. When you see someone who has fallen on hard times, overwhelmed with hard times, you should conclude: 'We, too, have experienced just this sort of thing in the course of that long, long time.'
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
-- Duggatta Sutta

Name and Form arise in dependence of Consciousness and Consciousness arises in dependence of Name and Form. https://suttacentral.net/en/dn15. No 'thing' such as matter is created to be independent. It's like the conservation laws within Physics - 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms'.
All is possible within conditionality because there is no underlying, essential demarcation line that delineates 'the impossible' from 'the possible'.

If matter is just illusion

I don't think that is Buddhist doctrine. I think that Buddhist doctrine is that we tend to view matter inappropriately or with ignorance.

what is the origin of it

I'm not sure it has an origin. That might be considered an unanswered question. Several suttas (e.g. this one) mention "inconstruable beginning", saying "A beginning point is not evident".

how is the matter being created by the conciousness

I'm not sure that matter is created by consciousness.
But "perception" (of matter) is created when consciousness, matter, and sense-organ come into contact (see e.g. here).

well than why did buddha said "thought/mind is everything, thought/mind creates everything".

You may be thinking of the first and second verses of the Dhammapada, which start with: "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart." -- when it's used in that context, people translate dhamma as (specifically) "mental states" or "mental phenomena" rather than as (generally) "everything" or "matter".

There's also a (later) "mind-only" or "consciousness-only" school of Buddhism (see Yogachara on Wikipedia); but Wikipedia says that "explains how our human experience is constructed by the mind" (which I think isn't the same as saying that "matter" or "everything" is constructed by the mind) ... or see also this answer which advocates, "treating all Buddhist doctrines as though they are addressing the topic of what we experience rather than what exists".

Saying "everything is just an illusion created by mind" might be a form of "wrong view", e.g. on this page the following is quoted as an example of 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".

To explain it will take long long paragraph, but still not really explaining anything. To give some orientations relating to your question, first, you said "matter", what is matter? A duck, we say there is a duck (matter), it's shaped a duck-shape, yellow or green in colour, it quacks, it smells, it has soft downs, roasted duck tastes different from chicken. These are all related to our sensory organs: eyes to see (shape & colour), ears to hear (quacks), nose to smell (duck-smell), body to feel (soft downs), tongue to taste (roasted duck); and our mind to recognize all these, without these attributes, does this duck exist? Not sure, we can't say. 'Ok, but there must be something exists for I response to this to form this idea "duck"'. Then, must be the duck if it does exist existing in an absolute form you perceived? Again, we can't be sure. For instance, a colour-blind will see differently from you, at least the duck is not a green duck; further, an animal such as bat who uses sound to see, he will see a different duck, not to mention that Mr. Bat probably doesn't like the taste of roasted duck :)... so on and so forth. Now who has ever seen the "real" duck? We can't determine.
Now you say "for matter what I mean is atom", when saying atom we are still using all these attributes to describe: electrons circulating the nucleus (implied it has a form, no matter however tiny); Ok you say "I mean light", forget the scientist said light sometimes behaved like particle, it's wave, it has/hasn't substance. Well still there is space for this light to "wave", right? In your mind you still have to assume space. Now, are you sure there is space out there? The space assumed existed because you perceived objects - the empty part is space, if you cannot be definite if object exists and existed in exact you perceived them, then the space you perceived is just the negative of the object you perceived, not an absolute. For instance, we can't see air, the space we perceived are in fact not empty, it's filled with air particles, so on and so forth. Einstein said the space is "ether" (Einstein was not definite about this claim), both space and ether, if we have to look at if it existed, we have to use the attributes of our sensory categories and intellect (mind)... thus in however dissecting the "matter", we can't escape to perceive it within our the six categories or their extensions: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind.
Now not based on our six categories and extensions we can't describe any "matter", further, if the colour-blind, bat and me could be seeing the same duck differently, the only possibility is that all of us are seeing and responding to the illusion of our own construct... that's how illusions can "form" a world. When we say "the world" we are only able to refer to the world in our mind, with thousands minds there are literally thousands "worlds", all are illusions but real to the individual mind.
It will be very complex impossible to at one step to explain all, but you asked a good question. As a student of the Dharma of Buddha with some Sutras I read, I come to realize a bit more. Currently reading Nagarjuna's 《中論》 - absolutely a sheer mind addict, I was laughing with myself like idiot, Nagarjuna has a very cool (cute :) character reflected in his employing of words and manner. I can only say, if you are interested to find the answer, you better study the Sutras. As far as I reckon, those Sutras that answer this kind of questions are mainly in Classic Chinese, not translated. If they do have translations, most of them are not satisfactory. For a translator to be able to produce accurate translation, one must first need to understand the content, not to mention if one is an adept of both languages to correctly communicate the content.
Once you understand, and in realizing the truth how all these are actually working - scientists are going at the opposite direction, then you can also be like Zeus, create anything you wish. When one is truly enlightened, he can also master the illusion; for realizing Buddha-hood, he is able to create - the Pureland of Utmost Happiness is created purely by Amitabha's thinking. Unlike Zeus or Brahma, he began just like us, a normal human being. Further, he spent kalpas of eons to know about the most beautiful and "acquire" the beauty of beauty to create his pureland. Thus it's praised much by Buddha Shakyamuni, encouraging us to try getting a "visa" ;). Nagarjuna left planet Earth (Samsara) for there, it's not sure whether he is a citizen of Utmost Happiness just traveled here for assignment, or whether he has new assignment not staying at Utmost currently. : /
~~~~~
To not be confused is that when I say '"Amitabha's thinking" created the pureland', it's not the same as those understanding Brahma or Zeus creates by thinking. In here Amitabha is more like a great artist who does a splendid painting, and the raw material (matter) is - if you insist there must be "matter" there, conventionally called Emptiness - for it's not a "matter" as our human mind can discern, but it has attributes that we can see in phenomenal world, such as the 4 Greats: earth, water, fire, wind. To make you even getting more at this "creation and matter" contemplation, that this world is created by us too - a collective thinking result, in brief. 'If so why can't I now create an ice-cream by thinking?' Because you don't know how these are in working we can't master the result; further, because of ignorance this ability can't be fully realized, thus we create it blindly, like an unskilled artist doing a very unsatisfactory painting. Now you may see a bit more into how illusion can exist as real, how we are treating like it really does matter there is "matter", on Emptiness. Last, Emptiness is emptiness, so it doesn't need any/anyone-to-do-the creation. :D ~~

Buddhism does not state the external world of forms, such as the earth, is an illusion created by mind. For example:

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
SN 12.61

Instead, what is an illusion is the mind & particularly the perceptions & thought constructions of the mind.

Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, &
  appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, &
  appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without
  substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same
  way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception
  that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or
  subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing
  it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void,
  without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
SN 22.95

Matter is not created by consciousness. Instead, consciousness is created from matter.

Mind-and-matter (nama-and-rupa) is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.
SN 22.82

It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.'
Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in
  dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as
  eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear
  & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that
  arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as
  nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.
  Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile
  sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified
  simply as intellect-consciousness.
MN 38

If matter is just an illusion what is the source of it

The source cannot be found. One has to become a fully enlightened Buddha to be able to gain knowledge about its origin.
Physical matter is not an illusion but rather like an illusion as it is empty of solidity, permanence.
It exists in context of our experience.
In reality what is percieved as matter is really just the sensitive quality of the eye connecting with its corresponding object, i.e. light, visible forms, which allows eye-consciousness to arise. It's just an impersonal process.
This in turn gives rise to a mind-door process, a reflective process of what has been just been seen. The process can be stopped before the mind-door process begins, by guarding the sense doors, i.e. by noting the seeing, thereby keeping the mind in the present moment, free from judgements, extrapolations, liking, disliking of the object.
The very idea that we live in a 3-dimensional world is just an extrapolation, an interpretation, a mental formation belonging to the 4th aggregate of mental formations - these too are subject to the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability that defines all conditioned phenomena.
What exists is experience. Right now I can see the computer I'm using to write this post. There is definitely a seeing going on. But there is no seer. The idea of a "seer or an I" is just a mental formation.

How do mind creates it?

Its a complex process but it is visible and verifiable through the practice of insight meditation. By observing the mind with objectivity one can see how it works. When non-interference is present the mind will reveal its mechanics to the observer.
The problem arises when one is not mindful of a sense object impinching on the sense doors, e.g. the "idea of a 3-dimensional world".
When one is not mindful of a sense object the mind will only for a brief moment apprehend the true nature of the object whereafter it begins a cognitive process of mental fabrication in order to try to grasp the object. The mind will take the "raw material" of the object and thereafter bring forth subjective concepts and ideas about the object.
The mind then weaves together all these different concepts into more complex structures. These are embellishments fabricated by the mind and does not belong to the object. They are added to it.
It's the mind superimposing qualities onto the object. This process of fabrication is fueled by the underlying latent defilements. The end result is an object which is now covered with a thick layer of mind-generated ideas and qualities. The original object is now hidden in a dense layer of subjective extrapolations that hides its true nature.
As mentioned earlier this subjective process can be avoided by guarding the sense-doors. The key is practice instead of intellectualization.
The Buddha was often asked questions such as whether or not the world was finite or infinite. When asked such questions he always brought the questioner back to practice.

Certain subjects are declared to be imponderable by the Buddha:
1) range of powers of a Buddha
2) range of powers obtained while absorbed in jhana
3) precise working out of the results of karma
4) speculation about the origin (the first moment, purpose, etc.) of the cosmos
The -origin of matter- question seems like it probably is the fourth imponderable.*
WHY TEACHERS WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS
Beginning meditators start with simple concepts but too often we want to leap ahead and open the Christmas presents before Christmas, so to speak.
Wrong view in the path is like when the meditator believes they already understand "Sila" and "Dana"  and what seems most useful , to this certain student, is to learn the juicy bits... the exotic stuff, like anatta and Dependant Origination. This is a wrong view festival.
The reason why teachers don't explain certain advanced concepts is because most likely an intellectual understanding leaves too much room for interpretation so that there is too much danger that the student will develop  wrong view.
Your mindful experience is what will teach you. If you are a practicioner, it's best to get a good teacher that can really give you the right information at the right time that you need it.

THE FOUR IMPONDERABLES:

http://buddhist-spirituality.com/suffering-end/the-eightfold-path/right-thought/four-imponderables

In the Buddha Dhamma, the human being is an impersonal combination of ever-changing mind and matter. In the flux is found no unchanging soul or eternal principle. The self or soul is then a piece of fiction invented by the human mind. To believe in such an absurdity is to create another source of unhappiness. One should therefore see oneself as one truly is — a conflux of mind and matter energized by tanha or craving, containing immense possibilities for both good and evil, neither overestimating nor underestimating one's capacities and capabilities.
Aggregate of Matter or Form (Rupa) corresponds with material or physical factors. It includes not only our own bodies, but also the material objects that surround us – the earth, the oceans, the trees, the buildings, and so forth.
Specifically, the aggregate of form includes the five physical sense organs and the corresponding physical objects of the sense organs. These are the eyes and visible objects, the ears and sound, the nose and smell, the tongue and taste, and the skin and tangible objects. Mindfulness, which puts full attention on the movements and the characteristics of the body, can eventually see with clarity that the body is nothing but a conglomeration of parts. Mindfulness of this will help one to lose some of one’s attachment and ego illusion about the body.
To get to know “Nama-Rupa”, and the ‘fiver skandhas”  the following dialogues between King Milinda and Arahant Nagasena is helpful.
Venerable Sir, what is ‘rupa’ and what is ‘nama’? Why do they generate together?

Dear king, ‘Namarupa’  means mentality & materiality.   Mentality (mind & thoughts) is ‘nama’. Materiality (the four great elements ‘Patavi’, ‘Apo’, ‘Thejo’, ‘Vayo’ which are transitory and the material form derived from them) is ‘Rupa’. ‘Nama’ and ‘rupa’ are linked together like flowers and their scent. They are born together. This phenomenon has been there for a long time.

Venerable Sir, what does conceive as the birth?

Dear King, ‘Namarupa’  (psychological elements of the human person & physical body / Mentality & materiality) conceive as the birth. The body & mind we have at present would never be reborn. Because of the results of good and bad deeds (Karma Vipaka) which we have done using our mind and body, another ‘Namarupa’  (psychological elements of the human person & physical body) is conceived.

Venerable Sir, is it the materiality or form (Rupa) which is Nagasena? Is it the feeling or sense (Vedana) (pleasure, pain or the absence of the either) which is Nagasena? Is it cognitive perception (Sanna) ( awareness of colour, shape, sound, smell, taste & touch) which is Nagasena? Is it volition or mental formation (Sankhara) (habitual actions like greed, hatred, generosity, kindness…etc) which is Nagasena? Is it consciousness (Vinnana) (all the mental faculties pertaining to perception & experience) which is Nagasena?

None dear king.

Venerable Sir, Then is it the five aggregates (Rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara,  vinnana) which is Nagasena?

No dear king.

Then, who is Nagasena?

Dear King, you came here by a chariot. Do you call the compartment the chariot? Or, do you call the roof the chariot? Is the cart wheel or the beam the chariot ? Is the axle the chariot ? Is the bridle the chariot ?

No Venerable Sir.

Dear king, when the compartment, the roof, cart wheels, the beam, the axle and the bridle is combined, it is called the chariot. If it is dismantled and heaped, nobody would call it a chariot.
Similarly, when my hair, teeth, nail, skin, flesh & bones are together, it is called Nagasena. When the five aggregates are together, it is called Nagasena. But, in reality, there is no such person.
Our Great Buddha said thus to Bhikkuni Vajira : “In the manner, that a chariot is called a chariot when the cart wheels, compartment, axle, beam, etc. are combined; a being is called thus when the five aggregates (the Five Skandhas)are merged. ”

King Milinda was very happy about the explanation and thanked Venerable Nagasena.


text:
what is logic behind rebirth
I was listening to this video, from Bhante Vimalaramsi. He says that one meditator experienced his past live and he had some pscotherapy before this. How is that possible?
Buddhist talk about mind stream which flows to another body when a body dies, well what is this mind stream? This is the conciousness right? Is that some kind of emf waves or similar to wave which science hasn't descovered yet?

Might this be a duplicate of one of the 150 other existing question tagged [tag:rebirth]? And, could you please say where (when) in the video contains the quote you're asking about? Also is "mind stream which flows to another body" in the video, or is that from a different source?

well mind stream name is from another source but the rebirth is at that video i'll put the time of that after i find that.

You won't find one single answer which covers all traditions. Different Buddhist traditions have different interpretations of the mechanism of rebirth.
I think you are looking for something material which facilitates a movement of something from one life to the next. However, Buddhism doesn't require that the world governed by materialism. We can consider a world which is entirely driven by mental ideas or "the mind" as we call it.
Buddhists are not in agreement about how the world exists, some would say that the world doesn't exist. If you consider one of these traditions then you have to ask if it even makes sense for something to move from one body to the next life's body. Bodies can also be considered as being entirely constructed by the mind. Yogachara is an example of a Buddhist tradition which is "mind-only".

As per my understanding of Buddhism & Science all things that exist in the universe is made up of matter & energy. The energy that is found in any animal is generally referred to as the soul. The body we carry is made up of matter.
According to the teachings of lord Buddha which is what now discovered by scientists as quantum mechanics is, that every thought & action we do releases a positive or negative energy to the universe. It then creates a set of possible futures that can happen. This will be following us till we reach enlightment.
The process that happens to us at death is similar to what happens when we change clothes. The body we possess is similar to a cloth.  As soon as we (the soul) leaves this body, it'll get hold of another body. This body that we get hold of is determined by the possitive & negative forces that we have released to the universe in our previous life.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. A soul or an enduring entity it not a part of the Buddhas teaching. What exactly do you mean mentionen the word Soul on in a buddhist context?

I used the word soul only for the ease of answering the question. On the contex of the present or absense of the soul Lord Buddha has chanted that it neither exist nor not exist. Anyway Lord Buddha has chanted that there is a winyana that transfers from one body to another until we attain nibbana.

It is Kamma, rooted in ignorance and craving, that conditions rebirth. This life-stream flows ad infinitum, as long as it is fed by the muddy waters of ignorance and craving. When these two are completely cut off, then only, if one so wishes, does the stream cease to flow, rebirth ends as in the case of the Buddhas and Arahats. The most valuable evidence Buddhists cite in favor of rebirth is the Buddha, for He developed a knowledge which enabled Him to read past and future lives.
The Right View on Rebirth is explained in the famous Buddhist book “Milindaparsna” which contains a long dialogue between the Greek king Minander I and Arhat Nagasena.

Miln III.5.5: Transmigration and Rebirth (Miln 71)
  The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn?"
  "Yes, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
  "How, venerable Nagasena, is it that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy."
  "Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the other lamp?"
  "Certainly not, venerable sir."
  "Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."

As per the scriptures, a being is a stream of Mind connected ‘ Nama-Rupa’. When a person dies, no soul departs. The stream of consciousness ( viññana) upon death, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new set of five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas)  elsewhere.  In the Attakara sutta, you will find that you do exist. But there is no permanent self in you and the five clinging aggregates (panca upadanakkanda) which constitutes you is beyond your control, and therefore Anatta (non-self). (read  Anatta Lakkana Sutta).
A Stream Entrant is incapable of actions of craving and hatred that will definitively lead to rebirth in the four states of misery (Hell, Asura, Hungry Ghost and Animal realms), but the remaining gross craving and hatred is only eradicated when one becomes a Once-Returner; subtle craving and hatred are eliminated for the Non-Returner.


text:
Before Buddhism, was there a way to escape from samsara?
Before the Buddha introduced nirvana and enlightenment, was there any way to escape from the cycle of birth and death? What is written in Buddhist texts?

There were infinite Buddhas before present Buddha (Gautama Buddha)..

Some Buddhist texts say that there were previous Buddhas (and that there will be others in the distant future): that they too taught Buddhism; and that the current Buddha rediscovered Buddhism.
For example, in the commentary to Dhammapada verse 183:

On one occasion, Thera Ananda asked the Buddha whether the Fundamental Instructions to bhikkhus given by the preceding Buddhas were the same as those of the Buddha himself. To him the Buddha replied that the instructions given by all the Buddhas are as given in the following verses:
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.
The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

There are even some suttas, such as SN 12.65 which implies that Nirvana and the path the Nirvana was "inhabited in ancient times" and rediscovered by the Buddha.

In the Nagara Sutta, the delightful ancient fortress city [§20.2] clearly refers to nirvana, and the city is
  populated by saints (called “seers,” rsi, in the Sanskrit Nagara Sutra, §5.28). Both the Pali and Sanskrit
  versions of the Sutta speak of ancient people using the path.

Texts also say that a few people (called "private Buddhas") discover Nirvana for themselves, but (unlike a true Buddha) aren't able or aren't willing to teach other people.

Because the Buddha discovered reality as it actually is,  rather than coming up with a personalised conception of what it is, the Dhamma is open and discoverable to all, whether there is a Buddha to light the path or not.
Specifically within Buddhism there is a concept of Pratyekabuddha-hood, which are beings who discover the Dhamma without a teacher -  without a living Buddha or his message being available. They do not teach though.
The Buddha was not the inventor of the Dhamma within Buddhism, he was 'only' an expounder of the Truths and the Eightfold Path. Before him there were past Buddhas within the Tripitaka, and a future one too (Maitreya).
Effectively the path is always discoverable and Nibbana achievable, to any individual willing to search.

Google 'nonduality' and find many modern people who have and are finding out the truths (mostly) for themselves, without Buddhism (although it helps).

According to Theravada tradition, Buddhas come and go over countless eons. Only in the times when their teaching is alive and true will we get a chance of escaping from this endless samsara. Every once in a great while, after a long period of spiritual darkness blankets the world, an individual is eventually born who, through his own efforts, rediscovers the long-forgotten path to Awakening and liberates himself once and for all from the long round of rebirth, thereby becoming an arahant ("worthy one," one who has fully realized Awakening).
In Digha Nikáya Sutta 14,  Mahapadana Sutta (The Great Discourse on the Lineage)) & DN 32 The Ātaānātiiya Discourse, the Supreme Buddha stated that six Supreme Buddhas appeared over 91 world-cycles.  The seven Buddhas, including "our" Supreme Buddha, mentioned in DN 14 & DN 32: Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama. They were all born in this earth, in the land of the Rose Apple (Jambudipa), in north-central India in the area known then as the Middle Land (Majjhima Desa).
If such a being lacks the requisite development of a Supreme Buddha, he is unable to articulate his discovery to others and is known as a "Silent" or "Private" Buddha (paccekabuddha). These silent Buddhas come to pass a few hundred years prior to a birth of a Supreme Buddha. These Silent Buddhas too are born only in the land of the Rose Apple (Jambudipa), in north-central India in the area known then as the Middle Land (Majjhima Desa). This is a Dharmatha - a set of natural laws.
Only at a time when the Dhamma of a Supreme Buddha is alive in the world will arahants walk this earth because they require a Buddha to show them the way to Awakening. (All Buddhas and paccekabuddhas are arahants) No matter how far and wide the sasana spreads, sooner or later it succumbs to the inexorable law of anicca (impermanence), and fades from memory. The world descends again into darkness, and the eons-long cycle repeats. The most recent Buddha was born Siddhattha Gotama in India in the sixth century BCE. He is the one we usually mean when we refer to "The Buddha."
The next Buddha due to appear is said to be Maitreya (Metteyya), a bodhisatta currently residing in the Tusita heavens. Legend has it that at some time in the far distant future, once the teachings of the current Buddha have long been forgotten, he will be reborn as a human being, rediscover the Four Noble Truths, and teach the Noble Eightfold Path once again. His name is mentioned only once in the entire Tipitaka, in the Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta (DN 26; The Lion's Roar on the Turning of the Wheel):

[The Buddha:] And in that time of the people with an eighty-thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed Lord, an arahant fully enlightened Buddha named Metteyya, endowed with wisdom and conduct, a Well-farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed, just as I am now.

According to Buddhism, there was no way to escape from samsara (the cycle of ignorance, craving & ego-becoming) before the Buddha.
What is called 'Hinduism' arose after Buddhism. Before Buddhism, the main religion was called 'Brahmanism', which focused on 'Brahma' (god) & the Brahmin caste. There appears to be no evidence Brahmanism found a way to be free from 'samsara'.
If Brahmanism actually knew of a way to be free from samsara, the word 'Buddha' is a lie & false, since the Buddha declared his discovery was something completely brand new, i.e., "never heard before".

This noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering has been developed’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before,
  there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and
  light.
SN 56.11 The First Sermon

I don't know why, dharmafarer (footnote 185 on page 57) has, "“Things unheard before,” ananussutesu dhammesu. Apparently, this statement on “things unheard before” refers to the fact that the liberating Dharma has been forgotten in India up to the Buddha’s time."

Yes. Which means the Brahmans of the Buddha's time did not have a liberating dhamma. As for past Buddhas, I personally do not believe there were any. The idea of past Buddhas is found in the DN and other literal reincarnation suttas such as MN 81, MN 50, etc. Personally, I doubt these suttas were ever spoken by the Buddha but were composed as propaganda, since Indians like to compete for whose religion is the oldest. Regardless, the idea of past Buddhas still asserts Nibbana was only discovered by Buddhas, as stated in SN 12.65. Regards

this is totally wrong

@DoubtfulMonk That's not a constructive comment/criticism. Would you like to say what's wrong with, include a reference which explains what you're saying, and/or post a different answer of your own?

@ChrisW the answer should be commented by itself : what about Saivism? I think references should be in history , better to study before commenting by dogmatism only.