text:
What puts out the mind
Suppose we call "extinction" (by which I mean nirvana or final nirvana) whatever puts out the wandering mind / mental states.
What reasons are there for supposing it does so after the mind wanders, not before or during?
I suppose (as no sort of authority) saying it does so inside the mind is eternalism, or before - annihilationism. But I'm interested in the question not as a facet of Buddhist doctrine: but the question of whether we "die" in the sense the atheist attaches to death.

Your first question (first two paragraphs) read as, "What reasons are there for supposing that extinction puts out the wandering mind after the mind?". That's repeated in the second-last paragraph, "If the mind goes out after the mind". That's not easy to understand, are there any extra/missing words implied, like "after the mind what?"

Can you clarify?  Death happens moment by moment, mind by mind arising and ceasing...

i tried to clarify a little... i was only suggesting that when something stops after it has stopped moving then that movement isn't all there is to the thing. obviously that's not a rigorous explanation of there being something other than temporary phenomenal states, but yeah i dunno

When one is dealing with Nibbana, one is dealing with ultimate reality. Asking questions with words such as "we" implies that there is a person or being that dies, meaning one is dealing with conventional reality. Nibbana is unconditioned and an ultimate reality, which is why the question makes no sense to ask. At least not in this framework.

i think the question makes sense if it can be assumed that "we" can be reduced to a different framework, i'm not saying it's a question that conducive to ending suffering, i'm specifically asking on the nature of atheist death

Suppose we call "extinction" (by which I mean nirvana or final nirvana) whatever puts out the wandering mind / mental states.
I think the first paragraph, "extinction or nirvana is whatever puts out the mind", suggests that nirvana has been reified and is seen as an agent which acts to put out the mind.
FWIW I don't know that it's that: I see it as a description of a state (perhaps a state of mind), not an agent: it's the state-of-being-extinguished (or of having-been-extinguished), not the agent-which-does-the-extinguishing. It's like the difference between Enlightenment (which is a noun) and enlightened (which is an adjective).
Also the word "extinguish" comes I think from the analogy of a flame: if you look at it, a flame appears to cling to what it's burning ... if it's burning a match or a log, the flame kind of clings to and dances around the wood.
I think that the "nirvana is an extinguishing" analogy comes from saying, "what would happen to a flame if it stopped clinging to its fuel source?"
So if you're asking "what puts out the mind" then that's like asking "how do you attain nirvana or become enlightened", and I think that the answer to that is "Buddhist practice" e.g. the Noble Eightfold Path (or something else though maybe perhaps similar in later versions of Buddhism).

you might like to add extinction of greed, hate and delusion, which are the fuel. :)
In case it would help you to know, there's some debate about "what is the fuel?" in the analogy.
Wikipedia's Nirvana with and without remainder of fuel references Gombridge. On page 66 of Gombridge's How Buddhism Began (in a chapter titled "Metaphor, allegory, satire") he claims that:

He showed in an earlier paper of his that the "three fires" was a reference to the (literally) three fires which a brahmin householder was expected to keep alight.
Later generations of Buddhists weren't interested in debates with Vedic brahmans and forgot the origin of the metaphor.
In later (e.g. Mahayana) times the "three fires" became associated with the "three poisons".

You can maybe kind of see that:

Wikipedia's Three fires (Buddhism) link redirects to the three poisons
The comments/conversation underneath this answer suggest that the "three poisons" are more central in a later version of Buddhism than an earlier version.

In contrast, the following suggest that it's the khandhas which are the fuel:

In Five Piles of Bricks – The Khandhas as Burden & Path
Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes,

The Buddha introduced the concept of the khandhas in his first sermon in response to the first of these questions. His short definition of suffering was "the five clinging-khandhas." This fairly cryptic phrase can be fleshed out by drawing on other passages in the canon.
The five khandhas are bundles or piles of form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. None of the texts explain why the Buddha used the word khandha to describe these things. The meaning of "tree trunk" may be relevant to the pervasive fire imagery in the canon — nibbana being extinguishing of the fires of passion, aversion, and delusion — but none of the texts explicitly make this connection.

In The Fire Sermon the Buddha asks, "What is burning?" and answers, that sense organs (e.g. eye), form, sense-contact, sense-consciousness, etc., are burning with the fires of lust and hate and delusion.

So apparently the three poisons are the three fires, but the khandhas (to which these fires cling) are the fuel.

is nirvana categorically not an agent?
Well, who knows, right? That's how I categorized it. If other people think I'm wrong then hopefully they won't let me mislead you, and will instead downvote this answer, or post a comment or post an alternative answer (currently it appears that two people agreed with it). Some people didn't understand your question though, which might be why it doesn't have more answers.
FWIW I think that maybe later schools of Buddhism might 'reify' more:

Later schools might (I don't know) see "Buddha-nature" as an agent.
Buried in Wikipedia's Buddha-nature article is the following quote,

The Lankavatara-sutra contains tathagata-garba thought, but also warns against reification of the idea of Buddha-nature, and presents it as an aid to attaining awakening:

Is not this Tathagata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers? The ego as taught by the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable.
The Blessed One replied: [...] it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas [...] teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garba is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness

Would you say that "egolessness, non-discrimination and imagelessness" can be "categorized as an agent"? I'd say no, that's not an agent. That might be splitting hairs though, because although not an "agent" I could call it a "condition". The theory of Dependent Origination (and the second noble truth) emphasizes that things are conditioned/conditional/dependent, they arise or don't arise depending on certain conditions. Perhaps the condition could be called an "agent", if it causes or allows something, but maybe it's not "acting" or "taking an active role", not a doer of an action, not a subject of active verb, it is "devoid of will-effort".
I think that, certainly, some view Bodhisattvas as agents.
There are other 'states' which I view as being more 'active' than nirvana (although they're still just 'states' and not 'agents' themselves): i.e. the brahmavihāras (or appamaññā) i.e. the states like 'metta' and so on.
Gombridge also claims that nirvana is viewed differently between Mahayana versus earlier schools.

I hope it is not too farfetched
  to suggest that this may have contributed to an important
  development in the Mahayana: that it came to separate nirvana
  from bodhi, ‘awakening’ to the truth, Enlightenment, and to put a
  lower value on the former (Gombrich, 1992d). Originally nirvana
  and bodhi refer to the same thing; they merely use different
  metaphors for the experience. But the Mahayana tradition
  separated them and considered that nirvana referred only
  to the extinction of craving (= passion and hatred), with the
  resultant escape from the cycle of rebirth. This interpretation
  ignores the third fire, delusion: the extinction of delusion is of
  course in the early texts identical with what can be positively
  expressed as gnosis, Enlightenment.

After all that, it's still difficult to be sure of what nirvana is w.r.t. death. Wikipedia summarizes it as follows (and includes a lot of quotes to support that summary),

What happens with one who has reached nirvana after death is an unanswerable question. The five aggregates vanish, but there does not remain a mere "nothingness."

*... puts out the wandering mind / mental states.
And even apart from whether it's an agent, I don't know that nirvana (assuming you attain nirvana during your life, which is the only time you can attain it) "puts out the wandering mind / mental states".
The bit I mentioned earlier, above, about fire, suggests that nirvana puts out clinging (or craving), and/or that putting out of craving results in nirvana.
The mind continues (that's part of the "burden" that's talked about, which people put down when they die). Whether you'd call it a "wandering" mind I'm not sure. Ability to concentrate (right mindfulness, right concentration) are part of the eightfold path, so maybe not "wandering".
On the other hand some people (even before nirvana) are said to acquire unusual types of special knowledge so in a way perhaps you could say that their mind is able "wander" even further than usual (e.g. to see things far away, to view past lives, etc.) – but maybe just this last paragraph is "Buddhist doctrine" and contradicts what you asked for i.e. an "atheistic" view.

@ChrisW...you might like to add extinction of greed, hate and delusion, which are the fuel. :)

chris, no i don't think i'm asking that - i meant to ask about atheistic death !

is nirvana categorically not an agent ?

@Samadhi Thanks for the suggestion. I added to the answer to try to address that.

i don't think i'm asking that - i meant to ask about atheistic death ! @user3293056 I'm sorry I didn't understand your question then: to some extent Buddhism is inherently atheist so I kind of ignored or didn't understand what you meant by an "atheistic" death. In fact I didn't understand the second or third paragraphs, but thought that maybe I understood (but disagreed with) the first paragraph, and that my misunderstanding the 2nd and 3rd was because they followed from the 1st; so I only really tried to address the first.

As to the question "die in the sense atheist attaches to death".
The answer is no .i.e. complete extinction, total annihilation, because there is the unborn which is deathless.
"Death has no (ultimate) reality.".. is the correct view ("who" dies?).

"reality" ?
lots of atheists at least may believe in things that aren't born.. as to "who dies" i find it unnecessary obfuscatory

@user3293056 - Is self necessary or unnecessary, real or unreal? Well you edited "away" your previous statement - "death has no reality" and I just added (ultimate).


text:
What is/was the role of agamas in Chinese and Japanese history?
Recently I read/heard someone saying that the agamas are/were dismissed and downplayed in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism throughout history.
I understand that Mahayana texts received much attention in these regions, but I wonder if the (presumably) lack of importance given to the agamas are simply due to them being neglected among the vast literature, or if they were explicitly disliked (for a specific reason?) or considered inferior, or obsolete.
EDIT: Trying to be clearer: I'm looking for historical evidence for either chinese/japanese appreciation of the agamas, or evidence of reasons for chinese/japanese to neglect these books across the centuries.

They are the practice of the sravakas (voice hearers, desciple), hinayana (though not Theravada) and not the practice of the Bodhisattva, so it is ignored, as not worthy of practice.
Mahayana views in Sravaka link

In the 4th century abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asaṅga describes those who follow the Śrāvaka Vehicle (Skt. śrāvakayanika). These people are described as having weak faculties, following the Śrāvaka Dharma, utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, being set on their own liberation, and cultivating detachment in order to attain liberation.[29] While those in the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle (Skt. pratyekabuddhayānika) are portrayed as also utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, they are said to have medium faculties, to follow the Pratyekabuddha Dharma, and to be set on their own personal enlightenment.[30] Finally, those in the Mahāyāna (Skt. mahāyānika) are portrayed as utilizing the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, as having sharp faculties, following the Bodhisattva Dharma, and set on the perfection and liberation of all beings, and the attainment of complete enlightenment.[31]
According to Vasubandhu's Vijnanavada teachings, there are four types of Shravakas:[32]

The fixed
The arrogant
The transformed
The converted (to "Bodhi" or Buddhism)

The transformed and the converted (Buddhist) are assured in the Lotus Sutra of eventual Nirvana.

SO SAYS MAHAYANIST....hmmmmm???

The author of your quote is Asaṅga who was the founder of Yogācāra school in India. In the Hinayana article I read about Hinayana and Mahayana both being practiced at the same monastery (as reported by Chinese pilgrims to India).

@ChrisW Yes, that is true. That was sometime ago and now dhamma has evolved..

Yes. But what I wonder is (a) whether such books containing critical remarks were part of the chinese canon; (b) if the target of criticism (e.g Śrāvaka Piṭaka) was identified as the agamas; and (c) the chinese took those criticisms to heart. The fact that texts existed, including that of Asaṅga, making general remarks (e.g. about some Srãvaka Pitaka "what books might those be?" a chinese ask) still doesn't quite explain to me if and why the agamas were neglected.

The path that is shown by the agamas (roughly the pali canon) lead one ONLY to arahatship and in Mahayana's reckoning, not fully enlightened, Whereas the path of the Bodhisattva leads to full enlightenment. That's why the council of arahants meant not so much to the Mahayanist. It is about how enlightened one wants to be, arahant, bodhisattva, buddha?

@Samadhi These remarks do not explain chinese attitude towards the agamas, nor my points above. From the standpoint of someone not familiar with this period (post-nikaya, 7th century on) and place of the buddhism history, it's possible that the agamas were in fact studied by the chinese at certain times. It's also possible that the agamas were neglected, but only because specific suttas became more popular, among the vast number of books. Thus, the criticism delineated in texts (like Asaṅga's) could have played no role in the trends that developed in china even if available in chinese earlier.

If the Lotus sutra is disparaging about the arahants and the practices of the arahants, don't you think that would have bearing on the adherents of the traditions and the popularisation of the Lotus sutra?

First chapter on how the sravaka disciples have yet to gains enlightenment. summary

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The six realms of existence
Lately, i'm finding myself very confused. I don't know whether i'm trying to learn new things to become a better person for myself and the world around me, or am i in fact just a ' hungry ghost' unable to satisfy my hunger. I do feel like i'm constantly searching for something, something which even i do not know what it looks like.
So, my question is; How can i tell if my efforts are for good, or that of an insatiable hungry ghost?
All help is welcome!
Metta

Stop learning and start meditating

So you don't know the answer then Ryan?

You asked how you could tell if your efforts were good or those of an insatiable ghost. That was my response to your question. And metta to you too :)

I believe a blind man will never be able to speak of the beautiful colours of a rainbow. My point is, i needed the 4 Noble Truths and my daily meditation to realise ignorance brings pain... i needed the 3 universal characteristics and my meditation to realise the pointlessness of clinging. I'm a believer of the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, so during meditation i'm introspectively looking for certain characteristics to let me know if my practice is wholesome or not..but the problem is, i can't see the characteristics-the fruit of the tree. So, if i'm blind, no meditation will help me!

Also, i wish you well and thankyou for your efforts Ryan. Metta.

If you are practicing insight meditation, that is, seeing things for what they are, this is wholesome. Even if unwholesome things arise: confusion, craving, etc, as long as you see them and know them as they are, this is wholesome. There's nothing wrong with being confused! At the very least, you KNOW you're confused, this is further than most people ever get!

I know, Ryan, that i can sit in meditation or whenever and repeat the words or label "confusion confusion confusion" but, in Karmic law, there is a root cause to my confusion, i believe if i can see this cause and effect, i will remove my confusion through wisdom. Once the root is uplifted, then ignorance and pain and suffering will cease.

Actually, Ryan, perhaps my ignorance is impatience. Perhaps i just need to keep doing what i'm doing, and maybe once the mind is still enough, the answers will be shown. Maybe?

Actually, hahah, confusion isn't the problem, it's the fact that i don't want to be confused, that is causing my pain and suffering!! hahah My pain and suffering is coming from my 'wanting' to not be confused!! haha As if i forgot that simple fact!! haha Thanks for your help. Sometimes i just need to air my views, then clarity sometimes presents itself!! It's a problem not having any Buddhists around me!

sometimes all you need is some perspective :)

@LeeHebditch has the confusion passed?

If you are worried that your current karmic existence is, or is related to, that of a hungry ghost you should apply the proper antidote. In this case the proper antidote is practicing/developing the first paramita : generosity  Doing such and being aware of your desires and the desires of others can help curb the feeling of constantly searching for some unknown thing.
As for how to know if your efforts are proper, or for good as you say, I'll turn you to the short and sweet lojung saying "Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one.
Try these things and meditate on them, see if they help, I hope they do. Remember, we all exist in this confusion together, you are not alone in this.

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


text:
Did nuns participate in the councils?
Are there any records of this? Though I'm more curious about the first council, I'm generally curious about their participation in any of them.

The Ariyas are "breast born" sons and daughters of the Buddha and they sometimes address each other as elder brother or sister as a mark of respect, according to their accomplishments.
Given that it is a council of Arahants, would it even occur to them to notice  that there is a distinction, even in terms of class or sex amongst them, and that distinction is marked enough to make a separate representative body, which participation somehow adds or detracts something on the authority of the council?
The council of Arahants would look more suspicious if it was thought that some of those distinctions were relevant and recorded.
The patimokkha is different, in that, later it was made up of ariyas and putthujannas and the rules of the women were slightly different and more than the men.

Indeed, one of the marks of enlightenment is a loss of gender identity.

The History of the Bhikkhuni Sangha
by Dr. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh (as well as another like it by Dhammananda bhikkhuni) says that their presence at the first council wasn't recorded (what was recorded was the council's making Ananda apologize for introducing women into the sangha).
It also says,

I have doubts that only men-five hundred male arhats-were at this council. On uposatha days every new and full moon, the bhikkhunis would recite their Patimokkha Sutta apart from the monks. I believe that technically, it could not be possible for the monks to recite the Patimokkha Sutta of the nuns, and so bhikkhunis must have been present at the First Council. The recorders, who were all monks, may not have thought it important to mention their presence. Some monks have been kind enough to speak about this point: recently, a Sri Lankan monk told me that he too did not think that only men attended the First Council.

The official account says "no".

Actually, monks are obliged to memorize the Bhikkhuni patimokkha as well... given the remote location of the council, I can't think of a reason to suppose Bhikkhunis attended... it's not like the entire Bhikkhu sangha attended either.


text:
Why does Mara, the Evil One one comes looking for consciousness at death?
Is this explained in the Pali Canon?

Then the Blessed One went with a large number of monks to the Black Rock on the slope of Isigili. From afar he saw Ven. Vakkali lying dead on a couch. Now at that time a smokiness, a darkness was moving to the east, moving to the west, moving to the north, the south, above, below, moving to the intermediate directions. The Blessed One said, “Monks, do you see that smokiness, that darkness …?” “Yes, Lord.” “That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman: “Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman established?” But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the clansman has become totally unbound.”— SN 22:87

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.87

In many cases Mara the Evil One appears when he realises that someone somewhere is about to escape from his grips, when they are practising ardently, about to attain enlightenment, and his purpose is to arouse fear, trepidation, and so on to disrupt their practice.Kassaka Sutta,Brahma-nimananika Sutta,Soma Sutta,Sister Vajira Sutta etc..
IMHO Mara is searching to see if Vakkali has actully escape from him. If Mara has to search, that means that that consciousness has already gone beyond his domain.

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

Mara personifies unwholesome impulses, unskillfulness, the "death" of the spiritual life. He wants to be a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.

The question is about Mrtyu-mara who identifies with death (in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death) but Mara is more generally a metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence. The Pali canon nowhere gives Mara a skilful reason for his actions and instead suggests Mara's existence is nothing more than a samsaric error that vanishes upon Enlightenment.
The whole story of Buddha's confrontation with Mara is a mythological development that is not seen in the Pali canon except that phrases in some of the later parts such as Mara's army (Marasena), Mara's assembly (Maraparisa), victor of Mara (Marabhibhu) imply that the legend was then known. Rhys Davids has attempted to see in the Mara story "a subjective experience under the form of objective reality". The struggle with Mara was really a psychological struggle with secular temptations.
G.C.Pande, Studies in The Origins of Buddhism, p.381

I don't know: if you search for "Mara" on accesstoinsight there are several search results.

Without sounding too general or non-specific, but Mara is always there. That is why pain and suffering can occur anywhere at anytime. That is why we must practise mindfulness through meditation.In doing so, we limit Mara's opportunities from our ignorance!
If you think of death and rebirth on a sensory level, then if ignorance occurs during the changing of seeing,hearing,smelling, tasting..etc- death and rebirth of one moment to the next- then Mara is everpresent!!
It seems crazy, the fixation we have on the physical death when the physical death can only be observered sensorily...so, the question could be; Is the physical just an illusional construct which brings untold amounts of pain and suffering?...unless realised!!
Metta


text:
What does Nonduality correspond to in Buddhism?
There is not [was not] a tag for nonduality. Would someone please make a correspondence between nonduality and Buddhism as to "stage" or "attainment", qualifications, or whatever is applicable?
EDIT: I was thinking of Nonduality as a stage, but it is apparently seen more as a position or way of describing things? Mariana Caplan, in the book "Eyes Wide Open - Cultivating Discernement on the Spiritual Path" has this paragraph at the top of page 163 (paperback):

Ngakpa Chogyam, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher from Wales, offers a
  perspective on nonduality that includes all of life as a direct
  expression of the nondual core of truth. He explains that nonduality,
  or emptiness, has two facets: one is empty, or nondual, and the other
  is form, or duality. Therefore, duality is not illusory but is one
  aspect of nonduality. Like the two sides of a coin, the formless reality has two dimensions -- one is form, the other is formless. When
  we perceive duality as separate from nonduality (or nonduality as
  separate from duality), we do not engage the world of manifestation
  from the perspective of oneness, and thereby we fall into an erroneous
  relationship with it. From this perspective it is not "life" or
  duality that is maya, or illusion: rather it is our relationship to
  the world that is illusory.

This accords with the Heart Sutra. So, I was actually asking about the Experience of this, rather than whether it is true or not. "Both is, and is not. Neither is, nor is not." (Buddha)
Second Addition: I find a correspondence between the formal / post-formal operations distinction and the observation that some people get stuck when thinking of abstractions like nonduality, and others do not. Some people are more literal and fundamental, and others are more mystical. I think this is the key to understanding differences, and post-formal thought is an ability that develops through use. Here is a link from a teacher's experience.

Audio recordings on Buddhist non-dualism by Ajahn Amaro and Joseph Bobrow: http://www.audiodharma.org/series/5/talk/1847/

If you're not getting the answer you're looking for, can you try a more focused or specifically-Mahayana question? Like "what's the difference between non-self, emptiness, and non-duality" or something like that? Or define what you mean by non-duality and ask whether Buddhist teachers have written for or against a similar concept? Or formal versus postformal might be a modern and non-Buddhist point of view, might you be able to ask about this on e.g. Philosophy.SE?

@ChrisW: I took a look, it seems like you have the Philosophy.SE camp covered. I really did not want Nonduality to be about philosophical argument when it is plainly a matter of experience. "There is no need to debate, go there and see yourself."

There's an article on that subject Dhamma and Non-duality by
Bhikkhu Bodhi.
The following is basically all direct quotes from that article, except very summarized (I'm extracting sentences and sentence fragments).

Non-dual system
For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world.
The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective.
Not a non-dual system
As for the Theravada tradition:

Virtue

Non-duality: the adept isn't bound by rules because "The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil"
Theravada: "the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults"

Meditation:

Non-duality: defilements are mere appearances devoid of intrinsic reality
Theravada: hindrances are "causes of blindness, causes of ignorance, destructive to wisdom, not conducive to Nibbana"

Wisdom:

Non-duality: concrete phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere appearance, while true reality is the One: either a substantial Absolute (the Atman, Brahman, the Godhead, etc.), or a metaphysical zero (Sunyata, the Void Nature of Mind, etc.). For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew
Theravada: wisdom not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All

So to answer your question, if I understand the article, it's saying that "non-duality" in Buddhism includes statements like "nirvana and samsara are the same" and "everything is equally empty" ... but non-duality is not a feature of Theravada Buddhism (it's a feature of Mahayana Buddhism, and of Tantrayana).

"For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew." So Beautiful... Thank you.

OK, I read the linked reference, very good explanation. There are Mystics and (what is the opposite?) Literalists? Neither can ever understand or accept the other. Argument or persuasion is wasted breath. Both are true. Both are false. Both are incomplete. Both are paths.

The Parramatta Bodhicitta/ Samvritti Bodhicitta concepts to me at least appear the same as Atman/Brahman in Hinduism.

@Buddho Pirsig wrote that that the ancient Greeks' search for arete (virtue, excellence, quality) eventually reminded him of the daoists' Tao -- "[he] remembered Hegel had been regarded as a bridge between Western and Oriental philosophy. The Vedanta of the Hindus, the Way of the Taoists, even the Buddha had been described as an absolute monism similar to Hegel’s philosophy. [he] doubted at the
time, however, whether mystical Ones and metaphysical monisms were introconvertable since mystical Ones follow no rules and metaphysical monisms do."

@Buddho I think the position advocated in "The Short Essence of True Eloquence" which you recommended says to see emptiness as the import of relativity and not vice versa -- "because relativity we see emptiness" and not "because emptiness we see relativity".

And, is equating nirvana with samsara a comment about craving nirvana? Reifying nirvana? Living in the world after enlightenment?

I think having no disease or no suffering after enlightenment is an exaggeration. Conditioned existence will continue afterwards too. While an Arahat isn't going to run to Vegas to win at blackjack using his celestial vision, he will have to exist among people, among famines and times of plenty. There's a story about a female Arahat who's raped and she only has compassion for her attacker, and pleads with him to stop for his sake. When he steps out of the kuti, the earth swallows him, unable to bear his weight. Compassion and nirvana go together, it's not only good times after the big E.

@ChrisW Moved this discussion to http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/24864/discussion-between-chrisw-and-buddho

@ChrisW I have been thinking of that Pirsig quote also... I think that any structure that we create, such as teachings, must be able to be seen as a creation of our own, and able to be transcended, lest the earth swallow us up.

@nocomprende I don't know how well you know that book of Pirsig's. In it he says that "Zen is the 'spirit of the valley,' not the mountaintop" (for what it's worth, "spirit of the valley'" is one of the epiphets that's ascribed to Tao in the Tao Te Ching: I know that Pirsig had read the Tao Te Ching, but I don't know what he learned about orthodox Zen); and, "The only Zen you find on the tops of mountains is the Zen you bring up there" (said as a reason for wanting to do something other than continue up the mountain).

I think that there is a correspondence between the distinction of formal operational stage and postformal, with your comparison of Theraveda (more literal) and nonduality (more mystical). There is a place for both, but more literal people cannot understand more mystical ones. Theraveda seems intent on reaching the mountaintop, as far as I can tell.

Bhikhu Bodhi views on Mahayana are false and denigrate Mahayana. In fact, emptiness in Mahayana is empty itself. Therefore in Virtue it doesn't reject rules, but only shows their conditional (empty) nature. In Meditation, it doesn't refute that causes lead to effects, it only shows their conditional (empty) nature, which helps to abandon them, for example, instead of keeping attempts to battle them. So Mahayana doesn't refute the truths of Buddha, it only shows better ways to their realization. In Wisdom, true reality is NOT the One. "The One" is just an illusory idea. Be careful.

The experience of form is very sobering, that is when we encounter a person who is angry or destitute, we experience the wrath or the suffering of the person.
When we experience the world as empty we see that the angry or destitute person is empty in that its physical existence is dependent on conditions and the the way we see the situation is dependent on our own conditioned mind, created by our own conditioned mind.
Supposing we do not understand what the person is saying then our experience would be totally different.
And supposing that someone tell us that some of these destitute persons are actually some stingy millionaires and we believe those stories, then our perspectives become different.
These are just simple examples on how the world is illusory because it is perceived in a way that is conditioned by the mind.
Now if we pursue further we can say that since physical forms are empty and the visual forms are also empty because it is illusory. The world is empty!
If we just engaged with just the formless then we become complacent and stay at equanimity, if we see emptiness correctly; if we did not see emptiness correctly, it becomes coldness, or even cruelty.
Engaging with just the formless is an extreme. Just try saying to a tree, falling in your direction that it is empty and see what the result is!
Engaging with just the form is what most people do that, believing things to be solid, that there is a "person" purposely doing all those things to annoy us.
When we see the middle way, both the form and the formless as being the true aspects of reality (both conventional and absolute), then we can act compassionately, or with the perception of oneness.
How? Is another question!

For what it's worth, Tai Chi might teach not to resist the tree but instead to move (remove) your own centre away, out of the path of the heavy falling tree (or, rotate in order to deflect the tree and so make it bypass your centre). When you walk (shifting weight from one foot to another and so on) , the load-bearing foot is "solid" (substantial, immobile) and the other foot is "empty".

@ChrisW Just mind the branches, though 90% of the tree is empty!

I have been thinking of the differences of people on the path (and not consciously on it) similar to stages of thought development: concrete, formal operations, post-formal. It would certainly explain things like extreme fundamentalism, and the mystical sects. So many branches to get caught in... Even it not being there is ensnaring.

As far as I can tell, what you are describing here is emptiness and dependent arising, not nonduality. It is unclear to me what your explanation has to do with nonduality.


text:
Is there anything in Buddhism analogous to the Christian Eucharist?
I hope to have a go at reading a little about the Eucharist. Because my religious sympathies largely lie with Buddhism, I thought it'd be good to know of anything comparative therein.

This Wikipedia article seems like a good introduction to the Eucharist. I suspect that this question isn't on-topic: because you're trying to understand the Christian Eucharist (about which you've read very little so far), not asking a question to try to understand Buddhism.

hi @ChrisW thanks for the reply but of course i don't think it's off topic, as e.g. i do believe i'm asking a question to try and understand buddhism

If you haven't yet read even a little about the Eucharist, then how can telling you "this practice in Buddhism reminds me of the Eucharist" help you understand Buddhism? IMO the Eucharist isn't mainly about Transubstantiation (except perhaps as a reminder that the human body must eat, lives and will die) but is more about a) remembrance or mindfulness of Jesus (which is maybe like going to the Buddha for refuge) b) about gratitude or thanksgiving, e.g. for liberation (which might exist in Buddhism somehow but not exactly the same because there is no God to thank) ...

... c) eating, which is also a practice in Buddhism, e.g. Three Buddhist Verses to Chant Before Eating d) gathering into a community. However I don't see how to answer this question without it being more about the Eucharist than about Buddhism. Can you explain how to do that, and/or edit the question to make so that it doesn't seem to be asking "How could you explain the Christian Eucharist, to a Buddhist, using Buddhist practices and beliefs as an analogy"?

One analogy is that, whereas Christ said "This is my body" during their last supper while giving thanks and breaking bread, during the Buddha's last night he said that the Dhamma would be his body.

Your question asks if there is "anything analogous." In my experience, the tsok feast fits that bill. Sharing the food gifts that were offered leads to a similar virtuous and calm mind, with feelings of gratitude and appreciation of community.

Hi Brian and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have some guidelines for new user that you might find useful.

Chod practice.
It is a practice of offering one's body and blood.

Christ spoke in parables so it is difficult do say anything definite but it looks like it possibly could be  a mindfulness ritual to remember the teachings of Christ and the potential of Christ is inside everyone... like every one is a Buddha.


text:
Ordination procedure in Theravada Buddhism - What if parents are not alive anymore?
I read that a person must get permission from his og her parents but what if that persons parents are not alive anymore. Can that person then not become ordained in this life?
Thank you for your time.

I'm sure the answer is they CAN be ordained. The purpose behind this rule I believe is to not create schisms or tension within family's, with respect to your parent's wishes, and also to be sure that a person is not running away from any responsibilities within their family, i.e. helping their parents or so on. So if a persons parents are passed away,none of these concerns are an issue and the rule should therefore not even be applicable or of concern to them.

The commentary to this rule has some interesting discussion, including an answer to your question:

mātāpitaro matā, dārako cūḷamātādīnaṃ santike saṃvaddho, tasmiṃ pabbājiyamāne ñātakā kalahaṃ vā karonti, khiyyanti vā, tasmā vivādupacchedanatthaṃ āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo. anāpucchā pabbājentassa pana āpatti natthi.
In the case where one's mother and father are dead, a child brought up in the home of a "little-mother" (step-mother? aunt?) etc., when causing them to go forth their relatives make a quarrel or feel dejected, therefore, for the purpose of cutting off dispute, should also be made to go forth after asking leave. But in the case of causing them to go forth without asking leave, there is no offence.
-- mahāvagga-aṭṭhakathā, 1. mahākhandhakaṃ, rāhulavatthukathā

The commentary then says something that is not quite clear to me:

putto attānaṃ nissāya jīvati, na mātāpitaro. sacepi rājā hoti, āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo.
A son lives in dependence on himself, not on his mother or father. If he is a king, he should be made to go forth without having asked leave at all.
-- Ibid

I think these two sentences are meant to go together, and the period is a modern error, but it doesn't then say what a non-king should do in this instance. I don't see this as an issue, since clearly the previous statement still stands - without parents, asking permission is simply a courtesy.
Bonus - the commentary also contains the following edification:

eko mātāpitūhi saddhiṃ bhaṇḍitvā “pabbājetha man”ti āgacchati, “āpucchitvā ehī”ti ca vutto “nāhaṃ gacchāmi, sace maṃ na pabbājetha, vihāraṃ vā jhāpemi, satthena vā tumhe paharāmi, tumhākaṃ ñātakaupaṭṭhākānaṃ vā ārāmacchedanādīhi anatthaṃ uppādemi, rukkhā vā patitvā marāmi, coramajjhaṃ vā pavisāmi, desantaraṃ vā gacchāmī”ti vadati, taṃ jīvasseva rakkhaṇatthāya pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.
One, having quarrelled with their mother and father, comes saying "cause me to go forth." And when told, "having asked leave, come," says, "I will not go. If you do not cause me to go forth, I will set the vihara on fire, or I will beat you with a stick, or I will bring about some unbeneficial thing like destroying the homes of your relatives and supporters, or I will fall from a tree and die, or enter into the midst of thieves, or go to the borderlands," it is proper, for the sole purpose of protecting life, to cause him to go forth.
-- Ibid

Just the answer i was looking for. Thanks a lot Bhante.

but surely the why leads directly to the answer, no? common sense. my teacher once said this: all religions have a version of the same basic rules (don't kill, don't steal, don't become intoxicated, etc).
now why is that?
it's because those activities cause turmoil and drama, which are obstacles to gaining clarity and equanimity.
spiritual goals, like any goals, are reached more easily when you clear the path to them. the more barriers you have to climb, the longer it takes to reach your destination.
causing upset in your family creates an obstacle, both inner and outer. the ruminations and unhappy thoughts you will have from it will distract you from your purpose, and you family may also try to turn you from it because they too are unhappy.
better to spend the time cultivating patience and sensitivity to timing.  then, when the proper conditions arrive to become a monk without causing suffering to yourself and others, your path will be easier and more focused.

I think Ryan's comment explained why it's likely that ordination is possible. A good answer would provide evidence e.g. a copy of the rules in question (which is what the OP said he was looking for in this answer).

Thanks for the answer but it does not answer the question. I asked if a person can be ordained if that persons parents are not alive anymore. Your answer seems to be about why the rule is there. I appreciate your effort though.


text:
Ordination procedure in Theravada Buddhism - What are grievous crimes?
I read in this answer that if one wants to become a Bhikkhu then "He must never have committed any grievous crimes".

What could examples of grievous crimes be?
What if crimes where committed many years ago. Does that have any value in the ordination procedure or does it automatically result in one not being able to become ordained in this life?

Thank you for your time.

I believe its speaking of killing of your mother, father, murder of an Arahant, wounding the Buddha, or creating a schism in the Sangha.

Page 99 of this account of The
Buddhist
Monastic
Code list 11 types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus,

a pandaka (essentially, a eunuch or a person born neuter—see Sanghadisesa
  2),
a “non-human” being, (this includes nagas, petas, devas, and yakkhas),
a hermaphrodite,
a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,
a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his
  status as a bhikkhu,
a person who has murdered his father,
a person who has murdered his mother,
a person who has murdered an arahant,
a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhuni,
a person who has maliciously injured a Buddha to the point of causing him to
  bleed, and
a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Sangha, knowing or
  suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.

Pages 44 through 98 describe just four parajika rules, where if a bhikkhu breaks (or has broken) one of these rules then they are automatically no longer a bhikkhu and cannot ordain again in this life:

Sexual intercourse
Stealing
Killing
Falsely claiming a superior human state

Just the answer I was looking for. Thanks Chris.

Thanks Lanka, that's good to know. An answer like this one is very bare, no personality, personal opinion (or even politeness), it's nothing but a reference ... so I'm glad to hear that that's actually all you were looking for in this answer.


text:
How should i understand "Stored up kamma"?
I'm reading the book "The Noble Eightfold Path" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. I'm currently reading about "Right View" and i have a question regarding an explanation by the author.
The quote can be found on p. 19. The highlight in the quote is made by me:

"Kamma can operate across the succession of lifetimes; it can even remain dormant for aeons into the future. But whenever we perform a
  volitional action, the volition leaves its imprint on the mental continuum, where it remains as a stored up potency. When the stored up kamma meets with conditions favorable to its maturation, it awakens from its dormant state and triggers off some effect that brings due compensation for the original action."

How should "stored up potency" or "stored up kamma" be understood?

It's somewhat sloppy language... "stored up potency" doesn't really mean anything; it's a concept, the concept that certain experiences will somehow be related to other experiences. There is nothing in Theravada Buddhism, AFAIK, even hinting at karma being stored up, or of a continuum being imprinted.
So, it should probably be understood as conventional language, similar to explaining how a seed from one tree makes a new tree - the potency of the first tree is stored in the seed, creating a tree continuum. In ultimate reality, the continuum doesn't exist, nor the potency, the tree, or the seed.

Thanks for the clarification about language and the seed-simile.

I was just reminded of the wanting to understand kamma and how pondering about it is not relevant for liberation.
I then remembered "The Four Imponderables" where the Buddha taught that the workings of kamma should not be thought about since it hinders and distracts one from the practice.

"Pondering over the four acinteyya is a hindrance to the attainment of liberation"
"Therefore, o monks, do not brood over [any of these views] Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna, etc"

While I think "the four imponderables" makes for a nice answer, is there a necessity for the bold and the final remark? Not only we are open for other traditions that might have something to say here, but not all of us who come here would consider other answers a distraction.

@Thiago. I have removed the final remark. Answers from all traditions are of course welcome.

It should be understood as it is said:

Whenever you perform a volitional action, the volition leaves its imprint on the mental continuum, where it remains as a stored up potency. When the stored up kamma meets with conditions favorable to its maturation, it awakens from its dormant state and triggers off some effect that brings due compensation for the original action.

Anything else is mere speculation and does not lead to liberation, but to clinging and craving on views.
If you feel that the answer to the question will lead you closer to liberation, meditate on the question and you will eventually experience it. Once you experience it, you will answer it. Once you answer it, liberation will be closer.

It doesn't need to be understood. Instead, look at your wanting, craving, to understand, learn, have an explanation. Understanding the totality of karma is not part of the Noble Eightfold path and will not lead you to cessation. The extent to which one should or is able to understand karma is experienced directly in the practice, beyond this for unenlightened beings is mere conjecture.

In the buddhist texts, 'storing up of kamma' is described best by the Pali word vipāka, which is most commonly translated as the 'result', 'ripening' or 'effect' of kamma.
The Buddha says (AN 6.63):

"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three
  sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which
  arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that.
  This is called the result of kamma."

We don't need to understand the mechanics for this - in fact, as you have said yourself, the Buddha encouraged us to avoid speculating on it. But we can start asking questions about our actions and their results. There is plenty written about it, but I will offer a few questions to perhaps start you thinking about it in a practical way:

Do my actions in the present moment have any effect on the future?
Is there any pattern I can experience in these effects?
Do skilful actions lead to good results, and vice versa?
What's the problem with harming others, or stealing?
What happens to this mind as a result? Is there any effect beyond the present moment?

Alternatively, we can read what the Buddha said about what is skilful and unskilful, and take it as a 'working hypothesis'. Then see for ourselves the effect of our actions...

It's funny I read this, because I was just talking about this with a friend the other day (though not in this philosophical framework).
Both him and I have been addicted to opiates, I have been clean of them for 2 years now and he is just starting to take seriously the concept of never doing them again.  He was talking about how he wishes he'd never started, that he would go back in time and change it if he could, but I know for myself that if it hadn't been opiates it would have been something.  There are booby traps in the soul, is what I told him.
Some experiences, you just have to go through because that is who you are.  The partner who ruined your life but was too awesome in bed to refuse.  The improbable business venture that ended in bankruptcy, but seemed too irresistibly lucrative.  Opiates.  These kinds of things are printed on your soul at birth, part of the fascination mechanism that drives your curiosity, appetite, and love of life.  Without these drives, there is no reason to exist.  But packaged with each one is a booby trap, and the only way to disarm the trap is to spring it and survive the consequences.
Like the Man said, though...there is no use thinking too hard about how it works.


text:
What was the 1st Buddhist Council about?
I'm interested in the 1st Buddhist Council, i.e. why was it held, where was it held, who attended it and what were the outcome?
I'm not looking for an in-depth and detailed answer. More like an overview of the 1st council and preferably a text-reference.
Thank you for your time.

The account of the first and second councils is found in the Cūḷavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka (Cv XI and XII). The first council (Cv XI) was held in Rajagaha, at what is known as the monastery of the seven caves, on the mountains above the city. Five hundred bhikkhus were in attendance.
The idea for a council began with Mahakassapa relating to his fellow monks the story found in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN 16) wherein Mahakassapa finds out about the Buddha's passing. He relates how he encouraged the monks to remember that everything we hold dear must pass, so they shouldn't mourn, and how an old monk named Subhadda said they shouldn't mourn because they were now free to ignore the Buddha's words and do what they wanted. He then requests that they rehearse the dhamma and vinaya together, "before what is not the dhamma shines and the dhamma is rejected; before what is not the vinaya shines and the vinaya is rejected; before those who speak what is not the dhamma become strong and those who speak the dhamma become weak; before those who speak what is not the vinaya become strong and those who speak the vinaya become weak."
At this, his fellow monks requested he select monks for the council, which he did - 499 of them, all arahants. The monks suggested he select ananda as the 500th, since he was a sekha, unable to give rise to such defilement as would lead to the states of loss and of course because he had heard much of the dhamma and vinaya in the Buddha's presence.
The elders asked themselves where they should meet, and agreed upon Rajagaha as being a great place to find the support they would need in terms of alms and dwellings. They proposed to stay there for the rains and hold the council there, and to agree that no other monk should stay in Rajagaha for the rains., Mahakassapa proposed it as a sanghakamma - any against should speak, those for it should stay silent - and it passed unanimously.
They spent the first month making repairs to their dwellings, then began the council.
The events of the council itself are, in brief, as follows:

Ananda, an arahant by this time, arrived just as the council was beginning.
Mahakassapa questioned Upali on the vinaya, beginning with "The first parajika, where was it laid down?". He asked about the story behind, the person behind, the issue behind, minor issues related to, what was an offence, and what was not, in relation to each of the precepts from each of the two codes of discipline and Upali responded.
Mahakassapa questioned Ananda on the dhamma, asking about the story behind and the person behind every sutta in the five nikayas, starting with the Brahmajala sutta and Ananda responded.
Ananda related the Buddha's permission to discard the minor and lesser precepts; they asked him if he had gotten specification on what were the minor and lesser rules and he admitted he had not. They couldn't agree, so in the end, Mahakassapa made a formal proposal that they keep the rules as they were, since it was known to lay people what was proper for them and what was not. If they were to change the rules, it would be spread about that they were going against the Buddha while his funeral pyre still smouldered. There was unanimous consent.
The elders questioned Ananda on several points where they felt he was deserving of rebuke, including that he didn't ask about the minor and lesser rules. He replied in defence, but accepted his actions as wrong doings out of faith in the elders.
The venerable Purana arrived and was told they had recited the dhamma and vinaya and that he should recite it with them. He replied by saying that while the dhamma and vinaya was well recited by them, he preferred to hold to the dhamma and vinaya as he had heard it from the Buddha himself.
Ananda related the Buddha's injunction that Channa was to receive the brahmadaṇḍa (God's or highest punishment) - that no one should speak or teach or advise him. They told him to tell Channa himself, and he asked what to do if Channa was harsh and abusive in response. They told him to bring many monks with him. The council seems to have ended there, as the text then follows Ananda to a meeting with King Udena and eventually Channa. Either that, or the council ender before this and Ananda related the injunction regarding Channa to the elders on a later date.

Bhante, the two codes of discipline you mentioned in #2, are those the bhikkhu and bhikkhuni codes? Did the bhikkhuni rules go through this same process? Thank you.

@Bhante. Thank you for a comprehensive answer.

@Robin111 yes, that is what is meant. Upali was questioned on and answered in regards to both sets of rules.

tldr; some old guy thought that because the buddha was now passed into parinirvana, the monks could go crazy and do whatever they wanted, not adhering to the rules. so a council was called consisting of 500 arahants to codify the buddhas teachings and rules for the sangha so that going forth the dharma would not degenerate. Ananda, being foremost in memory and having heard nearly all of the buddhas teachings as he was the buddhas #1 monk, was asked to join but only if he was able to attain arahantship. So Ananda stayed up all night the night prior to the council, and finally on the morning of, attained Arahantship, and was able to attend and recite all the sutas and precepts for the sanga.

The First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's parinirvana,1 which is 543–542 BCE according to Theravada tradition, at various earlier dates according to certain Mahayana traditions, and various later dates according to certain Western estimates.[2] According to late commentarial accounts, King Ajatashatru (Sanskrit अजातशत्रु) sponsored the council. Tradition holds that on the full moon day of Shravan lunar month the Council was held in a hall erected by Ajatasattu outside the Sattaparnaguha (Pali: Sattapanniguha) or Saptaparni Cave in Rajgir, three months after the Buddha had attained parinirvana (i.e. died). Detailed accounts of the council can be found in the Khandhaka sections of the canonical Vinayas.
However other sources reveal that the Buddha's parinirvana happened 218 years before the coronation of Emperor Ashoka. Emperor Ashoka was coronated in 269 BCE. So it can also be stated that the Buddha died in 483 BCE. The time matches the reign of King Ajathashatru. Hence it can also be argued that the First Buddhist Council was held in the year 483 BCE.
According to this record the incident which prompted the Elder Mahakassapa to call this meeting was his hearing a disparaging remark about the strict rule of life for monks. The monk Subhadda, who had ordained late in life, upon hearing that the Buddha had expired, voiced his resentment at having to abide by all the rules for monks laid down by the Buddha. Many monks lamented the passing of the Buddha and were deeply grieved but Subhadda spoke up to show happiness and relief that Buddha was gone.
And Subhadda, the late-received one, said to the Bhikkhus: "Enough, Sirs! Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana. We used to be annoyed by being told, 'This beseems you, this beseems you not.' But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we do not like, that we shall not have to do."[3]
Mahakassapa was alarmed by his remark and feared that the Dhamma and the Vinaya might be corrupted and not survive intact if other monks were to behave like Subhadda and interpret the Dhamma and the Vinaya rules as they pleased. To avoid this he decided that the Dhamma must be preserved and protected. To this end after gaining the Sangha's approval he called to council five hundred Arahants.[3] Ananda was to be included in this provided he attained Arahanthood by the time the council convened.
With the Elder Mahakassapa presiding, the five hundred Arahant monks met in council during the rainy season. The first thing Mahakassapa did was to question the foremost expert on the Vinaya of the day, Venerable Upali on particulars of the monastic rule. This monk was well qualified for the task as the Buddha had taught him the whole of the Vinaya himself. The Elder Mahakassapa asked him specifically about the ruling on the first offense parajika, with regard to the subject, the occasion, the individual introduced, the proclamation, the repetition of the proclamation, the offense and the case of non-offense. Upali gave knowledgeable and adequate answers and his remarks met with the unanimous approval of the presiding Sangha. Thus, the Vinaya was formally approved.
The Elder Mahakassapa then turned his attention to Ananda in virtue of his reputable expertise in all matters connected with the Dhamma. Happily, the night before the Council was to meet, Ananda had attained Arahantship and joined the Council.1[4] The Elder Mahakassapa, therefore, was able to question him at length with complete confidence about the Dhamma with specific reference to the Buddha's sermons. This interrogation on the Dhamma sought to verify the place where all the discourses were first preached and the person to whom they had been addressed.
Ananda aided by his word-perfect memory was able to answer accurately and so the Discourses met with the unanimous approval of the Sangha. The First Council also gave its official seal of approval for the closure of the chapter on the minor and lesser rules, and approval for their observance. It took the monks seven months to recite the whole of the Vinaya and the Dhamma and those monks sufficiently endowed with good memories retained all that had been recited. This historic first council came to be known as the Pancasatika because five hundred fully enlightened Arahants had taken part in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Buddhist_council
buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_32lbud.htm

Cleanliness of the common areas... people were drinking, washing their feet in the same water basins, bathing and going to the bathroom in the same place drinking water was being gathered.
To end the nonsense schism and restore peace; Gotama drank the muddied pooped in bathed in water; already sick from a bad food alms round.
In the end? Good enough for Buddha good enough for us... and peace was restored.
Don't forget the avoidance of two extremes; ring a bowl? Just because someone can retrograde on the path to Anagamin in becoming; doesn't meant they really want too or in some cases even should.

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


text:
What are the benefits of practicing under a teacher vs. practicing alone?
Question is in the title.
I was wondering about the benefits of practicing with a teacher vs. practicing alone.
By alone i mean when one has a great deal of time to practice and no worldly responsibilities such as a marriage, children, being the owner of a car, house, flat etc. meaning that one can then spend a lot of time on studying and practicing the dhamma.

Lanka, this is a dhamma talk Venerable Yuttadhammo gave last evening that discusses four things a meditation teacher does for their students; but which students can also do for themselves if they are sufficiently aware of their mind states. I think it may be interesting to you. http://meditation.sirimangalo.org/live/20150704_0059_livestream.mp3

If one has found a good teacher who is willing to teach, nothing like it. Unfortunately, good teachers are rare, and most wander alone.
It's like climbing a mountain without a guide. Sometimes we get lost, wander around a lot, maybe learn a lot of things in the process, but also get hurt by falling down. Most times the learning is not really essential to climbing the mountain, it can sometimes feel like it is impossible to continue, and other times one can think, "I have come so far, I can't turn back now".
In the modern age with so many dharma books and teachers online, one may not always need a direct teacher. However, one can get confused with a multitude of approaches and schools.
It's a risk, but it also protects from getting locked into a dogma or school. This can happen to anyone who finds a teacher or school at an early age and never encounters other ideas. The Dalai Lama (in his book "Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World's Religions Can Come Together") has said that until he visited the Theosophical society in Chennai and met people of other faiths, he was pretty certain only Buddhism had all the answers, and every other approach was wrong.
Ultimately we make do with what we have. We don't abandon our practice merely because we can't find a good teacher, we do it the best way we can.
If we accumulate merit by helping others it will lead to better guides, books and teachers - dharma will find us.

Thank you for this answer. I like the rock-climbing analogy.

Chogyam Trungpa said that the spiritual path is like swallowing a porcupine: once you start, you have to eat the whole thing. Another advice was: "Better not to begin. Once begun, better to finish."

Practising alone will give you better experience and better overview,
Practising under teacher will be helpful initially I believe, But later on at some point or other you will need to practise alone.

There are different personality types according to Buddhism. Basically three good types and three bad types although each person is a mixture. Different personalities need different meditation techniques. A teacher can find what your personality is and provide you with the relevant method of meditation. Further some types of meditation need the supervision of a teacher. So having a teacher is better. But you can practice Loving Kindness and Buddhanussathi etc. on your own.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

Assumed reference for the above mentioned character types at The Visuddhimagga Chapter 3 - The Taking of a Meditation Subject, #74, page 96. (This refers to Samatha meditation though.)

Thank you for the help! I am not sure of the limitations of the analysis, but most of the Samatha Meditation becomes Vipassana when you think using Anithya Dukka Anathma  (Impermanent, Unsatisfying and uncontrollable). I have not done although, they are very advanced states. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3547/what-exactly-differentiates-vipassana-from-samatha-meditation . A thread on Samatha and Vipassana. Have a look on Yutthadamma Bhikkus answer please!


text:
A question regarding the level of worldly participation for a buddhist monk
I noticed some buddhist monks spend a lot of their time teaching and giving dhamma talks, while other monks spend minimal time on these things.
I was wondering if there are any rules in the monastic code for monks regarding how much time a monk should spent on teaching?

Merely becoming a monk does not make one qualified to teach, just like joining medical school does not make one a surgeon. Some can have valid reasons for not teaching, others can just be lazy or needing encouragement. It is up to their teacher or abbot to enforce. I am not going to actually mark this an answer, since I am not a monk.

Hello @Sri Lanka. Venerable Yuttadhammo gave an interesting dhamma talk tonight regarding teaching. I thought you might like it. http://meditation.sirimangalo.org/live/20150712_0101_livestream.mp3 The passage he is referring to is the one from July 11 of this book: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/words_of_buddha.pdf  Be well.

Thank you Robin both for the dhamma talk and the book. I appreciate it. I will take a look at it. I found a dhamma talk for you regarding one of your question about why anyone would want to go to the Heavenly Realms. I think it were Sankha K. who mentioned the Buddha and Tavatimsa Heaven. Here is a dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo (teaches the Mahasi-method) called The Buddha in Tavatimsa Heaven. I have not listened to it yet but i think there might be something interesting in it.

Thank you very much! Looking forward to listening to it. :)

Welcome Robin:)

Those who can, do.  Those who cannot, teach.

As a Zen Monk I can answer the question regarding worldly participation in the following way. There is no definitive suggestion or rule within the Monastic Code of a Mahayana Monk. A Monk or Nun has no requirement to teach or not teach. Often the suggestion may come from the Senior Abbot that one should follow the teaching path. This is what happened in my case. Naturally the Abbot has to feel that the particular Monk or Nun has the required personal experience before they can teach others. I teach as often as I can and I am also the Buddhist Chaplain to a number of Hospitals. One should always direct the teaching at a level that would match the understanding of the audience. Thank you. Thay Tam Thien.

The main role of the monastic community is to preserve the Buddha's teaching, but I don't think that the Buddha gave a prescription on how exactly to do that. It's been left to each community to set rules of teaching and the level of community interaction. I don't think you're going to find one magic answer. In my tradition, you're expected to have some mastery over the subject matter before giving Dharma talks. It also helps to practice the Eightfold Path enough to where you are without reproach when you enter the community with instruction.
I don't believe it's wrong to participate and reach out to the community at any time. It just may not be helpful. Maybe like this post ;-) Then again, mastery is hard to see from the outside.
"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water.  After enlightenment chop wood, carry water."

Thank you for the answer Bhante. Could you elaborate on the enlightenment-quote?

What is your tradition Bhante?

@Lanka The quote is a Zen proverb: you might want to ask about it as a new/separate question. I wonder if it could be relevant to point to the tenth of the "Ten Bulls" as an illustration of it.

@Thanks Chris. I asked a question but only regarding the quote.

No. Of course it can be a heavy attachment and diversion of the main task one has. Older say, sharing about 10-20% of time for lay people teaching is a proper way in training.
Don't forget, that the Buddha and some of his Arahat Disciple spend the rest of the life with teaching. On the other hand, there are other kind of arahats who do not teach at all, some can, some can and do, some do but can not...
There is how ever, not duty to teach at all.
To understand the "jumping point", it's possible good to ask the Buddha in this regard:

"'A person living alone. A person living alone,' thus it is said. To what extent, lord, is one a person living alone, and to what extent is one a person living with a companion?"... Migajala Sutta: To Migajala

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stackes... but for release from this wheel by proper use]

In Christianity, priests generally do not meditate. Often, the sole role of a Catholic priest is to preach the religion to devotees.
In Asian Buddhism, the role of many monks is similar, which is why they devote most, if not all, of their time to teaching & conducting ceremonies. There are even Western monks, in Asia, that mostly teach & translate.
While I have never read it myself, I have heard the Buddha stated that monks who primarily meditate should not criticise monks who primarily study & teach. If this is true, then the dichotomy between 'meditation monks' & 'study/teaching monks' goes back to the time of the Buddha. A good example is Venerable Ananda, who often gives the impression in the suttas of not being a particularly adept meditation practitioner.
In my monastic experiences, I have not observed any correlation between teaching & practising the eightfold path. Often it is those that are seriously practising the eightfold path that do not teach.
There are highly reputed monks (eg. Ajahn Jayasaro) that spent many years as a (highly reputed) meditation monk before teaching extensively to the public.

"In Christianity, priests generally do not meditate" -- I'm pretty sure they're expected to "pray", at least, whatever that means. TBH I think it's often better to avoid saying things about non-Buddhist religions on this site.

From AN 5.73 (quoted below), the Buddha advised monks to not just participate in study, description, recitation and thinking of the Dhamma, without meditation. He advised them not to neglect meditation.

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
  the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
  Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
  dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
  day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
  himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
  who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
  Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
  internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
  on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
  neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
  who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
  who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
  Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
  out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
  the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
  Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
  to you."

In SN 9.5 (quoted below), Ven. Ananda was advised to not spend too much time informing the lay people, neglecting meditation:

Now at that time Ānanda was spending too much time informing the lay
  people. Then the deity haunting that forest had compassion for Ānanda,
  wanting what’s best for him. So they approached him wanting to stir
  him up, and recited these verses:

“You’ve left for the jungle, the root of a tree,
    with quenching in your heart.
    Practice absorption, Gotama, don’t be negligent!
    What is this hullabaloo to you?”

Impelled by that deity, Venerable Ānanda was struck with a sense of
  urgency.

On the other hand, the Buddha did say that teaching others should not be neglected in SN 10.2 (quoted below), as it is a duty of compassion:

Then a spirit named Sakka went up to the Buddha, and addressed him in
  verse:

“You’ve given up all ties,
    and are fully freed.
    It’s not a good idea for you, ascetic,
    to be instructing others.”

Buddha:

“No matter what the apparent reason
    why people are together, Sakka,
    it’s unworthy for a wise person
    to not think of the other with compassion.
If you instruct others
    with a mind clear and confident,
    your compassion and empathy
    don’t create attachments.”


text:
What are the benefits of solitary practice?
I have heard about buddhist monks who undertake strictly solitary practice for 6 months where they practice entirely by themselves. They have no human contact and some of the other monks will come and bring them their food. The other monks will leave the food at the entrance and only when they leave the solitary monk will come out to take the food.
I'm very interested in this way of practicing and would like to know what the benefits of such concentrated practice is and the fact that there is no human contact or contact with the outside world.

If one has the maturity, will and energy, this can be very good. Unfortunately, most lack that kind of will until they have progressed a good distance already. Bodhidharma, the Zen patriarch practiced this way for nine years.
Isolated practice can only cut us off from humans, when concentration deepens, it can often lead to encounters with non-humans :-) It's never possible to cut us off from all sentient existence.
There are dangers and rewards with everything. Reintegration with society can be difficult, if we are not mature and stable enough, some experiences in solitary meditation can be very scary and disturbing, especially if we choose to practice in places with spirits, like graveyards.
It's like free climbing without a rope, not for beginners.
p.s. if you have not already, read the biography of Ajahn Mun Bhuridatto Thera

Thats a good point about the reintegration into society.

The rule of thumb is it takes 3-5 times the time of practice to integrate the learning into life. After a three month silent retreat it can take a year or two to associate with normal society. Of one has particularly deep insights one must also be prepared for a period of depression afterwards.

That is a long time to reintegrate oneself. Also where can one do 3 months silent retreats? I heard only about 10-day retreat. Or you mean 3 months retreats only for monks?

Pa auk monastery, Burma if you're into samatha jhanas and powers, Wat chomtong, Chiang mai has a 21 day retreat in vipassana and there are several retreats in the mahasi tradition - see this for 60 days. There are others for 100 days or more, even for lay people

If you're interested in Zen and Mahayana traditions, check out plumvillage.org (Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh), France and www.bodhizendo.org, South India

Thank you for the the advice but im a theravada buddhist and follow the Mahasi sayadaw tradition.

@Lanka http://www.buddhanet.net/medburma.htm for Mahasi Sayadaw

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Meditation puts the body into a sort of state of hibernation, doesn't it, to some extent? The passage of time becomes very relative, and if the practitioner is accessing a bliss state, then...who needs human company?
Monks in isolation are involved in repeated intense inner-directed mental exercises.
[here]
you might find this useful

I also wonder what benefit would this behavior bring to the world. What is the point of achieving bliss and illumination, if you stay isolated from other humans? Probably it's material for another question....

One can always benefit others using metta.

Isolation helps achieving peace of mind and state where there is no lust for things

Do you have any references to back up the statement about hibernation?

Yes  I do have http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/fyi-can-humans-hibernate

Good, thanks. You can put that link into your answer to increase the quality of the answer by having a reference. We have a guide for new user that you might find useful. Also welcome to Buddhism SE. http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post?cb=1

If you press the "paper-clip" on the layout panel you can insert a hyper-link.

Such practice is not wished by the Buddha, actually the whole issues of storing food and cooking for themselves are meant also for that purpose. There was a question about livelihood of hermits here, which touches the issue outwardly.
Inwardly the Buddha often "begged" monks to stay with the Sangha, since solitude life (even if still for alms out) is not good for one having not developed Samadhi, e.g. not beyond sensuality at its gross form.
In one case, to Upali, he made the example of cats and rabbits, willing to follow the elephant and jumping into the lake, finding no ground and get lost.
To develop right view, as well to abstain from sensuality for the next step, is good done when having the "controlling" support of admirable friends.
So for a worldling of no benefit, and for someone on the path, it's better to depend on admirable friend, Nissaya, Nyom Lanka.
Practising people are always in solitude (turned inwardly, what ever they do) and if not talking about Dhamma.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

Thank you Bhante. This is very true: "Practising people are always in solitude (turned inwardly, what ever they do) and if not talking about Dhamma.".

There is no special way of practise here, apart from having samadhi. If there is no samadhi, there is no bliss. If there is no bliss, such solitude will be torture. Samadhi is ideally developed in an ordinary retreat.
This said, there are no special benefits of such solitude, if the solitude is physically comfortable. When the Buddha used the word 'solitude' ('viveka'), he was primarily referring to mental solitude from the five hindrances. Thus, for a mind with samadhi, physical solitude makes little difference.
However, living in a forest or cave, where there are animals, snakes & creeping things, this is challenging & has the special benefit of fearlessness.

Thanks Dhammadhatu. I've heard Ajahn Punnadhammo tell stories about monks in Thailand that purposely meditate in jungle areas where there are tigers and other dangerous animals.


text:
Meditation on pain?
I may be able to get into meditation. again. I wondered if it was worth setting oneself the goal of meditating on pain / frustration.
Perhaps a little masochistic, but it really does feel like the ultimate.
Ideally zen, but anything welcome.

ok i'll post here rather than to individual replies... seems like kindness and compassion are really any sort of "ultimate" not at all the pain an individual experiences. thanks for correcting me :)

To let go of the sensations of pain in the body or of memories of pain, we must practice loving kindness, towards our body and towards our mental contents.
Whenever pain affects us, we must be like a loving mother consoling her crying baby by cradling it. We pick up the pain, and love it. We care for it, we acknowledge it, we understand it, and we put it to bed. We say, "Dear painful knee, I am aware of you, I acknowledge your presence in my life, you are a valuable part of me, I love you.". Repeating like this we remain with the anxiety of being in pain, and the pain itself for as long as it takes for us to be calm and relaxed. We must feel deeply loved. Soon the pain becomes an old friend, and we are able to say, "dear pain, welcome, come, sit with me and have a cup of tea. Thank you for your presence in my life, we are good friends now."
We must not be in a hurry to let go of the pain, it is not our enemy, it is a part of us. Just like a loving mother ignores everything else in her life the moment the baby cries, we must be with the pain totally. We offer our complete presence to the pain, we love it unconditionally. A baby that has been ignored will cry harder for the mother's loving attention, and our pain is similar. We need not fear it, it is a part of us, and we must love all parts of ourselves. To offer our complete presence to ourself is the greatest gift we can give.
By bringing up the healing energies of mindfulness and love, we offer a very comfortable condition for our body to recover. The mind becomes a true friend of the body, allowing it to heal quickly.
If there are particularly damaging memories of pain, our mind will bring it up whenever physical conditions of pain are present. There is no need to fear this either. This is the normal and expected function of the mind. The mind is actually trying to help, we must understand this and not blame the mind, it is our dear friend. Practicing similarly, by loving the painful memories, we cradle them to rest.
Pain itself is not life threatening, even if it isn't pleasant. Everything is impermanent. Pondering on the fruitfulness and preciousness of human life, we remain thankful for experiencing it in all its shades. Developing a heart of gratitude, we welcome the difficulties as old friends.
May you heal well soon, and be pain free.
(Much of this is based on the teachings of Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh.)

I am happy to be corrected, if you disagree, please leave a note on why this answer is undesirable. A down vote doesn't help me understand better. Thank you.

The Buddha did not teach masochism.  He tried that path for six years and it ultimately left him no closer to enlightenment than when he was a prince.  Pain and frustration will arise in your practice.  It's inevitable.  Become mindful of these things when they come about on their own.  They will teach you quite a bit about yourself.  To actively seek pain and frustration out, however, is setting yourself up for failure.  No one can continue on a path like that for very long.  To do so is also completely devoid of compassion for yourself.
The Buddha taught a dharma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end (Kalama Sutta).  There is nothing good about self-inflicted suffering.

No need to search pain out. Do sitting meditation, develop a practice, and pain and frustration will find you :)
There's no need to go out of your way to fabricate any state. Pain and pleasure have the same intrinsic qualities. When you sit, you will see this. There is no need to condition oneself specifically for any state, since all states are impermanent, suffering, and nonself.

Many times in the Suttas we find how the body should be seen:

And although this body, Māgandiya, is a disease, a tumour, a dart, a
calamity, and an affliction, referring to this body you say: ‘This is that
health, Master Gotama, this is that Nibbāna.’ You do not have that
noble vision, Māgandiya, by means of which you might know health
and see Nibbāna.

Māgandiya Sutta,MN
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.html
Compassion should not be directed to the body but to all living beings.
Clinging to the body must be destroyed.
Pain should be seen  be seen as impermanent and what is impermanent should be seen with wisdom as: "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not myself"

"If a painful feeling arises in him, he knows: 'Now a painful feeling has arisen in me. It is conditioned, not unconditioned. Conditioned by what? Even by this body it is conditioned. And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen. But if this painful feeling that has arisen is conditioned by the body which is impermanent, compounded and dependently arisen, how could such a painful feeling be permanent?'
"In regard to both the body and the painful feeling he dwells contemplating impermanence, dwells contemplating evanescence, dwells contemplating detachment, dwells contemplating cessation, dwells contemplating relinquishment. And in him who thus dwells, the underlying tendency to resistance in regard to the body and painful feeling vanishes.

Gelañña Sutta,SN  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.007.nypo.html

"When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling.
"Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare.
"But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one.

Sallatha Sutta, SN  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html

There is an organisation call Breathworks (associated with my Sangha - Triratna) whose aim is to help people with chronic pain through meditation. Just to quote Jon Kabat-Zinn from the website

The Breathworks approach to Mindfulness-Based Pain Management (MBPM)
  is the most comprehensive, in-depth, scientifically up-to-date and
  user-friendly approach to learning the how of living with chronic pain
  and reclaiming one’s life that I know of.

I appreciate that it's not exactly what you asked for but part of the courses is to use mindfulness directed at the pain itself to enable people to better live with their conditions and enhance their quality of life. I've know many people who have done these courses and they benefitted enormously and in several cases people moved on from this course to more "traditional" Buddhist practice and became very committed practitioners.
Just a note - I'm not pushing this in any way. I just think it is a good example of an established way that people do meditate on pain and I thought you may find it interesting to check out the website.

There is one Tibetan meditation designed to reduce the act of clinging to the body. It is not meditation on pain per se, but might be something you would find of interest.
This practice can be done in different ways, and it is recommended you have prior meditation experience before engaging in it.
Sometimes it is done in cemeteries, sometimes with the aid of pictures, and sometimes with the imagination.
The process of the meditation is simple, take posture, visualize your body, then visualize the process of decay, the skin drying and cracking, falling off, the bugs eating your flesh, take it till there is nothing but bone left. Acknowledge the impermanence of your body, of your life, and try to let go of clinging that you may have towards your body, and the bodies of others.
This meditation is not uncontroversial, and not for everyone.
Here is one resource the Satipatthana Sutta with commentary and pictures to aid in the visualization.
The practice described above is related to a more frequently referenced and practiced Death meditation

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE.

I'm not sure what you mean by "meditation on pain", but in this comment Andrei wrote,

Plus, my current mentor has us do pain tolerance exercises every week. Once you switch, pain feels more like heat, not like pain pain. (It's not a damaging pain, just static muscle exercise)

So apparently there is such a thing as self-inflicted (but non-damaging) pain.
This answer is probably a further reference to it.

in my own experience, the same switch in perspective on pain comes about through normal sitting meditation, without having to search it out. that being said, going out of your way to bring about such a state would seem to be desire.

authors: Леха Смирнов


text:
What are the "Five Daily Recollections" and their benefits?
Question is in the title.
What are these daily recollections and how can they be used in ones practice?

The Five Daily Recollections can be found in the "Anguttara Nikaya - V.57 - Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation".
They are in brief:

Five Daily Recollections

I am of the nature to grow old; I cannot avoid aging.
I am of the nature to become ill or injured; I cannot avoid illness or injury.
I am of the nature to die; I cannot avoid death.
All that is mine, dear and delightful, will change and vanish.
I am the owner of my actions;
  I am born of my actions;
  I am related to my actions;
  I am supported by my actions;
  Any thoughts, words or deeds I do, good or evil, those I will inherit.

The Buddha advised: "These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained".

Rationale and contemplation

"In this discourse, the Buddha explains that the rationale for contemplating (paccavekkhato) the first three facts is to weaken or overcome conceit (mada) in youth, in good health and in being alive; the fourth contemplation is to weaken or overcome lust (rāga); and, the fifth contemplation is weaken or overcome irresponsibility embodied in improper (duccarita) acts, speech and thoughts.
Thus, by contemplating these facts, the Noble Eightfold Path (anchored in right understanding, conduct and effort) is cultivated and spiritual fetters are abandoned."