text:
the Pair of Knowing and Object
I am searching for a precise understanding of what Buddhist authors mean by the "pair" of "knowing" and "object". For example

...we see that what we call "self" is simply the pairwise progression of knowing and object.

A second example

In all perception, at each event of noting, there is always this twin
  pair, the object and the mind,  which observes the object. These two
  elements of the object and the knowing mind always arise  in pairs,
  and apart from these 2, there does not exist any other thing in the
  form of a 'person',  an 'observer', an 'experiencer', nor any 'Ego',
  'Subject', or  any 'Self'! No identity is present! Similarly is there
  no 'observed object', or  any 'substance' "out there" independent of
  the mind!

Can this "pair" of "knowing" and "object" be explained precisely? Or is it subject to many interpretations?
What insight is gained from discussion of this pair of knowing and objects?

You speak of an instance of a phrase, what phrase are you referring to? I have not read the word "pair" in any traditional text I have studied, where did you find it? What do you mean with "identifying this pair"? Maybe you could clarify your question a little.

The "pair" ("dyad") exists in a number of texts: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanananda/wheel183.html#passage-21

The "pair" or "dyad" of "knowing" and "object" is found in the Pali scriptures, as follows:

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus... there is
  this (internal) 'group' ('kaya': of five aggregates) and external minds-and-bodies: thus this dyad (pair). Dependent on the
  dyad (pair) there is contact.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.19

~~~

Owing to a dyad (pair), monks, consciousness comes into being. And how, monks, does consciousness come into being owing to a dyad?
Owing to the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Forms are impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Thus this dyad is fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing and 'becoming-otherwise.'
Owing to the ear and sounds arises ear-consciousness. The ear is impermanent...
Owing to the nose and scents arises nose-consciousness. The nose is impermanent...
Owing to the tongue and savors arises tongue-consciousness...The tongue is impermanent.
Owing to the body and tangibles arises body-consciousness. The body is impermanent...
Owing to the mind and ideas arises mind-consciousness. The mind is impermanent...contacted, monks, one feels. Contacted, one intends.
  Contacted, one perceives. Thus these states also are fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.'
SN 35.93

~~

The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be
  known.
MN 148

The 1st example in the opening post is incorrect understanding. For example, what is called "self" is not included in the pairwise occurring of knowing and object. The mind can know an object but be empty of 'self' because 'self' is a product of thought/thinking (sankhara) while knowing an object is a product of sense consciousness (awareness: vinnana).
The 2nd example in opening post is correct understanding, in that when the dyad operates, there is no 'self' in its operation. However, the thought of 'self' can arise quickly afterwards (called 'becoming'), as described in the following quote:

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'... The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression and sense-impression is
  the condition of feeling.'
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.... And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'...the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of
  craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.'... 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of (self) becoming.' Such
  is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.
SN 12.12

However, to assert there are no objects "out there" independent of the mind goes too far. It is an extreme view because to assert there are no objects independent of mind asserts the mind is 'God' or 'Brahma'; that the mind is the 'Creator' of the external world.
The Pali scriptures state, for example, the Laws of Nature exist "out there" regardless of whether they are known by a human mind or not, as follows:

Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. All processes are
  unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. The Tathagata directly
  awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking
  through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it
  forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain
Dhamma-niyama Sutta

The insight gained in knowing this pair of knowing and objects is explained in SN 35.93 quoted above, namely: (i) the mind can clearly identify or be aware of them and not create 'self-becoming' & suffering in relation to them; (ii) the mind can see they arise & pass; are impermanent & not-self.
For example, an object of sight comes to be when eye-consciousness functions & an object of sight ceases to be when the eye-consciousness ceases to function. If this is watched, the mind will realise all sense objects are impermanent each time the eye blinks.

Joseph Goldstein has at least several references to the pair of knowing and object in his book...if not a Buddhist teaching, then why do I see this in so many places?

That mind & external objects are a 'pair' is a Buddhist teaching but the quotes you provided are not Buddhist teachings but, instead, misinterpretations of Buddhist teachings. You need to read my answer very carefully because the distinctions I have made are very subtle.

I have done so. Thank you. What are the origins of the "pair" : knowing and objects? i.e. why did Buddha introduce this, to impart us with what insight?

The purpose of the pair is for many reasons: (i) so the mind can clearly identify or be aware of them and not create 'self-becoming' & suffering in relation to them; (ii) so the mind can see they arise & pass; are impermanent & not-self. An object of sight comes to be when eye-consciousness functions & an object of sight ceases to be when the eye-consciousness ceases to function. If this is watched, the mind will realise everything is impermanent each time the eye blinks. Thus, the mind will not cling to anything in the world. But to assert there are no objects "out there" is going too far.

I will rewrite my answer in about 20 minutes to make it clearer (when I finish doing my work). I am currently doing two things at once on two computers.

I misread the 2nd example. It is correct. I will have to change my post again. This comes from doing two tasks at the same time.

You do not have to worry yourself. Your answer had the correct intention.

Its OK. I am finished now. I enjoy posting dhamma. It is never a worry.

You seem to be asking about the relationships among the concepts of "self," "action," and the "object" or situation targeted by that action. (In Buddhism, the perception of an object is an action.) You could say that an agent or self threw (or saw) a ball. Or you could say that a set of beliefs and wishes in the form of an action-plan caused the ball to fly through the air (or caused the perception of the ball). The first is a form of object-causality. The second is a form of event-causality. In event-causality, the agent or self or subject disappears. Confusion arises when a person believes that talk about object-causality implies that, when switching to event-causality, one should become aware of the self as an object of awareness. The real problem arises when, in some kind of meditation, a person imagines an experience of a self and slips into full samadhi and believes he has achieved greatness.


text:
Does God exist in Buddhism?
I'm new to this site. So I'd like to ask a question about God.
Do Buddhists believe in the existence of a God?
Does Lord Buddha mention anything about this?

Possible duplicate of Does Buddhism accept Existence?

Unfortunately, this is one of the first questions people ask, especially if they are coming from a theistic background. As a result, many who require the belief of a 'God' as a precondition, turn away from Buddhism without even practicing and finding out for oneself. Likewise, many atheists also get turned off when they hear about hells/heavens/rebirth in Buddhism.
To answer your question, if by 'God', you mean a creator/omnipotent/all governing entity, the answer is No.
'God' is a Christian term. At the time of the Buddha, words like 'Mahābrahmā' or 'Brahma' were used to describe such concepts. Brahmajala sutta talks in detail about how this belief was originated.
The concept goes directly against one of the core teachings of Buddhism: "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" - all phenomena are non-self or devoid of a soul.
Even a Jataka story questions the belief in such a being:
"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?"

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?"

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!"

Here's a related article: Buddhist attitude towards 'God'
Buddhism teaches that all misbeliefs(beliefs that block the path to Nibbana) are variations of 2 fundamental misbeliefs.

Sassata Vada - Eternalism
Uchcheda Vada - Nihilism

The belief of 'God' falls under the first category.
Even though holding onto such a belief does not prevent one from being born in heavens(given that they do many good deeds), it does block the path to Nibbana(Enlightenment). That's why it is called Maggavarana. Buddhism has very little to offer to such people until they are ready to give up that belief.

Very good answer. You have made it clear that God is a term which comes from Christian theology. Many people get confused as ask if Buddha is God or God's messenger. And many try to say Buddha is 'like God' which is also incorrect. Buddha is Buddha.

Even the word 'spirituality' would not technically apply to Buddhism given that atman is the same 'soul/spirit identified as breath' concept as ruach/pneuma/spiritus (cf. German Atem, Dutch adem).

The answer is yes, but in a different way.
Maha Brahma, Great Brahma:
Maha Brahma really exists, but his existence is viewed as temporary and impermanent, He is an extremely powerful being who mistakenly believes himself to be the all-knowing all-powerful Creator of the universe, who comes into existence at the beginning of the universe:

"There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period
  this universe contracts (disintegrates). While the universe is contracting,
  beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.
  There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.
"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this universe begins to expand once again. While
  the universe is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a
  certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the
  exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made,
  feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in
  glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns):
  'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment,
  due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their
  merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.
"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is
  the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings
  might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these
  beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be
  Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the
  reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here
  after him.'
"Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who
  re-arose there after him. (Brahmajāla Sutta, DN 1)

The Brahma worlds are full of pleasure and last for such an extremely extremely long time that it is often mistaken as eternal by many but eventually the Brahma worlds come to an end (it's a temporary heavenly world, so it's not a solution to ending suffering). Maha Brahma is extremely powerful so He is often mistaken as all-powerful, all-knowing, etc...
Most likely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and other religions that speak of a Creator god that existed in the beginning of the universe) came from the Brahma worlds or beings influenced by the Brahma worlds.
The reason why many morals in Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions resemble Buddhism is because they lead towards the Brahma worlds which is viewed as one of the best possible destinations, but still below the Pure Abodes and nibbana.
In order to get into the Brahma worlds one has to be extremely virtuous and loving or enter higher meditative states (jhanas).
Maha Brahma and other Brahma-beings are viewed as mostly good and closer in accordance to the dhamma than most.
Maha Brahma and other extremely powerful beings in this universe-system are still influenced by the Evil One (Mara, Satan), and still experience sorrow, anger, etc...unlike arahants and Buddhas.
There is a story in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta (MN 49) where the Evil One possesses followers of Brahma to say something like "Don't defy Brahma otherwise you'll go to hell" just like many modern day followers do.
The Evil One (Mara, Satan) prefers that people go to the temporary Brahma worlds rather than achieve arahantship knowing that it's temporary.
The Buddha says to a Brahma-being "Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you" (Brahma-nimantanika Sutta, MN 49).
The Unborn / Nibbana:

"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor
  fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor
  dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of
  nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception;
  neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there,
  I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing
  away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support
  [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress."
— Udana 8.1
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If
  there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there
  would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made
  — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an
  unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born
  — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
— Udana 8.3

Buddhas:
Buddhas are viewed as Supreme Beings.
Buddhas and arahants are viewed as higher (or superior) to Maha Brahma and other beings in the universe under samsara.
The Buddha also has superior supernormal powers to Maha Brahma as well.

"All-conquering, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things,
    unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having
  fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher?"
  (Dhammapada, 353)

In Pure Land Buddhism there are Buddha-lands that last for an incalculably long time. Amida Buddha seems to be the main one centered, who's light shines everywhere.
Primordial Buddha:
This Buddha is the Original Buddha, like the unborn itself inside of everything found in Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism.

"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I
  am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I
  am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am
  ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I
  give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me."
  - All-Creating King Tantra

So certainly Buddhism has Supreme Being concepts.

Yes it is. Depending on the Karma (good Karma) you have gathered, you can born as a God in "God's world". So yes, Buddhism believes in the existence of God. Well, not just one God who controls everything, but plenty of Gods. You can even enter to that level if you bring your mind to a higher level through meditation. There are so many evidences in the Buddhist literature about Gods. However Buddhism doesn't say or ask to expect anything from them. That's the difference.

Very detailed, learned and referenced answers are given above.  Just want to add my two cents worth to give a simple lay answer.  When people ask this question they are almost always talking about a creator god.  A creator god is by definition supernatural in that he has total control over the natural order and exists outside of it.  Such a god is unequivocally denied by Lord Buddha (& Buddhism).  However, "divine Beings" are undeniably affirmed by Buddhism.  It is made clear, however, that such beings are not above or outside nature.  They simply dwell in other planes of existence, and like other living beings are subject to the Law of Karma.  They also have a "lifespan", albeit much greater than ours,after which they die, and are born again, unless they achieve Nibbana, which they can only do so thru a human birth.  Where do these beings come from to get to their "higher plane"?  The answer is partially given in that thru attainment of jhana a person may be born in those "divine" planes.  Which planes, etc., are determined by the level of jhana attained.  Ven. H. Gunaratne's book, "The Path of Serenity and Insight" explains this.

If you mean Isvara, a personal creator like Jehovah, Allah, Shiva or other such deity which exist forever and creates the world from nothing, the answer is no.
If you mean a god in the sense of Hinduism, again the answer is no. Buddhism refers to the same gods by name, but the Buddhist concept of a god (deva) are heavenly beings who are limited in existence and power. Not something we want to aspire to since they are still caught in samsara.
Buddha refered to Brahma, but his interpretation of this word is simply a state of existence, the uncreated. Similar to the concept of the Tao.
If you are looking for something similar to Christianity, then Pureland somes close. Amitabha Buddha is not a god, but you can be reborn in his pureland. And there is the story of Kuanyin (a manifestation of Amitabha) who was born as Miao Shan. Miao Shan was killed, descended into hell, rose from the dead, and rescues those who call her name.

Textually, El (God) of the Bible is 'nothing' i.e. not a thing. And the original sense of the English word 'thing' is an aggregation (or system) i.e. a thing has parts. God as whole and indivisible would therefore not be a thing. Hence the distinction between creator and creation in the Abrahamic traditions. Is this Brahma or Buddha nature or sunyata? I don't know.

Yes, for many schools, the idea of god exists (is not the God of Christians and Muslims and Jews, mind you).  Buddhism is a big and old religion with many schools.  But Buddhist religion is not centered around the idea of God.  Their metaphysics is more concerned with ideas of rebirth and nirvana and such, than with describing a god or ideas of heaven and hell.  In addition, in West it is more the philosophy of Buddhism than its religious aspects, that have received attention.  For instance, because of its emphasis on introspection and disciplined cognitive activities such as focused attention and concentration, this philosophy has been easiest to fuse with psychological sciences.
So to get a real sense for Buddhist ideas of the supernatural, don't rely on popular books published in West because they're either trying to bring the Buddhist idea of the first cause and creator closer to Christianity to make it easier for religious readers, or to do away with god completely.  Neither is true.

We warmly welcome you to our group Raymond, but I am very sorry to say that your is not a factual statement, and I am very sorry to have to down-vote you.

@SapthaVisuddhi I didn't see anything contra-factual in this answer. If you want to post a comment to criticize it, it might be better to be more specific (i.e. identify what, exactly, is "not factual"), or more prescriptive/constructive (i.e. how to improve the answer). If you think this isn't a good answer, another alternative is to post a different (better) answer yourself.

@ChrisW, Unfortunately I may not get a chance to do so till the second half of October. These days I am a bit busy making arrangements for a 15 day road trip to the east coast of Canada. Now that I have made that comment, I would have to provide that 'more prescriptive / constructive' answer. That would be the first thing that I will do once I get back. Until such time I will refrain from making such comments. Sorry about that.

At the very outset of this post, may I make it clear to one and all that this is only an interpretation from a Buddhist Point of View, and it is not a criticism of any one of the religions that believe in a single all-powerful 'God' such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Nowhere in the scriptures is found a mention of ‘A God’, and it can be said that the concept of ‘God” is constructed by the mind due to the ignorance or "avidya" of "anicca, dukka and anatta". Because all things are conditioned and transient (anicca), the concept of ‘God’ too has no real independent identity (anatta) - so do not truly ‘exist’. Furthermore the mind that is being used to comprehend what is written here is also created due to ‘avidya’ or ignorance. What we are dealing here is relative truths, as opposed to Nirvana, Anicca, Dukka, and Anatta which are Absolute Truths that we will never fully comprehend. To make this point clear, let me take ‘Anicca’ that we have come to know as “impermanence”. Only an Arahant would fully understand ‘Anicca’. Whoever that realizes what Anicca, Dukka, or Anatta is will attain ‘Nirvana’ that very moment of understanding. So what we will ever know is kind of sort of what it is – or "rather," "partial," or "somewhat" of what it truly is.
For the people of the world, the worldlings, of a bygone era, the Sun was the Surya Divya (Sun God). From a not so distant a past, thay have created a "body less" entity in the God, Brahman, Allah or Yehovah that has taken the place ‘Sun God’ and others. According to Buddhism, these entities are created by the ‘worldlings’ / ‘sattva’ and create more ‘samskaras’ in this very act, and extending their very journey in this endless samsara.
The essence of Buddhism is the Four Noble truths. It is Buddha’s essential teachings aimed at ending dukkha in this very life, through the realizing of The Four Noble Truths.  The essence of Dukkha/Suffering lies with the mind, and aging, illness, and death are its shadows. The ignorance of these truths is avidya or ignorance / unawareness. The Dharma, teaches that the essence of Dukkha / Suffering is clinging, and the most basic form of clinging is self‐identification. The Buddha advised us to seek to attain the state of non-returners.  At least all should try to attain the state of stream-entrants in this very life.
I may expand on this in a couple of months. This post is in response to @ChrisW & @Raymond comment & post.

People create all kinds of ideas about 'God', to the point where people murder in the name of 'God' or people develop ideas 'God' will give them immortality simply for taking a personal allegiance.
There were always 'gods' among the ancient peoples but the Jewish idea of 'God' (which was transmitted to Christianity & Islam also) was originally about 'Law' ('Torah'). 'God' and 'Law' were originally essentially the same thing. Many religious Jews do not personify 'G-d'. Even Muslims openly discuss/debate the issue of anthropomorphism.
Buddhism has 'Law' ('Niyama') thus has something similar to 'God', albeit, strictly impersonal.
Just like many Buddhists wrongly take the Buddha to be a 'person', so do many people take 'God' to be a 'person', particularly Christians.

Buddhist cosmology describes 31 planes of existence, divided into the following groups:

Formless realm
Form realm
Sensuous World <--- we humans are here
Not-so-pleasant place to be

As some of the answers here explained, Buddhism is after all concerned with the cultivation of the holy life. An all-powerful god has little relevance as far as the cultivation of the holy life is concerned.
Having said that, it is interesting to note that among the 31 planes of existence one being comes very close to fitting the description of an all powerful god. This god belongs to the Form world and is called the Great Brahma, who (in the Kevaddha Sutta) is described by other lesser gods as the:

... the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful,
      the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and
      Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.

Legend has it that great Brahma came into existence where he was alone. When other lesser deities and beings manifest into being; it so happened that he was at that time hoping for some company. He then mistakenly believed that he was the cause that willed them into existence, and thus consider himself the creator.
In Kevaddha sutta, the great Brahma shares a amusing exchange with a monk, where he couldn't answer questions of his "creations". I'm not going to spoil it for you, so I have included the link for you to find out yourself. :-)
Despite the spirit of poking fun at these deities, it is also important to acknowledge that the level of cultivation that they have achieved in their previous lives are nothing to scoff at. It is unfortunate that these beings did not have the fortune of encountering the Buddha and his teachings. Otherwise, these are beings who in their previous lives polished their virtues to the utmost; and that is worthy of praise.

Kevaddha Sutta certainly will inform one of what even God does not know. Maha Brahmas, like Baka, think they’ve gone beyond anything the Buddha knows, so the Buddha has to go up to their Brahma heavens and subdue their pride, to show them that they still have more to let go of, that there is something the Buddha himself has gone beyond but they haven’t. Buddha has found a level of consciousness that Baka hasn’t known, that’s not known through the senses, not experienced thru sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, or ideas sensed thru the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind.

Yes,
gods exist according to Buddhist teaching. A soul can be born in these realms if their karma is sufficient for it.
But there is no god who is eternal.

The concept of a soul (atman) is completely in contrast to Buddhist understanding, Buddhas teachings (anatta)

I don't know much about lord buddha.
Lord Buddha mainly wanted mindful of inner peace. and control mindset, and spread his thoughts to his devotees, he removed anger, anxiety, etc from him,
"He showed with patience we can achieve anything in this world".
Ex:Gandhi, Dr. BR.Ambedkar, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg who followed Buddhism.
"God is nothing but believe and belief in yourself."

You answer is more of an comment than an answer. And your explanation of what is God has nothing to do with Buddha Dharma.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Can you reference an article which (dubiously) claims that the Pali Canon is an invention of Western Orientalists?
A year or so ago an ex-New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) German Tibetan Buddhist living in a monastery in Italy referred me to an article online for $35 that (he claimed) proved that the Pali Canon was invented by Western Orientalists. Since I didn't have $35 to spend at the time I didn't order the article, and now I've lost track of it. Anybody know the article and its location that I am referring to or have any information about this somewhat dubious claim?
Just to clarify, I am asking whether you know the title, author, or location of the article. There is no doubt about the article's existence - I saw it (I just didnt buy it). I believe it was located on one of those academic websites where you have to pay for articles, if that helps. Secondarily, I am also interested in what the article's author's argument might be.

Controversy is an effective tool to sell merchandise. There are many such time wasting trash available all over the internet.

Without genralizing westerners I can that many academic scholars in the west try to beat down non-western culture and religion. A huge battle is already goin on between Hindu insiders(practitioners) vs scholars of Hinduism who are outsiders(non-practitioners). They try to force fit Indian history into biblical cronology, use Marxist theory to see who oppressed whom in the scriptures, etc(try to instigate fight between Hindus & Buddhits). Would be interesting to know what menance this author was up to.

if it were true scholastic or research paper, it would have been available for brutal no-mercy peer review.  Just saying.

Everyone: if you're able to answer this question, please post an answer not a comment.

Related Evidence of Pali Canon's Origin

@ChrisW  Countless times I've seen you say "that doesn't answer the post" but this is the first time I ever saw you delete a post. Are you going to delete all the others that don't answer the question?

@Uilium My understanding/policy based on this topic is that I delete questions that are "not an answer", if-and-only-if other users flag and/or downvote the 'answer'. But other users usually don't flag or downvote, and so I don't delete: instead I post a comment, in case the author will to revise it to make it a closer answer to the question. OTOH I deleted this answer, not just because it wasn't an answer but because of this policy.

@ChrisW I see.  The actual deleting might be easily automated if conditions are "not an answer"(as determined by moderator) and it's been flagged and downvoted X amount of times. I'm  surprised   people flagged it. I don't think UrsulRosu was implying the OP was doubting the Pali Canon.

I have found an article that may be the article I asked for. It certainly seems to approximate to what I remember about the person who made the statement to me that "Western Orientalists invented the Pali Canon" and the academic article I found online (except that I article I saw was not free). It is "The Buddhist Canon and the Canon of Buddhist Studies" by Oliver Freiberger and is published by the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies at https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8951.

I think it's important to plainly state that the author of this article is not saying that Westerners wrote the Pali canon or even that they were responsible for it's current canonical organization.  All he's saying is that Buddhism as it is studied academically - specifically the practice-based emphasis found in most university programs - is largely a Western construct.  It's very much Marxist critique on current academic study.  I'd even go so far as to say that it's a valid one.

My question is about the identity of the article referenced by the individual with whom I was communicating, and is not a statement about what the author of the article did or did not say.

Gotcha.  I just think your original question comes off as looking for an article that states that Westerners invented the Pali canon whereas this article proposes something vastly different.

Remember that this was the interpretation of a third party, and not necessarily accurate. Also, this may not be the actual article either. Any other suggestions are welcome. Incidentally, it was Tenzin Peljor. If anyone knows this individual's work and beliefs, maybe they can come up with an alternative suggestion.

"I will argue that the image of the canon as being consistent, one-dimensional, and purely normative—an image that underlies the current rejection of canonical texts—is to a large extent the product of a ‘canonization’ carried out by earlier generations of scholars...A considerable number of scholars have become critical of the traditional, historical-philological paradigm...In the course of this trend, the role of the Pali canon in Buddhist Studies has been subject to critical examination....The Pali canon appears as one among many representations of Buddhism, but as a rather unexciting one."

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


text:
Pali Linguistic Algorithm?
Some Buddhist writers seem to imply that they can apply a screen or test, linguistic or otherwise, to the Pali Canon and thus separate the original teachings of the Buddha from its "later" degenerations, and are thus able to describe "original Buddhism."
However, any application of this "method" seems to degenerate almost immediately into an ideological argument based on implicit assumptions of what the Buddha's teaching was like or naive inferences that because a text appears to be later, that automatically disqualifies it from consideration (in fact, later texts can incorporate or revise older traditions, elaborate older doctrines, consist of valid inferences, or even consist of valid original insights based on the original set of insights and thus be valid in their own right).
Yet despite these claims one finds only vague generalizations (e.g., Pande) or outright ideology. If such an algorithm existed, it should be possible to create a revised textus receptus and I have not seen this. A.K. Warder, a Pali scholar and a linguist, says nothing about this in Indian Buddhism, although he does imply that the Digha Nikaya is the oldest and therefore most authentic part of the Pali Canon.
Does anybody know of an in depth and articulate description of such a linguistic algorithm or method that is free of ideological bias?

A.K. Warder, a Pali scholar and a linguist ... does imply that the Digha Nikaya is the oldest and therefore most authentic part of the
  Pali Canon

beneath is some gleaned info on the relative chronology of the canonical Buddhist texts

From T.W. Rhys Davids, Appendix to Chapter 10 of 'Buddhist India' Putnam, 1903.
http://fsnow.com/text/buddhist-india/chapter10.htm
[The list] represents the probable order in which the extant Buddhist documents of this period were composed. They were not yet written, and a great deal has no doubt been lost.

The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
Episodes found, in identical words, in two or more of the existing books.
The Sīlas, the Pārāyana, the Octades, the pātimokkha.
The Dīgha, Majjhima, Aṅguttara, and Saṁyutta Nikāyas.
The Sutta Nipāta, the Thera- and Therī-Gāthās, the Udānas, and the Khuddaka Pāṭha.
The Sutta Vibhaṅga and the Khandhakas.
The Jātakas and the Dhammapadas.
The Niddesa, the Itivuttakas, and the Paṭisambhidā.
The Peta- and Vimāna-Vatthus, the Apadānas, the Cariyā Piṭaka, and the Buddha Vaṁsa.
The Abhidhamma books; the last of which is the Kathā Vatthu, and the earliest probably the Puggala Paññatti.

Alternative chronological order
from Bimala Law: A History of Pali Literature, Ch 1, pp. 29-66
Chronological placement of the Octades (Atthakavagga) and Patimokkha,
whole Nikayas, regarding their strata, is questionable, same for Sutta Nipata

The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found in identical works in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
Episodes found in identical works in two or more of the existing books.
The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen poems without the prologue, the Atthaka group of four or sixteen poems, the Sikkhapadas.
Dlgha, Vol. I, the Majjhima, the Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code of 152 rules.
The Digha, Vols. II and III, the Thera-Theri-gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, Suttavibhanga, Patisambhidamagga, Puggalapaññatti and
  Vibhanga.
The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada and the
  Kathavatthu.
The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana, the Itivuttaka, the Sutta Nipata, the Dhatukatha, the Yamaka, and the Patthana.
The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka, and the Apadana.
The Parivarapatha.
The Khuddakapāṭha.

How or from what were these orderings derived? Was it "a linguistic algorithm", or some other way?

i guess that's the result of the authors' close aquaintance with the corpus and knowing it inside and out like the back of their hand, but they probably provide more detailed argumentation in the referenced sources

There are already such linguistic algorithms around, as far as I understood based on neural networks, which are able to attribute texts to authors by evaluating frequencies of words, groups of words, patterns in stylish expressions and so on. I have not an actual source, maybe one can find this in the realms of the "Big-data" or of sociolinguistic qualitative research or forensic psychology/lingusitic, but I remember to have read newspaper articles about some progress.
The situation with the pali-canon is a bit more difficult than modern texts by original authors, because

reports are by the memory of Ananda and some others, and although we know, that educated people of that times had an enormous memory to cite word-by-word, the patterns of words of the Buddha have patterns of memories of the reciting people overlaid
additionally the Pali might not be the original language of the Buddha (for instance the "Maghadi" has possibly been his conversation language) so the translation-variances overlay an original pattern
additionally over the centuries up to the first writing-down on the palm-leaves it is likely that pieces of text were rhytmisized to be better for reciting and remembering

On the other hand, the amount of text is rather large, so perhaps, if someone would really try, some patterns might be discernible and separatable to different authorship.
So what is so far possible is to look-out for terms, which were not known to the Buddha, because they came up centuries later. Or for rather obvious deviations from the main teachings in concept and style. Here can likely be said something already.
Unfortuately without a reliable analysis tool this is rather subjective, and someone who wants to insert texts/thoughts into the Buddha's teaching and even to attribute this to the Buddha would surely challenge you, to prove your assumption of fabrication...
Subjective example: in an "encounter" some years ago I was confronted with the Mahayana-version of the Great Parinirvana-sutra. Reading this I felt a lot of sentences being nearly hate-speech against the "iccantika"s, against the "non-believers", heretics; in many places I found the style of a talk being competitive with others, and found records about numbers of people attending the burial-ceremony as given with "millions", "billions" - for me seemingly just simply born out of a drunken delirium of the writer. But prove that that impressions indicate fabrication...
Subjective again:  there is a certain stand in the attribution of Palicanon-suttas to the Buddha and to later redaction, but for me this is in moderate, usually neglectable amount - so I have not really looked at this systematically. I'm curious, though, what next years might bring us, in presence of always better pattern-detection-software - textanalysis is already beginning to become spectcular...

Does anybody know of an in depth and articulate description of such a linguistic algorithm or method that is free of ideological bias?

Textual criticism, Higher criticism, Epigraphy and Philology are fields of study concerned with the study of texts, their language, meaning, authenticity, history and "evolution".
There are a number of buddhist scholars who engage in such works. Sometimes they write their personal opinions, sometimes they elaborate more rigorous conclusions regarding the age of some texts. The difference between the two, of course, is whether the author spends some time analyzing a number of evidences carefully to justify their conclusion.
Some scholars, however, seem to reject these methods altogether and are more skeptical of historical dating of the texts without relying on archeological material. For some discussion on the issues, see:

Alexander Wynne's How old is the Suttapiṭaka
Bhikkhu Sujato's The Ironic Assumptions of Gregory Schopen
Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali's The Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts

However, any application of this "method" seems to degenerate almost immediately into an ideological argument based on implicit assumptions of what the Buddha's teaching was like or naive inferences that because a text appears to be later, that automatically disqualifies it from consideration (in fact, later texts can incorporate or revise older traditions, elaborate older doctrines, consist of valid inferences, or even consist of valid original insights based on the original set of insights and thus be valid in their own right).

Well, this kind of study is what happens when any group of people is interested in answering difficult questions about ancient texts. For example, a lot of what these scholars are doing they learned from scholars of Christianity.
While it may happen, any immediate disqualification based merely on what is perceived (with or without evidence) to be later texts is a matter of personal inclination. Such implicit assumption and naive inferences is, to an extent, in the eyes of the beholder -- but to another extent, it can be in the fingers of the scholar, if that is his  unjustified opinion.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that one can't study history of Buddhism and, at the same time, avoid making any historical investigation or answer historical questions about that very history.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
What does dogen's genjo-koan mean?
What does the genjo-koan means? Especially:

To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to
  forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad
  things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well
  as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization
  remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.

and

A fish swims in the ocean, and no matter how far it swims there is no
  end to the water. A bird flies in the sky, and no matter how far it
  flies there is no end to the air. However, the fish and the bird have
  never left their elements. When their activity is large their field is
  large. When their need is small their field is small. Thus, each of
  them totally covers its full range, and each of them totally
  experiences its realm. If the bird leaves the air it will die at once.
  If the fish leaves the water it will die at once.
Know that water is life and air is life. The bird is life and the fish
  is life. Life must be the bird and life must be the fish.
It is possible to illustrate this with more analogies. Practice, enlightenment, and people are like thi

What does it mean to say that these are life and that there's no realisation?

Hakuun Yasutani's Flowers Fall is a worthy commentary.

Dogen is pointing to emptiness. When the self drops, you realise you are one with the ten thousand things, and there is no more I and them. Enlightenment, path, etc are no more than concepts.
The Heart Sutra:

"Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not
  differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is
  emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses,
  consciousness. "

And:

"Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings, perceptions, impulses,
  consciousness. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
  no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind;
  no realm of eyes and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness. No
  ignorance and also no extinction of it, and so forth until no old age
  and death and also no extinction of them. No suffering, no
  origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment
  with nothing to attain. "

http://www.kwanumzen.org/wp-content/uploads/Heart-Sutra-in-English-text1.pdf

The 1st koan is of the phrase in the Pali scriptures: "deep, deep...connected with emptiness".
In the Pali scriptures, there is the statement about enlightenment & Nirvana: 'Birth is ended...there is no more renewal of being'. 'Birth' ('jati') & 'being' ('bhava') are the generation of the idea that there is 'self' & 'other people', i.e., that there are 'various beings & group of beings'.
Therefore, in the actualization described by Dogen, all 'birth' ends. There is no longer the generation of the idea or view that there are 'beings' or 'people', both internally or externally.
All that is experienced is the continuous flow of myriad sense objects or 'things'; of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches & experiences of mind, including the peace called Nirvana.
Even the sense of concrete/solid minds & bodies drops away as experience is only the flow of myriad sense objects of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches & mental experiences; merely elements (dhatu).
When this experience becomes completely normal & ordinary ('suchness'; 'thusness'; 'tathata'), the idea of ('special') 'enlightenment' or 'realisation' also drops away.
Thus, in the 2nd koan, all there is is nature or elements (dhatu) & this is all life is; there is no 'self' that is separate from the elements of nature.

Reaching the Source
There is no more self-consciousness reactions to distort the world.
9th Oxherding Picture

In the Rohitassa Sutta: To Rohitassa you will find a parallel to this GenjoKoan that you pointed out. For the fish it is the water, and for the bird it is the air. Likewise for the gods / celestial beings, it is the cosmos. This Deva told the Buddha about a desire that he had in a previous life when he was a seer named Rohitassa and its result. He said:

” ‘I will go traveling to the end of the cosmos.’ I—with a one-hundred year life, a one-hundred year span—spent one hundred years traveling—apart from the time spent on eating, drinking, chewing & tasting, urinating & defecating, and sleeping to fight off weariness—but without reaching the end of the cosmos I died along the way. So … ‘I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.’”

In the above Sutta, the Buddha says that the end of the world cannot be reached by going the distance. Buddha said that only by finding your own self, or in other words, it is the understanding of oneself as one really is, that one would see the light. As the Rohitassa Sutta states, these truths are concerned with the "one-fathom long body of man." The key-note of Buddhism is this right understanding.
To get to know what life is, one has to first come to Samma Ditthi.  Samma Ditthi is in short, Right understanding.  Right understanding is explained as the knowledge of the four noble truths. In other words, it is the understanding of oneself as one really is. One pre-requisite of one coming to ‘Right View’ (Samma Ditti) is learning to welcome advice of the Supreme Buddha with delight. We must not treat even a single verse of Dhamma as being plain and simple. We must learn to treat the Noble Dhamma as supreme. We must consider this Dhamma to be the most profound.
It is said in the scriptures… “ Pemato jayati soko, pemato jayati bhayam”.  [From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear].  Conventional minds will recoil to the idea. But it is seeing this other side to life will one get to know what life is. The truth and meaning of Dhamma becomes a private experience by the wise only when there is insight or vipassana. But vipassana depends on samadhi or concentration. And samadhi depends on Samma-ditthi. Thus, everything in Dhamma is connected. Why is that? The Buddha is speaking, albeit in diverse ways, only of one thing and one thing alone – dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.
This Noble Dhamma is Svākkhāto (it is well proclaimed). Nothing needs to be corrected in this Dhamma (found it the Sutta & Vinaya – the first two baskets) and nothing can be discarded on the basis that it is too plain and simple (if one understands this quality, then this person comes to Samma Ditti— right view). This is why we must hold dear the advice we receive and use that noble advice to discipline ourselves than vice-a-versa.


text:
contentment, complacency, sloth/torpor
Are these conditions mutually exclusive? Is complacency a form of sloth/torpor?
Sloth/torpor is a hindrance, but to say that one must not be satisfied seems contrary to the spirit of contentment and non-doing.
My guess is that sloth is inertia rooted in avoiding challenge, but not sure.
Please define sloth/torpor, comparing it to contentment.

Complacency is a form of sloth/torpor. Complacency can be said as lethargy in the body (sloth) and drowsiness in the mind (torpor). It is when the mind is not sleeping, but not awake either. So be aware of this twilight zone, where nothing of use is achieved. Buddha advises us to be aware of this enemy in life that would stop you from succeeding in life. So we have to make a habit of getting up early every day, being energetic. Energy arises when one has a clear-cut direction. One knows exactly where one is going and keeps at it. This is one to keep Mara’s armies at bay.
The host of Mara, the Evil One, is described as comprising ten kinds of passions (kilesa). They are: 1. material pleasures (kama). 2. aversion for the Holy Life (arati), 3. hunger and thirst (khuppipasa), 4. craving (tanha), 5. sloth and torpor (thina middha), 6. fear (bhaya), 7. doubt (vicikiccha), 8. detraction and obstinacy (makkhathambha), 9. gain (labha), praise (siloka) honour (sakkara) and ill-gotten fame (yasa), 10. Extolling of oneself and contempt for others (attukkamsana-para-vambhana).
On The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest and specially on sloth and torpor (thina middha) following is a good example:

Once when the Venerable Maha Moggallana, one of the Buddha's two chief disciples, was meditating in the forest, thina middha arose. His mind shrank and withered, as unworkable as a piece of butter that hardens in the cold. At this point Supreme Buddha looked into the Venerable Maha Moggallana's mind. Seeing his plight, he approached and said, "My son Maha Moggallana, are you drowsy, are you sleepy, are you nodding?"
The elder replied, "Yes, Lord, I am nodding." He was frank and candid in his reply. the Buddha said, "Listen, my son, I will now teach you eight techniques of overcoming sloth and torpor."
Some of the eight Ways to Stay Awake are…  first is to change one's attitude. When torpor attacks, one may be tempted to surrender to thoughts like, "I'm so sleepy. It's not doing me any good just to sit here in a daze. May be I'll lie down for a minute and gather my energy." As long as you entertain such thoughts, the mental state of sloth and torpor will be encouraged to remain. If, on the other hand, one states decisively, "I'll sit through this sloth and torpor, and if it recurs I still won't give in to it," this is what the Buddha meant by changing one's attitude.

If you are content in life is easier to overcome these subtle barriers, these “hindrances,” or “obstacles” as they’re self-created.
Contentment counters sensual desire that the Buddha compared to debt. He compared Ill will to a sickness or an illness. Sloth and torpor he compared to a prison. Restlessness and anxiety he compared to slavery. Uncertainty he compared to traveling across a barren, dangerous landscape.
Contentment is to be content about everything else - all other aspects of your life, but NOT of your spiritual development. Your liking for the Dhamma Path should far exceed the liking that you have for all other things. Then only Contentment can be taken as being detached. The term detachment gives a much deeper meaning than just non attachment.  It is used in Dhamma to denote a certain state of mind, which characterizes calmness, serenity, and equanimity. One become thus by being detached from both  aversion or revulsion, and attachment. The absence of the five hindrances - namely; sensuous desire (kamacchanda), ill-will (Vyapada), sloth and Torpor (thinamiddha), restlessness and scruples (uddhacchakukkuccha) and Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha) helps one to arrive at such a state of mind.  A content mind which is neither attached to anything nor repulsed by anything, helps one to dwell in calmness, coolness, and serenity of mind. A state of calm,detachment is a very positive state, unlike complacency.

To tell you I watched the whole Avatar Series from Aang to Korra, and loved it – would have watched them many times over with my son. Getting back to your OP, I will add a bit more on Contentment, as it can be taken as being detached in life. If you can distance yourself from other distractions, then you are more rested and better able to walk this Path, and live the life of an Avatar Spirit Wan.

This has been a difficult hindrance for me, and returning to your answer, my understanding is somewhat clearer now. Contentment is a state having spiritual energy (virya), accepting things as they are with joy. Complacency can be confused in having a similar outward appearance in acceptance by not displaying any effort to change things, but the reason why is in direct opposition. It is the absence of virya  i.e. sloth and torpor and the absence of joy.

'Complacency' would be a lack of urgency, thus a deficiency in wisdom.
'Sloth & torpor' is a lack of energy (tiredness) or mental dullness ('sinking mind'), which can occur in concentration development & thus a deficiency in optimum concentration technique.
As for 'contentment' & 'complacency', yes, they could occur together when a practitioner is content with a liberating yet lower level of attainment, such as stream-entry or jhana.

If one can be content and complacent, then can one be content yet also have the hindrance of sloth & torpor?

Certainly. But one can also be practising meditation with urgency (non-complacency) but have sloth & torpor due to unbalanced concentration or poor concentration technique.

I disagree on one point - I do not see how one can be content with any one of the hindrances present. Your answer has helped me see this.


text:
Does it make any sense to read the four noble truths parallel to the Buddhaghosa's 4 interpretations of the nidanas

The Twelve Nidānas are explained in detail in the Visuddhimagga of
  Buddhaghosa, the central text of the Mahāvihāra commentarial
  tradition. Buddhaghosa recounts four methods to interpret the Twelve
  Nidanas:
Working from "bottom to top",
Working from the "middle to the top",
Working from "top to bottom",
Working from the "middle to the source".

Seems a bit like you might claim these four are in turn the four noble truths in turn

idam dukkham, "this is pain"
ayam dukkha-samudayo, "this is the origin of pain"
ayam dukkha-nirodha, "this is the cessation of pain"
ayam dukkha-nirodha-gamini patipada, "this is the path leading to the cessation of pain"

Has anyone ever claimed this?

Ven. Buddhaghosa himself has said in his book THE PATH OF PURIFICATION (VISUDDHIMAGGA) that 'one's own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be accepted if it accords with the Suttas' (DA. 567-68). So far I have not come across such an explanation in the Suttas. So until I come across such an explanation in the Scriptures (Sutta-Vinaya), I’ll have to take it that Ven. Buddhaghosa’s own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be accepted if it accords with the Suttas'.
To understand the Four Noble Truths the 4 'foundations of mindfulness’ is there.  The Satipatthāna is there for this purpose. The realization one gets out of it is the understanding of Paticca Samuppāda (dependent origination or the universal law of cause and effect). That is, the ability of seeing things in life according to cause and effect.
The first step toward the Noble Eightfold Path is for one to become faith-devoted – that all the answers are there in the Suttas. One who accepts this path of Dhamma admits that there is suffering of this Samsara. He accepts there exists a cause and effect. He accepts the fact that one needs to be free from suffering. He also accepts that the Supreme Buddha has freed Himself from suffering and the Dhamma can free us from that suffering. He accepts that the disciples (of the Buddha) will have to follow the Dhamma and that there are disciples who have attained the Arahantship by practicing the Dhamma.
In one who comes to these notions, an internal spiritual faculty will be formed. It is a faculty that operates within the mind. This person will come to the Noble Eightfold Path, as this person has accepted the Supreme Buddha, His Dhamma, and His disciple monks wholeheartedly. It is this person who will begin to study the scriptures in earnest. Only then he/she will begin to realize the Paticca Samuppāda gradually.

Dependent origination is simply a more detailed explanation of the 2nd noble truth, as explained in AN 3.61. Therefore, both the Noble Truths and D.O. can be read in parallel with eachother.
If Buddhaghosa's interpretation is followed, there will be a departure from the here-&-now into ideas about 're-birth'.


text:
How are Prasangika and Svātantrika different?
I was refreshing myself with some stuff on Madhyamaka.
I don't understand how the difference between Prasangika and Svātantrika can be svabhava. How can svabhava exist without changing anything else about conventional entities or ultimate reality?
So what other claims does this entail about conventional entities by Svātantrika?
Or does Prasangika show their ultimate reality cannot be empty?

First, the Gelug and the Nyingma presentations of the Prasangika system vary (in particular with respect to other-emptiness / self-emptiness). My answer is from the Gelug standpoint.
Second, I am confident that the following references would answer your questions:

Editor's introduction to The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with Commentary by Jamgon Mipham,
Editor's introduction to Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Ju Mipham, and
The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?

Prasangika give a short definition of conventional truth:

An object found by a mind distinguishing conventionalities.

While the short definition of ultimate truth is:

An object found by a mind distinguishing the ultimate.

Although the Svatantrika definitions differ, these two help understand the issue at hand. The definition mentions what consciousness has one or the other truth as its object: in one case, "a mind distinguishing conventionalities", in the other "a mind distinguishing the ultimate." It is important to understand what a conventional valid cognizer and an ultimate valid cognizer are, because they apprehend different objects. A conventional valid cognizer apprehends conventional truths while the mind analyzing the ultimate apprehends ultimate truth, the lack of inherent existence. Nihilist think that, since a mind analyzing the ultimate does not find conventionalities (i.e. all it finds is the absence of inherent existence, emptiness) then conventionalities are utterly non-existent. This is the reason why Khedrup Je reminds us: not seeing sounds does not refute the existence of sounds... in the same way, not finding conventional truths with a mind of ultimate analysis does not refute the existence conventional truths. It is not because an Arya in meditative equipoise on emptiness does so in a non-dualistic manner, not apprehending any conventionality, that conventionalities are refuted. Conventional truths and ultimate truths are just the objects of two distinct cognizers, just like smells and sounds are the objects of two distinct consciousnesses.
Both Svatantrika and Prasangika assert that ultimate truth - the absence of inherent existence - is not found by any conventional valid cognizer: it is found only by the pristine wisdom realizing emptiness. This wisdom is a mind that we also call "mind distinguishing the ultimate", "mind of ultimate analysis", "mind analyzing the ultimate." Svatantrika posit that phenomena are empty of inherent existence ultimately because the mind of ultimate analysis apprehends the lack of inherent existence, but they are not empty of inherent existence conventionally because such emptiness is not found by any conventional valid cognizer. Khedrup Je says:

Therefore, when [Svatantrika] explain that entities are natureless, it should be taken in the context of referring to an ultimate [nature, and should not be taken as denying that things exist from their own side]

Prasangika disagree with this assertion. They posit that inherent existence is utterly non-existent. Therefore, phenomena do not exist inherently, be it conventionally or ultimately. Emptiness of inherent existence is not found by any conventional valid cognizer but this does not entail that phenomena are empty only ultimately and not conventionally. According to Prasangika, phenomena are empty of inherent existence even conventionally, since inherent existence is a mode of existence that is refuted by ultimate analysis. Since emptiness of inherent existence is apprehended by an ultimate valid cognizer, its opposite –  inherent existence – must be utterly non-existent. Another way of saying is that inherent existence is not an object of knowledge of even conventional valid cognition. Therefore, no phenomena exist inherently in any way.
Both Jetsün Mipham and Geshe Dreyfus suggest that this distinction was overly emphasized by Prasangika while needed not be. It is the point of Geshe Dreyfus's book: What Difference Does a Difference Make? In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it also says:

Those who, through practice associated with the view of the concordant ultimate, thus attain the experience of the ultimate truth in itself may be called either Prasangika or Svatantrikas depending on the way they make or do not make assertions in subsequent attainment. But one should know that in terms of their realization there is no difference between them. They are both in possession of the wisdom the Aryas.

Prasangika claim, however, that the object of negation asserted by Prasangika is not the same as that of the Svatantrika. Asserting that anything exist inherently in any way (as the Svatantrika do) is untenable. Therefore, according to Prasangika, only a proponent of Prasangika tenets is “in possession of the wisdom of the Aryas”. Indeed, we often believe that all Superiors (Aryas) must be Prasangika by tenets.
The thing is that Svatantrika posit a conventional analysis while Prasangika do not. Since they posit the entity of conventional valid cognizer differently, what these cognizers apprehend must differ as well. Prasangika argue that no conventionality is an object of analysis, but an object apprehended by a conventional valid cognizer that does not investigate the mode of existence of anything. The introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita reads:

[Some] think that to affirm a tenet that investigates conventional
  phenomena is incompatible with the Prasangika stance, which is to
  accept phenomena as they are, without analysis, according to the
  general consensus.

This is because conventionalities – conventional truths – are just that: conventions. They are not to be refuted or investigated. Once, in a class I was attending, a student asked our teacher “Since I only see John's body, and the person is not intrinsically one with her body, then it means I have never seen John, doesn't it?” It is due to this type of misunderstanding that Prasangika refute any conventional analysis. It shows just how important it is to understand how conventional truths are objects of conventional cognizer, not of minds analyzing the ultimate. As soon as one engages in analysis, he leans towards the direction of realizing emptiness, and the mind realizing emptiness does so in a non-dualistic manner, it does not apprehend conventional truths.
On the other hand, Svatantrika posit that one can analyze the mode of existence of phenomena by way of a mind of conventional analysis, and thus refute that phenomena exist in certain ways conventionally. For instance, Svatantrika-Yogacara posit that external establishment can be refuted with a conventional analysis. Thus, they claim that phenomena lack external establishment conventionally, do not lack inherent existence conventionally, lack inherent existence inherently. They lack external establishment conventionally because a conventional valid cognizer can refute external establishment; they do not lack inherent existence conventionally because the emptiness of inherent existence can not be found by way of conventional analysis; they do lack inherent existence ultimately because the emptiness of inherent existence is found / realized by way of a mind analyzing the ultimate.
The introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita reads:

It must be said, however, that in the context of pramana, or valid
  cognition, applied on the conventional level, [according to
  Svatantrika] it is quiet acceptable to say that phenomena exist
  according to their characteristics or that they are established by
  valid cognition and so forth.

Prasangika say, on the other hand: (1) there is no such thing as conventional analysis (2) inherent existence is utterly non-existent even if its absence is found only by a mind of ultimate analysis, because inherent existence and its emptiness are opposites. It is important to understand what conventional valid cognition and ultimate valid cognitions are to understand what their respective objects are. In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it says:

The Prasangika texts refute 'true existence' (bden grub) and
  'existence according to characteristics' (rang mtshan nyid kyis grub
  pa) indiscriminately. But when one makes a distinction between these
  expressions – as the Svatantrikas do (refuting true existence on the
  ultimate level and asserting existence according to characteristics on
  the conventional level) – one must distinguish, if one is not to
  confuse the issue, the two kinds of reasoning and their respective
  spheres.

Additionally, according to Prasangika, if a phenomena was inherently existent, then it would have to appear the way it exists (i.e. it would have a truly existent phenomena).
According to Svatantrikas, however, conventional truths are empty of true existence (i.e. they do not exist the way they appear) but are not empty of inherent existence conventionally. When Prasangika say that a phenomena does not exist inherently, they mean that if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you do not find it. Svatantrika mean something else, since they posit both that (1) they exist inherently and (2) they do not withstand ultimate analysis. In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it says:

[According to Madhyamika-Svatantrika-Yogacara] if conventional
  phenomena were assessed from the standpoint of ultimate valid
  cognition, they would not be even slightly established thereby.

This helps understand the Svatantrika position that conventional truths do not exist inherently ultimately but do exist inherently conventionally.
How do conventional phenomena appear, according to Svatantrikas? They appear as:

existing by way of their own characteristics
not being imputed by mind

While they are, both:

existing by way of their own characteristics, and
imputed by mind.


text:
What does "joy" mean in the phrase "dharma gate of great ease and joy"
Dogen's zazengi says

Zazen is the dharma gate of great ease and joy

What does the term "joy" mean here?
And if I can feel something like that without zazen, should I cultivate it? As well as learning meditation, I mean.

When there is joy, when a person is full of happiness and joy, there is little chance for ‘Uddhacca’ & ‘Kukkucca’ to arise. These are two of the hinderances mentioned in the scriptures. Restlessness (uddhacca) is agitation or excitement, which drives the mind from thought to thought.  Worry (kukkucca) is remorse over past mistakes and anxiety about their possible undesired consequences. When one's mind is possessed and overpowered by restlessness and remorse, one cannot properly see things in a clear way. It is compared to when water is stirred by the wind, agitated, swaying and producing waves, a man is unable to see the image of his own face. Buddhists are taught to diffuse the Four Divine States of Mind: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity towards all sentient beings, as this brings about a Joyous State of mind.
Merits, through ‘Daana’, ‘Sila’ & ‘Bhavana’ bring you joy. ….  As the Buddha preached:

“Don’t ignore even a small merit thinking that it will not come to you! It is in fact with each drop of water that a pot is filled. Therefore, a wise person will collect all merits even if it is by bit by bit. In this way, his life will full with merits at the end.”

A joyous state of mind is important when learning to meditate. As the Buddha once explained:

“If the thought should occur to you that, when defiling mental qualities are abandoned and bright mental qualities have grown, and one enters & remains in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for oneself in the here & now, one’s abiding is stressful/painful, you should not see it in that way. When defiling mental qualities are abandoned and bright mental qualities have grown, and one enters & remains in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for oneself in the here & now, there is joy, rapture, serenity, mindfulness, alertness, and a pleasant/happy abiding.” — DN 9

The Pali scriptures describe two kinds of joy: (i) worldly/sensual joy; and (ii) dhammic or Zen joy.
Sensual joy is like joy from sex or drugs. The more this joy is indulged in, the more it harms a person via addiction & diminishing pleasure. These sources of 'joy' can cease to bring joy & instead bring pain (such as the torturous craving & withdrawal symptoms of drug addiction).
Where as Zen joy is completely harmless & always satisfying. The more Zen joy is cultivated, the greater the happiness (from generosity to harmlessness to jhana/Zen until perfect Nirvana).
Therefore, if you can feel joy without zazen, it does not necessarily mean you should cultivate it because some sources of joy (such as drugs or wrong sex) are very harmful (poisonous).


text:
How do you know if you have attained Nibbana?
You read the suttas, understand their meaning, and put the teachings into practice. At the end of the day, how do you know if you have attained Nibbana? I think this is an important question because Nibbana is the ultimate goal and you need to know if you have finally reached the end.

Nibbāna is a state of 'deathlessness' (amata)- the "unconditioned". “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling (after anything)” (Majjhima Nikaya 2.265; SN 5.9).
It is "bhavanirodha” (The cessation of becoming / "subjugation of becoming"). Nibbāna is “no longer coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", It is "liberation (vimutta)". Nibbāna is not a place nor a state, it is an absolute truth to be realized, and a person can do so without dying. When a person who has realized Nibbāna dies, his death is referred as his pari-Nibbāna, his fully passing away. What happens to a person after his PariNibbāna cannot be explained, as it is outside of all conceivable experience. A definition of Nibbāna can only be approximated by what it is not. It is not the clinging existence with which man is afflicted. It is not becoming. It has no origin or end. It is not fabricated. It has no dualities. It cannot be described in words. It is not conditioned on or by anything else. In SN43:14  it is said:

“the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging, the stable, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated, the peaceful, the deathless , the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge...”

Calling Nibbāna the "opposite" of samsāra or implying that it is apart from samsāra is doctrinally incorrect. It is probably best to understand the relationship between Nibbāna and samsara in terms of the Buddha while on earth. Buddha was both in Samsara while having attained to Nibbāna so that he was seen by all, and simultaneously free from samsara.

If the mind has reached final Nirvana, nothing in the whole world can bother it and make it suffer.
The mind will completely cleansed of greed, lust, anger, hatred, irritation, delusion, attachment, fear, worry, hurt, sorrow, self-view, etc.

Simple answer: They see that there is no greed, anger or delusion arising in the mind anymore.
Long answer: You might wonder how someone can know they have no greed, it is possible that they haven't experienced greed for several months but they are not yet free from greed.
To answer this I think you have to ask a more basic question first: How does an enlightened know anything? or What does it mean for an enlightened being to know something?
Imagine that an enlightened person is looking at a bird in a tree and the thought arises "There is a bird", now we might say that they "know" that there is a bird. They make use of this information and scatter some seed for the bird to eat. But perhaps they had poor eyesight and the bird was actually a brown leaf, when they see that it is a leaf they do not suffer because they knew that the sight of the bird was impermanent and they didn't attach significance to it. They also knew that the thought "There is a bird" is something which just arises and passes, they didn't insist that the idea had to be true, if they had insisted that the bird existed then they would have suffered. Despite this they were still able to use the information and scatter some seed.
Likewise, if somebody is enlightened and they see evidence for nibbana (such as a year passing without greed, anger or delusion) then they have thoughts like "This mind is awakened" arising. They don't insist that these thoughts are true- just like the bird.


text:
Technique for Concentrative Meditation
I'm wondering whether when people refer to concentration meditation such as shamatha, they mean that there is still conceptual thought or its absence.
For example, I am capable of meditating upon an object, e.g. breath, and focus with an intensity that no thoughts or very few emerge. However, I am also capable of simply paying attention to the object while thoughts emerge, but I redirect attention to the object when thoughts have done so.
I am basically asking whether genuine concentration is more like the first or the second. What exactly is referred to by absence of thought, or the fact thought helps meditation until the jhanas. Do we mean gross thought, such as sentences and ideas, or do we mean the intelligence of awareness, discernment?
If possible, can anyone relate this with calm abiding and special insight, and what is meant by these terms?
Thank you

The term 'shamatha' means 'tranquility' or 'calm abiding' rather 'concentration' ('collectedness'; non-distraction). 'Shamatha' is a fruit of concentration rather than concentration itself.
It does not matter if you are also capable of simply paying attention to the object while thoughts emerge & can redirect attention to the object when thoughts have done so. The very fact that thoughts are emerging is a loss of concentration, however momentary.
Generally, the kinds of thoughts that help meditation are wise thoughts used to counter unwise thoughts and the very subtle thought (intention) of giving up (letting go) or non-attachment.
Some subtle thoughts can serve as objects of insight (vipassana) into impermanence but there is generally no need to deliberately cultivate such thoughts.

In reading the article The Riddle Tree you will see that:

there’s no one-size-fits-all, no one technique that’s going to work for everyone. But if you’re observant while you calm down the mind, you begin to see the way your mind works. That’s really what you want to know.

In quoting that article again:

The same principle applies not only to tranquility, but also to insight. There’s a sutta called The Riddle Tree in which a monk goes to different senior monks and asks them, “What topic do you contemplate in order to gain awakening?” One monk says, “the five aggregates,” another one says, “the six sense media,” another one says, “the six elements,” another one says “dependent co-arising.” The monk was not satisfied with all these different answers, because he couldn’t understand why their answers should be so different. So he went to see the Buddha. And the Buddha said that the different answers were like the Riddle tree. Apparently there’s a tree in India that’s kind of like the coral tree: During some seasons it has leaves, and at other seasons it has no leaves at all, and when it has no leaves it puts out red flowers. It’s called the Riddle tree because people would say, “What’s black like coal in the winter and red like meat in the spring?” That sort of thing. In other words, the appearance of the tree depends on which time of year you’re talking about. “In the same way,” the Buddha said, “those different monks answered in different ways because for each of them a different topic worked, so they talked in line with what had worked for them.”


text:
jhānas, Zen, and how to practice concentration meditation
I've read about the jhānas which one can experience from concentration (samatha) meditation. I have been practicing some form of mindfulness, breathing meditation, but have not experienced a state of absorption that is characteristic of the jhānas. I know that the jhānas cannot be experienced only by reading about them, however, the insight from my meditation practice alone has not brought me to them.
From my perspective as a novice practitioner, it makes sense to look to the Zen (derived from the word dhyāna) branch of Buddhism for guidance on the subject of meditation:

In the process of deepening meditation, one can roughly identify three
  distinct stages: the stage of concentration, the stage of meditation,
  and the stage of absorption.
This dualistic relationship is broken gradually as the practitioner
  moves into the stage of meditation. The ego-conscious activity is
  gradually lessened, and the barriers it set up for itself will
  gradually be removed. When the practitioner enters the stage of
  absorption, the dualistic framing of the mind will be removed such
  that the mind starts structuring itself non-dualistically. There will
  be no separation or distancing between an object of the mind and the
  activity of the mind itself.

I don't have the budget for every book on Zen Buddhism, but I have read all the Zen books on Kindle Unlimited (the content is mostly history, terminology, and sitting accessories). What books are there that go into depth on Zen/samatha meditation practice?

Hi. I made some additions to my answer.

Ajahn Brahm wrote a book about jhana called 'Mindfulness, Bliss & Beyond'. It is 291 pages long. The first 65 pages are at this link.
The method in this book emphasizes 'letting go' & is thus similar to many Zen teachings, such as the Xinxin Ming.
While I have not read it, a well-known book on Xinxin Ming is Faith in Mind  by Master Sheng-Yen.

Ajahn Brahm's is the only book I know of I can recommend. Note: I am not a disciple or follower of his. I just believe this book explains the best method. Reading or hearing the right teaching can actually replace meditation practice since practice can be done in a way that is not ideal & thus not bring the best results. Often our own efforts may not find the optimal way. With metta.

A true Jhana master, Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw:

Breakthrough in
SAMATHA MEDITATION
Knowing and Seeing (4th revised edition)

And if you can purchase this book, I highly recommend it:

Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw

It's written by actual students of the Venerable Pa Auk, who actually succeeded in developing the Jhanas: very clear and concise, with practical advice.

we may only select 1 answer here, still you have my appreciation +1

There are some great ressources around, some I frequently relay on are:
The Buddha Net file Library on Zen, Chan
The Buddha Net e-book Library on Meditation
Zen Buddhism WWW Virtual Library
But my advise will be, look for a Zen Sangha and learn to practice by a good teacher.
EDIT:
Since you ask: Which readings would you suggest for the purpose of concentration meditation?, start with;
Wikipedia:
Dhyāna in Chan Buddhism and see also the footnotes,
Commercial, i.e. not free of charge:
Sit: Zen Teachings of Master Taisen Deshimaru
Zen Training: Methods and Philosophy
A Guide to Zen: Lessons from a Modern Master
The Three Pillars of Zen
Japanese Zen sites of different lineages:
From Rinzai-Obaku Zen

As expressed in the famous description of Zen attributed to
  Bodhidharma, “A special transmission outside the scriptures, not
  relying on words and letters / Direct pointing to the human mind,
  seeing one’s true nature and attaining Buddhahood,” the essential
  standpoint of the Zen school is not to depend on words and letters.
  Nevertheless, it does regard the study and chanting of sacred texts as
  an important part of Zen practice. The texts and sutras most often
  used in Zen temples are the following:
Links to Text

From Soto Zen

Basic Key Terms of Soto Zen Teaching
A great many people are now practicing zazen in the Japanese Soto Zen
  Buddhist tradition outside Japan. But, because the tradition is so new
  in other lands, their practice may not always firmly based on a good
  understanding of the teaching. Before we begin practice, we need some
  clarity about what we are doing and why we are doing it that way. It
  is important to begin the practice with an understanding of the basic
  principles and underlying teaching behind what we will be doing. We
  need accurate background knowledge and a good understanding of ideas
  about the nature of zazen so that we can practice properly and
  skillfully. We should not start blindly. Otherwise our practice would
  likely go astray and get lost.
Links to Text

On both sites find some how to's and or chapters about Practice.

Zen Training by Katsuki Sekida offers a thorough introduction to the practice of samatha meditation in Zen practice.  He comes at it from a Rinzai perspective.  John Daido Loori presents a very solid introduction to samatha from the Soto school in his Art of Just Sitting.  Neither author ever explicitly describes the jhanas in quite the same way as the Theravada canon does.  Still, even if they aren't explicit, the techniques both authors describe can be employed to reach everything up to and including the second jhana.  After all, there aren't all that many ways you can riff on one-pointed concentraton!  Beyond that, I'd recommend either turning to the Pali suttas, the Visuddhimagga, or any of the many jhana manuals that are currently available.  No Zen teacher or text that I'm aware of discusses techniques like the abandonment of rapture (piti) which is essential for moving into the third jhana.  This isn't to say that such texts don't exist, however.  It just means I haven't read them!  ;-)
But to be blunt, it doesn't make much sense to me to go digging in Zen for what's extremely well described elsewhere.  The Elder tradition did a great job documenting these states.  Might as well read what they have to say!

Right concentration (Samma Samadhi) is what you call jhana.  Right concentration then develop into directed thought and evaluation. Directed thought is when you keep your thoughts on one topic. Thinking of the breath or focusing on the breath, and being inquisitive will lead one to directed thought and evaluation, two of the factors of jhana.  If you would read the article “The Steps of Breath Meditation” you will see that:

...as you let go, say, of the directed thought and evaluation of the first jhana,
  releasing yourself from the burden of those factors as you move into the second
  jhana, and so on through the different levels of concentration. As you do this,
  you begin to see how much those levels of concentration are willed.

I want to add that I disagree that looking into Zen is the best place to learn about the jhānas. 'Jhāna' is a Pāli word and jhānas are most systematically talked about in Theravada traditions. In my admittedly limited experience with Zen, they do not talk about jhāna except to discourage it in some cases.

Theravada doctrine do not necessarily represent what is described in the Pali suttas. The Pali suttas mention jhana extensively but generally Theravada meditation techniques (mostly from the Visuddhimagga) offer poor methods for actually reaching jhana. That is why the Theravada tradition has many wrong views about jhana. Where as Zen (such as the Xinxin Ming) focuses more on non-striving, which is the best method to reach jhana (similar to the Pali suttas at SN 48.9 & 10). While I recommended Ajahn Brahm's book, the technique in this book is not representative of Theravada.

I didn't mean to say that Zen practice can't or won't lead to jhāna, only that in my experience Zen teachers either don't discuss it, discount it, or discourage it. Whether the Theravada tradition has many wrong views about jhāna is highly debatable. In some cases the suttas recommend intense striving in meditation, e.g., MN 20.

Words about jhana are not the practise of jhana. It does not matter what the suttas say when the words are misinterpreted. Crushing or suppressing thoughts won't get jhana. Talking about & craving for jhana, like the Theravada do, won't get jhana. That is why the Zen masters discourage talk about jhana. MN 48.9 & 10 state the noble disciple reaches jhana by making letting go (vossagga) the object of meditation. This is the way to reach real jhana, as the Zen masters describe.


text:
Chop wood, carry water: why?
A very famous, so famous it may be apocryphal, zen quote says:

Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop
  wood carry water.

What does this mean? Specifically, is the discourse saying that time without effort is wasted time?

I hope you don't mind if I close this as duplicate.

Admittedly, I am not a well-versed student of Zen ... or Buddhism for that matter. However, I will offer my interpretation: Before you achieve enlightenment you will have to do chores associated with everyday living. Then, even after becoming enlightened, you will still have to do the same chores - becoming enlightened does not remove the need to deal with everyday things.