text:
Is upaya a lie?
According to upaya, the doctrine of 'skillful means', as it appears in the Lotus Sutra, was the Buddha lying when he said that there are three vehicles? Presumably he knew there was only one: so why wasn't his deception evil?
I am referring to the claim in e.g. the parable of there being three chariots, when there is in fact only one. Or  Shariputra's claim that he thought he was "deceived" when believing he could not be a Buddha.
I believe it's generally characterized as "deception" according to the scholastic tradition that is based on the lotus sutra.

In a very meaningful sense, every action of the Buddha whether of body, speech, or mind was upaya: skillful means. What's more, every utterance of the Buddha was an approximation of the truth when heard, understood, and conceptualized by sentient beings. This is necessarily so because all conceptualizations are mere approximations and are by nature deceptive in that they are tainted by the ignorance of sentient beings.
The only way to the real truth - untainted by conceptualizations and elaborations - is via direct perception of emptiness. This must be experienced, not just inferred or understood by way of explanation, even if that explanation is coming from an Enlightened One.
The real truth is the utter emptiness of inherent existence of any existing thing. Because nothing whatsoever has inherent existence that leaves only conventionally existent things. The problem many people have with upaya and understanding how it is not meant to mean a fictional contrivance as opposed to some other more truthful thing is that: there are no things that are inherently existence so in this sense... ALL existing things are fictional contrivances; they only have illusion-like existence.
I'll repeat this because it is hard to understand: take rebirth being described as an 'upaya' that the Buddha uses only to guide people into right behavior. The subtle conceit of many who think this is that the Buddha really didn't believe in rebirth and that in actuality rebirth doesn't exist and it can't be the case that Napolean was reborn as Donald Trump. They believe that the Buddha wasn't being 100% truthful when he told Ananda that he once was Jotipāla in a past life. However, he was being 100% truthful, but this truth is a conventional truth just like the God describing a cup of liquid as ambrosia, a human describing it as water and a hungry ghost describing it as pus. All of these are conventional truths and none of them are false. There isn't some ultimate perspective unbound from the context that will distinguish which one is right. In the Lotus Sutra this is the situation that is being described.
Insofar as all conceptualizations or elaborations are mere approximation of the truth and tainted by ignorance, then you could say they are only illusion-like truths. But have no doubt the Buddha's actions - all of them - are Noble and motivated purely for the benefit of sentient beings.
Evil does not enter into it. That is a category error. Karma is a universal law much like universal physical laws. There is no great scale or moral arbiter dispensing justice or punishment based on moral judgements of karmic actions. This is just a wrong conception of what the Buddha was after when describing karma and dependent origination. Often western peoples who grow up with the cultural traditions and religions of monotheism where moral absolutes are a result of judgement by a higher power struggle with this. The Buddha never understood or intended to describe the law of karma as a form of universal justice or punishment for moral laws given from on high.
You can judge karmic actions based on the fruits they produce. Do they lead to suffering? To happiness? Do they have benefit? Do they harm? What has been empirically found is that actions that are undertaken out of pure motivation - cherishing others in combination with wisdom - are of benefit and bring happiness. Similarly, actions undertaken out of selfish motivation - cherishing oneself in combination with ignorance - are harmful and bring suffering. The Buddha is the personification of perfect motivation and perfect wisdom.

The starting point of Buddhism is the idea that everyone begins in a state of ignorance. It is our ignorance that creates tanhā and dukkha, and it is the cessation of tanhā and dukkha that brings about wisdom and enlightenment. But ignorance, by its nature, comes in a multitude of forms. Your ignorance is not the same as my ignorance, his ignorance is not the same as hers, theirs is not the same as ours...
Upaya is an acknowledgement that we are all working out of different bubbles of ignorance, and that — so long as we are trapped in our own bubble — different tools might be 'skillful' for the context of ignorance we happen to be trapped in. Even tools that are not entirely correct might be sufficient for the state we are in. For instance, someone deeply attached the sensual world, filled with urges and cravings and jealousies, might find a more structured, disciplined environment useful (sravakayana); someone more critical and mind-oriented might find it hard to accept and embrace doctrine, and might find an independent path useful (pratyekabuddhayana).
There's no value judgement to this; it makes no sense to think that your ignorance is right and my ignorance is wrong. And we don't want to commit to a one-size-fits-all policy that helps some more than others. In that sense, upaya is a form of compassion, because it allows for the differences in our misunderstandings so that all can see progress.

Very good answer. To this I would only add that upaya is usually a simplification. For example, Santa Claus is a simplification of ethics. It's used as a stand-in for something more complex that the student is not ready to understand yet, designed to function similarly to the real thing (e.g. good behavior leads to good results etc).

Ted Wrigley's answer is the right one in my opinion, and I will just quote an example here.
One person may still have self view and is therefore within the ignorance bubble or "world" of self view.
In SN 44.10, Vacchagotta, who had deeply entrenched self view and who was then incapable of understanding dependent origination or anatta, asked the Buddha whether there is a self or there isn't a self.
The Buddha did not want to mislead him by saying there is a self (i.e. eternalism), and also did not want to confuse him by saying there isn't a self (i.e. annihilationism). The Buddha could also see that Vacchagotta was not capable of understanding dependent origination and anatta at that point in time. So, he just kept silent.
For such persons, the Buddha employed skillful means (upaya) by teaching reflections such as the one below so that they may abandon the habit of misconduct and cultivate virtue.
This is skillful means because thinking "I am", associating self with the five aggregates and pondering a future state of self (such as rebirth), is based on conceit and also self view. However, the Buddha still employed it in a skillful way, despite it being inconsistent with the higher practice associated with anatta.
Telling lies to mislead others for malevolent reasons or for personal gain is just like injuring others with a knife. However, in this case, the Buddha is using the "knife" like a skillful surgeon to remove the tumour of misconduct. This is teaching the right view with effluents according to MN 117.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
AN 5.57

Meanwhile, for a more advanced practitioner like Bahiya, the Buddha taught anatta. This is teaching the noble right view according to MN 117.

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
Ud 1.10

His upaya wasn't a deception, not evil, and definitely not a lie. Say, one takes up Taekwondo, Judo, and Karate. Are they 3 different vehicles? yes (meaning there're different forms, methods, and techniques). Are they one vehicle? yes (meaning the ultimate goal is the same, maximizing one's survivability in combat and perfecting one's character).

not my downvote, but this just reads like an opinion and is -- imho -- a mischaracterization of the one vehicle

But saying that the Buddha lied when mentioning the 3 vehicles, or it's ok to lie just for the sake of Upaya, IS a mischaracterization. Do you think that the Buddha lied in the Lotus Sutra? I don't think so, as per the analogy mentioned in my post.

no, i don't think so.

it's a disanalogy though because the goal is the one vehicle

no, the goal is not the vehicle, it's where it leads you to. The raft is not the goal, the shore is.

i mean the goal cannot be reached with judo

"The “Expedient Means” (second) chapter of the Lotus Sutra says, “The Buddhas, utilizing the power of expedient means, apply distinctions to the one Buddha vehicle and preach as though it were three.” It also says, “In the Buddha lands of the ten directions there is only the Law of the one vehicle, there are not two, there are not three.”
Nichiren Buddhism Dictionary
It's a question of tailoring the teaching to be most useful to the person given their stage of realisation. Thus in Mahayana there are the 'Three Turnings of the Wheel' - each suitable at their level. But it's all one process and one teaching.


text:
Is there mention of Maitreya Buddha in Pali Canon?
How did this idea of next Buddha formed? Is it the influence of other religion where they say Kalki or Christ will return.
Also does Pali Canon mention many other Buddha before Gautam Buddha?

Not Maitreya, but future Buddhas reportedly DN16 DN28 SN 6.2

SN 6.2 is a teaching by Brahma Sahampati

How did this idea of next Buddha formed? Is it the influence of other religion where they say Kalki or Christ will return.

No need for outside influence, just simple logic. It doesn't make any sense to have only one single Gautama Buddha arisen in a universe (or multiverse) with unfathomably long history without descernable beginning and end.

Also does Pali Canon mention many other Buddha before Gautam Buddha?

Yes, see the Buddhavamsa, the 14th Book of the Pali Canon's Khuddaka Nikaya for the list of 24 Buddhas predecessors to Gautama Buddha. See DN 26 for infos. on Metteyya, the future Buddha.

There is an arahant called metteyya and for the buddha it is Dn26 https://suttacentral.net/dn26/en/sujato#dn26:24.6
https://suttacentral.net/define/metteyya
Generally speaking people love backgrounds stories of the buddhas and the theravadans have invented those stories and put them in KN, instead of polluting the suttas with that, contrary to the people who invented Mahayana who mixed them with their suttas.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Object of Focus for Mindfulness (Non-judgment)
In the context of modern mindfulness, one should pay attention to awareness non-judgmentally. I have tried this, and wondered whether it is possible to do so without an object, e.g. the breath. Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of this movement in the West, advised in one of his talks/books that one should keep with the object for a long time, even years.
What is the effect of attending to awareness without any object, merely being non-judgmental to what arises? Is there such a thing?

You’ll quickly lose you focus.  It’s kinda like the white dot in the midst of yin.  Without some energy holding it up, passivity falls into oblivion.

How one can be aware without any object? To be aware or mindful means to be aware/mindful of something, isn't it? Therefore, in the context of Buddhist meditation one can choose an object like breath or body and fix attention on it or be aware of it, while it changes from moment to moment (in-breath/out-breath, body sensations etc.). One can also be aware of the "present moment", which means not focusing on anything specific, but maintaining open field of awareness and registering whatever enters that field (again: breath, body sensations, but also sounds, thoughts, emotions, internal commentator, smells, tastes etc.). Anything that natural flow of our everyday experience brings to us. And then comes in the other element you mentioned, our reactions to these experiences, which can also be an object of our non-judgemental awareness. Observing these reactions is much more beneficial than focusing only on the experiences of the so called first order. By becoming aware of these reactions we first of all see which one of them increase our frustration and which one contribute to our inner peace. By learning that, we can slowly start changing these reactions and thus transforming our life.

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


text:
Is there any authentic Chan Buddhist lineage operating in the West/Europe?
I mean Chinese Chan Buddhism, not Japanese Zen or Korean Seon. If not, what is the best course of action if one wants to become a monk in Mahayana Buddhism, but not in Theravada and not in Vajrayana? I am especially fond of Master Xuyun, are any of his disciples still around?

There's only two Ch'an lines active in the West that I know of, the first one founded by Hsuan Hua. Its headquarters are in California. It has branch temples, for the West mainly in the US, listed on this page.
The second is the Western Chan Fellowship, who actually list Xuyun in their lineage, and has branches in the US and Europe.

this is a good answer: 'authentic' is loaded unless we're talking about lineage

The answer was great indeed. As for authentic, loaded or not, there are authentic and inauthentic practitioners and lineages, Xuyun mentioned the degeneracy of dharma and decreasing human potentialities several times in his dharma talks. I would like to practice in a serious environment, there are far too many abusive teachers around. Btw, does anyone know if the current teacher of Western Chan Fellowships is 'controversy free'? https://www.westernchanfellowship.org/about-the-western-chan-fellowship/teachers-of-the-western-chan-fellowship/#c1843

There’s an Obaku lineage in NJ.  It’s not purely Chinese, but definitely more “mainland” than it is Japan.
Of course, unless you’re looking tie back into your family’s culture, does the nationality really matter?  Sitting is sitting.  Your legs hurt the same if you’re speaking Chinese, Japanese, or English.


text:
Misconception about remembering past lives?
I have been digging really deep into the philosophy of Buddha. What I have come to know is that Buddha has never talked about remembering past lives in any original text. If he has then please let me know.
Now, what he may have said is the idea of Dependent Origination, that surely many past actions/events were the cause of his birth.
The other thing what I have found is that rebirth in Buddhism is not reincarnation. Keep this in mind. It is the rebirth of consciousness in this life. We go through different perception of the self as long as we cling to desires. Also, sexual desires work vaguely here to change the perception of "I".
However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.)
All the stories of remembrance of past life is fabricated as well, in my point of view, there is also a story where Buddha remembers past life after enlightenment, but it's wrong. He was just pointing out Dependent Origination.
Please let me clarify on this topic. Thank you.

I suppose your question is "am I right?" or "does anyone have objections?"

I think you can read it as: Has buddha ever talked about past life, as in life about past bodies before physical birth? (My rephrasing)

Past life on what scale? Is physical death the metric we are to live by?

There could be a distinction between remembering of, and condsidering the fact of and whether remembered or notremembering of; and at that time & in that context it would have been generally considered: and, The Doctrine was re discontinuing the Cyclic things, of which the concept of the question is an inherent part; and sort of required for considering whether to continue or not there is somewhat implicit a Something to be re the concept to reference things to

However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.)

The Buddha did talk quite explicitly about physical rebirths before and after the physical death of the body. And it's mentioned not only in the Jataka, but in all the Nikayas. So, it'd be a mistake to interpret rebirth as only exclusively the momentary rebirth of consciousness in the same life.

Fact of the matter is, until one's attained enlightenment, there'll always be a sense of 'self' existing. Want some proof? as we speak right now, you're yet able to give up your house, your car, your wife, your bank account, correct? Why not? because there's still a sense of "I", "mine", and "myself" there. So to a run-of-the-mill, s/he can talk about non-self all they want, but when the rubber hits the road, there're still tons of 'self''s there. That's why we need Dhamma training.

There's MN 36 for example which is translated like this:

When my mind had immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward recollection of past lives.
So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya cittaṃ abhininnāmesiṃ.
I recollected my many kinds of past lives, with features and details.
So anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi, seyyathidaṃ—ekampi jātiṃ … pe … iti sākāraṃ sauddesaṃ anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi.

There are people who dispute or debate the meaning of pubbenivāsānussati.
Some people say it might refer to times or states within this lifetime when we identified as a self -- and maybe say that a better translation might be past "abodes" not past "lives".
I posted this question here a while back -- Is rebirth a delusional belief?
There are people, including on this site (and even quoting some modern-day monks), who agree with and promote the idea that "past lives" doesn't mean that (and that people who say otherwise are wrong).
More generally that might be one of the tenets of secular buddhism.
I think that's unorthodox though and that a majority of monks would say that, absolutely, the suttas and other texts are full of references to past lives -- and that people who say otherwise are sort of not accepting what the texts say.
I hope that, perhaps, being "agnostic" about the subject (of how to translate or understand that topic) is a way to avoid misunderstanding and misleading people. The whole topic seems to me to be potentially a form of identity view, which we are warned against, part of the "thicket of views" -- also attachment to a specific view etc.
Here was an answer that was willing to "understand figuratively not physically" -- the question was, How do we know that the suttas talk about past lives?
And here another answer that you might find helpful -- the question was, What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?

I will read what you have posted. But the thing is, if Buddha has talked about past life, as in past incarnation in another body, then his idea of impermanence contradicts to his own words. As far as I know, Buddha also himself have not answered whether he will exist after death. He should have said he will not exist again (as he is free from cycle) but the question remain unanswered. Or he should have said he will exist again as he existed in past life, where he said,' i had such name..belonged to such clan.' Maybe, it is where the theory of Buddha collides, and many theory exists. ItsUnknown

I will read what you have posted. Do that, yes. But the thing is Yes that's about the same question that I asked. As far as I know, Buddha also himself have not answered whether he will exist after death. I remember a sutta where he says, something like, "But you couldn't even identify what the Tathagata is now."

I have come to one conclusion. Yes, there is impermanence. Nothing transmigrates. When a new physical body is born, there will be birth of new 'I' which is impermanent, cycles through states, can be born in any 6 realm (the state of psychology).
Apart from that, Buddha has talked about past lives like, 'There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance' which in fact he is pointing out Dependent Origination. He exists because his past lives exist. He is reflecting all the cause of his birth and now he finally have found the fault of ignorance.(continue below)

Also, in “Timsa Sutta: Thirty” (SN 15.13) , Buddha has said, “From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?"
It means that there have been millions of death in past, for you to be born. Again Dependent Origination. (continue below)

It does not mean that there is soul like in Hinduism which you have to experience them, where one soul experiences another body after death, but it means that it is the cause of that self which brought you this self (You). It's one linear line.
Now talking about memory, it might have been mistranslated, or in highest state of mind, it can feel all the being as one, or just remembers the past causes.

Nothing transmigrates What about knowledge, wisdom, kindness? Might that pass somehow from one life to another?

Nothing transmigrates because "I" itself is not permanent. Kindness, knowledge, wisdom is what you built for the temporary world and is attached to certain temporary principle of nature. However, you can be the cause for the birth of another "I". Nothing transmigrates, this is the first law. Wanting to transmigrate itself is an attachment, and attachment is itself temporary. But however all that you have and want to do can be fulfilled in this life, but all doing and working itself is a noise. Once this knowledge of "I" is known you are awaken.

"Nothing transmigrates" sounds like "Annihilationism" -- so I'm not sure that's orthodox. :-)

If you look with the lens of fear it sounds like Annihilation. That'swhy for beginner there should be different teaching. Once you are in higher state of mind, Annihilation or eternalism does not worry you, but now it does. your "I", you need to fulfill in this world, "I" which have been built through years and years. But "I" was once born as a blank slate. Once there was a prince who died young. He was born again but poor in new body. He looked in history and learned about that prince, and wanted to be him, who was now another "I" No memory. Nothing. Lost. Nothing transmigrates. It's final.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Once you are in higher state of mind, Annihilation or eternalism does not worry you I don't know about "fear" but I'm reluctant, unwilling, to contradict what's orthodox dhamma when I'm trying to explain what it says to someone else who's asking about it. I don't generally think about that particular topic at all but I don't want to "misrepresent" to other people what the suttas say.

Thank you ChrisW, this community has helped me a lot. After lots and lots of self-insight and through others, with logic and reasoning, I have come to my own conclusion. Unfortunate it is that there is not Buddha himself to clear our views and thoughts. But after lots of searching and working which I have been doing for 4 years, I have no more question. Thank you again my friend =)

In the discourses, is always clear when the Buddha is using similes and when he is not. Thus, I don't see any reason to believe that he was refering to rebirth, other realms and the inhabitants these realms as similes.
I can remember a few suttas which elucidate rebirth as a literal death followed by a literal birth.

So Ven. Sāriputta—when there was still more to be done, having
established Dhanañjānin the brahman in the inferior Brahmā world — got
up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Ven. Sāriputta’s
departure,  Dhanañjānin the brahman died and reappeared in the Brahmā
world. MN 97

.

Then Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Ānanda, having given this instruction to
Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then,
not long after they left, Anāthapiṇḍika the householder died and
reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son, in
the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the
entirety of Jeta’s Grove, went to the Blessed One
[...]
Then when the night had past, The Blessed One addressed the monks: “Last night,
monks, a certain deva’s son in the far extreme of the night, his
extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta’s Grove, came to me
[...]
When this was said, Ven. Ānanda said to the Blessed One, “Lord,
that must have been Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son [...]”.  “Very
good, Ānanda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can
be arrived at through logic. That was Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son,
and no one else.” MN 143

It's not easy to find a being which has not been a relative of yours

Near Sāvatthī. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconceivable
beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not
discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by
craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been
your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find.… A being who
has not been your father.… your brother.… your sister.… your son.…
your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. SN 15:14–19

Buddha revelead one of his past lives as a chariot maker

“[...] Now, monks, the thought may occur to you that the chariot maker
on that occasion was someone else, but it shouldn’t be seen in that
way. I myself was the chariot maker on that occasion.  AN 3:15

And what is wrong view?

And what is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered,
nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father,
no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
after having directly known & realized it for themselves.’ This is
wrong view. MN 117

Died and reappeared means the death of one state of mind and the rebirth of another state of mind. Dhananjanin died and reappeared in that high vibration world as in higher state of mind again. Also, Tusita heaven is the highest heaven of mind. "very good ananda... arrived at through LOGIC" I was myself Chariot maker means the one who drives the "raath" it is a metaphor that he was the cause of something in the past. "what is wrong view?..no next world" Yes there is next world. As soon as you get rebirth in new psyche, your reality changes. New door will open. You can be PM from tea maker.

There is absolutely nothing which suggest these texts were meant to be metaphors. Quite the opposite. Both, Anāthapiṇḍika and Dhanañjānin became "diseased, in pain, severely ill", that's why they were unble to visit the monks, so they sent messengers asking the monks to visit them instead and afterwards they died. How could this be referring to psyche? And these suttas are only a few examples, there are much more throughout the canon.

There is no such story in Access to Insight. If there is then please let me know. It is the other wrong translation you are reading about such death and appearing.
Here it says, "with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in a good destination." which means with good action, you will achieve good state of mind. You can rebirth again in good reality (psyche). You need to understand this.

All suttas I quoted can be found in the Access to Insight. If you'll categorically take anything which isn't in agreement with your preconceived views as wrong, then why are you asking to "let you know"?

Because there is not. See here My views on rebirth is not wrong. Rebirth is not reincarnation in Buddhism.

It's strange that both of the Buddha's teacher died after Buddha was enlightened.
"Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Alara Kalama died seven days ago.'
Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died last night."
One died seven days ago, one died last night. It's strange how can both die at the same time.
My view is that they must have broken their higher state of meditation, bringing them back to lower state of mind, because of this Buddha thought they won't understand his teaching now.

Buddha has nothing to do with it, if he existed. I don't believe in any sort of god or anything supernatural, but I still have memories of earlier lives, usually traumatic death moments, and encounters on the other side. I don't regard them as reality. It's just normal fiction.


text:
In my previous life I was ---
I can accept the concept of Reincarnation in Buddhism . That is , after a person died  , then he/she will reborn again as human , as animal , or even as God , in the same / different Realm. But there's one thing that to me is weird . In my previous life I was a mosquito ? , a flea ? , a worm ? , a bacteria ? , a bamboo tree?

Forgive my english...

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. Please ask a question.

Technically speaking... (the devil is in the details!)

You can only 'reincarnate' into a sentient being. Mosquitoes, fleas, and worms are, in general, considered sentient beings in Buddhism. Bacteria (not an animal) and bamboo trees (a plant) are not. One might discuss if it's possible to 'reincarnate' as an amoeba (technically an animal — from the perspective of Western biology, at least), but I'd guess that one would require at least a minimal nervous system with a few cells in order to classify as 'sentient'. Then again, I might be wrong, of course!
'Reincarnation' is a Western term coming from a Christian tradition, with a very specific meaning, so it may lead Buddhist practitioners into the mistake of thinking that somehow their minds will be put into the body of a flea or a mosquito; in practice, it's both more complicated and much more simpler than that, and I'll give you the analogy that my own teachers gave me:

Think of a series of candles, all about the same size, the first of one is lit. The light of that candle represents a sentient's being life. Now, eventually, the candle burns out — and you might have to transfer the flame to the next candle using a stick of wood or something. The next candle might outwardly look like the first one, and from the perspective of someone on the room, there is still light around — even if it might come slightly from the left or the right, or be slightly stronger or weaker because even outwards-looking 'identical' candles will have some difference at the molecular level and thus there will be a difference.
You can repeat the process from one candle to the next, and there will always be 'light' while you keep one flame going, but eventually, there will be no more candles to light.
This symbolises how a stream of consciousness works across 'lives'. All the candles give light — but the light is not exactly the same, because each successive candle is slightly different than the previous one. Each candle is its own distinct object — symbolising different bodies if you wish — and there is no shared material/physical components between each candle. Because there is a succession of flames — the previous one becoming the cause for the next one, and so forth we can say that what you do in one life will influence — 'cause' — the next life. But each is started 'from scratch' in the sense that each life is separate and distinct from the previous one, even if it's in very small details (i. e. even two consecutive human lives will be quite different!). There is technically 'nothing' passing from the flame of one candle to another (this is where the analogy fails because it requires the stick/match/a bit of paper etc.), except this very abstract notion of 'light': i.e. all candle flames produce light, and the flame from one candle is the only cause for kindling the flame of another candle, so there is a cause-and-effect tying all candles together (this is the stream-of-consciousness which 'ties' together different lives through a causation effect). And finally, when one reaches awakening/enlightenment, there will be no more candles — no need to 'reincarnate' again, if you wish. So there will always be an end to the cycle of reincarnation; the role of Buddhist teachers is to get as many people to get out of that cycle as fast as possible (through teaching their students the means to do so, of course)!
Is this a confusing analogy? I think so; it is one supposed to make us think a bit. For instance, it's true that you have been a mosquito or a worm on previous lives, but you have no recollection of that — this is simply because not only each candle is physically different, but because its flame is different, so you cannot 'look back' to how you were in the past. Nevertheless, there is a connection: what you did as a mosquito back then has influenced what you are today (in exactly the same way that what you do today will affect you tomorrow — even if you don't notice it in most cases). Of course, a poor mosquito will have little knowledge of how to behave in order to get a 'better' life in the future (what makes you a 'good' or 'bad' mosquito...?); however, you, as a human being, have the ability not only to influence what your next life will be (it only depends on what you do in this life), but, even better than that, you have the abilities and capacity to break free from the reincarnation cycle altogether! When that happens, you can spend the rest of eternity in any form whatsoever and have the ability to watch from afar how flames go from one candle to another... while Buddhas cannot directly influence how that happens (even Buddhas cannot change the causation effects on other beings!), they can certainly help us out with tools and methods to figure out, on our own, how to break free from the cycle of reincarnation.
Patience, young grasshopper, you're on the right path!
Extra bonus: just by following the Buddha's path will give you another chance as a human being. And you were so fortunate to find the Buddha's path and a teacher on this life because, well, you did great on a previous life! Perhaps, as a mosquito, you might have bitten a Buddha by accident — thus creating a bond with a Buddha, which has ultimately led you to be 'reborn' as a human being able to study the Buddhadharma, think about it, and meditate. So rejoice!

To understand what is reborn, look to what is craved:

SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Continued existence.’ I say that continued existence has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Grasping.’ I say that grasping has a vital condition.  And what is it?
SN12.23:4.14: You should say: ‘Craving.’

Craving is a vital condition for eventual rebirth. This is why care must be taken with intention since we perpetuate what we grasp at. However, if we long for the spiritual life, eventually our wishes cease. As does rebirth.


text:
What is the origin of Buddho meditation?
Some people say its from the forests of Thailand before Ajaan Sao's time -
Some people say it comes from the Pali Canon but was scrubbed over time
Some people say it comes from Sri Lanka
Some say its just another meditation object recollecting the buddha
"Buddho is the most precious gem in the three worlds of existence – a jewel of all-pervading knowledge" Ajaan Mun Bio p.200

What you mean by Buddho meditation?

Mantras come from the fantasy of puthujjanas that sensual objects will purify their citta, which is very idiotic.
For instance the hindus have their Om sound and they say a sound will get them to nirvana.
The Buddhists have heard that samadhi is about the lack of hindrances, for instance lack of doubt, and as usual with people infatuated with sensuality, they claim that when they fix an object, like a word or some visual mantra like a kasina, the hindrances stop and therefore whatever samadhi they get from that is the samadhi that the buddha teaches.
So they say that when they repeat buddho buddho buddho for a long time, they do not have doubt, therefore the citta is purified like the buddha says.
As usual with puthujjanas they create secret stuff and they applied this to mantras so they even have secret mantras.
You can view the first tetrad of the breath mediation as the mantra, but the breath mediation is not about watching the breath, contrary to what some buddhists say, but about calming and killing some sankharas which is a lot of work.


text:
Devotion to parents
As a Buddhist, I believe devotion to mothers is very important if we want to have a good life. Since I was child I followed my mother's instructions until I became an adult.  This included getting married and having a child.
Now that I'm an adult, I think I need to become more independent, and to make my own decisions, both for myself and my son. However, my mother is very upset and thinks I’m arrogant because I’m no longer follow her rules.
Am I wrong if I create my own rules for my life? Am I a very bad daughter?

In Dhamma, the Dhamma sets the rules. If both you & your mother are following the Buddhist teachings, you should be in agreement.

This is was said by the Lord… Bhikkhus, these three kinds of sons are found existing in the world. What three? The superior kind, the
  similar kind, and the inferior kind. Iti 74

But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father,
  settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother &
  father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish
  mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this
  extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father. AN 2.32

Thank you..

Why is only devotion to mother important? What about father? I think both parents should be respected, we should listen and think about their advice, but also make decisions about our life by ourselves.
I think there is a problem with your mother accommodating to the fact that you have your own family and responsibilities. Sincere talk with her may help in this matter, I hope. Metta.

Thank you. I am not talking about my father not because he is no important. Devotion to him is also very important and thanks to him bcs he is not order too much in my life.my mother is more dominant in family. I wish I can make decisions by myself but it never happen because my mother will unhappy .

It's always matter of priorities. What is more important to you: to make your mother happy or yourself and your kid? If mother is priority, than fine, make her happy. But do not complain. I understand that children sometimes need to act with more maturity than their parents, since the parents in some situations behave like kids. Therefore I suggested sincere talk. I would ask her: If you really love me so much, isn't my happiness at least equally (if not more) important to you that your own happiness. Sometimes parents their selfishness present as their love to us. They should grow up too.

If your choices are skillful and wholesome wether your mother's reaction to these, be joy or grief, is based on her karma. Now, the relationships you have to your mother and your son both involve personal and cultural dynamics, so the intricacies of finding out what is truly skillful is not easy.

No, you're not. Because you want to be independent and every household or family has different setting. Everybody knows that. If you do not take care your family and let your mother runs your family, will your family operate how it should be? I don't think so. You need not only to be kind to your mother but also to your own family, namely, your husband and your children. They are your family, are they happy? It's best to sit and talk about it. Something happened to you in the past, you realize this and do not want your children to experience it, there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe you know better way of living or in conducting things.
It's not black and white or good and bad. You can explain it to your mother, your mother definitely want you and your family to be happy. Maybe she is accustomed with the old way of doing things. Slowly and patiently explain to her and prove to her if your decisions can also be counted or in fact better.

First of all, one should be grateful to have harmonious relationships with their parents. Not everybody in the world is lucky to have this. Your mother may be coming from a good place but does not realize that you are an adult and not a child anymore.
Secondly, have a heart to heart conversation with your mother explaining that you are an adult now responsible for your own household (assuming you live in a nuclear family) and would like to take your own decisions. Do follow it up by saying that you are grateful for all she has done for you and always value it and in the future happy to be of service to your parents. Also, that you will always listen to her, give wise consideration to her advice, but will decide on your own what is good for your family. Reassure that she has brought you up well and that you are capable of taking skillful decisions.
If she is a Buddhist, you can mention that everyone is responsible for their own Kamma eventually as mentioned in this Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/sujato):

‘I am the owner of my deeds and heir to my deeds. Deeds are my womb, my relative, and my refuge.
I shall be the heir of whatever deeds I do, whether good or bad.’ A woman or a man, a layperson or a renunciate should often review this.

Hope this answer helps.

There is a sutra translation here on the difficulty of repaying the kindness of one's parents. Parts of it are quite funny

Yet, if using his right shoulder
a son carried his father and with his left shoulder
he carried his mother for thousands of years even
while they defecate on his back, and did so without
any resentment toward his parents, then this son
has still not sufficiently repaid the kindness of his
parents.

Though it may not directly answer your question regarding finding independence, it may shift your mother's perception of arrogance to one of compassion.

I have read that there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father.
I have also read that on one occasion a thought arose to Sariputta as he was thinking about his mother; "Although she is the mother of seven Arahats she has no faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha."
Furthermore he thought: "If I now remain indifferent, people will say: 'Sariputta has been a helper to so many others; on the day, for instance, when he preached the Discourse to the Deities of Tranquil Mind a large number of devas attained Arahatship, and still more of them penetrated to the first three Paths; and on other occasions there were many who attained to stream-entry, and there thousands of families who were reborn in heavenly worlds after the Elder had inspired them with joyous confidence in the Triple Gem. Yet despite this he cannot remove the wrong views of his own mother? Thus people may speak of me. Therefore I shall free my mother from her wrong views, and shall have my final passing away in the very chamber where I was born."

Don't worry you are not a bad daughter. But the thing that you should understand is, how the world works. If you do good it will return as good, if you do bad it will return as bad.
How to identify the good and bad? If you do or think something which will arouse raga (greed, sensuality, desire),dvesha (hatred, aversion, anger, hostility, ill will) or Moha (ignorance, bewilderment, confusion, stupidity, delusion) then it's a bad thing. This is according to the core buddhism.
As a daughter what you can do? Do what ever you want but always try not to arouse raga, dvesha or moha.
The most important thing you should do is if you pay mother, the aarya (noble) maithree it will do the best for you and her. And I've seen many people have get the successful results out of this, including myself.
How you do it
Daily 20-30 mins (if you can do more then do) think this to your self (close your eyes as it helps to concentrate more). You and your parents may attain Nivana (enlightment). Wish this so deeply. Add what ever the necessary facts like things they do good for you and in return you are wishing them Nivana. As Nivana is the only place anyone can get the ultimate happiness. So basically you are wishing them happiness, no matter the way you get treated.
And as mentioned by Buddha if anyone kill a parent its going to be very bad karma (anantarya papa) that can't get escaped. When someone eat poison with or without knowing that it is poison he is going to suffer. Like that the nature is dangerous no matter we know it or not it behaves the way as it supposed to be. So only thing we can be happy about is Nivana. That's why wishing that (the best thing in this universe) to someone who treat you unpleasant will return you good things.
Believe me, this will make you and your mother's life better. To get results you might need to do this one to two months. (And do not stop there keep continuing...!)
With Metta!

Thank you will try to practice that


text:
How reputable is D.T. Suzuki among modern Zen Buddhists?
Over the past year I've been studying Zen, and eventually came across a compilation of the writing of D.T. Suzuki, an anthology of such.
Needless to say I was impressed and profoundly influenced by this anthology, but I wonder what the reputation of his work is among modern Zen Buddhists. Do they typically consider it an accurate depiction and representation of Zen? And if not, where would one come across an accurate representation?

I don't know who down-voted the question, but to anyone who down-votes, please include a comment explaining why.  This will allow the original poster to improve the quality of the question, and this benefits us all.

I agree. With R. Barzell. I consider solitary downvotes to be divisive speech. Please refrain from divisive downvoting. Comments suffice. Upvoting question.

good question: extraordinary scholarship, meticulous reasearch, accurate & brilliant, the finest writer of Zen materials in English. thank you  :)

He’s pretty phenomenal if you ask me.  I’d highly recommend most of his earlier writings.  People forget that he had some training as a monk under a fairly renowned master.
Just remember, however.  There’s only one authentic representation of Zen - that which you find on the cushion staring into mushin.


text:
How to meditate after become sotapannna?
If someone sees self is an illusion.it disappears with  dvesha.is that  the state lord buddha said, anatta ?how do you meditate thereafter?

The Noble 8 Fold Path is the practice up to Sotapanna.

Source: Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta intorduction
To go beyond Sotapanna one must add 2 more elements under liberation/release which are:

right knowledge
right freedom

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta

Well the patidapada of the sekha is at MN53
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html
plenty of suttas talk about the sekhas like
https://suttacentral.net/an5.90/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/search?query=sekha
sometimes a sekha is anyone who trains in the dhamma, not the usual non puthujjana who is yet to be reach nibanna.
For sotapanna, you can read
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html

"And how, Nandiya, does a disciple of the noble ones live heedfully?
  There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones is endowed with
  verified confidence in the Awakened One... Not content with that
  verified confidence in the Awakened One, he exerts himself further in
  solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully,
  joy arises. In one who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has
  rapture, the body becomes serene. When the body is serene, one feels
  pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes centered. When the mind
  is centered, phenomena become manifest. When phenomena are manifest,
  he is reckoned as one who dwells heedfully.
"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified
  confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha...
  virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken,
  unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished,
  leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to
  the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or
  seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one
  who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes
  serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure,
  the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become
  manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who
  dwells heedfully.


text:
How can I focus on breath at the tip of my nose?
I have chosen to practice meditation on and mindfulness of the breath, at the tip of the nose, as prescribed by the Buddha. My difficulty, simply put, is that I am able to sense and focus on the breath everywhere BUT the tip of my nose! I suspect that focusing on where I do perceive it (in the nostrils) might be sufficient, but I want to precisely follow the instructions given by the Buddha.
I came to notice on my own one day that projecting my attention onto a fixed location in the space in front of my head (with eyes closed) seemed to facilitate absorption in single-minded awareness. I had hoped that directing my awareness to the tip of my nose would produce similar results. Imagine my disappointment upon finding that I was unable to fixate my focus as the Buddha recommended! I will be very grateful for any guidance... May all beings find perfect freedom from dukkha and samsara!

at the tip of the nose was not prescribed by the Buddha.... at the tip of the nose is not precisely follow the instructions given by the Buddha... fixate focus at the tip of the nose is not as the Buddha recommended!

Thank you for your answer. Will you please share how I have misunderstood? I wish only to understand the proper method. Thank you.

This is what I am referring to: the basic text on breath meditation is the Anapanasati Sutra. In that Sutra please find the following... "“Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty hut, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, and established mindfulness in front of him [parimukha: “in front of the face”–at the tip of the nose], ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out." (from https://breathmeditation.org/the-buddhist-tradition-of-breath-meditation)

parimukha is unrelated to the nose tip. Also, mindfulness does not mean consciousness awareness.

I suppose the translation is at fault, then? After all, the sutra does say (in this translation) to establish MINDFULNESS on THE TIP OF THE NOSE, does it not? Perhaps you could illuminate the subject for me instead of simply shooting down all of my questions?

mukha can merely mean "to the front" or "to the fore". Pari means "all round". "Pari mukha" means to bring mindfulness to the fore of the mind in an all pervasive way. Mindfulness means to remember the teachings. The teachings are about giving unwholesome states & craving. Therefore, mindfulness establishes the mind all round to be without unwholesome states & craving. What you are reading is wrong. The Buddha taught to keep the mind as pure as possible and when this is done the mind will naturally know the breathing in whatever place the breath is felt. Regards

Thank you very much. I find your answer to be complete and satisfactory.  I appreciate your taking the time to answer in detail.

@TSC I don't agree when you say as prescribed by the Buddha. Because if you looking to Anguttara Nikaya -> Ekadasakanipatha -> Nissayavagga -> Manasikara sutta you will realise that air or nose or sense of those are not the things that you should concentrate when meditation. I'll add more details in an answer (hopefully it will be downvoted, because it collides with the today's made up buddhism)

"Mukha" can merely mean "to the front" or "to the fore".
"Pari" means "all round".
"Pari mukha" means to make mindfulness the foremost of the mind's activity in an all pervasive way.
"Mindfulness" means "to remember" or "keep in mind" the teachings. The teachings are about abiding without unwholesome states & craving.
Mindfulness establishes the mind all round to be without unwholesome states & craving.
The Buddha taught to keep the mind as pure as possible and, when this is done, the mind will naturally know the breathing in whatever place the breath is felt.
The Buddha did not teach about the nose-tip. Pari mukha does not mean tip of the nose or nose-tip.
If we attempt to only watch breathing at the nose-tip; this will be unnatural for the mind; cause frustration; and have adverse affects (such as sleepiness or "sinking mind").

After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore (parimukhaṃ).
Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will & anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will & anger. Abandoning sloth & drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth & drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth & drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness & anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness & anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty.
MN 38

This is a wonderful answer; thank you very much for taking the time to elucidate the subject of breath meditation for me, and for those who read will read your answer in the future! I wish you peace and happiness.

PariMukkhaṃ Satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā = the practitioner focuses the mindfulness on only Breaths.
So satova assasati satova passasati = he is focusing the mindfulness like that and  breathing out/in.
Breaths are not nose tip, touching, or feeling. Breaths are long or short wind flowing at nose tip.
Sometime breaths appear at right nostril tip, sometime left, sometime middle, some time top lip.
But you are focus on clearing appearing breaths at somewhere of those, so wherever of them is OK.
The other touching points such as in side the nose or lung is over width for clear focusing on breath and easily to get Restlessness (uddhacca), so appearing  breaths on somewhere at the nose tip is the best choice for the meditation.

This is a great answer as well. I appreciate your effort here and find that my understanding of the issue has deepened as a result of your answer. Peace and happiness to you!

“Ānanda, there is that concentration to the bhikkhu, in which, the eye
  and forms do not attend reciprocally, the ear and sounds do not attend
  reciprocally, the nose and smells do not attend reciprocally, the
  tongue and tastes do not attend reciprocally, the body and touches do
  not attend reciprocally. The mind does not attend to earth, water,
  fire or air, as earth, water, fire and air. The mind does not attend
  to the sphere of space as the sphere of space, the sphere of
  consciousness, as the sphere of consciousness The sphere of
  nothingness as the sphere of nothingness and the sphere of neither
  perception nor non-perception, as the sphere of neither perception nor
  non-perception. The mind does not attend to this world as this world
  or attend to the other world, as the other world. The mind does not
  attend to whatever seen, heard, experienced, cognized and searched by
  the mind, as the seen, heard, experienced, cognized and searched by
  the mind. Yet the mind is attentive.

Above is from Anguttara Nikaya -> Ekadasakanipatha -> Nissayavagga -> Manasikara sutta where it clearly describe that concentration on air, or senses (nose, skin etc) is something not advised to do.
But this collides most of the popular teachings and teachers today. Why is that? I'll explain why with another quote from the cannon.
Samyutta Nikaya -> Nidanawagga -> Nidanasutta -> Mahawagga -> Duthiya Assutava Sutta

I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anāthapiṇḍika in Jeta’s grove in Sāvatthi.
“Monks, it may happen that the not learned ordinary man would turn away, lose interest and be released from this body of the four
  elements.
“What is the reason? Monks, in this body of four elements, he sees the heaping up and the dwindling, the appropriating and discarding
  natures. Therefore the ordinary man turns away, loses interest and is
  released from this body of the four elements.
“Monks, there is no cause for the ordinary man to turn away, to lose interest and to be release from the mind, or the mentality or
  consciousness
“What is the reason? Monks, for a long time the ordinary man had clung to it, made it his own and touched it as ‘this is me, I am this
  and this is my self.’

“Therefore, for the ordinary man it is not sufficient to turn away,
  lose interest and be released from the mind, mentality or
  consciousness.

“It is suitable that the ordinary man should conclude, this body of the four elements is my self rather than the mind.

As you see above most of the popular teachings and teachers are not nobles, they just teach what they understand as the truth, which is 100% align with the latter quote from the cannon. The reason is simple as explained above there are cause. Which means they are not in the right view, or they are not first entrants.
Now you may think your way of meditation works as well, and what's the wrong about it. Yes of course it works, but that's not the noble meditation which Buddha advised (evidences are in the first quote). Those kind of meditations were there from very old days. Even prince Siddharath (buddha's earlier name) were capable of doing that after attending to his first three teachers (Alarakalama, Uddakarama...). But with those prince Siddhartha couldn't find the Nirvana, the ultimate happiness. That's why he left those teachers and find his own way.
So it's natural that why the wrong ways are very popular and known by many people while the real truth is hidden ( in this forum it gets down voted, but I'm doing my duty by sharing what I know and what I've understood)
So to wrap up my answer before someone says this is not an answer but an explanation, The meditation you are doing is not what the Buddha has advised to do, so without directly answering the question, I'm trying to answer with an explanation why the question is wrong.
With Metta..!

Thank you for your thorough answer. I will think on these things and attempt to arrive at a better understanding of what is required for true meditation and mindfulness practice.


text:
Am i physical body?
Physical body always change with time.
But I can't say this is me because  I am not child now.
I am Not teen now.
I am lose with time slowly slowly.

Your physical body counts as one of the five aggregates (skandha-rupa). As such it's considered impermanent, a source for craving/clinging, and therefore problematic to be identified with.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html

Buddha said people take at least one of the five aggregate as self. Which is called the five clinging-aggregate. This is one of the wrong views or Sakkhaya Dithi. It appears you take mind (one of the five aggregates) as the self.


text:
Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas?
I have been inquiring about the teachings including translations of scriptures with regards to 'Awareness that knows' here, here , here..
Specifically, in reference to the explanations given by most of the forest tradition, Ajahn's from Thailand and Translations by "Thanissaro Bhikkhu" who is also from the same tradition and has translated the bulk of pali cannon...
It seems to me that the illustrations given by the forest tradition have a somewhat distinctive view about this, for example, In this talk Ajan Amaro said Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas.
He said ...That which knows the five Skandhas is not intrinsically tied to the Five Skandhas. that which knows is not part of the five Skandhas / i.e. the five aggregates or heaps: form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).
Could you please expound or explain further, how is this Awareness lokuttara and beyond the Skandhas?
Many thanks

There is no awareness beyond the khandhas.
There is no such thing as the "Thai Forest Tradition" having a uniform set of teachings. The "Thai Forest Tradition" is just a variety of different jungle gurus who made up their own versions of Buddhism.
Ajahn Amaro has wrong view when he said: "that which knows the khandhas is not part of the khandhas".
SN 22.48 refers to two types of five khandhas. Five khandhas without clinging and five khandhas with clinging.
SN 22.85 describes the end of the life of a Buddha as the ending of the five khandhas. Therefore, there are pure undefiled liberated khandhas.

SN22.85:13.1: If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?” “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.” “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

"Lokuttara" means "beyond the world"; which means the mind not attached to the khandhas. SN 20.7 says "lokuttara" is "sunnata" ("emptiness"), which means "empty of self & anything pertaining/belonging to self". It is the mind that does not regard aggregates as "self". "The mind" is also a khandha. A khandha does not attach to the khandhas.
For example, the Buddha called liberation "cetovimutti" or "cittavimutti" (MN 30). Or Dhammapada 154 says the mind "citta" of the Buddha attained the unconditioned. "Citta" ("mind-heart") originates from nama-rupa (SN 47.42) therefore is part of the khandhas.
Or MN 43 says wisdom & consciousness are cojoined. Wisdom is required for liberation. SN 22.53 describes liberation in terms of freed consciousness. Consciousness is a khandha.
The Buddha never said liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas. The Buddha did not even use the word "awareness", which is too broad or vague to correlate with a specific Pali world.
The Buddha said liberation was possible because the element of Nibbana exists (Ud 8.3). Nibbana is not the khandhas but is a sense object (ayatana; Ud 8.1) known by the khandhas.

There is no such thing as the "Thai Forest Tradition" having a uniform set of teachings. The "Thai Forest Tradition" is just a label, empty of any substantial nature. "Thai Forest Tradition" is an empty abstraction. Just like every other dharma.

Andrei, I strongly believe DD definitely used conventional language here and referred to common ways of thinking & behaving of a lineage (which consists of people) that thinks & acts in a particular way.

I cannot claim to know, but to me this answer seems quite wrong. It confuses me that a Buddhist would think this. Do we not all agree that the 'I Am' of awareness is fundamental and beyond the skandhas? And if Nibbana is a sense-object then it seems a rather trivial thing. I must admit this answer confuses me considerably.

You must understand the purpose of the five skandhas, there are 31 planes and 4 realms, the plane that we exist at present needs to have 5 skandhas. To liberate you need to un-condition your habits using your mind and only in a Human condition that is possible because it is only through a human mind our habits can be un-conditioned, and those habits are induced from our past and present existences, only the human brain is able to help to deprogram or delete the mental factors that usually creates the cause for the next existence, and this is possible by doing meditation mainly 'Sati Pattana'. Meditation is mind development through observation or you can say it is to remove all your defilements. This cannot be done in any other existence. Therefore Transcending qualities of awareness (these new habits) can be created ( ie the cause)  within this existence towards liberation.

I think the answer is Yes. The first part of your question includes the answer: Liberation is possible. This is a fact. But there will be a unique specific set of causes and conditions for each sentient being to realize this.


text:
God in Buddhism
In Islam the God is Allah, in Christianity the God is Jehovah and Jesus Christ. Is the God in Buddhism Buddha? I think it is very misleading to say that the name of the God in Buddhism is Buddha! Buddha is not a God's name but Buddha is rather an enlightenment condition. Does Buddhism have a particular God? My ultimate question is whether Buddhism was made by God or humans.

Buddhism is agnostic: it makes no claims about the existence (or non-existence) of any god. The Buddhas (for there were several aside from the eponymous Gautama) were merely those who are sufficiently awake to see the human condition, and to prescribe the remedy for what ails us all. Don't make more of it than you need to.
Of course, there are those who see Buddha as a kind of divinity. That is fine to the extent that that is what they need to make sense of the Buddhist path. It makes no difference in the long run, because Buddhists do not seek 'truth.' They seek liberation, and bondage to the 'truth' can be as restrictive as anything else.
If a god exists, then we are one with it, and Buddhist practice is the way to realize that unity. If no god exists, then Buddhist practice is the way to realize who we are. It's not something we need to worry about.

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

I would have upvoted but didn't because you suggest that Buddhists do not seek truth. I wouldn't know what else to seek. .

@PeterJ — Yeah, that's an unfortunate artifact of language, that I'd hoped the scare-quotes would manage. Truth-seeking in the Western world is such an intellectual exercise that it defies Buddhist teaching; personally I tend to use the world 'understanding' when I talk about mystical/metaphysical truths. Sorry for any confusion.

Ah, I see what you mean. Fair point. Could be less ambiguous. . . .

@PeterJ I'll reflect on it a bit and see if I can come up with a better way of putting it; I'll edit it in if so. Any suggestions?

I'm not sure. Perhaps what is not sought is mere 'intellectual truth' or 'theoretical truth'. Now you come to mention it I'm not sure how to put it. Or perhaps it's that Buddhist do not seek truth as an idea but aim to become it. I do see the problem. +1

The egotical intellect search for the truth whether for the sake of it or to enlarge the sense of self. I see the Dhamma both as the truth and the path built from that truth to achive liberation from suffering. Kind regards!

The world we see is limited to animals and humans. But according to Buddha, world is consists of 31 different realms. Those including human world, animal world, God's world etc.
So if you have done karma which cause you to be born in heaven you will also be a god.
And in buddhism it's clearly explains that the time in the heavens are longer than ours. It's like 1 year of human world is one day for them (I can't remember the exact numbers). And that goes higher when the heaven is also a higher one (something like 100 humans years = one heaven day). So when someone born in that kind of heaven they think that's permanent. Because they are there from the beginning of the world. They don't know that at the end of the world they are also going to die.
Buddha is the one who understand all these, and how this world works. It's all based on paticcasamuppada explained in the core buddhism. Understanding all these what buddha advised to all is: don't try to go to heaven, because it won't save you for ever, it just save you for sometime only (yes that can be a long time but that's not forever). Once you have finished your business there you have to come back to other worlds as well, and you may even go to hell later. So Buddha found a way to stop all that which is called Nirvana. Important thing on that is it gives you ultimate happiness as well.
I hope this answer clears your confusion on God view of Buddhism.

I believe Buddhism is non-theistic, especially if we take 'God' in the usual Western sense. It simply doesn't work with the concept of creator God (gods are also trapped in samsara) and rather invites you to experience the nature of ultimate reality for yourself. The Great Beyond is beyond all concepts and thoughts. The moment you try to speak about it, you are already wrong (including me right now, typing these words). Therefore Buddhism doesn't go into describing the Absolute, but instead tries to remove the poison, so that you can see the nature of reality for yourself. It is a very apophatic approach, a very direct method of experiencing the Absolute. I believe the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow is very relevant when it comes to the above mentioned approach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow
Buddhism is man made in the sense that Buddha was a man. But he was no ordinary man ofc, as he achieved Buddhahood, i. e. recognizing his true nature, the buddha-nature, which is inherent in all the living beings. Discovering your true nature, the buddha-nature, is how one can experience the ultimate reality.

I used to be a Buddhist back in my teens. I was angry with God and always telling him about my day and talking to him on my way back from primary school. Messed up, right?
Here’s the kicker, Siddartha’s birth coincided in a time when Hinduism was about to be taken too literally. You know Ganesh, the god with an elephant’s face? They were about to kill anyone who thought of it as a metaphor, that Ganesh was a man with an elephant’s memory, gentle strength and loving soul. That Shiva really had 50 hands instead of seeing her as a frighteningly competent multitasker. That sort of thing.
So Siddartha was sent to break the idolatries of Hinduism. Instead of gods, he focused on philosophy as best as he could. Try as he might, it was powerless to prevent his followers from embellishing it in a multitude of variations that make nothing cohesive. I know this because I read that I could leave Buddhism if I found a better religion.
You know what is the bitterest liquor you can taste? That man can never be free from the curse of forming idols in his head, even if it is called “I lack belief in a god or gods”. That very thing then becomes it’s own morality, with an umbilical cord to the rightness and wrongness. All feelings and decisions made on this premise as if it were a less intimidating force of nature, the most powerful horse that he has the heart to break, so that he can shut out the ghostly hauntings of his sweetest dreams and memories that take the soul back to preludes of time and spaces, of kisses and betrayals, blood spilled and flesh eaten while alive. Why else can’t man defeat the urge to slap a vulnerable woman who also needs a powerful idol to break her own curses?
As a Freethinker since childhood and one other thing when I came of age, I have come to terms with Buddhism. It gets you half way there, to your bliss. The other half must be searched from calling out to the darkness of our existence, to see if anything came back to life again from sacrificial condemnation. Some make a choice and some don’t want to. It is our life. Beyond lies the supreme redemption. Go blessed by my failures.

Buddha is not considered a god according to Theravada Buddhism. We currently adhere to the teachings of "Gautama Buddha." Prior to him, 27 Buddhas were born in the world, and all of them were human. In Buddhist belief, Buddha is considered a human being, but he excels in every aspect of knowledge and spiritual power.
According to Buddhist teachings, only Buddha possesses the ability to perform "yamaka maha prathihara," which involves simultaneously achieving two highly advanced meditation states that are entirely different from each other and creating fire and water within his body. This feat is beyond the capability of anyone else in the universe except Buddha.
Buddha is greater than gods, including Brahma, or any other beings, despite being a human. Nevertheless, Buddhism acknowledges the existence of gods, and you can find references to gods with names like "Shakra," "Indra," and "Varuna" in Buddhist texts.
you can be god according to your "karma"

Yes there is God and Devil just as there is heaven and hell , king and commoners, saint and liars…
But Buddha says all states of existence are impermanent and therefore one should not cling to any of these otherwise there will be suffering.

I think there's some overlap.
In Islam and Christianity, would it be true to say that God is a bit unknowable ... and that what people do know of Him is because of Holy Scripture -- the Bible, the Koran, the traditional interpretation (i.e., the Church)?
That might be similar to Buddhism ... where the Buddha "himself" defies any easy categorisation -- and might be called the Tathagata -- but people learn the doctrine (which in Buddhism is called the "Dhamma" or "Dharma"), and maybe strongly associate that (doctrine) with Buddhism and the Buddha.
There's a strong human-origin story to the Buddha too -- born in a palace, married, left home to discover enlightenment -- then again, Christianity too has a "God was a man" story, so that's not entirely different.
Maybe in both cases, Christianity and Buddhism, that human-origin helps to imply that the doctrine is suitable for humans.
The Buddhist canon teaches that there are heavens (and hells), in which beings live as Gods. The Buddhist twist is that those states too are impermanent, that the Gods are eventually reborn in lower realms, etc. There's even one sutta -- I'm not sure how literally to interpret it -- which says that the first God born into a heavenly realm will think, "I'm the first! So, I must have been the creator of all this..."
Two important differences, it seems to me.

One is that Buddhism seems to me more practical or self-evident, based on reality -- I don't know of Buddhism theology equivalent to the doctrine of "transubstantiation", for example. It might well talk about transforming yourself -- but it's not just magic, and it's based on more-or-less observable characteristics.
Another is that Buddhism teaches that people are responsible for their own salvation -- and I think that might be unlike other theology which says that people are saved by God's grace. On the other hand people might find the way by "hearing" the good dhamma, so, maybe not entirely unlike other religion.

In summary it seems to me that Buddhism is a bit of a science, whereas other religions are a bit of a superstition -- though I suspect that people who really know how to practice other religions see it as it is and might understand the word "God" in a nuanced way.

“And indeed We have created man, and We know whatever thoughts his inner self develops, and We are closer to him than (his) jugular vein.” (Quran 50:16)

FYI here is an answer from the perspective of the Shin school of Buddhism -- which might once have seemed to me to be a school of Buddhism that's relatively close to having Buddha-as-a-"God", and to having "prayer". Reading it in detail I think it isn't theistic, nor unorthodox, but might easily be traced to the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta -- that's getting into more detail though than is justified by the question.
I'm not sure whether there are "supernatural beings" in Buddhism. The answer is probably "yes", that there are Gods and Demons who may or may not sometimes interact with humans -- "Mara" is famous, for example -- there's a so-called Secular Buddhism in the West which discounts supernatural elements. Some might also say that e.g. "Mara" is some kind of a personification.
Beware though that I think of this topic (i.e. theology) as a minor and tangential part of Buddhism, almost irrelevant or a side-track, and possibly a later addition to a more original doctrine, whereas sometimes in other religions the theology might be taught as if it were important -- not that the Buddha is unimportant!
I think the chief characteristic of the Buddha might be something like, "If the Buddha can attain enlightenment, so might I if I learn to practice like him" -- like a role-model (or teacher): to be remembered.

Reading the suttas I get the impression that the Buddha says that the way to enlightenment is to depend on him as a teacher, and to know and practice his doctrine.
He doesn't claim to be God (he's sometimes described as teaching the Gods as well as teaching humans).
And the doctrine isn't like divine commandment ("I want you to do X, and I will reward or punish you accordingly"), instead it's presented more like natural law ("Y is the natural consequence of doing X").

This depends somewhat on how you define "God."
The Buddha has been called "devātideva", which means "god of gods." This points out a Buddha's position of superiority among all beings. His decision to teach the world the Dharma is effectively revelation of the highest caliber and his access to it is a result of his culminated perfection.
The Buddha remained closely associated with the deities and spirits that became his disciples. But he remains the highest authority. The only one equal to him is another Buddha.

Terminology 'buddhism' was made by some educated-idiots after Buddha to mislead everyone from unbounded dhamma(right teaching) to a bounded tradition of similar ones.
There are lots of misconceptions going on nowdays.
If by word, 'God' you mean someone who is::
Tathagata,  Bhagwa,  ., ., .,
Details can be seen at https://bodhimonastery.org/the-ten-qualities-of-the-buddha.html
Then yes,  dhamma(right teachings)  were given by God or if you prefer to give above qualities to word, 'human' then yes,  dhamma was given by a human.
'Buddhism' has nothing to do with 'Right Teaching',  word 'Dhamma' was used to denote rightness by buddha.
Don't get distracted by 'Buddhism' preachers.

The God in Buddhism is Buddha ?
act-ually yes, even a creator-God, the Buddha is the "Brahma", father, giver, lord of this Dhamma of liberation, the cause (speaking to his monks:

“I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things. Iti § 100

The circumstance that many deny obligation toward him and his disciples, do not have refuge and steal and carry away the Dhamma for many purposes in the world, doesn't change the fact of dependency, debts and faults.
I think this is very very misleading to say that the name of the God in Buddhism is Buddha
Act-ually not but the Opposite, since it is a matter of right view, the first step on the path to liberation:

'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' AN 10.176

Broadly Jain's actually use the Dhamma. With just this wrong view, there is no God, no giver... this grave wrong view, they are destinated to hell, conducting based on this view and ingratitude in their plunder. (youtuber, facebooker, google-worshipper, BsEler... all those lost Brahmans havn't an ease, slaves who deny giver and caught in one of those marxist Kibbutz)
God, again, stands for parents, Good, giver of real good(s), root.
[Note that this hasn't been given for trade, exchange, stacks but for release from the bond of trade with fakes and thieves.]

Buddhist teachings accept that gods exist. According to Buddhist teachings, there are negative realms [hell, animal, ghost, etc…] and there are positive realms [human, god, Brahma] but none of these realms are permanent. Even gods are not permanent; they also have a lifespan. The only permanent thing is Nirvana.
Buddha is not a god. He is a human but greater than any god or any Brahma.
So, there are realms of gods, some godly realms have more luxury and longer life expectancy than others. We can also get there if we accumulate positive karma.
But these things are not permanent except for Nirvana...

All other Gods are fake. There is no such Allah or Jesus who comes from the sky to help people. Also, there is no such being as omniscent or omnipotent. Everything is cause and effect. Buddhism is one true religion which helps you to know about the nature of being through critical analysis.
You have to keep in mind that there has been a brainwash for people to believe in such Gods. There is no one in the sky.

Yes, everything is cause and effect. This is why Siddhārtha Gautama teaches us not to praise ourself and slander others.

I agree with the above comment and also suggest this answer is counter to the ideas and concepts of the Buddha's responses to the Unanswerable Questions. @user17389, perhaps consider if the Buddha would have likely answered this question in your manner?

I have no views on anything you say. However, there is no omnipotent God. Congratulation for learning Buddhism and still believing on omniscent being.

Buddhism is a more subtle doctrine than this answer implies.


text:
Apologetics and Upanishads
Are there good apologetic resources (books, audios, sites, etc.) that give the buddhist answer to advaita vedanta and/or hinduism in general? To the substantial model of the atman-brahman or purusha/prakriti of Patanjali yoga.
I understand that in the West, Whitehead's criticisms were quite close.

Being a MahayanIst I find it impossible to find a significant difference in the teachings of the two other than the language and explanatory structure,

yet the difference is fundamental. The Hindu model postulates a substantial Absolute untouched by nature, the Buddhist model denies the existence of any substance and postulates an Absolute process, the Absolute being only one face of the world.

Advaita Vedanta does not propose that Brahman is a 'substantial Absolute'. Nor does Mahayana Buddhism propose an 'absolute process'. Rather, nothing would really exist and nothing would really happen. It's a tricky doctrine to grasp, but at least it's not ambiguous on this issue. But Hindus and Buddhists come in various flavours and many do not endorse the non-dual interpretation of their teachings, and Christians and Muslims likewise.

@PeterJ Advaita does not propose that Brahman is a 'substantial Absolute'? Really? What about these quotes? - "There exists no other material cause of this phenomenal universe except Brahman" (Aparokshanubhuti 45), "Brahman is real, the universe is an illusion. The individual soul is Brahman itself and not different." (Brahmajnanavalimala 20), "Becoming thyself the self-effulgent Brahman, the substratum of all phenomena, ..." (Vivekachudamani 289), "The pot, wall, etc., are all nothing but clay. Likewise, the entire universe is nothing but Brahman" (Brahmajnanavalimala 19).

@ruben2020 - Yes. that's the description. Where does the idea of substance appear? I think you've misread my comment. .

@PeterJ Brahman is the substratum of all phenomena and is the material cause of the phenomenal universe. Brahman is the clay and the universe is the pots and wall etc. that is made of it. In this essay, Professor von Glasenapp states that Atman and Brahman have the "clear and distinct meaning of a 'primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum (true substance)', or similarly". Why do you interpret Brahman as not a substantial Absolute?

@ruben2020 - The issue is the word 'substantial'. My point was simply that substance is not fundamental. I'm well aware of what you're saying about Brahman and am not disagreeing.

There's the Milinda Panha. It records a dialogue between the Buddhist sage Nāgasena, and the Indo-Greek king Menandernda_Panha). English Translation available here. It's not considered a core text by all Buddhist disciplines, but it is one of the oldest surviving apologetic dialogues between Buddhism and Hinduism.
Another interesting text is the Buddhist critique of the Advaita Vedanta as explained in Michael Myers' Comparative Theology

"Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" (1995) by Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp is a good essay.
First quote from this essay:

In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a
  place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know
  now that all Hinayana (sic) and Mahayana schools are based on the
  anatma-dharma theory. ... Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta,
  just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas ... Nirvana is no
  individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic
  idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and
  without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has
  thought something different from that which since more than 2000
  years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their
  doctrine.

And the conclusion:

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.

From here (1973) and here, you can find this summary passage by Professor T. R. V. Murti:

It has been the fashion to consider that the differences between the
  Madhyamika śūnyatā and Brahman are rather superficial and even verbal,
  and that the two systems of philosophy are almost identical. At least
  Professor Radhakrishnan thinks so, and Stcherbatsky's and Dasgupta's
  views are not very different. I hold a contrary view altogether: that
  in spite of superficial similarities in form and terminology, the
  differences between them are deep and pervasive.

From "Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta (A Paradigm Shift)" (1994-95) by Acarya Dharmavajra:

Hinduism and
  Buddhism share a common culture and therefore tend to use the same or
  similar words. They do share certain concepts like Karma and
  re-incarnation, although their interpretation differ. Hindu concepts
  of karma and therefore reincarnation tend to be rather linear whereas
  the Buddhist concept is linked with pratityasamutpada. The Theravada
  concept of pratityasamutpada is also rather linear but the
  Mahayana/Vajrayana concept is more non-linear multi dimentional-multi
  leveled-interdependent inter-latched. But all similarities to Hinduism
  ends there. The Shunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Candrakirti is by
  no accounts a negative way of describing the Brahman of the Upanishad-
  Samkara-Vidhyaranya groups.

And also:

To sum it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an
  ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as
  something which exists (skt. satta). However, the Buddhist ultimate
  truth is the absence of any such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing
  or ultimate reality.

Here are some answers on this site which would give you the useful information that you are seeking after, including this answer, this answer, this answer, this answer, this answer and this answer.


text:
Can/should we actively use thoughts as part of mindful awareness?
I've been reading Thich Nhat Hanh's 'The Miracle of Mindfulness'. It's a wonderful, short book that I wish I had found years ago.
There's one very basic thing I still struggle with. This is a quote from the book:

'When you are walking along a path leading into a village, you can
  practice mindfulness. [...] You practice by keeping this one thought
  alive: "I'm walking along the path leading into the village"'

Since I began mindfulness meditations a few years ago I've always aimed to practice an awareness where thoughts are merely things that happen whilst I am being aware, and that I should let them pass as they come, not engaging but not strenuously pushing away. However, is Thich Nhat Hanh suggesting in the quote that we can 'hold' a thought in our minds that mirrors the subject of our awareness, or this instead just a way of articulating the experience of awareness?
He also mentions similar practices regarding mindful breathing throughout the book.
This is such a basic thing that I'm concerned why I haven't 'got' it after all these years, it often feels like I understood mindfulness more when I was relatively new to it!
All the best,
James

Mindfulness (sati) does not mean "awareness" or "observation" of objects.
Mindfulness means to carry or maintain a wise thought or view in the mind.
The original scriptures say:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
MN 117

One recollects the Dhamma and thinks it over. Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus withdrawn recollects that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu.
SN 46.3

For example, if the teaching of non-craving & non-unwholesomeness is maintained in the mind using mindfulness, the mind will be clear & quiet. When the mind is clear & quiet, it will naturally become observant of the breathing without any intention to observe the breathing. However, it is not mindfulness observing the breathing. It is consciousness that observes the breathing. All mindfulness does is keep the mind free from distracting thoughts.
The scriptures (AN 10.58) say all dhamma practises are "governed" by mindfulness. This is the role of mindfulness, namely, to govern practise and keep practise on the right path. Mindfulness does not observe objects. The observing of objects happens automatically because it is the mind's nature to be observant, conscious or aware.

Can/should we actively use thoughts as part of mindful awareness?

yes you can, yes you should (unless you can do 2nd jhana and higher in which case awareness without thought is preferred when feasible).
examples: SN 56.7
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn56/sn56-007/index.html
AN 10.48
http://lucid24.org/an/an10/an10-0048/index.html

this stuff about '''When you are walking along a path leading into a village, you can practice mindfulness. [...] You practice by keeping this one thought alive: "I'm walking along the path leading into the village"' ie

[2] "Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.'
  When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he
  discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying
  down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it.
"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself,
  or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is
  how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself.
[3] "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself
  fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending &
  extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe &
  his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when
  urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling
  asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully
  alert.
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

is about a tiny part of mindfulness of the body, ie ''remaining focused on the body in & of itself'' (instead of caring about external objects) and being alert and so on.
You can go further with the parts of the body

Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, it flexes &
  stretches: this is the body's movement. Joined together with tendons &
  bones, plastered over with muscle & skin, hidden by complexion, the
  body isn't seen for what it is: filled with intestines, filled with
  stomach, with the lump of the liver, bladder, lungs, heart, kidneys,
  spleen, mucus, sweat, saliva, fat, blood, synovial fluid, bile, & oil.
  On top of that, in nine streams, filth is always flowing from it: from
  the eyes : eye secretions, from the ears : ear secretions, from the
  nose : mucus, from the mouth : now vomit, now phlegm, now bile. from
  the body : beads of sweat. And on top of that, its hollow head is
  filled with brains.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.11.than.html
Like MN10 mentions, there are plenty of other stuff to think about and do for  ''remaining focused on the body in & of itself''
then there is also mindfulness of feelings-perceptions and dhammas.