text:
Four great elements : what is the other 2 elements?
I have heard about "Mahabhutha" as 4 elements but in few occasions as 6 elements with the addition of "Akasha" & "Vijñāna".
Can someone explain why there is a difference and how they connect with the other 4 elements?

Four great elements : what is the other 2 elements?
In the Nikaya Texts, there is a term called 'Cattari Mahabhutani'(four Mahabhuta). These Mahabhutani consitute Rupa. (See Sammaditthi Sutta).
A being (human being is an instance) is defined in terms of six Dhatus. It is Cattari Mahabhutani and Akasa and Vinnana Dhatus (Caddhaturo Ayam Puriso) (See for example Bhahudhatukasuttam.) However, there are no meaningful translations of these Suttas in any language. These Suttas could be understood only by Lord Buddha's direct disciples, who listened to Lord Buddha in person. This non-understanding is the reason for the existence numerous Buddhist traditions and sects.

I'm not sure this is useful to you but here is some further reading.
As written in user1387280's answer, various "6 elements" (including those you mentioned i.e. earth, wind, fire, and water, plus space and consciousness) are listed in the Bahu Dhātuka Sutta (MN 115).
Footnote 21 to the phrase "eighteen elements" says,

1 Def at Vbh §§183-184/87-90; expl in detail at Vism 15.17-43/484-490. See Intro (1) above

There's also a description of each of the six elements in the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta (MN 140).
I'm not sure they do "connect" with each other (maybe what makes them "elements" is that one can exist without the other). Still insofar as they are elements of a person they are a put-together assemblage. The teaching that applies to all of them is that they're all not mine, not me, not myself.
Nevertheless, Chapter 15 of the Visuddhimagga discusses "elements" and says, for example,

The earth, fire, and air elements are the tangible-data element; the water
  element and the space element are the mental-data element only; “consciousness
  element” is a term summarizing the seven consciousness elements beginning
  with eye-consciousness

Footnote 32 on page 443 explains why water is 'mental': it's because 'water' is the mind's perceiving an absence of 'fire'.

I assume (speculate) the four great elements was an understanding before the Buddha found in many cultures (see Wikipedia: classical elements). In ancient times, different cultures or philosophies would add onto the four great elements other elements they regarded to be important.

The Chinese had a somewhat different series of elements, namely Fire, Earth, Metal (literally gold), Water and Wood, which were understood
as different types of energy in a state of constant interaction and
flux with one another, rather than the Western notion of different
kinds of material.

In respect to the four great elements, the Buddha used this in his definition of the physical body for the purposes of Dependent Origination, i.e., to show how ignorance-created-formations (sankhara) condition stress & agitation in the physical body (rupa):

What is mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four
great elements and the material form derived from the four great
elements — these are called materiality.
Sammaditthi Sutta

In respect to the six elements, the Buddha was concerned with those non-personal (anatta; sunnata) elements (dhatu) that could be directly discerned/experienced by the mind in their most natural state. He emphasized earth (solidity), wind (breath; wind), fire (heat; including body heat), water ( moisture, softness), space (internal & external) and primal consciousness (awareness).
Refer to: Mahārāhulovāda Sutta & Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta

Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements. There are the earth element, the
water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element
and the consciousness element.
What, bhikkhu, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever
internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to,
that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever
else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and
clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the
internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth
element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom
thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one
sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes
disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate
towards the earth element.
What, bhikkhu, is the water element? The water element may be either internal or external. What is the internal water element? Whatever
internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to, that
is, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spittle,
snot, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or whatever else internally, belonging
to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to: this is called the
internal water element. Now both the internal water element and the
external water element are simply water element. And that should be
seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine,
this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it
actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the
water element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the water
element.
What, bhikkhu, is the fire element? The fire element may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire element? Whatever
internally, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, and clung-to, that
is, that by which one is warmed, ages, and is consumed, and that by
which what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets completely
digested, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is fire,
fiery, and clung-to: this is called the internal fire element. Now
both the internal fire element and the external fire element are
simply fire element. And that should be seen as it actually is with
proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my
self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one
becomes disenchanted with the fire element and makes the mind
dispassionate towards the fire element.
What, bhikkhu, is the air element? The air element may be either internal or external. What is the internal air element? Whatever
internally, belonging to oneself, is air, airy, and clung-to, that is,
up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the belly, winds in the
bowels, winds that course through the limbs, in-breath and out-breath,
or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is air, airy, and
clung-to: this is called the internal air element. Now both the
internal air element and the external air element are simply air
element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom
thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one
sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes
disenchanted with the air element and makes the mind dispassionate
towards the air element.
What, bhikkhu, is the space element? The space element may be either internal or external. What is the internal space element? Whatever
internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to,
that is, the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the door of the mouth,
and that aperture whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted
gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from
below, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is space,
spatial, and clung-to: this is called the internal space element. Now
both the internal space element and the external space element are
simply space element. And that should be seen as it actually is with
proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my
self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one
becomes disenchanted with the space element and makes the mind
dispassionate towards the space element.
Then there remains only consciousness, purified and bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes: ‘This is pleasant’;
one cognizes: ‘This is painful’; one cognizes: ‘This is
neither-painful-nor-pleasant.’...
Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta

As disciples of the Buddha it is good to view the four physical elements (dhatu) of nature: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind (pathavi, apo, tejo, and vayo) as Elements of solidity, fluidity, heat and motion.
(1)        Earth element (pathavi-dhatu) has the property of hardness, strength, thickness, immobility, security and supporting.  - they represent the solidity property of forms.
 (2)        Water element (apo-dhatu) has the property of oozing, humidity, fluidity, trickling, permeation and cohesion.  - they represent the fluidity or cohesiveness property of forms.
 (3)        Fire element (tejo-dhatu) has the property of heating, warmth, consuming and grasping.  - they represent the heat or cold temperature property of forms.
 (4)        Air element (vayo-dhatu) has the property of motion, supporting, coldness, ingress and egress, easy movement and grasping.  - they represent the distended-ness property of forms.
These four elements are there in any form, including our body. In Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60) The Buddha tells Ananda:

“Herein, Ananda, a monk contemplates this body upward from the soles of the feet, downward from the top of the hair, enclosed in skin, as being full of many impurities. In this body there are hairs on the head, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, intestinal tract, stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucous, synovium (oil lubricating the joints), and urine. Thus he dwells contemplating foulness in this body. This, Ananda, is called contemplation of foulness.”

The last two Dhatu – Akasa & Viññaña  can be seen in this way. Akasa is of two types. The one in Arupa Jhana is the sphere of infinite space (Akasanañcayatana). This is attained by transcending any cognition of rupa, by abandoning the metal image that was previously the object of concentration, and seeing that space is infinite. The Akasa Dhatu is more limited. It is the space element, belongs to derived materiality.  This element has the characteristic of delimiting matter or form, and indicates the boundaries of matter. Akasa is the container of matter or form being untouched by the 4 great elements, and in holes and openings. It is for Akasa element that one can say 'this is above. below, around that'.
Viññāna is the 5th in the sixfold division of elements dhātu. It is the mind-consciousness-element. Like the other 5 Dhatu, this too is impersonal. Consciousness, when you're aware of it inwardly, arises and passes away by its very own nature. There's no real essence to it. Viññāna as dhatu or elements, are divided into 7 classes:

cakkhu-vinnana-dhatu = cakkhu-vinnanadvi. They depend on cakkhu-vatthu for their arising. (eyes)
sota-vinnana-dhatu = sota-vinnanadvi. They depend on sota-vatthu for their arising. (ears)
ghana-vinnana-dhatu = ghana-vinnanadvi. They depend on ghana-vatthu for their arising. (nose)
jivha-vinnana-dhatu = jivha-vinnanadvi. They depend on jivha-vatthu for their arising. (tongue)
kaya-vinnana-dhatu = kaya-vinnanadvi. They depend on kaya-vatthu for their arising. (body)
mano-dhatu = panca-dvaravajjana and sampaticchanadvi. They depend on hadaya-vatthu for their arising. (mind)

Both @user1387280 and @ChrisW were not sure when it came to this OP. There is nothing wrong in this. Even I do not know much about the last two Dhatu – Akasa & Viññaña. There is another deeper level of understanding to Dhamma beyond our empirical surface experience of what we read or hear of Dhamma. That is why Venerable Ajahn Chah once said, ‘Not Sure!’ is the standard of the Noble Ones. Only those who really do not know what practice is would say “we know”.


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

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

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

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

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

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


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

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

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

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

In quoting that article again:

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

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


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

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

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

Hi. I made some additions to my answer.

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

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

A true Jhana master, Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Soto Zen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
How can I make amends with the one I wronged?
I had been cruel to a cat before and it bothers me a lot that I had been unkind to him. He's been dead for more than a year but I still think about how he suffered because of my callousness at the time. Is there a way for me to send him love now, or any way I can make it up to him somehow?

Maybe a good related question: What is the Buddhist approach of admitting a mistake?

Not sure if still connected to here. In short. Its good to make offerings to the death and the best way to give gratitude is doing such by giving food to the monks of the Buddha. Why? Because in this way there is the most possible chance that they might here the Dhamma, like Saptha Visuddhi answered and have the same gift as you had, @Bothered

It would be good to change the question, incl. "dead", and its not amend you give back, but the much geater gratidute that his death taught you a wonderful and liberating lesson that moved you to seek.

The Kamma has been laid down.
Now there's no use in scruples over the past.
The best and the most constructive thing to do I think is make a commitment to never repeat acts of callousness and actually fulfil it.
It is possible to mitigate acquired new bad Kamma, counterbalance it as it were, by development of wholesome qualities such as good will, cheerfulness and compassion.

What you have is a ‘healthy kind of shame’, says Thanissaro Bhikkhu in his article “Living Forward, Understanding Backward”, and advises you to develop goodwill for everybody as, then it is a lot harder to harm people, harm yourself or harm anyone else.

... So a large part of the practice is learning how to take mistakes in stride. The Buddha says you should feel shame over your mistakes. But it’s not the kind of shame where you feel that you’re a horrible person, but simply realize that you did something that was beneath you, that was not appropriate for you. You don’t want to repeat that mistake. So it’s a healthy kind of shame. It’s not debilitating.
He teaches the same attitude in terms of issues of remorse. You realize that you’ve made mistakes in the past. He doesn’t have you dwell on them more than just recognizing that they were mistakes. And then you remind yourself that no matter how guilty you may feel about the mistake you made, that guilt is not going to go back and erase the mistake. The best you can do is to resolve not to repeat it. And then you try to strengthen skillful qualities in the mind. And he highly recommends the attitudes we were chanting just now—unlimited goodwill, unlimited compassion, unlimited empathetic joy or appreciation and unlimited equanimity. In other words, put yourself in a position where you can feel these emotions for anybody.
Basically you start out with goodwill. Reminding yourself there’s no need to see anybody in the world suffer, because if people are suffering that’s why they tend to do evil things. They feel threatened, they feel attacked, they feel like they are in a weak position and so they strike out. So no matter how much you may dislike a particular person, there is really no reason to wish ill on them. What you do is wish for this person to find true happiness. If they could find true happiness within, the disagreeable behavior that they’re engaging in would fall away. At the same time, if you can develop goodwill for everybody, it’s a lot harder to harm people, harm yourself or harm anyone else. It strengthens your resolve not to repeat your mistake.

WHAT CAN I DO TO REMOVE PREVIOUS NEGATIVE KARMA?

Nobody likes to suffer, so we all like to rid ourselves of negative karmic potential.
There are several possibilities, and in fact we may need to try and apply all of these methods as much as we can:

To avoid having negative thoughts that lead to negative actions in the future, we need to observe and control our own thoughts and behaviour, and destroy our negative attitudes.
Similarly, we can observe/study (meditate) our own mind and encourage positive thoughts that lead to positive actions.
We can avoid negative karmic seeds to ripen by purifying it, using the four powers of purification (see below). Although this does not eliminate the negative karmic actions, it can avoid the results to occur.
Ultimately, when we realise emptiness directly (see the page on Wisdom), and remove all our delusions, we are not under the control of past karma anymore.

THE FOUR POWERS OF PURIFICATION

The purification practices found within Buddhism are not unlike the practices applied in many other religions. The most essential mental factor that one requires is sincerity or honesty with oneself. When one wants to purify past negative karma, one has to do some action with the correct motivation.
This is summarised in the following Four Powers of Purification:

Power of the Object: One should practice thinking of all sentient beings one may have hurt. Traditionally, one remembers all sentient beings and the Three Jewels of Refuge (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha), by generating compassion for all sentient beings and taking refuge.
Power of Regret: This should not be senseless guilt or self-recrimination, which are said to be useless emotional torture. What is intended here is to examine oneself and one's actions and to recognise that negative actions done in the past were very unwise.
Power of Promise: As a logical consequence of the above, one should promise not to repeat these negative actions. It is good if one can promise to avoid a negative behaviour for a specific time, or at least promise that one will put effort in avoiding repetition. Not being honest at this stage makes the practice useless or even harmful to oneself.
Power of Practice: Basically any positive action with a good motivation can be used as practice. Traditionally in Buddhism, one can practice e.g. making prostrations (throwing oneself to the floor - as a means to destroy pride), making offerings (to counteract greed), reading Buddhist texts (to counteract ignorance and negative thoughts), reciting mantras etc.

Source: A View on Buddhism, BUDDHIST KARMA

You may do a chanting / convey rememberence by engaging in a charity event at a Temple. It is a good idea to talk to a Monk in the Temple and arrange a small Alms giving event at the Temple or in your house. By doing this you will be able to send collected merits over to its soul if it is in a place where it can receive. As the above person just mentioned, never repeat acts of callousness. Spread loving kindness to each and every living being from east to west, north to south and top to bottom. May the noble triple gem bless you my friend.

i was going to warn against such advice but refrained.
according to the Buddha's own words as they're recorded in the Pali Canon one can only share or dedicate merit to RELATIVES reborn as peta (hungry ghosts).
the practice of sharing merit with everybody is fallacious and heretical

Dear friend, I was referring to the same when I meant "...if it is in a place where it can receive" (as you mentioned as Peta - we call this Peta as "Paradatta Rupa Jivi Peta"). Even though the Cat is not a blood-relative of the person who asked this question, in this life, the Cat could've easily been a relative throughout their samsara. Therefore, the Cat, you, me, anyone visible or invisible on this planet, heaven worlds, etc, were once known (related) to each other in many ways. I hope you got your doubts cleared. May the noble triple gem bless you.

The highest level of Buddhism explains it is 'ignorance' ('not-knowing') rather than 'the self' that performs hurtful actions. This is the method for the highest freedom & dropping the heavy weight of guilt.
As for the cat, I am sure the cat was also naughty because cats are often naughty. If the cat is reincarnated, it can, the same as you, learn from & improve its actions.

According to the Lord Buddah
The best thing to do is without thinking and worrying about the wrong things that you have done in the past and do good things and gain 'kusal'.
If you memorize or worry about the wrong things you did it would be more harmful for you. So instead of worrying or thinking about the past just think about good things you have done. And continue good things.
This is the one and only thing you must do. There won't be any other ways.
Memorizing and worrying about the bad things you did and the good things you couldn't do is a sin. This is called "Kukkuchcha". So don't do it. Once again I would say it is a sin. And Try to learn "Abhidhamma" it'll resolve all of your problems. And also study about theravada Buddhism which is the real Buddhism.

If you want the kamma to be exhausted quickly here and now rather than leading to negative destinations in the future then become well-developed in body, virtue, mind, and discernment, unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable just as The Buddha says:

"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain
  individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
  sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
  here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this
  sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most
  part barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

Also in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 136) The Buddha explains the complexities of kamma that it's not true that all people who do good go to heaven or that all people who do evil go to hell (some people who do evil go to heaven and others that do good go to hell).
From my personal experiences I know that you can exhaust lots of negative kamma in a few seconds time if meditating correctly. In the future there should be a way to objectively measure the kamma inside of you.

Whenever the worry comes to your mind, meditate on it: "Worrying.. Worrying.. Worrying..", until the worrying stops.
When you do good deeds, transfer merits to the cat: "Let it accept the merits of this good deed and go to a better place or become happier & free from suffering"

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Awareness in the body : ticklish/tingling feeling
I'm trying to anchor my awareness while sitting at the desk.
When bringing awareness to the body , I'm getting a tickling/tingling in the body .  So to make it bearable I'm trying to move attention to different body parts and it keeps following too.  So unable to hold awareness in the body for a long time.  Is there any advice/guide on this ?

Relax your facial muscles & take an out-breath or let go of some out-breathes.
In your efforts to anchor awareness, it sounds like you are suppressing the (mental) tension stored in your physical body (which will arise into your awareness if meditating).
Balance your effort. At regular intervals, take your foot off the accelerator; ease off the throttle.

Thank you . "the (mental) tension stored in your physical body" could you please explain this bit more ?

A human being has a nervous system throughout their body, including the brain. Just the ordinary active living of life, with drives, desires, loves, pleasures, emotions, etc, results in mental tension being stored throughout the nervous system of the physical body, brain & mind. So when a person sits still in meditation & makes the mind still via observation, the still aware mind can feel the mental tension stored in the body. If the meditator remains still, the tension will start to dissolve & also be expelled by the breathing because the person is no longer created tension via 'activity'.

Thank you so much ! is there a source to get further info ?

It is a general principle. E.g., the Pali scriptures state: "Infatuated, attached, clinging to the five aggregates...craving accompanied by passion & delight...grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow...He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress (Maha-salayatanika Sutta)" and  "If a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes, may my mind, through lack of clinging be released from fermentations,' he should attend to this concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing (Dipa Sutta).

If you are experiencing tickling / tingling sensations ticklish feeling, then first check on the clothes you wear. Try to wear clothes loose and soft. If they restrict blood flow or put pressure on nerves, you will feel like scratching, or feeling tingling numbness. Don't wear tight pants or pants made of thick material. Take your shoes off and if your socks are thick and binding, take them off, too.
People experience all kinds of varied phenomena when trying to practice awareness / meditation. Getting itches or feeling other sensations like tingling, or feeling of lightness or a floating sensation are some of the common ones. It is because, as relaxation sets in, the nervous system begins to pass sensory signals more efficiently. They are sensory data that were kept blocked before. When the body gets relaxed or more aware, it  gives rise to these unique sensations. So try to see it as just sensation. Try not to get too excited about it. If you are practicing awareness, make it a part of the practice. Just observe as to how it come up and watch it pass away. The main thing is not to get involved. Keep your distance, and just observe.
Even if you don't feel at ease, or you can't relax, try to just observe it, without letting it rule you. Let those feelings arise and look at them mindfully. If you just sit still and observe your agitations, they will eventually pass. They come and they go. They have no real grip on you at all.

The tingling sensation may be used to restless worry. You can just look at the sensation knowing its impermanence. More on this see this answer.


text:
Are there studies about the difference between meditating in the morning versus in the evening?
Specifically, I am wondering if it is better to meditate at 7am or 7pm (even though doing both would be ideal).

The number of times or the time of day depends on the type of meditation that you do. If it is ‘Loving Kindness Meditation, it is good to do it for even a couple of minutes both morning, noon and night. That is what Ajaan Mun did as told to us by Thanissaro Bhikku. He said that,

Ajaan Mun  spread thoughts of goodwill to all living beings three times a day: in the morning when he woke up, in the afternoon when he woke up from his nap, and at night before he went to sleep. In this way, the desire for goodwill, the desire for true happiness, framed his practice.

The best time to meditate is when you are not sleepy or drowsy or weighed down by the food. It can be in the morning or the evening. Most of the meditation practices that have become popular today are not in line with the Dhamma. Some ‘so-called teachers’ would erroneously advice a student of mediation to note in your mind, “pain, pain”, when you feel pain in some part of your body during meditation. For them it is vedananupassana – contemplation on feeling. Then your mind goes astray, they will get you to note “going, going”. Some view it as cittanupassana – the contemplation of mind. Likewise if sleepy, to note “sleepy, sleepy”, and, if a desire or agitation come to pass, to note “desire, desire”, or “agitation, agitation”. This to them is dhammanupassana – the contemplation of mind objects. These are incorrect practices that people are being taught as meditation.
So it is not the time of the day as we do not know the nature of each individual. But no one should develop the idea of doing meditation in a hurry. Your goal should be to develop mindfulness, and not doing it in a hurry. So if you are more relaxed and have more time in the evening then that is the best time. Then do it little at a time and generate mindfulness. If too distracted or restless, then that is the time to stop. After generating mindfulness in that manner you will realize that you can maintain the object of meditation without becoming sleepy or without allowing the mind to get dispersed. Thereafter gradually increase the duration.

My experience is that if your day job is demanding morning meditation is better, you won't feel so tired and are less likely to fall asleep. I also used enjoy sitting in the midst of all the morning sounds, the birds singing, the bin men collecting the bins, people rushing off to work.

For certain individuals they may be alert more in the morning and others during the night. Even for the same individual this may change from period to period. So it is vise to divide the session into two parts.
Also more defilements gather when there are longer gaps.
So 1 hour in the morning and one in the evening / night is the minimum.

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

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

The correct answer of course is: it depends.
The whole point of doing meditation is to become more aware of yourself, your thoughts, your body, your emotions.
So while meditating on a regular basis is a good idea I'd do it when you have the most time and are not in a rush. Also being aware is something you can do all the time by just watching and controlling your breath.


text:
How to understand a patient's coma status in Buddhism
My friend was healthy and normal. There was a sudden bleeding in her brain due to an AVM and went through a serious brain surgery. Now around 3 weeks she is in a coma status. How can I understand this in Buddhism. Does she hear us? Can she feel what is going on? Is she in pain? Thank you.

Whether a person can hear, see, smell, taste etc. while in a coma is probably a question for medical science.
From a Buddhist perspective, it can be seen as a case of senses being shut off as in when you are in deep sleep. Only Bhavaanga Cittas(life continuum) are present in deep(dreamless) sleep.
Alternatively, it could just be a case of the patient not being able to respond in anyway. Here's such an instance.
The situation is probably different from patient to patient.

Thank you very much, specially for the encouraging example case given.


text:
History of refuge in the 3 jewels
When was taking refuge in the 3 jewels of Buddha, Dharma & Sangha started? Was it started by the Buddha in his time or was it after him? When I mean taking refuge, I mean for a lay Buddhist and not for a Bhikku.
What is the source of the 3 refuges mantra:
Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.

Taking  refuge in the 3 jewels of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha was recommended by the Buddha as providing protection from certain afflictions. It is specifically mentioned in the Dhajagga-paritta ("Banner Protection") - SN 11.3. Dhajagga-paritta is about the recollections of the Three Jewels, and is for the lay followers for protection against fear, trembling and horror. You will find it here
There are six heavenly realms, viz: Catummaharajika, Tavatimsa, Yama, Tusita, Nimmanarati and Paranimmitta Vasatti. Sakka is the ruler of the Tavatimsa Deva Loka. Although Buddhists worship and pray to Sakka to receive his blessing and protection, in the Dhajagga Sutta the Buddha says that Sakka is not free from mental defilements like greed, hatred, delusion and fear. However, it is a traditional belief among Buddhists that Sakka has undertaken to protect Buddhism.
In this discourse of the Banner protection (Dhajagga)  the Buddha introducing himself to monks said “O monks, the Tathagata who is Arahant Supremely Enlightened, is free from lust, free from hate is free from delusion, and is not liable to fear, terror, fright or flight”.(Tathagato bhikkhave araham Samma Sambuddho Vitarago Vitadoso Vitamoho abhiru acchambhi anutrasi apalayiti)
In Dhajagga-paritta  you will come to know that the qualities of the Supreme Buddha’s community of Sangha are most precious and admirable. These precious qualities were taught to us by the Awakened One himself in the Dhajagga Sutta.
In going for refuge, when we say, "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.;  Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.;  Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi."  it is important that we know of the Supreme Qualities of the Three Jewels". Many of us know the qualities of the first two jewels, but not of the third Jewel. So let us take a few moments to contemplate and recollect the great qualities of our Great Teacher’s noble community of Sangha.
“Supatipanno” - The Noble Sangha follow the path to eradicate passion, lust, ill-will, hatred and delusion.
“Ujupatipanno”- The Noble Sangha follow the straight way, the Noble Eightfold Path.
“Nayapatipanno” “ - The Noble Sangha follows the path to realise the Four Noble Truths in order to eradicate suffering.
“Samicipatipanno” - The Noble Sangha teaches the Noble Dhamma to others, so that they too can understand the Four Noble Truths.
“Yadidam chaththari purisa yugani” - The Noble Sangha consist of four types when taken as pairs: The stream entrant, The once-returner, The Never Returner and The Arahant.
Eight individuals “Atta purisa puggala” - When taken individually, the community of Sangha consist of eight individuals:

The one striving to Enter the stage of Stream Entry Fruit
The stream Entrant
The one striving to attain the stage Once-Returner
The once-Returner
The one striving to reach the stage of a Non-returner
Non-Returner
The one striving for the stage of Arahanthood
The arahant

“Ahuneyyo” - Because they hold these great qualities, The Supreme Buddha’s community of Sangha are worthy of receiving offerings even from those residing faraway.
“Pahuneyyo” - Because they hold these great qualities they are worthy of hospitality.
“Dakkineyyo” - Because they hold these great qualities they are worthy of receiving offering from others in expectation of merits.
“Anjalikaraneeyo” - Because they hold these great qualities they are worthy of respect and worship.
“Anuttaram punchakketham lokassathi” - Beholding these supreme qualities, the Supreme Buddha’s Noble Sangha is a field of merits to both humans and deities.
May the homage be to those Noble disciples who encompass such supreme qualities!

Thanks for the great answer. From reading it I understand that Buddha asked people to take refuge in himself(Buddha) & Dharma(his teachings). But I don't get where he asked to take refuge in Sangha. Also could you mention where the phrase "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi." is first mentioned?


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

Possible duplicate of Does Buddhism accept Existence?

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

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

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

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

Sassata Vada - Eternalism
Uchcheda Vada - Nihilism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So certainly Buddhism has Supreme Being concepts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Reference points
Is it possible to become enlightened without realising it? My question is prompted by the thought that if your progress is very gradual and you do not have a measuring stick (or any labels), you might, after years of meditation become enlightened but only realising it when you read the works of enlightened masters writing about their own experiences.

according to the early Buddhism doctrine codified in the four Nikayas of the Pali and Agamas of the Chinese Tipitakas that is impossible
realization of nibbana is necessarily accompanied by the knowledge of destruction of taints or knowledge of liberation

Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there
  comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is
  birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been
  done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

SN 22.12

Because of being disenchanted, he does not delight in it. Because of
  not delighting in it, he is liberated. Being liberated, he knows and
  sees: ‘Birth for me has been eradicated, the holy life has been
  established, what had to be done has been done, I myself know that
  there will be no receiving of any further existence.’

SA 195

What does 'birth' mean? Is 'birth' a 'taint'? How is the destruction of 'birth' known?

definition of 'birth' is given in SN 12.2, please look it up https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.2 .... it's not a 'taint' but a result of being tainted, no taints - no birth, direct relationship

Sutta Central has questionable translations, such as "descent into the womb" in SN 12.2 & 'satta' in SN 23.2 translated as a "living being". "Birth" means the "self-view" of "beings" (satta), as described in SN 5.10. To believe "jati" is physical birth is the view of Mara (as described in SN 5.10). I sense we have discussed this before in a previous 'nivesa' ('adherence', per SN 22.3). 'Destroyed is birth' means 'destroyed is all self & social identification'. Even today in India, the primary meaning of 'jati' is 'self/social identification'. The destruction of jati is anatta & sunnata.

maybe not with me, but i myself too at this moment don't espouse the 1 life interpretation of paticcasamuppada, as far as translation of birth definition is concerned it would be instructive to learn how this is translated into Thai and Sinhala for example, anyway the subject at hand is not how 'birth' is to be understood

The original question & answer was about " KNOWLEDGE of destruction of taints or knowledge of liberation". Translations into other languages are not relevant here. 'Birth' is a 'self-view' & its destruction is KNOWN by knowing the dissolution of that self-view, where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising (MN 22). Thus in MN 121, the taint of being is destroyed while the mind & life remain conscious.

that's a highly interpretative explanation, either way i neither assent to it nor reject it... it however envisages possibility of rebirth after realization of nibbana or doesn't it?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

It is possible, @Uluru, but not for you and I, nor anyone else. The short answer to your OP is ONLY those beings who are destined to be Pacceka-Buddhas (Solitary Buddhas) will fall into this category.
Solitary Buddhas are born in the years just before a fully enlightened Buddha appears. We are still at the early stages of the present eon in which one other Fully Enlightened Buddha will come when a time comes of a people with an eighty-thousand-year life-span. This will be after a long period of spiritual darkness blankets the world, that these individuals will eventually be born who, through their own effort, re-discover the long-forgotten path to awakening and liberate themselves once and for all from the long round of rebirth, thereby becoming Solitary Buddhas. They lack the requisite development of that of a Supremely Enlightened One. So they are unable to articulate their discovery to others and that is why they are known as a "Silent" or "Private" Buddha (paccekabuddha).
Becoming a Pacceka Buddha is not easy. In one’s previous life one has to perfect generosity to the level of relinquishing of one's children,
wives, and belongings, such as wealth, and relinquishing of one's own limbs and even one's own life, and had heard the Supreme Dhamma of a Fully Enlightened One at least in one lifetime to become a Pacceka Buddha.

There is a very simple answer. How did Buddha know he attained the enlightment? Didn't he realize it? When you become enlightened, your heart will tell that to you. You will feel it. So you will definitely realize it when you have attained Nibbana. As the last step, when you are just about to attain it, you will give up the "requirement of attaining Nibbana" as well!. So there you are!

authors: Баян Купи-ка


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

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

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

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

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

Related Evidence of Pali Canon's Origin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Correct meditation Technique
I am subject to thoughts containing anger, hatred, resentment etc. which causes me lower back pain.
I am using medicines but useless because the relief is temporary.
I am a meditator but I watch breath at nose tip, which causes me more
tension after the session is over by 2 -3 hours.
I have read somewhere that watching breath at belly i.e. Dantian is also
recommended.
I have tried it once and found it more relaxing.
What should I do? Watch breath at nose tip or belly button?
I have been doing nose tip meditation for six months which took me sometimes to thoughtless awareness - but did not solve my problems of physical pain and irritability

Wise-reflection (yoniso-manasikara) is generally recommended as a preliminary practice to formal (anapanasati) meditation.
Here, the practitioner reflects/thinks thoroughly with reason & wisdom on the harm & dangers of anger, hatred, etc, in a manner conducive to give them up.
The Dvedhāvitakka Sutta describes the Buddha-To-be doing this practice before his enlightenment.

I'd suggest to leave anapanasati behind, do low-concentration ("dry") vipassana which will make you face and learn to face the anger (you will learn how to not attach to it, let it come & go, not judge yourself for it, not analyze and not make theories about the pain it causes), dtto for the back pain. There is nothing wrong with anger, it is your teacher just like pain; the attachment and unskillful dealing is the problem; by observing the pain or anger, you will get insight into yourself, and will learn to accept anger and pain as a part of you being human, and integrate it into your life skillfully, without (progressively) harming yourself and others.
(Explanation:) The reason for this is that people tend to use concentration (including anapanasati or brahmaviharas) to run away from conditions, instead of dealing with them. Those practices can be beneficial, but they have also their blind spots, and the best is to have a long-term teacher who can guide you here. Otherwise it  likely that the ego will use metta-practice to re-affirm itself, such as persuading you about being loving and caring when you're perhaps full of anger and hate. I've seen on a few occasions people developing metta-crust on the top of stuff they never dealt with; which means (a) they learn to live with lie (delusion) instead of being in the present and in the truth (b) in more difficult situations, the crust breaks and I was very surprised how quickly the seemingly loving person turned into almost a hate monster; they regretted that themselves later, but did not understand what happened.

If you are having pent-up anger, hatred and resentment, then  the maithri bhavana (loving kindness meditation) is what you should practice morning noon and night. It is not easy for everyone to properly do Anapanasati , and it is wrong advice to watch breath at belly. So if you have difficulty in watching the breath,  first practice Asubha Bhavana and Dhathu/indriya Bhavana. You should not mix one meditation with another. You should get out of one type of meditation to get into another. Anytime when there is wandering thought, the concentration is not there. The appearing of a nimitta is a sign of concentration. When you develop an anapanasati nimitta, and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face.

If you are having trouble with anger, hatred, resentment etc. then there is a couple of methods I could suggest. Sakyamuni Buddha taught the four brahmavihara (love, sympathy, joy, equanimity) for countering the type of thoughts you are having. This is good for whatever type of Buddhism you follow.
Personally, I am a Pureland Buddhist and we chant the nembutsu in faith of Amitabha Buddha. By faith I mean trusting in the Buddha's power, and don't worry about things outside of yourself. I have found that this inward reflection on Buddha's power makes me more loving and compassionate to others.

Certainly a variation of meditative techniques may be effective, but modern science has shown that massage therapy effectively reduces aggression (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12458696).
I've found that monitoring bodily feelings helps you trace the root of the negative thoughts. So try monitoring your negative bodily feelings then massaging that area, it seems to work well temporarily (not but permanently).
I've attempted to trace where my negative bodily feelings come from (which causes me have negative thoughts, say negative things, and take negative actions) and I've traced it to early negative childhood experiences (from around age 5 or earlier). It seems that these early negative memories stay inside of us unconsciously, unknowingly until death unless we do something about it.
In order to permanently end the pains you have to deal with the negative memories associated with those bodily feelings which is more complicated.