text:
How to deal with pride and vanity from a Buddhist perspective?
In my interactions with other people I am sometimes very full of my self, proud and vanitous and it leaves me with a bad taste afterwards or it even stops me from taking action in a direction I would desire.
Do you know any examples in the Suttas where these conditions of the mind are treated?
I am thinking about the perception of a skeleton as a helpful aid in this matter but maybe there are others.

If you are doing things the correct way in your practise in listening to Dhamma, in participating in Dhamma discussions, in doing Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding should develop within you. At times this happens. But if this is not the case - if dispassionateness with understanding does not take place, it is the vanity and pride that surfaces. That’s what happens when doing something which appears as correct thinking or correct action. If vanity and pride arises in you, then you will have to take a step back and go through a process of introspection.
If vanity and pride is what gets developed in placing oneself above others and looking down on others arise in a person, it is due to his not doing things the proper way. That would not happen if you follow this Path with a sense of humility. To deal with this defilement from a Buddhist Perspective, one has to practice five factors that is found in the scriptures. Then you will invariably develop the required antidote in dispassionateness.
In the Asavakkhaya Sutta, the Buddha explains,

“Oh Bhikkhus. There are five activities which if practised, if practised extensively results in the wiping out of defilements”.

These five activities are the same as explained in the Nibbida Sutta. They are Asubha Sanna (perceiving the impurity of the body), Ahare Patikkula Sanna (perceiving the impurity of material food), Sabba Loke Anabhirata Sanna (not taking delight in worlds), Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Sanna (impermanence of all aggregates), of Marana Sati (to be mindful of death).

The premise of this topic is that conceit is one of the last fetters to be abandoned (so I guess you may just have to live with it: be aware of it, occasionally, for a while).
There are a couple of articles about it here on Access to Insight.
Not a sutta, but there's a Zen story: The Giver Should Be Thankful
There's also a quote from Bodhidharma:

The Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall says that in 527, Bodhidharma visited Emperor Wu of Liang, a fervent patron of Buddhism:

Emperor Wu: "How much karmic merit have I earned for ordaining Buddhist monks, building monasteries, having sutras copied, and commissioning Buddha images?"
Bodhidharma: "None. Good deeds done with worldly intent bring good karma, but no merit."

The Buddha taught not all beings could realise his Dhamma because attachment to self is a very strong instinct. Possibly you can ask yourself is Buddhism actually suitable for you? If you realise Buddhism may not be suitable for you, this might help end pride & vanity.
For example, in Christianity, they say the words: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Only say the words so I can be healed". This is said to end pride & vanity, which are one of the seven deadly sins.

Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.  But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
  And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me,
  that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'
Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to me:
'Enough now with teaching     what    only with difficulty    I reached. This
  Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion &
  passion.
What is abstruse, subtle,    deep,   hard to see, going against the flow — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness,     won't
  see.'
MN 26


text:
Doing "death contemplation" on others
I dont get much effect from death contemplation on myself - i wondered lately maybe contemplating the death of those close to me might work to install a sense of urgency
do you think its effective ? and should i do it the same way as death contemplation of self or different ?
I want to do it to get a sense of urgency
all thoughts on subject are welcome

Whether you contemplate death of self or your immediate loved ones, if you could make sure that (when death come to you) you will face it as a disciple who have attained path-fruition and not as a lay person with false-views, then you have done what is right. When doing it, try to do the ‘Nava Sivatika’ (Nine cemetery contemptations). This is the last exercise in mindfulness of the body. You could do this contemplation of the body's disintegration after death either imaginatively, or with the aid of pictures. Then this clear mental image of this decomposing body, you apply to your own body, or that of your loved one, considering:

"This body, now so full of life, has the same nature and is subject to the same fate. It cannot escape death, cannot escape disintegration, but must eventually die and decompose."

If there is one single word that is more important than any other in the whole of the Dhamma of the Supreme Buddha, it is URGENCY. In whatever way, if one could develop a sense of urgency, and in your case what you have stated above, then by all means stick to it. Do you think that everyone in this world will develop a sense of dismay (samvega) with what is happening around you? Who would ever see the other side of life -  the universality of suffering?  Of those who see life in this way, what is the percentage that will develop an attitude of heedfulness (appamada) to avoid being duped by types of desires that come our way?  How many will have a sense of urgency towards the practice of Dhamma? So whatever means that you will employ to instil a sense of urgency, then that is the way to go.
What the Buddha has said is patisotagami or against the current of conventional thinking. Buddha knew this well. That is why He said, “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.”

i added the reason i want to do this   :   I want to do it to get a sense of urgency

Now I get it @breath. If I am to comment on it, I will exceed the limit set. So let me add to the above answer. Do give me a couple of minutes. :)

Death contemplation/meditation has many reasons for existing. Some people may use death meditation to overcome sexual addictions (bodies decaying), accepting their impermanence (coming to grips with reality), and others (like yourself) will use Death meditation to motivate themselves to practice (resetting priorities). While some may find it extremely beneficial for their practice; others like yourself, may not feel the same way. That's ok.
Instead of trying to find a sense of urgency for practice; I would recommend trying to find joy and happiness through your practice! The whole point for being a Buddhist is finding happiness and joy. If your miserable, bored, lazy, unhappy, etc... than somethings not right. It's possible you need to find a different teacher, monastery, Buddhist sect, etc... basically whatever it takes to rekindle the fire. The hardest workers will always be those who love to do what they do. Whenever I look for a mechanic I always choose a person who loves to work with cars. why? Because cars is their passion. They love what they do. And many of us love to practice Buddhism. It's not hard to practice Buddhism if it makes you happy. Consider elite/competitive gamers, they love to play their video games. They will literally play for hours every single day because they enjoy it. Do they feel pressured to play those hours? No. Does it feel like a job to them? Sometimes. End games can suck, but they love it. They play games for hours because it makes them happy. Here's a quote I think you should keep in mind next time you feel obligated to push urgency into your practice,

"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life." - Confucius

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Attachment to practice itself
Is it wholesome to set expectations for one's own practice (e.g. to have a mind free of all Five Hindrances, or to have all Seven Factors of Awakening present)?
To firmly commit to the path of enlightenment, against all worldly distractions,  how can this be done without setting goals or expectations?
If there are conditions for the presence/absence of the Five Hindrances, Seven Factors of Awakening to arise and to pass, are these not impermanent? If one clings to the impermanent, does this not lead to dukkha?

This is for you and the person who will be writing the answer. Remember goals are simply a, "finger pointing towards the moon". Goals aren't wrong but don't concentrate on the finger. Focus on what the finger is pointing at.

Desire is not a hindrance.. attachment/addiction to objects of desire is. And this is, in fact, the proper translation of Tanha. (Craving isn't a bad one either, as long as it is in the sense of a habitual craving).
The translation made that "Suffering arises from desire" has caused more difficulty than has helped, in my view. The modern translation has been, for some time, "Suffering arises from attachment".
This is because it is not possible to rid yourself of desire. Ever. You are human. You will always desire things. What you CAN rid yourself of is attachment to those desires.
To answer your question, renunciation of everything except The Path, and thus being subject to attachment TO The Path, is considered easier than the alternative, and is thus thought to be a more expedient way to reach enlightenment by some schools.

That translation is much clearer to me. So desire by itself is not a hindrance, and might even be necessary to arouse the awakening factor of energy.

Just So. And I would say "desire is necessary", as per The Dalai Lama who said ( to paraphrase ) 'without desire, there would be no path'

Also, it seems to me that desire serves the purpose of a "raft" which one abandons upon reaching the "other shore", when the goal (awakening) is reached.

That is a very good desire to have, @avatar Korra. Such desires are often helpful in the path. That kind of conceit can be a good thing. Setting expectations for one's own practice and desiring to do well, in thinking that “Other people can do this, why can’t I?” helps.  Those are actually useful tools in the path. But it is important to remember well to keep it to self, and let your actions speak. This is the most important advice that a noble friend can give you in this regard (Please do not ask me as to why it is so. It is up to you to take this advice or leave it. How this truism plays out in your life is a mystery. So you will have to be mindful of your actions, and its results, and learn from it.) Then you will one day get to see that only such people who heed this advice are likely to pursue this demanding path of practice all the way through to the end.

but if there are conditions for the presence/absence of the Five Hindrances, Seven Factors of Awakening to arise and to pass, are these not impermanent? If one clings to the impermanent, does this not lead to dukkha?

Buddha showed us that this mind is like a monkey who jumps from one tree branch to another, holding one tree branch and jumps onto another branch in a forest. Your mind will cling onto one thought to another. It never ends. So do try to observe your mind. Do you not see that it is better to cling to impermanence than anything else? Whether it is 'Dukkha' or not, you are always clinging on to something. You let go of one only to cling onto another. So it will do a world of good if you 'cling' onto impermanence. Let it be 'Dukkha'. Don't worry about it. Trust me. It will do you good.

I remember reading a sutra where someone asked the Buddha something similar to this and he replied (in a paraphrased way)
"Did you desire to come here before arriving here?" Buddha
"Yes" Someone
"Now you are here do you still desire or are attached with coming here" Buddha
"No" That Guy
"It is the same with Nirvana/Practice, when you are there you can let it go"
There is nothing wrong with it Master Zhi Yi classifies desire for practice/achievement as one of the helpful qualities to Cultivation/Meditation

That sounds like the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).

@ChrisW now I think I see what you meant

I remember a sutta, It is normal for an oldest son of a king with legitimate blood line 7 generations up, to have expectation to the throne. same with monks, if he has all the Seven Factors of Awakening, it is normal for him to expect Nirvana.

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


text:
What are some resources on Mahayana forms of Meditation?
Are there any sources about Meditations of Mahayana Schools?

Do you mean "schools of tenets", or do you mean "traditions"?

I mean the tradition in general

For example, a great classical source on zazen would be Bendōwa by Dogen, which people jokingly pronounce bend over.
If you include Vajrayana under Mahayana umbrella, then there are bits on tantric meditation in Introduction to Tantra on Lama Thubten Yeshe, or Guru Yoga by Tsongkhapa, which is a manual. In the same subject of Samatha there is great treatise commentary in Alan Wallace's Stilling the Mind: Shamatha Teachings from Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence from perspective of Dzogchen. There will be companion book by Alan Wallace Fathoming the Mind: Inquiry and Insight in Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence that takes on another section (Vipassana) of Vajra Essence treaty.
Apart from that, many references directly pointing at texts can be found in this section of Buddhist meditation on Wikipedia.

The heart sutra is from mahyana schools of thought it's out there and one quite popular sutra .this trend of Buddhist thought teaches the message through meditation one upon inquiry about reailty , samsara etc is like a dream / dreams which appear and then disappear ...the meditation on Mahayana view is that all the mental problems ..joys knowledge etc are not real they will arise and subside .

The two I recommend:
Zhi-yi's Mohe Zhiguan
A meditation manual circa 594CE from the founder of Chinese Tiantai school, Zhi-yi (538–597CE) compiled from his lectures by his student.
Topics include: detailed instructions on samatha and vipassana; mindfulness in daily life, chanting, contemplation of the emptiness, meditation through prayer and sutra recitation, skillful means for easing one's mind and much more.
More information can be found on Wikipedia: Mohe Zhiguan
Dagpo Tashi Namgyal's Moonlight of Mahamudra
Fundamental work by a Kagyu & Sakya scholar Tashi Namgyal (1513–1587) providing exhaustive analysis of subtle points around samatha, vipassana, and mahamudra-style meditation.
More information can be found on Wikipedia: Dagpo Tashi Namgyal

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


text:
Blind police justice and right livelihood
The police seem necessary for any defiled society; but that doesn't mean being a police officer, who must follow laws objectively but also blindly, is necessarily right livelihood.
They are encouraged in the US to use violence, depending on what the laws say not what their hearts say, and are allowed to lie to make the job easier. What do the suttas say? What does your heart say?

You cannot force a police officer to overcome their ignorance. Focus on your own ignorance, not those around you. Unless you're a police officer and you're asking for advice on right livelihood.

What are you talking about? Who said anything about forcing anything or police being anymore ignorant than anybody else? I am focusing on my own ignorance, that's why I'm asking the question.

@Ulium if you are not a police officer how can such a question aid you on the path to enlightenment? Obviously I was talking about ignorance in terms of the three characteristics of existence, not simply not knowing what suttas say on a topic. The question looks a lot more like you want police to change their blind justice and you want to change the external world for the better hence the comment about making police overcome their ignorance. You can probably appreciate how the question looks even if you didn't mean it that way.

@Hugh Why do I have to be a police officer to ask this question?  How can your comment aid you on your path to happiness? Who are you trying to change? It wasn't obvious to me what exactly you meant by ignorance. I thought you meant intellectual ignorance because this forum can only directly show us intellectual concepts not moment by moment personal experience. I am not against the police and finally  If you wanted to know my disires in the context of this question all you had to do is ask. I am not telling you what is right, I am asking.

this comes to me, im not 100% sure if my memories correct.  One time, Lady Visaka (or other rich merchant in savatthi) was upset (or even crying) that king Pasendikosala denied her something.   Buddha said to be under someone's authority is suffering, but being under the authority of sensual desires is much worst.  When I get bullied (by bosses or any authority figures), my heart would think of this.
As far as view from authority figures, they have options not to break precepts.

When I'm confronted by an authority figure my little ego just has to think "who do you think you are"?  I will try to replace my thinking  with "to be under someone's authority is suffering, but being under the authority of sensual desires is much worst" I might find that useful to chant to myself too.

Anytime a police officer strikes or shoots with the intention of causing injury or death, it's bad Karma. Nevertheless, a police officer who follows Buddhism would not look for opportunities to gain gratification of violence, hiding behind the badge. He would go into a scene with the genuine intention of wanting to resolve the situation as peacefully as possible. He would try his best with words and tact until he has no other choice. Even when he resorts to force, he would not take any pleasure in doing so. He would do only what is required to take the suspect into custody.

indeed it's very taxable on kamma, a Buddhist wouldn't even come near this vocation, here's a vivid example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXe3zAANry4 and one cannot be completely detached and equanimous, once a situation of personal danger emerges all asavas and anusayas get immediately activated due to attachment to self-view which we all share

if one thinks of it human society is completely defiled with criminal activities being only one aspect, and doing almost any job, not just law enforcement and policing, and especially those requiring interaction with other people, involve activities, decisions and strategies incompatible with elements of the Buddhist ethics and ethics period
in many cases the very performance of job duties run into moral dilemmas

What about the reputed old days of the old pre-WW2 Soviet Union, where tens of millions of people were reputedly murdered/starved to death by secret police, etc?

@Dhammadhatu Wow! Perhaps this is why I was never very keen on history. That's so horrible:( The police did that because of the law or was it more of a dog eat dog  chaos thing?

Bolshevik law. Just for government control or rule by fear/terrorism. Myself, I have always been very keen on history since I was 14 years old learning about Australian history (although superficially before that). Australia was a convict settlement necessary due to the social inequities of laizee-faire capitalism. History establishes your 'world view', which benefits dhamma practise also since it establishes morals. My opinion is the more (REAL vs propaganda) history you can learn the better. It surprises me how 'right wing' so many internet Buddhists are.

@Dhammadhatu not sure why you bring this up, is it because my alias is written in Russian? so how do you expect me to answer the question 'What about'?

If you cannot answer that is fine. I speculated you might possibly have some historical insight. Regards

all i can answer is that those butchers obviously weren't guided by the Dhamma or any morals period and must have ended up in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell, there's a very potent movie called 'Chekist' depicting those atrocities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RQVSHfuPCQ

@Dhammadhatu I guess you're referring to the so-called Great Purge, and possibly Famines and/or Gulags. There is a History.SE if you have specific questions about topics like that.

Life will always be filled with Dukkha. It's the very nature of being alive. Men and women who choose to be police officers take on a very special role in protecting our lives. Personally, I'm very thankful for their services despite a few bad apples. Because I'm not a police officer I won't give them advice on how to do their job. But i can give advice to other practitioners. The only men and women who are credited to give advice are those who have been on the field themselves. That being the case, I hope to direct my comment to practitioners to help soften their hearts towards our police.

Our police officers are constantly living in danger just to keep us safe. And with all good deeds sometimes it can come with a costly price. It can be very difficult at times serving citizens as a police officer. Your job is to protect those from the many ugly faces of society. So when you and I go to sleep at night in our safe warm homes, there is a police officer risking his/her life just to keep us safe. And sometimes, they actually die. A wife lost her husband, a child lost her dad, a mom lost her son, and so on. Sometimes we forget that police officers are just people living under those badges. A few years ago some of them were class clowns, while others were drama nerds trying to get the lead parts in the school plays. Personally, I believe that many of the men and women who serve are doing well despite the many challenges they've faced. So how can we make their lives easier? The first thing we can do as Buddhist practitioners is show how much we love and care for our police officers! You may disagree with a few of their policies and practices, but only disagree through love and kindness. As Buddha said,

Hatred does not cease through hatred but through love alone they cease.

Realize that if you were born with their body and mind, there would be no differences between you and them. Their lives would be your life. You would go through the same experiences they've faced in life. You would have the same name, health problems, mom and dad, struggles for acceptance as a teenage, etc... And eventually, you would become a police officer just as they did. And guess what? Their mistakes are also your mistakes too. How? Because everyone is only an extension of yourself. They only appear separate because they live in different bodies and minds, but ultimately, it's only you living under the many masks of life.
Remember that at one point everyone was your mother in a previous life. This means that the police officer who is giving you a ticket is simultaneously your past mother. Keep in mind that at one point she was worried sick because you didn't come home until midnight. Sometimes, she even lost sleep because she worried about how well you were doing in school. And sadly, it's even possible she may have been the mother who buried you because you died at a young age. Just remember this is the very same person who only wished for your well-being and happiness. And although the officer may not remember his/her past life; at least we do.
Finally, remember your Bodhisattva vows! You're purpose is to bring joy and happiness to world. Here is a Bodhisattva vow written by st. Shantideva,

"May I become food and drink in the aeons of famine for those poverty-stricken sufferers.
  May I be a doctor, medicine and nurse for all sick beings in the world until everyone is cured.
  May I become never-ending wish-fulfilling treasures materialising in front of each of them as all the enjoyments they need.
  May I be a guide for those who do not have a guide, a leader for those who journey, a boat for those who want to cross over, and all sorts of ships, bridges, beautiful parks for those who desire them, and light for those who need light.
  And may I become beds for those who need a rest, and a servant to all who need servants.
  May I also become the basic conditions for all sentient beings, such as earth or even the sky, which is indestructible.
  May I always be the living conditions for all sentient beings until all sentient beings are enlightened."

Extension: Should we not express what is truth or what we think is truth just because it might step on some toes?
It is because of our compassion and love for others that we are determined to help others. If you feel inclined to share truth for the benefit of all beings, than go for it. As William Shakespeare wrote,

"They do not love that do not show their love."

To name just four persons who've changed the world through love and kindness is H.H. the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Saint Teresa of Calcutta , and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. What's strange is that every person I just named has a group of enemies who hate them. Mother Teresa and Gandhi both have been attacked on multiple occasions just by sharing love. Did that stop them? No. So here are a few quotes on being active with your love.

"Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love." ~Mother Teresa.
"In doing something, do it with love or never do it at all" ~Gandhi.
"If you wish to experience peace, provide peace for another." ~ H.H. Dalai Lama.
"Our primary purpose in this life is to help others and if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." ~ H.H. Dalai Lama.
An ounce of practice (service) is worth more than tons of preaching." ~Mahatma Gandhi.
"You have never really lived until you have done something for someone who can never repay you." ~Mother Teresa.
"Compassion is a verb." ~Thich Nhat Hanh.

Love is a double-sided sword. It's both internal and external. As Ajahn Brahms punch line go's,

It's cutting two carrots with just one knife."

Good job on saying what your heart says. I certainly hope I don't hate the police somewhere in my unawareness, I'm just trying to understand. I'm not trying to offend anyone. The truth or truth seeking can often offend. Should we not express what is truth or what we think is truth just because it might step on some toes? I don't know. Bodhisattva vow? I'm not a Bodhisattva..I try to be as selfish as I can so that I can become enlighted even though I am sure  the Bodhisattva vow can teach me, you or anyone great selfishness because loving everyone is extremely good for the self.

Every modern/civilised government occupation has ethical guidelines. When government officials cease to be perceived as acting ethically (such as police in an emerging totalitarian state), it is obviously not the specific occupation (e.g. policeman) that is the problem but the entire government itself. In addition, democracy has also failed. For example, there are moral principles in Buddhism about how government should be conducted (both monarchy & democracy).
When this violent totalitarian government occurs, the general moral principles of Buddhism will dictate livelihood rather than an occupation (vocation) itself.

And what is the drawback of sensuality? There is the case where, on account of the occupation by which a clansman makes a living — whether
  checking or accounting or calculating or plowing or trading or
  cattle-tending or archery or as a king's man, or whatever the
  occupation may be — he faces cold, he faces heat, being harassed by
  mosquitoes & flies, wind & sun & creeping things, dying from hunger &
  thirst.
MN 13

It's not just the police but everyone  in any society civilized or not, right? There is this view that I had myself when I was younger that is "If most people think it's right then that is what is right. I would think "How could 50000 Elvis fans be wrong?" Maybe some charismatic politician could get everyone to think there should be a law that everyone must listen to Elvis or go to jail. Then the police must enforce

Sure. That is why I mentioned REAL history vs propaganda. Propaganda, for example, blames & praises individuals, such as Ceasar, Stalin, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Bush, Cheney, Obama, etc. But in real history, it takes a collective effort of many people to do evil things. All that is necessary is government fear & most people conform with the government to save themselves & act against a manufactured perceived threat.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
What is difference (Vedic) Consciousness versus Pali Text terms "Deathless", "Awakened Awareness"?
Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments?
They are derived from "Questions on the Five Skhandas", specifically Dhammadhatu's answer regarding the common reference "Consciousness is All."
Specifically, here are the comments and responses:

"Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all."

One of your quotes:

"Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness"; that: "a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications ...would be impossible."

I am familiar with both traditions but find the definitional- semantic Vedantic and Buddhist use of the term "consciousness' different at times, causing confusion among Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist students.
May I quote The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?
From their commentary, they appear to make contradictory statements. Ultimately, the text differentiates between the use of the term "consciousness' and "Awakening Awareness" or "the deathless".
The text, referenced above, says:

He (The Buddha)... discovered a reality — the Deathless — that no words could describe.

The author speculates that Buddha had to "stretch" the use of various words to help teach the tools necessary to investigate the kkhandas.
Some issues I would love to hear input on:
First, the intransience/impermanence of all "things". As the text illustrates:

"Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates."

What follows is commonly discovered to be inexplicable. Here is the revelation of--perhaps--another term which might be equivalent to both traditions:

"....If passion and delight are entirely eradicated, though, all clinging is entirely abandoned, the intentions that fabricate khandhas are dropped, and the mind totally released. The bricks of the pavement have turned into a runway, and the mind has taken off.

Into what? The authors of the discourses seem unwilling to say, even to the extent of describing it as a state of existence, non-existence, neither, or both (§§49-51). As one of the discourses states, the freedom lying beyond the khandhas also lies beyond the realm to which language properly applies (§49; see also AN 4:173). There is also the very real practical problem that any preconceived notions of that freedom, if clung to as a perception-khandha, could easily act as an obstacle to its attainment. Still, there is also the possibility that, if properly used, such a perception-khandha might act as an aid on the path. So the discourses provide hints in the form of similes, referring to total freedom as:
The unfashioned, the unbent, the fermentation-free, the true, the beyond, the subtle, the very-hard-to-see, the ageless, permanence, the undecaying, the featureless, non-elaboration, peace, the deathless, the exquisite, bliss, rest, the ending of craving, the wonderful, the marvelous, the secure, security, unbinding, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, release, attachment-free, the island, shelter, harbor, refuge, the ultimate. — SN 43.1-44
Other passages mention a consciousness in this freedom — "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54). In this it differs from the consciousness-khandha, which depends on the six sense spheres and can be described in such terms as near or far, past, present, or future. Consciousness without feature is thus the awareness of Awakening. And the freedom of this awareness carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness. As the Buddha said of himself:

"Freed, dissociated, & released from form,the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness… birth… aging… death… suffering & stress… defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness" (§56).

Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments?

Impermanence-- so what is it that is described above as "permanent", "deathless"?
What is it that is referred to as "unfashioned", "exquisite", "bliss", "the ultimate"?
What is the semantic difference between what is referred to by some traditions as "consciousness" and Buddha's exquisite, permanent "awareness of Awakening"--"without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — "lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54)"
If not consciousness, what is the correct term for "consciousness without feature" that Buddha refers to? 5)How do you describe this " this freedom that carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness?

The title doesn't seem to necessarily match the 5 questions at the end. Are you asking for a comparison with Vedism? Asking for "'input' on the specified Pali text quotes and comments? Is this a question which users who don't know vedism would be able to answer?

The article referenced/linked in the beginning is " The 5 Aggregates: a Study Guide". The comments belong to Bhikku. His answers are directed to his students. The "semantical" descriptions of "permanent", "awakening of awareness" are similar to Vedic text. Bhikku distinguishes between "consciousness--kandha" which depends upon the 6 sense spheres and "consciousness without feature". "  The "consciousness-khandha" depends on the six senses... "Consciousness without feature" is  "Awareness of Awakening". Please advise.

"Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that
  "consciousness is all."

This is not so for the Buddha. https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1

“Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living in
  Ukkaṭṭhā in the Subhaga Grove at the root of a royal sāla tree. There
  he addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus.”—“Venerable sir,” they
  replied. The Blessed One said this:
Bhikkhus, I shall teach you a discourse on the root of all things.
  Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.”—“Yes, venerable sir,”
  the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
...
The Arahant (and the Tathagata)
..
He directly knows all as all. Having directly known all as
  all, he does not conceive himself as all, he does not conceive
  himself in all, he does not not conceive himself apart from all,
  he does not conceive all to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in
  all. Why is that? Because he has fully understand it, I say.
He directly knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having directly known Nibbāna as
  Nibbāna, he does not conceive himself as Nibbāna, he does not conceive
  himself in Nibbāna, he does not not conceive himself apart from
  Nibbāna, he does not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he does not
  delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has fully understand it, I
  say."

With consciousness, The All, Nibbāna, every thing, the Buddha simply asks each person to treat "This as this, not this as that and that as this." The Buddha denied the usefulness of the law of identity (imo). This seems reasonable, because whatever you choose to 'know', you will only 'perceive to know'. An individual's perceptions always get in the way for identity to be established!
A condition is not an Essential property (at least within Nagarjuna's discussions).. Cause points to an Essential concept, whilst condition is simply an empirical reason to which we can turn to explain why an effect has dependently co-arisen (the effect also being conventional in this case!).

"He (The Buddha)... discovered a reality — the Deathless — that no
  words could describe."

This is not entirely accurate imo. Look at Nagarjuna's dedicatory verses to the Mulamadhyamakakarika:

"I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
  The best of teachers, who taught that
  Whatever is dependently [co-]arisen is
  Unceasing, unborn,
  Unannihilated, not permanent,
  Not coming, not going,
  Without distinction, without identity,
  And free from conceptual construction."

No mention of the 'reality of the Deathless is stated'. In addition, the Buddha specifically criticized individuals who asked what exactly cessation is (to paraphrase, somewhere in the DN, but can't find it, sorry!), saying that they have 'gone beyond the round of questioning'.
The basic starting point for Hindu philosophy (imo, as I am not as well versed in Hindu theory, going through Samkhya fully atm, read some of Shankara's Advaita..) is that Brahman is 'neti neti', 'not this, not that'. This is just like Nagarjuna's description of dependent co-arising - a negational truth. The difference is that the Darshanas go from there and give positive, Essential, definitions of Brahman and Atman: The real, unlike the unreal that is our empirical experience. But no matter how you spin the above, in that 'real' and 'unreal' are defined, that is only Dvaita!! (Plato's Parmenides shows this within logic imo, but I am only starting to think through this fully, have a look at it, it is very fun! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides/ ).
If there is a clear and permanent line that can be drawn between the Atman-Brahman complex and the empirical world (as seems to be the case with Advaita), or between Soul and Nature within Samkhya (sorry, only have translations, not sure if those are Atman and Brahman.. assume so!), you have two, entirely separate, fully independent concepts). Samkhya embraces the Dvaita, whilst Advaita imo lives with a contradiction!
The Buddha never stated that either consciousness, or The All, or even Nibbāna are independent entities that could be considered 'real' relative to the 'unreal' that is the rest.. This is evidenced by the fact that Nibbāna is only achieved by the Noble Eightfold Path! This clearly demonstrates, without any doubt, that the Buddha considered even the experience of the end goal to be dependently co-arisen! (which (I would have to conclude) is also empty in and of itself, but don't quote me on that!)
In fact, if "Truth is One", then all Darshanas have the issue that there is an Ultimate truth that is Brahman/Atman, and there is a conventional truth that is Empirical Experience. The Buddha also stated (somewhere in the Sutta Nipata, sadly no quotes again!) that 'I also teach Truth is One..' (to paraphrase), but that truth was that "every thing that has a beginning, has an end", dependent co-arising and the emptiness that follows from it! With this, there is no dividing line between the Ultimate and the conventional, as Nagarjuna later stated.
To paraphrase Nagarjuna again, if Nibbana was not dependently co-arisen, but an essential, independent quality, what would be the use of a path? Either you had it or you didn't. But if everyone has it, then everyone is enlightened, and suffering/stress remains an unexplained phenomenon.
I'm still thinking about this, but the Kapila Sutra states in book 1 that:

Aph. 67. Since the root has no root, the root (of all) is rootless.

This is not dissimilar from what the Buddha stated in MN 1.. (my current thought is whether this is better phrased as "the root of all things is found empty", or "the root of all things is not determined". I like the first one, but it is a positive description of a thing that cannot have a positive description, if 'neti neti' is stuck to truly!
Also, there is:

Aph. 79. It (the world) is not unreal; because there is no fact
  contradictory (to its reality), and because it is not the (false)
  result of depraved causes, (leading to a belief in what ought not to
  be believed).

Now to me, this is very problematic given recent advances in the interpretations of quantum mechanics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics ), you have a new, relational ontology, where each individual quanta has no intrinsic qualities..  Relational QM states that all properties arise out of a quanta's interaction with another one. As such, there is no "external reality".. in fact, there is no "external" or "internal" (the Buddha said this once in the Sutta Nipata somewhere, but again, no quote - sorry!), because, like with the Buddha's concept of Anatta, there is simply no ontologically real ground on which to build any notion of essential difference, or similarity, or both, or neither!! ( http://philpapers.org/archive/CAPIOQ-2.PDF )
I would be interested how Hindu philosophers reply to the above issue! (the question would be - if Brahman and Atman are real and identical, what exactly is created within an unreal empirical experience? If 'something in and of itself' stands opposed to 'nothing in and of itself', what exactly has this 'something in and of itself' achieved by creating an illusion? Surely Brahman-Atman can't then be considered the holder of Satya!!)
Now for the questions!
1) "Tao called Tao is not Tao".
2) You have gone beyond the round of questioning!
3) Consciousness without feature is probably best described with silence.. after all, language expresses features.
4) Like Ramana Maharishi, and like Huike did when asked by Bodhidharma:

Bodhidharma asked, “Can each of you say something to demonstrate your
  understanding?”
Dao Fu stepped forward and said, “It is not bound by
  words and phrases, nor is it separate from words and phrases. This is
  the function of the Tao.”
  Bodhidharma: “You have attained my skin.”
The nun Zong Chi stepped up and said, “It is like a glorious glimpse
  of the realm of Akshobhya Buddha . Seen once, it need not be seen
  again.”
  Bodhidharma; “You have attained my flesh.”
Dao Yu said, “The
  four elements are all empty. The five skandhas are without actual
  existence. Not a single dharma can be grasped.”
  Bodhidharma: “You have attained my bones.”
Finally, Huike came forth, bowed deeply in silence
  and stood up straight.
  Bodhidharma said, “You have attained my
  marrow.”

If Brahman or Nibbana, Atman etc are truly 'neti neti', then all of the Darshans do, in engaging in language, are little more than speculation. Which is why the first Sutta of the Digha Nikaya asks those on the path not to do so! If this is not enough, Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, explained the Buddha's words within a more philosophical context. His treatise however, is also metaphysics free, in that it never steps beyond the bound of logic and the empirical - neither nihilism nor essentialism are asserted, only the empirically evident dependent co-arising, within the framework of emptiness, is asserted.
5) I am not awakened, so I'm sure someone could say otherwise, but in having given up greed, sensual attachment and aversion, whether the awakened person is conscious or in deep meditation, by the definition of what the end goal is, they are free from attachments. There is not much more than that that needs to be said in this imo!
(in other words, your 5 questions go beyond what language can provide, if you wish to know, find out for yourself! :D )
(sorry, this is a bit long and probably incomplete, but it's a good start imo!)

OP: Impermanence-- so what is it that is described above as "permanent", "deathless"?
What is it that is referred to as "unfashioned", "exquisite", "bliss", "the
ultimate"?

That is Nibbana, and not god or Brahman or any kind of Ultimate Reality. It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.
I quote from this answer below. Please see that answer for details.

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.
Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when
encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or when
encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced
when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.

Next ...

OP: What is the semantic difference between what is referred to by some traditions as "consciousness" and Buddha's exquisite, permanent
"awareness of Awakening"--"without feature or surface, without end,
luminous all around" — "lying outside of time and space, experienced
when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54)"
OP: If not consciousness, what is the correct term for "consciousness without feature" that Buddha refers to?

That's Nibbana, and it's not a kind of consciousness.
Bhikkhu Sujato translated part of MN 49 as:

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

This translation is problematic because there is no such thing as infinite consciousness in Buddhism. Equating Nirvana with infinite consciousness would be more of Advaita Vedanta rather than Buddhism.
However, in this answer, Bonn explained that this is a wrong translation.
It should rather be:

That which could be known (Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant
all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on
earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the
gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of
abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

So, Nirvana is something knowable, but it is not within the normal scope of physical and mental experience.

OP: How do you describe this this freedom that carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness?

That is Nibbana, and not god or Brahman or any kind of Ultimate Reality. It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.

OP: What is difference (Vedic) Consciousness versus Pali Text terms “Deathless”, “Awakened Awareness”?

Please see the second half of this answer.
Nibbana is deathless, because the mental idea of the self is destroyed and with it goes the idea or suffering of death of the self. It's not because the enlightened person becomes an immortal.


text:
What is a good response when some-one says 'sadhu' to you?
Is there an appropriate phrase when some-one says 'sadhu' to you, for example after making an offering at a monastery?
Saying 'no worries', or 'that's okay' doesn't seem appropriate.
Is there a appropriate response, or should I just smile and accept the compliment?

'Sadhu' means good. So you can say 'Sadhu' back. Here in Sri Lanka we commonly say "Theruwan Saranai", which means "May the noble triple gem be your refuge".

i don't think Sadhu! requires a response, because it itself is a response or a reaction much like the exclamations Great! Well done!, which normally don't envisage any response

**“Namo Buddhaya!”**is what is most appropriate IMO.  Ven. Gnanananda Thero of the Mahamevnawa  in the year 2011 requested from devotees  to say  'Namo Buddhaya' whenever we meet or depart, and this is his reasoning for getting us to do so:

”At the time when the Supreme Buddha was alive, it was the practice observed by His disciples to place both hands together in a gesture of worship and greet each other by saying ‘Namo Buddhaya’, whenever they met. Owing to the influence of this ancient Buddhist practice, today, whenever Hindus meet one-another, they too bring their hands together and say ‘Namo Narayana’ or ‘Oh Namah Shivaya’. Some Buddhists too say ‘Namo Sairam’ when they enter the ashram of Sai Baba. But the words ‘Namo Buddhaya’ have been forgotten by the Buddhists. I realized that these old values must be rekindled. Accordingly, I made a request from devotees on this Sri Sambuddhatwa Jayanthi Vesak Full Moon Day that the greeting ‘Namo Buddhaya’ should be brought back into usage once again. This is a noble phrase that had been in use in our country for several centuries earlier. ‘Namo Buddhaya’ connotes that; ‘May this Salutation be to the Supreme Buddha’. The four-fold disciples, who have recognized the three refuges, use the phrase ‘Namo Buddhaya’ quite happily today.”

If someone says "Sadhu!", then you too can reciprocate by saying "Sadhu!" or "Namo Buddhaya". We say ‘Sadhu’ to show our appreciation of something. We as disciples of the Supreme Buddha say sadhu three times to express our happiness or approval of something related to the Dhamma. Now a person may ask as to why we should keep our gathered palms near chest or forehead or above the head when we say “Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu?”, Why three times and not four times or two times? My answer to such questions of course is not to dwell in such irrelevant questions, as then it is stretching this a bit much.

it'd be interesting to know what the venerable's sources are, first he says At the time when the Supreme Buddha was alive, it was the practice observed by His disciples then he says But the words ‘Namo Buddhaya’ have been forgotten by the Buddhists, if they'd been forgotten how did he restore them? unless by forgotten he simply means fallen out of use

The Ven. Bhante is at the uppermost echelon, and there are many thousands under the Mahamevnawa, that he started 15 years ago. I do not know whether I'll ever get to contact him, as it is his students who take care of everything at the Mahamevnawa branches these days. The thero is still at Mahamevna, but as to what sort of a role he plays there now, I do not know, but I'll try my best to find an answer to your query.

To add to the above,  He is a noble monk, who is genuinely resolved to seek out the truth, following the eight-fold noble path, and had written and published books on Dhamma like no other. In the present day there is no other monk who is as well read, well traveled and experienced this Path than him. The many stumbling blocks that he has experienced which he presents (his life is an open book - check the internet) makes us realize & appreciate the strong mental resolve one needs to become a true member of the Sangha, in today’s world. If ever you want to go to a retreat, go to the Mahamevnawa.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Was the historical Buddha infallible?
Could he have erred, even as the enlightened one?

Yes, a Sammasambuddha does not make mistakes as they are omniscient and do not have any Vāsanā remainders.

It depends on what you mean by failing. Also, for clarity sake, one thing is to ask whether he did made mistakes and the other to ask if people believe he was capable of making mistakes.
If by mistake it's meant a "moral mistake",  he is seen as very consistent in the texts and buddhists regard him as incapable of error here. After all, morality is not only his expertise: he is regarded as embodying perfect morality as direct consequence of his accomplishment of eradicating mental defilements (the very root cause of moral mistakes).
If by "mistake" it's meant a "false statement", he is also regarded as incapable of that: the texts explicit say arahats can't lie, and buddhists believe it so. Now, much of the teachings show him going long distances to be careful with what he say, which is particularly suggestive that he was indeed capable of that.
If by "mistake" is meant any action that does not seem to accomplish a certain goal (unrelated to failing morality), this is harder to evaluate and there are some interesting episodes that can be interpreted either way. Also, many buddhists regard him unable to err.
One interesting example that @ChrisW's answer mentioned is the nun order: first, the Buddha said "Do not ask so" to the women looking to be accepted in the sangha, and later on, he finally conceded when Ananda asked in their behalf. In this case:

Those who believe he can err might see this episode as evidence that he either had doubts or had to make decisions without knowing if they would lead to an implicit goal (e.g: of helping more people, growing the sangha, etc).
those who believe he can't err might see this episode as he making the correct decision early when he refused to accept nuns and later making the correct decision of accepting them (e.g. circumstances might have changed)

Unfortunately, both positions make assumptions that are hard to probe. They assume the reasons for the rejection and acceptance which are a mystery to us.

The inition rejection was intentional. It served as a precursor to introducing special rules for nuns and getting them to embrace those without question. It  was also meant to give a clear signal to the community of Sangha about the seriousness of mixing 2 genders in a celibate environment.

@SankhaKulathantille ... which would not be grounds for dispute were this explanation have been given by the Buddha himself when the women asked him the first time. One can try to infer benefits caused by the delay, but I find valuable his advice to "leave what I left unsaid as unsaid".

it could have been grounds for dispute had he just accepted the request so easily and then introduced the rules. I would say it's a clever ploy employed by the Buddha to make the group of women understand the seriousness of the request.

Some people argue that e.g. his allowing Devadatta to become a monk was a mistake ("erring"); others argue that that was no mistake, and had a good outcome (or, at least, best possible outcome).

The fact that the Buddha describes his own, actual experience (of the way to enlightenment), not mere conjecture or hearsay, is a reason for his statements being real or true.
The fact that he was careful when he spoke, e.g. when he doesn't answer the unanswered questions, helps to make him "infallible" (or never-wrong): those are examples of times when he might have failed but didn't, for example the Abhaya Sutta starts with a question which was intended to make the Buddha fail.
I suppose another doctrine which makes it difficult to point to example of where the Buddha "erred" is the doctrine that "each person is responsible for their own kamma": so if someone else (e.g. one of hs students) errs, then that doesn't count as for example a failure in leadership or a failure to teach.
Also I'm not sure what you're asking but given the word "infallible" and your (Mexican) background, perhaps you mean infallible about doctrine, like the Catholic Pope is reputed to be. That's a narrower/more specific question, for example here:

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

If you restrict the question to matters of doctrine-and-not-discipline it's even easier to answer "yes infallible; no error". For example the Buddha is said to have reversed his own previous pronouncement on the question of whether women might become monks (nuns), and I suppose someone might argue that must be therefore an example of the Buddha "erring", either in his original decision (that women cannot or may not join the Sangha), or in his reversal (that they can). Similarly, apparently various rules of the vinaya were added over time as necessary. If you exclude all those and say "Well that's about discipline, not about doctrine" then counter-examples to infallibility are harder (if not impossible) to identify.

Also, and I'm not completely sure about this but I'm pretty sure, that the Buddha's words are (i.e. the Buddha's doctrine is) usually understood to be or defined as true.

If it's the Buddha's doctrine then it's true
If it's not true then it's not the Buddha's (true) doctrine

You might see an example of that in this answer and this comment where some detail that's published as "doctrine" is assumed to be a later error, introduced into the doctrine by someone else (i.e. by someone other than the Buddha).
There also seems to me to be a certain amount of self-contradiction within the doctrine. I think this is assumed to be (explained as being) because the doctrine is simplified or condensed, maybe for various stages of understanding. If I can try to invent an example of that:

Suffering exists, caused by desire, suffering ceases when desire ceases
Actually it's not as simple as "cessation of desire": there are actually two kinds of desire, i.e. wholesome and unwholesome, and it's only the unwholesome desire that you're supposed to abandon
Actually it's not as simple as "cultivation of wholesome desire" because once you have attained the Wholesome you need no longer desire it for yourself
Actually it's not as simple as "not desiring it for yourself", etc.

Or here is another example, quotes from A Still Forest Pool (the author was a respected contemporary Buddhist teacher):

Go Left, Go Right
A Western monk at WatBa Pong became frustrated by the difficulties of practice and the detailed and seemingly arbitrary rules of conduct the monks had to follow. He began to criticize other monks for sloppy practice and to doubt the wisdom of Achaan Chah's teaching. At one point, he went to Achaan Chah and complained, noting that even Achaan Chah himself was inconsistent and seemed often to contradict him self in an unenlightened way.
Achaan Chah just laughed and pointed out how much the monk was suffering by trying to judge others around him. Then he explained that his way of teaching is very simple: "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."

And:

The Middle Way
The Buddha teaches us to keep laying down the extremes. This is the path of right practice, the path leading out of birth and becoming. On this path, there is neither pleasure nor pain, neither good nor evil. Alas, the mass of humans filled with desiring just strive for pleasure and always bypass the middle, missing the Path of the Excellent One, the path of the seeker of truth. Attached to birth and becoming, happiness and suffering, good and evil, the one who does not travel this Middle Path cannot become a wise one, cannot find liberation. Our Path is straight, the path of tranquility and pure awareness, calmed of both elation and sorrow. If your heart is like this, you can stop asking other people for guidance.

You might see that these may appear to contradict each other ("go left, go right, our path is straight"), but I think that it's the student that's assumed to be incorrect or vacillating, and the Buddha (and Buddha-Dhamma) that's assumed to be infallible/accurate.

The question of infallibility is I think related to doubt, i.e. you ask that question when you have doubt about the doctrine. "Doubt" is described in the doctrines, see e.g. Vicikitsa on Wikipedia.
There's further detail in the Vicikicchā article on Dharmafarer, which identifies many types of doubt, and their effect. Towards the end it says that an opposite of doubt is faith:

The opposite of doubt is faith (saddhā), which arises when our doubts
  about the Dharma or the Vinaya are cleared up. But faith can be already present in us in some measure.
  We could be faith-inclined people who easily believe others. This is good when we follow good and wise
  teachers, but bad when we are misled by dubious gurus.
Early Buddhism distinguishes between blind faith or “rootless faith” (amūlika,saddhā), that is, baseless
  or irrational faith, and wise faith (avecca-p,pasada), that is, “faith with a good cause” (akaravati,-
  saddha), faith founded on seeing. The Vinaya defines the word amulaka as “not seen, not heard, not
  suspected.” This definition is a legal one, ascertaining whether something has been seen, or spoken by
  someone, or suspected to have happened so that proper action follows. But both in a Vinaya and Dharma
  situation, further investigation is often necessary or desirable for the truth to be revealed. True reality, as a
  liberating experience, however, can only be discovered by us for ourselves: it is a personal and direct experience.

The word "faith" in Buddhism doesn't necessarily mean exactly the same as "faith" in Christianity (see also this topic).
Also the Theravada tradition teaches that there are Four stages of enlightenment; and "doubt about the teaching" is one of the fetters; and not having doubt about the teaching is associated with the first stage of enlightenment. Especially if you're a 'doubting Thomas' I think that would include seeing/understanding/experiencing the doctrine for yourself.

The four noble truths do not refer to 'desire' (chanda) therefore there appears to be no self-contradiction within that doctrine. Instead, the four noble truths refer to craving (tanha).

In respect to the core teachings ('heartwood'), a Buddha is infallible. These core teachings are those of ultimate truth (lokuttara dhamma), namely, the Four Noble ('Ariya' - Irrefutable) Truths, the Three Characteristics, Dependent Origination, the Elements (Dhatu) & Emptiness (Sunnata).
The Four Noble Truths, for example, are infallible because what they explain cannot be disproven by any person, namely: (i) all suffering is egoistic attachment; (ii) this suffering arises when there is craving leading to new ego becoming; (iii) this suffering will end when this craving ends; & (iv) the noble eightfold path ends suffering.
Or the Three Characteristics cannot be disproven, namely all conditioned things are: (i) are impermanent; (ii) cannot bring lasting happiness; & (iii) cannot be ultimately owned or possessed.
MN 117 separates wisdom, & thus the teachings, into two kinds: (i) pure teachings of ultimate truth ("without effluents") leading to liberation ("transcendence" from the world); & (ii) moral teachings ("siding with merit") with "effluents" connected to "kamma" & the "worlds".
In a number of places (MN 136; AN 4.77; etc), it is explained the principles of moral kamma (action) & result ('vipaka') are not exacting but merely general principles (for example, good kamma while generally leading to good results can also lead to bad results).
This makes these explanations (MN 136; AN 4.77; etc) about the non-exact nature of kamma infallible since they cannot be disproven. In other words, the general teachings about kamma (good leading to good; bad leading to bad), due to not being 100% true, cannot be used to deem the Buddha as fallible.
Therefore, anything that is 'worldly' in nature, such as moral teachings about kamma, the success & failure of students, the structure & rules of the Sangha (community, including admission of women), etc, cannot be used to deem the Buddha was fallible.
The Pali scriptures are clear the Buddha kept silent when asked would he lead all beings to liberation (AN 10.95). The scriptures (AN 4.111) are clear about the success of students ultimately depends on the disposition of the student rather than on the instruction of a Buddha.
Again, AN 10.95 & AN 4.111 are infallible, i.e., cannot be proven to be untrue, since Buddhism has existed for 2,600 years and all beings on the earth are not liberated from suffering, let alone 1% of them.
In addition, DN 16 offers the principle of the Four Great References, which allows for scrutiny of contradictions in teachings given by other monks or created in later years. There are contradictions in the Pali suttas (eg. MN 64, which states a new born child has no idea of 'self'; and MN 123, which claims the Buddha had ideas of 'self' the moment he was born from his mother's womb; SN 22.79, which states ideas of 'self' existing in the past are delusions; and AN 3.15, which claims the Buddha declaring he existed in a past life). If the principle of the Four Great References is followed, it is easy to weed out the unverifiable teachings that comprise of a immeasurable fraction of the scriptures  (eg. MN 123; AN 3.15) with the core principles found in the vast majority of the teachings (which support MN 64; SN 22.79, etc).
Some teachings (particularly about 'rebirth') may appear unverifiable however this impression only occurs when the language of these teachings is not fully understood. The Commentaries state:

The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.
Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)

Could you explain, using references and/or personal experience (and/or reasoning), why you say (what your reason is for saying) that "the Lord Buddha was infallible"? If you don't include that kind of information in your answer, then you're just asking th OP to trust you as if you were their teacher (see e.g. the meta-answers here and here).

@Dhammadhatu I'd greatly appreciate an argument that does not rely in scriptures.

This is not possible because the scriptures accord with the moral principles or integrity of an honest person, namely, the teachings are to be verified by each person for themselves. All of the teachings of ultimate truth can be verified by meditation. This is the only way to prove infallibility.

The Pali Canon clearly considers the Buddha to have been omniscient and he was apparently considered to be a reliable oracle by King Ajatashatru, who tried to use him to predict whether his war against the Vajjians would be successful or not (DN 16). Of course, one can rationalize these references and interpret them in many different ways, but the assertion that he was omniscient occurs in the earliest Buddhist texts.


text:
Did the Lord Buddha say anything about magic and fortune telling?
Did the Lord Buddha say  anything about magic and fortune telling? I  just want to know because in this modern world everyone is following some astrology (Fortune tellers).  People believe what ever these people say. media also giving high priority to them.

These are examples of wrong livelihood. The Kevatta sutta discusses fortune telling and magic

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as:
reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs;
interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology];
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
geomancy; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits;
reciting house-protection charms; snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore; fortune-telling based on visions;
giving protective charms;
interpreting the calls of birds and animals —
he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as these.

Specially, wrong livelihood for monks.

wrong livelihood specifically for laity is defined in a different sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html

The Buddha prohibits magic and fortune telling in the first sutta of the Digha Nikaya (therefore the first sutta of the Suttapitaka), referring to them as "base arts," along with astronomy, meteorology, medicine, accounting, mathematics, poetry, philosophy, surgery, and pediatrics.

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Did aliens come to meet Lord Buddha?
In lord Buddha's daily routine, divided into five parts as follows.

the morning session
the afternoon session
the first watch
the middle watch (10.00 P.M. TO 2.00 A.M.)
the last watch

So the 4th part is The Middle Watch, from 10.00 PM to 2.00 AM.
In that time Lord Buddha will answer the questions from "Devas", and these Devas come to see Buddha by flying Machine called "Wimanas" (or Vimana).
So my question is, does "Devas" here means Aliens? Did Aliens came to see Lord Buddha, and learn about Buddhism?

You could say that they are aliens. They are from a different world/plane/dimension. Also the definition of aliens means from another world. So yeah. Check this article;

Devas are buddhist celestial beings. They don't have to mean aliens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)

Deva is from our universe (sometimes from other universe).
Alien is something we cannot identify yet. May be they are living on a surface like human beings or may be they are living in the space like some Devas. The word alien is recently being used (in the science fiction sense, from 1953) and we cannot tell Deva and Alien are same or not by any means.
So back to the question, Deva met Buddha so many times from this universe and other universes (precisely Devas from 1,000,000,000,000 universes) but not necessarily Alien. For the flying machine, I didn't read anything like this in Sutra, what I read in Buddhist books is Deva used coach drawn by horses. It may be flying but it is not a machine.

If you accept the Pali Canon as the basis of Buddhism, then it is clear that "original Buddhism" taught that the Buddha both taught and learned from devas, that they visited him and that he visited deva worlds. Even the historically oldest Buddhist texts refer to devas and other worlds. Moreover, as I have shown in my book, Conversations with the Buddha, many of these descriptions match the phenomenology of the UFO experience as described for example by Jacques Vallee in his book, Passport to Magonia. Whether one accepts these descriptions or how one chooses to explain or interpret them is of course a matter of conjecture, but the references are clearly there and they are archaic. No less an authority than Ajahn Brahm has publicly stated that he has personally seen both nagas and garudas, and appears to be open-minded about UFOs. On the other hand, Richard Gombrich considers these references to be ironic (a view rejected by Rupert Gethin).

"Ajahn Brahm has publicly stated that he has personally seen both nagas and garudas, and appears to be open-minded about UFOs. " do you have sources?

Go to YouTube -- Buddhism and alien abductions by Ajahn Brahm.

Does this answer the question? Can you summarize (paraphrase) anything in the video which answers the question?


text:
Is buddhism nondualistic?
Buddhism learns that everything is in constant change and in constant interaction; that nothing is steady and separated from the other things. Does that mean that buddhism is nondualistic?

Yes it certainly is nondualistic, however Buddhism goes beyond simple nondualism, effectively assuming perfect loss of (attachment to) any form not just the illusion of "I". So you no longer hold position such as "everything is one" either. You don't even hold a position such as "everything is so" or "I should not hold on to any position". It's a complete and utter abandonment of any position.

The Diamond Sutra expresses this in a few places. I wonder if there is a better word for this kind of "extreme positionlessness"? I suppose if there was, we would just have to whack people on the head and say, "And it is not that either!" Maybe it is better that the door remain invisible.

Original Pali Buddhism does not teach about 'non-dualism'. Instead, it teaches about 'voidness' (selflessness; sunnata).

The world is empty...In what respect is it said that the world is empty? Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a
  self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.
SN 35.85

In a number of places, it states there are internal & external phenomena.

The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known.
MN 148
Owing to a dyad (pair), monks, consciousness comes into being. And how, monks, does consciousness come into being owing to a dyad?
"Owing to the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Forms are impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Thus this dyad is fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing and 'becoming-otherwise.' That cause,
  that condition, that gives rise to eye-consciousness — that also is
  impermanent, changing, becoming-otherwise.' And how, monks, could eye
  consciousness, having arisen dependent on an impermanent condition,
  become permanent? Now the coming-together, the falling together, the
  meeting-together, of these three things: this, monk, is called
  'eye-contact.' Eye-contact, too, is impermanent, changing,
  'becoming-otherwise.' And how, monks, could eye-contact, having arisen
  dependent on an impermanent condition, become permanent? Contacted,
  monks, one feels. Contacted, one intends. Contacted, one perceives.
  Thus these states also are fleeting and transient; impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.'
SN 35.93

MN 1 lists the perception of 'oneness' ('ekatta') as not Nirvana & as one a many possible experiences.

He perceives earth as earth...He perceives water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind ... beings as beings... gods as
  gods...Pajapati as Pajapati...Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as
  luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent
  glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit...
  the Conqueror as the Conqueror ... the dimension of the infinitude of
  space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of
  the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of
  consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of
  nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
  as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception[3] ... the
  seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the
  sensed... the cognized as the cognized ... singleness as singleness (ekatta)...
  multiplicity as multiplicity ... the All as the All ... Nirvana as
  Nirvana...

This essay may help: Dhamma and Non-duality.


text:
Gods realm, how do you get out? Achieve Nibbana in this realm?
It is stated that Buddha said that it is more difficult to achieve nibbana in this realm than in the human realm (due to absence of suffering).
Imagine, that one of these gods, has realized that in fact he is "stuck" there and want to achieve nibbana and get out, even more, he created a whole reality where he "lives" similar to the human realm.
This god did this because experiencing suffering, (even in this "simulation"), it will be easier to look for the exit out of samsara.
Imagine that this god realizes that he's created all that,
what should be the next steps for those kind of gods, (which actions or intentions), to follow Dharma and finally exit the samsara?
Should he assume a "human form" just to follow Dharma or should he do it "from" the same "gods realm" "perception" ?
Sorry if the question is too "fictious" or not understandable, let me know if you need more clarification.
thanks.

From the perspective of the old Pali scriptures, I am not aware of anywhere that states: "It is more difficult to achieve nibbana in the a godly realm than in the human realm".
For example, AN 4.123 describes Nirvana ("unbound") in the god realms.
I think the answer to this common view is based in the type of 'godly' realm.
A most common godly realm in the Pali scriptures are higher meditation states (jhana), as described in AN 4.123.
However, there are godly realms that equate to luxurious wealthy lifestyles of sensual pleasures (e.g. MN 37). It is possibly this godly realm called The Sensuous World (kama-loka) that makes it difficult to achieve Nibbana.

Good sir Moggallana, the Vejayanta Palace has a hundred towers, and each tower has seven hundred upper chambers, and each tower has seven
  nymphs and each nymph has seven maids. Would you like to see the
  loveliness of the Vejayanta Palace, good sir Moggallana?

I reffer to this statement (with the propeer references to those claims):
""Gods realm:[40] the gods (devas)[41] is the second realm, and typically subdivided into twenty six sub-realms.[42] A rebirth in this heavenly realm is believed to be from very good karma accumulation.[40] A Deva does not need to work, and is able to enjoy in the heavenly realm all pleasures found on earth. However, the pleasures of this realm lead to attachment (Upādāna ), lack of spiritual pursuits and therefore no nirvana.[43]""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra_(Buddhism)

what you posted seems to be the godly realms of 'luxurious wealth', as i posted. but in Buddhism there are many godly realms, where some are beneficial for meditation. this link may help: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

It depends, there are three realms Desire, Form, Formless.
Desire realm gods as the name suggests have desires and are more likely to be attached to their luxuries making it hard to study the Dharma.
However, Form and Formless realm gods all attained their positions from high skill in meditation and are far less attached to desire and they probably don't find too much harder than us in following Buddhism

It sounds to me like you are talking about a particularly Vajrayana idea. please correct me if that is not so! If so, it should be noted that in that context, the "realms" are not considered to actually exist (I know they tend to say to the lay people that they do, but that's different from what the monks believe) and are symbols of Human Stereotypes. Another you could have mentioned was The Hungry Ghost Realm. All of them are symbolic of different broad ideas of ego, rather than being places which genuinely exist. So, to answer your question, the same way everyone gets out: The Path.

Actually, it is real as there is no real.
Just like Nibbana "is" samsara, it is not a magic place, neither are the realms.
However, giving that into consideration that does not remove how do you perecieve them (justa like you now perceive are completely real).
You wil can live there eons, ¿is that a methaphor?, of course not ;-)

Yes.. this is another example though of mixing contexts and thus, losing meaning, I think. Buddhists seem to mix a lot of contexts when they talk about The Path, which is fine if you are instructing someone (per Dogen etc), but on a forum like this, my feeling is that it is more useful to restrain the context.

I know, i will recreate the question with the proper budhist branch and who and how.
Because this is important for stack exchange.
However, I must note, there is a serious problem I've noted in stackexchange, even when it is very formal, it is assumed (due to most secular contributors) that Buddhist teachings are "some kind of metaphor and few times are literal".
However it is not the case, e.g. the "clear light" is in fact literal CLEAR LIGHT, it is not a "clear mind metaphor", also the bardo thodol lights, are in fact LITERAL lights.
Also are the gods realm.


text:
Should I limit the time I do metta?
Metta feels great. It is unconditional love on tap. So, could there be too much of it? It is addicting.

No, there's no limit to practising metta. In Metta sutta it is mentioned that the one who practices this can do it anytime and anywhere.

Whether standing or walking, seated
or lying down free from drowsiness,
one should sustain this
recollection.
Metta sutta

This is one of the four protective meditations (metta, contemplation of the Buddha, death and foulness of the body) and you won't experience side effects as in other types of meditations as well. You cannot practice breathing meditation when you are ill, like headaches and anxiety, it tends to aggravate the problem, but metta doesn't. Also, it is usually recommended to practice the four protective meditations before breathing meditation to reduce defilements.
The claim, metta meditation does not lead to wisdom is also not entirely true. In  AN 11.16 sutta it is clearly stated how a metta jhana can be used to  develop insight.

Then again, a monk keeps pervading the first direction with an
awareness imbued with good will, likewise the second, likewise the
third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around,
everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing
cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will—abundant, expansive,
immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. He reflects on this
and discerns,
‘This awareness-release through good will is fabricated
& intended. Now whatever is fabricated & intended is inconstant &
subject to cessation.’
Staying right there, he reaches the ending of
the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then—through this very
Dhamma-passion, this Dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away
of the first five Fetters—he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes],
there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world.
AN11.16

Clear and precise answer with a reference, +1.

I'm wondering about the statement, "you won't experience side effects as in other types of meditations". What side-effects, and/or what reference to side-effects, were you thinking of, or should I ask that as another/new question? The only canonical reference I know, about "side-effects", is this one which is about "meditation teaching on the loathsome aspects of the body".

Well, I mentioned this with breathing and vipassana meditation in mind. You cannot practice breathing meditation when you are ill, like headaches and anxiety, it tends to aggravate the problem, but metta doesn't. Also, it is usually recommended to practice the four protective meditations before breathing meditation to reduce defilements. The one you mentioned is also correct.

Also look at the background story of Metta sutta where it was taught to some monks who were having some trouble from nonhumans.

Metta is a type of samatha (tranquility, concentration; 2nd training) practice (with a particular object: loving-kindness), so it feels good and has other benefits -- but it does not produce any insight/wisdom. It is not a criticism, it is simply not its goal (just like eating does not produce wisdom, but is still something very useful).
I've seen people doing "too much metta", as an escape from looking at negative stuff they had inside, in particular hatred they were unaware of and could not deal with. As you say that it feels addicting, be aware of attachment to those mind-states (attachment to jhanas is removed only at the moment of final enlightenment -- says the theory of 10 fetters) as much as possible. What produces insight/wisdom, and also removes negative conditions (incl. attachments), is vipassana (3rd training).
Take good care to do enough Vipassana, that's what ultimately brings more understanding about oneself and better life.

In the Tikaṇḍaki Sutta (A 5.144) the Buddha recommends a balance.
Contemplating impermanence or the foulness of the body with regards to those objects (people) we are agreeable with, projecting metta towards objects that we find repulsive, seeing impermanence and the foulness of the body in those objects we find repulsive, and projecting metta towards those objects we find agreeable, and considering both the repulsive and agreeable with equanimity.
Tikandaki Sutta translation and comments by Piya Tan