text:
Does (bad) karma have to be depleted to be able to attain enlightenment?
This question came to me from over thinking the "Angulimala" story. He had to "repent" to some extent for the murders he committed, by being scolded an hit by stones. However, the effect of the karma seems to be quite mild for 999 murders and even the intention to kill the Buddha.
So my question is this: Does your karma have to be neutral or positive to become enlightened?
And if not, what happens to the negative karma after attaining enlightenment?

While some of the past karma may fruit as obstacles to liberation, not all karma has to fruit before liberation, as even Buddha himself famously experienced results of his past karma after his enlightenment (e.g. when Devadatta wounded the Buddha's foot with a rock).
As I explained in https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1672/43 Buddha rejected the theory of intentionally "burning" past karma through exertion and austerity. Instead, liberation is achieved by "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now".
Basically, Buddha's advice to people of difficult backgrounds has usually been to leave the past in the past, and focus on the choices to be made and the state of mind to be maintained from now on.

No, you don't need to deplete all your good or bad kamma to become enlightened, it does happen with "remaining" kamma.
Regarding Angulimala, there is a beautiful simile the Buddha gave that might help you understand:
Imagine you take some salt with your hands and put it in a glass of water, the water will be salty, terrible to drink
Now imagine you take the same amount of salt and throw it in the river, the water in the river will not taste bad. The salt is the bad kamma and the water the good kamma, so if you do a lot of good kamma, that will positively impact your future even if you have lots of bad kamma, Angulimala became a monk and did a lot of good kamma, neutralizing (at least partially) the impacts of his terrible bad kamma.

You have to deplete all your Karma giving rebirth in the 4 lower realms to gain the 1st stage of sainthood. To be a fully enlightened person you have to deplete all Karma leading to rebirth.
This does not mean you deplete all Karma. Some Karma are only effective after rebirth can remain as a residue but all Karma which would give a rebirth should be removed.
The process of Vippassana is the process of un working of Karma / removing fabrications where by which you remove the effects of Karma. The Karma surfaces as a sensation and passes away.
Also note there 5 grave offences which will always give result in the next life. As Angulimala has not committed such Karma the others will pass away through the practice of Vippassana.

Your answer differs significantly from the others, which confuses me. To see the process of Vippassana as the process of un working karma is completely new information to me as well. Could you add sources?

This is how this is taught by Ledi Sayadaw, Theik-cha-daung Sayadaw, Mohnyin Sayadaw,  U Wunnathiri, Saya Thetgyi, Saya Gyi U Ba Khin, John Coleman, Mother Sayamagyi Daw Mya Thwin, S. N. Goenka linage of teachers. I do not know of any printed sources through. It is covered in discources of you follow some of the advance cources at: http://www.dhamma.org/

That does make it difficult to verify the truth and value of your answer, but maybe someone else on this site can confirm and up-vote it, for now I will suspend judgement.

This is not emphasised as much as in the above linage else where, but have a look at the chapter Un Working of Karma The Working of Karma by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw about dissolving Karma. Linage of Ledi Sayadaw all re birth linking karma should be dissolved for full enlightenment and rebirth linking karma in the lower fields for the 1st stage of saint hood.

@DirkM Suminda's answer is not in conflict with mine.

@Adrei Volkov, It's not that they conflict, but what it adds that I find difficult to verify, mainly that "The process of Vippassana is the process of unworking of Karma" is something I have never heard before.

In vipassana meditation, the practitioner have to stop the arising of unwholesome consciousness by jhana meditation. If unwholesome consciousness still arise between vipassana meditation, the practitioner can not enlighten.
Another the resultant of  unwholesome consciousness will not arise anymore after arahanta die.


text:
Does Buddhism teach an apocalyptic cosmology?
I've noticed in several places about a coming of another Buddha in the future and a kind of apocalyptic teaching about space and time.
Does Buddhism have an apocalyptic cosmology of space and time?  Will Maitreya Buddha usher in a cosmological transformation of the universe?

Another Buddha -- Metteyya (Maitreya) -- will gain Awakening, his
  monastic Sangha numbering in the thousands
  Digha Nikaya 26 ref- http://www.basicbuddhism.org/index.cfm?GPID=29

I had to look up apocalypse, "the complete destruction of the world." That doesn't seem to be a theme in the Buddhist cosmologies where the universes have no beginnings and no ends.
(EDIT: Hmm, looks like I'm wrong-- the universe periodically falls to pieces and then rebuilds itself.  But it isn't immanent-- a Mahakalpa is a long time from now, and a new universe rebuilds itself every time.)
Mappo, the time when the Dharma is forgotten and no longer taught is a Buddhist catastrophe, but more of a moral one.
Digha Nikaya 26 ag

Monks, a time will come when the children of these people will have a
  life-span of ten years.  And with them, girls will be marriageable at
  the five years old.  And with them, these flavours will disappear:
  ghee, butter, sesame-oil, molasses and salt.  Among them,
  kudrusa-grain will be the chief food, just as rice and curry are
  today.
And with them,  the ten courses of moral conduct will completely
  disappear, and  the ten courses of evil will prevail exceedingly:  for
  those of a ten-year life-span there will be no word for "moral",  so
  how can there be anyone who acts in a moral way?
Those people who have no respect for the mother and father,  for
  ascetics and Brahmins, for the head of the clan,  will be the ones who
  will enjoy honour and prestige.
Just as it is now the people  who show respect for mother and father,
  for ascetics and Brahmins,  for the head of the clan, who are praised
  and honoured,  so it will be with those who do the opposite.

Mappo also leads to interesting consequences for current times, such as questions on if traditional forms of practice are effective anymore if we don't have a Buddha in the world. This is a big theme in Nichiren Buddhism.
When the Maitreya Buddha returns he is a like the historical Buddha, but in some accounts, much better. For people who care about the future Buddha, it is sort of like Pure Land Buddhism, where you wait to be reborn in a universe with an active, living, teaching Buddha. In Maitreya's case, that happens to be the same universe as our own. By the logic of Pure Land Buddhism, it seems like it would be more expedient to be reborn in the next life in the Amitabha's Pure Land.
Also interestingly, Maitreya played a big role in the White Lotus Rebellions, a political-religious movement in ancient China that lasted several hundred years that predicted Maitreya was returning right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Lotus

In Buddhism the universe goes through a cycle of expansion and collapse. The collapse is not the end of everything but part of a cycle like the waves in the ocean. So this might not fit into the traditional sense of an apocalypse.
See Wikipedia Entry on Buddhist Cosmology for further details on the cycles.

Read the Saptha Suriyuggamana Sutta and the Agganna Sutta. Unlike other beings, humans life span is said to be variable. It's said to be on the decline now. One day, it is going to fall down to 10 years. Then the apocalypse will happen by one of three ways. If hatred is prominent  in the societies, weapons will bring about the apocalypse and most of those who die will be born in Niraya. If craving is more prominent in the societies, famine will cause the apocalypse and most of those who die will be born in the Peta(hungry ghost) realm. If ignorance is more prominent, epidemics will cause the apocalypse and most of those who die will be born in heavens due to the compassion towards the sick.
After a while, those who had left civilisations and hid in the forests and caves come back to see the destruction caused. They realize hatred, craving and ignorance caused the near extinction of humans. So they start to become virtuous, start to keep to the five precepts. Then the life span slowly increases again. It will increase up to an Asankya(10^140). Having such a long life span is also not a good thing. People start to think that they are eternal as they don't see death. Then the defilements start entering the minds again. As a result, the life span starts to go down over time. When it drops down to 80,000 years, Maitreya Buddha will appear in the world.
Saptha Suriyuggamana Sutta goes on the explain in detail, how the world ends when the Seven Suns appear in the sky. This happens after a long time, even much long after the Maithree Buddha Sasana ends.

Why do you say some say it is about 100,000? In visuddhi magga it's asankya. I agree with everything else here. BTW I was going through earlier questions and found this one :)

It's mentioned as 100000 or 84000 in some other places. http://books.google.lk/books?id=TKznE36-CcIC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=buddhism+human+lifespan+100000&source=bl&ots=pNBZxcB_X5&sig=3i-SRFpKQSjO7Z1jutyft_N1XR4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f53-U9rqIMzLaMyEgLgN&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg

The page you are referring to says that tha-tha-na cannot be born unless the human life span is between 100-100,000 years. This means a Buddha only arrives to the world between these life spans which is true actually.

It doesn't say the lifespan cannot increase beyond that.

True! Thanks for pointing that out! Updated the answer.

Buddhism generally utilizes the Hindu Cosmology, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology#Buddhism], except where it doesn't. Buddhist and Hindu Cosmologies posit an infinite number of universes (and infinite beings).
It also has in its list of the 1000 Buddhas[http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=1002_buddhas_of_this_Fortunate_Aeon] that will rise in this Age, of which 3 have already lived and died prior to Buddha Shakyami. Maitreya (See Matthew's links.) would be the #5 Universal Buddha. Mahayana Buddhist Sutras also has further legends of "future" Buddhas, such as Chinrezig, Padmasambhava, Lama Tsonghapa, etc., that would be born in India, Tibet, etc., in the 2 centuries after the Buddha's death. (I don't find all of these cosmologies useful, but each to his or her own.) Hope that helps.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the main arguments in favor of the Anātman view over the Ātman view?
The main difference (I know) between Buddhism and Hinduism is that the first defends Anātman theory whereas the second defends Ātman theory.
What are the main arguments in favor of the Anātman view over the Ātman view?

Assuming a post-doc in mathematics will not be satisfied with anything less than a thorough treatment of the underlying philosophy ("emptiness" of all so-called entities) and not its mere application (illusory nature of conventional self), let me refer you to a little book (about 150pp), The Foundational Standpoint of Madhyamika Philosophy by Gadjin Nagao, translated by John P. Keenan

The idea of Atman tends to be defined as having three characteristics:

permanent
controllable
satisfactory

When it is any of those things, it can be seen as Atman.
In SN 22.59 the Buddha explains that neither form, feeling, determination and consciousness have those characteristics:

Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus."
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?"
  — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful
  or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is
  impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be
  regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No,
  venerable sir."'

note: I've translated it as: "Unsatisfactory vs satisfactory"; the quoted text translated it as "Painful vs Pleasant" and I've also seen "stress-full vs stress-less." I hope the point is clear.
It's also something that becomes apparent after meditating and following the path, when the Buddha asks Annanda, what the 10 perceptions gained by mindfulness of in - and out-breathing are, he answers pertaining to non-self:

"And what is the perception of not-self? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, aromas are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactile sensations are not-self; the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self.' Thus he remains focused on not-selfness with regard to the six inner & outer sense media. This is called the perception of not-self.

On a more secular note, Sam Harris, who has been inspired by Buddhism and tried meditation, talks about this realisation as well:

Occasionally, a breakthrough did occur: In a moment of seeing, for instance, there would be pure seeing, and consciousness would appear momentarily free of any feeling to which the notion of a “self” could be attached. But then the experience would fade, and I couldn’t get back there at will. There was nothing to do but return to meditating dualistically on contents of consciousness, with self-transcendence as a distant goal.

I believe that those are the main argument in favour of the Anatman view:
1) understanding that experience is changing , uncontrollable and unsatisfactory
2) Seeing in meditation that when one is mindful, no sense of self arises.
thus concluding that there is nothing that one can say about:
"This is me, This is mine, I am this."

You are right in that anatman is a view, not just a doctrine. Anatman is phenomenological view, where phenomena are dharmas. Once you properly acquire that ultimate view, you just don't see a place for Atman to be. Because everything is covered by dharmas. And the view by itself is sound.
In comparison to phenomenological anatman view, view of atmavada is metaphysical. It is based on imagination and doubtful inference. Which is not sound base for views and actions.
Additionally, from methodological perspective, atmavada leads to unwholesome deeds and, thus, suffering. So it's not useful and not profitable to hold such a view.

@RobMacHugh anatma-vada is just teaching (vada) about anatman, and teaching is just what is taught. So there is nothing bad in the word 'anatmavada'. What you say since 'It is just..' is just plain crazy antibuddhism.

Let me put the it in other perspective.
On asking if about the existence of Atmaan Buddha simply doesn't answer. What he says that the answer won't solve the main issue of Dukhha.
We can only speculate about his stance.

Indeed, what Buddha meant is that, if the Self (Atmaan) and the content of that Self was a possibility, it would be as futile and stressful than the Not-Self (Anatta.) Might the later be a combination of both (Atmaan+Anatta,) so to speak.

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


text:
How does Buddhism explains rebirth and law of Karma?
As per my readings on Buddhism it doesn't accept the notion of soul or Atman, but at the same time it accepts the law of Karma.
How does Buddhism explains rebirth and law of Karma?

possible duplicate of What is the role of karma in rebirth?

More potential dupes: 1) If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? 2) What is it that is re-incarnated?

The Kamma can be understood as a seed in put in your mind, what goes to the next life according to Buddhism is the mind, not a soul, the mindstream does not stop when the body dies.
There is a great video on Kamma by Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on youtube, I recommend you watch it, it is full of details and at the same time easy to understand, I will paste the link:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ih0moT0bvgM

All of our experiences in life ( The Five aggregates) are subject to the Three Universal Characteristics, one of these Characteristics is Impermanence. Every mental or physical phenomena ( Four Foundations of mindfulness) we experience through our six senses is constantly fleeting, in a state of change, this is " rebirth" or more precisely,this is " Birth". It is one experience changing into the next. Without impermanence, there would be no rebirth or birth of a new experience, in fact there would be no existence of anything!!. So...we all can validate this teaching of the Buddha.
As for Karma, i feel the teaching on Dependent Origination and The Noble Eightfold Path helps to see and understand " cause and effect" Our actions expressed through our thinking, speech and bodily actions condition the next moment, and in doing so, creates the possible conditions for our Karma to manifest from our previous or past actions ( whether that be this life or many others.
Once you study and understand the above teachings i have mentioned, you will see, experientially, the correlation between a wholesome action and its corresponding wholesome result, also you will see the corresponding result of an unwholesome action. This is universal law.
As the Buddha said, you don't have to believe anyone's word, you can see all of the Buddhas teachings for yourself!!
Metta.

We can considerate the fact that Siddharta Gautama was a person born in an Hindu environment, in which the rebirth principle is heavily present. Therefore his teaching is in the continuation of the education he could have during his childhood, just like Jesus was born as a Jewish.
Some believe that he truly believed in reincarnation, but in my opinion, we can take this aspect off the core of his thoughts that revolve around the personal experience.

Dear Friend, the Buddha didn't teach rebirth and planes of existence because of his education, but because he was able to see and contemplate it, he talked about ghosts and devas many times, beings that he was able to see, he was also able to see his previous lifes.


text:
Has Buddha attained Nirvana after death?
It is said that the Buddha attained Nirvana after his death. But how do we know that it is true?  Are there any physical signs to recognize?

There is no physical signs of that and we can not verify it. Probably only enlightened beings (such as other buddhas) can verify this, so until we are enlightened we can't.
Btw, he also attained Nirvana before his death too. So-called nirvana with remainder.

Nirvana is a loss of form. The "Nirvana with remainder" is an apparent loss of form. While the absolute Nirvana is the eternal fact that the form has always been an imputation, and such nuisances as birth and death can in no way affect this global situation.
When we die, we lose the form in the literal sense, and for Buddhas this is called Maha-Pari-Nirvana (the great and final loss of form). In other words, Maha-Pari-Nirvana is when the apparent Nirvana perfectly coincides with the absolute Nirvana.
"It is said that the Buddha attained Nirvana after his death. But how do we know that it is true? Are there any physical signs to recognize?"
Because Buddha attained "Nirvana with remainder" during his life, his death is parinirvana, by definition. No signs necessary.

Lord Buddha attained Nibbana under the Bodhi tree at the age of 35. He entered Parinibbana at the Mallas' Sala Grove, in Kusinara at the age of 80. We don't use the word 'death' as Nibbana is deathless. He fully experienced Nibbana from the day he attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. Those are just technical terms used to identify whether there's a remnant of the five aggregates or not. We use the term Sa-Upadisesa Nibbana to refer to the Buddha's Nibbana while he is still living and Anupadisesa Nibbana to refer to his Parinibbana.

This is not something that can be directly answered or rationalized through the way to find the answer is there. This is by walking the 8 fold path and getting deep penetrating insights through Vipassana, where by attaining at least the 1st stage of sainthood which would result in this doubt is broken as you have verified for your self.
A loose analogy can be it is difficult to describe a hidden city / exotic treasure chest you have not being there perfectly to someone else but you can be told the route to get there so you can get there and see for yourself. If the route leads you to the particular city you know that the person has gone there.


text:
Difference in Buddhist meditation and meditation in other religions
What is the exact difference in Buddhist meditation and meditation in other religions.

One of the key aspects of meditation in Buddhism is that there are, very broadly**, two different kinds (or styles or methods or purposes or ...). One kind is intended to train the person's ability to focus their attention, and to calm their mind. That kind is called samatha (or shamatha) meditation; its aim being various forms of samadhi. The aim of the other kind of meditation is to gain insight into -- that is, to understand and experience -- the fundamental nature of reality, specifically the three characteristics -- i.e. that, contrary to the normal view reality: is impermanent, does not provide freedom from suffering, and does not contain any specific permanent thing that we can call "self". This form of meditation and its aim have the same name -- vipassana.
The first of those two kinds is not specific to Buddhism, and can be found throughout Hinduism and other religions. Buddhism's unique offering to the world is the second kind, Vipassana. That said, it's not clear that it's entirely unique to Buddhism in the sense that there are practitioners of other religions who appear to have achieved the outcomes that vipassana is intended to achieve. For example, it's arguable that St Teresa of Avila, a Catholic Christian nun, was describing stream entry (one of the major attainments in vipassana meditation) in her seventh mansion in her "The Interior Castle". Of course that may be because Christianity, especially contemplative/mystical Christianity, was being influenced by the earlier Buddhism. Regardless, the point is that in practice a style of contemplation (meditation, prayer, etc) leading to fundamental insight does exist today outside of Buddhism.
--
** It can be argued that there aren't two different kinds at all, but in typical "western" discussions, that's how it's spoken of. It's not, as far as I can see, a gross error to speak of it like that.

The main difference would be the goal. In Buddhism this is done to develop wisdom and mastery over the mind. But in other systems it can be to get a pleasant experience, concentration, psychic powers, etc.
Some of the meditation instruction in Buddhism are ones that were already there but refocused and modified towards gaining wisdom in the process.

I will try to give you a simple answer without talking about higher states of mind, Vipassana and Jhanas: Meditation in Buddhism can enable lots of incredible things for advanced meditators.
Meditation in Buddhism, let's say for beginners, is a very important tool to help us with the following points:
Tranquility /
Understanding of the Buddha's teachings /
Contemplation /
Insight /
Understanding of feelings, body and mind /
etc..
Lots of people use meditation for well being, tranquility and health benefits.There is nothing wrong with that, but Buddhists use it as a very important tool for a higher goal.


text:
Do Theravada monks search for reincarnation of teachers?
I know this is very common among Mahayanas, specialy in Tibet where they search for their old teachers (Lamas) all call them Rinpoche.
Is this also a practice in Theravada Buddhism?

No. We do not have this practice. At lease not in my country, Myanmar. Let Karma handles reincarnation.

No.
Teachers consciously reincarnate because they took Bodhisattva vow. They promised they will be taking rebirth until they liberate all sentient beings. Because in Theravada one typically does not take the vow, tulkus are not searched for.
One can also argue that in order to be consciously reborn, one should master advanced tantric practices from the level of Mahayana/Vajrayana. One of such practices is Phowa, also called 'the practice of conscious dying' or 'transference of consciousness at the time of death'. The idea is that the practitioner learns how to work with energies at the moment of dying and after leaving the body instead of being at the mercy of their karma, they can consciously choose the next rebirth.


text:
Should a Buddhist have Children?
In Buddhism having a rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas. Doesn't it imply that Buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth. This leads to a more generic hypothetical question as to what happens if all people in the world stop having children?
I would like to have the answer in the Buddhist perspective.

I don't think that if you cannot be reborn as a human here on Earth (because all people in the world have stopped making babies), that means you won't be reborn at all.

Original question is similar to http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/buddhist-path-x-romantic-relationships-and-sons. The follow up question may not be a good fit for this Q & A site as answers are likely to be speculation or primarily opinion based.

Yes, it's similar but it's not the same as I'm specifically asking about bearing children after marriage.

rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas.

Not quite. Birth has a requisite condition as well. It's not the case that our birth was the ultimate origin of our suffering.

Doesn't it imply that buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth.

Not having children will not stop those beings from being reborn. There are plenty of other organisms to be reborn as on Earth and there are other realms like the Deva world as well.

what happens if all people in the world stop having children?

The entire population of humans could all die and be reborn as insects today and it wouldn't appreciably increase their overall number: adding six billion to 10 quintillion doesn't even amount to a tenth of a percent.
So removing the human path as a rebirth target does nothing in the way of removing suffering.

I have set this response as an "answer". I would add that my understanding is that once the karma exists (the cause), a condition (your next rebirth, etc.) will occur no matter what you do or do not do subsequently. Buddhist pretty much use the Hindu Cosmology, which posits an infinite number of universes, realms, worlds, etc., so your "implication" would  not be valid. That action (or lack of action) simply would not have the desired effect.

Does this mean that the outer form or realm or roopa in the next life doesn't depend ONLY on the Karma of a person?

Would really appreciate a response on above question. Thank you.

From the child standpoint:
A human life is considered very precious in Buddhism as it provides a great opportunity for liberation, the human realm is the best of all realms to practice Dhamma, the Buddha attained enlightment in this realm. Dukkha is found in all realms with different intensities.
From the Buddhist (parents) standpoint, there is a related question:
Buddhist path X Romantic Relationships and Sons

Birth is not the cause of suffering.
Birth is a symptom of suffering.
One person preventing birth does not actually prevent birth or suffering. It's like if you block a river, the water flows elsewhere and forms a new stream or river.
To end suffering, one has to end craving by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

There is also the Buddhist perspective that everything that will happen (physically) in your life has already been determined by your past actions. Your question is not a simple question. It indirectly invokes the questions of free-will, determinism, etc.
Buddhists believe in neither absolute free will, nor determinism. It preaches a middle doctrine, named pratitya-samutpada in Sanskrit, which is often translated as:

Inter-dependent arising
Dependent Origination
Analysis of Free Will versus Determinism (by Alex Berzin, one of my favorite teachers.)

So, "dependent arising" and "interdependent arising" mean the same thing. Funny. Hope that helps.

You could use the same answer for any question asking what a person should do, but Buddhism has clear answers for some of them (e.g. the precepts).

You are absolutely right. To make the discussion even more interesting, there are the two truths, the conventional and the ultimate. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine]

I'll have to disagree here: 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... an abusive speaker... an idle chatterer... covetous... malevolent... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.'... AN 3.61

One misconception that I often encounter is that all Buddhists have a single mold that needs to be followed. From this misconception, it's easy to form misleading questions in the form of "Should Buddhists do X?"
I disagree with this line of thought. The Buddha recognised that while all individuals seek to liberate themselves from suffering, the immediate objective that they strive for can vary.
Just as you cannot teach the concept of impermanence to a devotee who has starving parents and children at home, you cannot expect one teaching to fit the needs of all beings. This is also why you can never measure someone else with your own standards. Buddhism is an introspective practice.

As such, asking "Why do I want to have children?" instead of "Should a Buddhist have children?" would encourage more answers of practical value. If I want to have children because it will bring me and my family joy, then yes, it's something I can consider.
Or, if I am someone who likes to inspect further I might ask, "How long will this joy last? What happens if things don't go as planned (illness, accident, conflict, etc.)?" And even then, I might decide that the joy outweighs the risk and go ahead with it. And nobody can fault me. I have carried out my due diligence in weighing the pros and cons, and decided that this is the best path I can take given my present circumstance. And that's okay too.

What I wanted to say is this: being a Buddhist isn't about subscribing to a set of "should-dos" and "should-not-dos". It's about recognising where your present circumstance; where you spiritually want to be in the immediate and long-term; and deciding on the best way to achieve that.
Being a Buddhist means that you are accountable for your own actions. There's no arguing with some deity when you get into trouble even when you followed instructions to a tee.
So...
Q: Should you have children?
A: Are you sure you should let others tell you what you should do? ;-)


text:
Application of sixteen contemplations in the anapanasati sutta
I've had a regular morning meditation practice (15 minutes or so, longer when I can) for about 12 months now, and I have a question about the sixteen contemplations as explained in the anapanasati sutta. The interpretation I have read is from the excellent Breath by Breath: The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation by Larry Rosenberg.
My question is really around how (or even if) I should be applying these sixteen contemplations in my daily practice. Should I be trying to work through each of them, using each contemplation as a basis for the meditation? Or is it more of an organic process than that (i.e. I will progress through them naturally with time)?
Many thanks

As it was explained to me, we must master the coarse before we can master the subtle, and we must master the subtle before we can attain first-hand direct vision of Dharma.
In this vein, during a single meditation session we must first work with the body, then work with the feelings, then work with the mind, and only then the insight meditation can happen naturally.
So first as we sit down our body is usually disturbed and tense. The goal at this phase is to relax and calm down the body so it can sit comfortably (as opposed to forcing it to sit still).
As the body physically calms down to a sufficient degree, we should start paying attention to the breathing. The breathing can be noisy or stuck or gasping etc. Our goal at this phase is to calm down further, using the breathing as our feedback indicator.
As we work with the breathing, we may start noticing that the problem is really with the emotions. At this point we should scan the area around the body for psychosomatic projections of emotions (tense or painful feelings in chest, abdomen, veins, forehead etc.). We should identify the blockages, etc. and release them by letting go of the subconscious will to sustain them.
We proceed in this manner, as to get very comfortable. Our goal at this phase is to make ourselves feel very good, what they call "rapture". To achieve that we can employ a combination of letting go of bodily and emotional blockages, as well as intentionally generating a joyful mood.
"Rapture" is the cruder kind of good mood, while "bliss" is a deeper and more subtle variety of the same. Our goal is to generate rapture first, then let it deepen and stabilize to become bliss. At this point our attention should include physical, breathing, emotions, and subtler psychosomatic projections, all joined into one "energy map". Our job is to fabricate deliberate effort in order to purify this whole thing, and make it transparent and energized.
As we succeed in the above, we can notice that the quality of our mind is also connected with the overall energy structure. If the mind is shaky or jumpy or viscous or sleepy etc. it will affect our ability to fine-tune the system into its perfect state. So we must condition the mind to get into a perfectly open/transparent/upright state, just like we did with our body, emotions, and psychosomatic energy before.
By performing this practice again and again, first not so well, and then better and better, we can't help but get plenty of insights into the way the mind functions. As we start getting those insights, many of Buddhist theories we've read before will stop being mere theories and will become first-hand experience. This is the phase when we will find ourselves contemplating suffering, cessation, impermanence etc.
Now if you re-read the Anapanasati Sutta with the above commentary in mind, it should hopefully make more sense.

Thank you for your answer Andrei, it's certainly helped provide some context for me to reflect on. I think I still have a lot more preparation to do!

IMO 15 mins is not really enough to get anywhere in depth. I would say, at least 40 minutes to get to a semi-deep state. However, if you know you're sitting for 40 mins, then at the end of this period your mind will start getting nervous. So better to sit for 2 hours, this way by the end of the first 40 mins you will know you have 80 more minutes in front of you, and will have no other option than to relax/surrender.

Could I be so bold as to recommend these series of talks taken from an anapanasati retreat. The talks are available for free download from the Free Buddhist Audio site - though the site runs purely on donations so they do ask to consider donating if you find them useful.
I was recommended these as a companion to reading the Larry Rosenberg book. These talks have more specific advice than the book and complement it well. Also they provide a good basis for extending the practice into its vipassana aspect. Viveka, the speaker, is a pleasure to listen to.
In with the talks is a 40 minute guided meditation and another 20 minutes reflection which cover the contemplations of the sutra - so you might find it useful to see a model of covering the depth of the sutra in reasonably timed sits.

I recommend that you check out the Satipatthana Sutta, whose practices has the same structure as the Anapanasati Sutta- body, feelings, mind, and objects of mind, but is more geared towards everyday practice. For example mindfulness of walking and standing.
Metta,
Tord


text:
Does memory persist across different births of an individual?
I've read that the Buddha could remember his past life. Does this means that the memory of a person lasts across different life times?

See related question, http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1988/is-there-a-way-to-help-us-remember-our-previous-life and http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1398/buddhism-and-past-lives

You could improve this question by making it less expansive -- e.g. "Is it possible for memory to persist...". I know for sure that in my own case, I have no memory of any past life, so certainly in my case the answer to your original question would have to be "no".

This is just knowledge (jnāna or vidhyā). Anyone who acquired that knowledge can remember his past life.
Please see Buddha's awakening Buddha's awakening
and page 63 of "On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of Buddhahood"
and I retrieved the text below from page 571 of "Agama Aura Tripitaka: Eka Anusilana"

Prodigy of Memory of Earlier Births (Pϋrva-nivāsa-anusmrti-jnāna): The monk endowed with this prodigy remembers many kinds of earlier births. He can remember many periods of duration of dissolution, creation and destruction-cum-origination of the universe. He remembers that at that time, he was in a particular place, state of birth, species, destinity and state of knowledge. I was in a specific state of birth. I had this name, lineage, life-span, food and experience of pleasure and pain. I was born in a specific place after death from there where I had this…etc. After death there, I am born here in this Ksatriya or Brahmin family. The heretics remember their earlier births upto 40 Kalpas (a unit of time equivalent to 20 Antar-Kalpas). The natural votary remembers earlier births upto 100 or 1000 Kalpas, the great/senior votaries remember earlier births upto 80 lacs of Kalpa years, the self-enlightened one remembers the earlier births upto two innumerable lacs of Kalpa years and the Buddha remembers the earlier births upto a period without measure.

If I explain in simple way ,When we see it out of the box even though it is like our memory is saved in somewhere it is not like that..
Once we improved our mind using bawana ,widharashana ,...etc we would be able see this world in ever most realistic way..That is really strengthen of the ultimately well improved mind.It is called "nyana" ,once Buddha acquire his goals he was gain mainly three special "nyana".
Using them he was be able to see past of animals(all sort of lives) ,as well as future of animals and there is other one. Really that's why we address he is "Buddha"there is nothing to realize beyond his understanding in this world ever.
As we are not having such a biggest improve in our mind, worldling scopes are very narrow .Ex: think about  human eye, human would be able to see withing specific spectrum(between range of frequency)beyond this spectrum there are a lot of things.But we can't see.But sometimes other animal can see different things due to that they belong to different spectrum.
As same as our mind is like that.But the special thing is, if we can improve our mind we would be able to expand this range unless eye,ear or other part of our body.
That's what Our Buddha ultimately retrieved.

Lets take our current life to stat with. We do not remember everything. We have few memories of what we did as a toddler. Next to none of our 1st year and when we were in the womb. Our memory fades. Very few people just remember their past life.
By shaping our mind we can start to see back into the future remembering more of things, especially if you develop Jhanas.
Since at the point of death and rebirth there is a strong break from the material body remembering things beyond is difficult without Jhana through there are some who can do it.


text:
How were dreams and visions seen in the context of Chinese Buddhism?
This question is prompted by reading the 23rd Minor Precept in the Brahma Net Sutra

After my passing, if a disciple should, with a wholesome mind, wish to
  receive the Bodhisattva precepts, he may make a vow to do so before
  the images of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and practice repentance before
  these images for seven days. If he then experiences a vision, he has
  received the precepts. If he does not, he should continue doing so for
  fourteen days, twenty-one days, or even a whole year, seeking to
  witness an auspicious sign. After witnessing such a sign, he could, in
  front of images of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, formally receive the
  precepts.

At the modern moment, the normal advice regarding dreams and visions is to ignore them. So while I appreciate the concern, I'm not mainly trying to get advice about what to do about dreams and visions.
What I see, in the above text is a positive perspective on dreams and visions, but the author assumes the reader knows what he's talking about when he says "vision"-- is this a reference to dreams, near-hallucinations during meditation, or "signs" like seeing something remarkable like crows listening to a dharma talk?  Is this a reference to dream yoga that I hear about in Vajrayana?

Related, but doesn't answer my question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1855/is-there-some-scripture-reference-to-dream-yoga

No, dream yoga is rather different. Dream yoga is about using the dreams as settings for spiritual practice. For example, because I used to be a relatively shy person, I was afraid of confronting/challenging difficult people directly. So for a period of time, my dream yoga was to yell at, and even fight with, the characters of my dreams, as to go through the mental/emotional block. Just one of the more straightforward examples.
The visions they are talking about above, are simple hints from the world of spirit/energy/information filtered by your subconscious, such as when you see Buddha's profile on a rock under your feet, or overhear a phrase that speaks directly to your problem etc. It could even be an actual vision in a dream, but the principal difference from dream yoga is that visions come spontaneously, while dream yoga involves deliberate action on your side.
Of course, both rely on the same mechanisms behind the scenes. At the end of the day, it's all about setting up your intent to engage the subconscious.
It's not like I'm a real expert in the above, but I've done enough practice with the both over the years to at least have some idea of what is what...

Good question. Most Buddhist teachers do advise us to try to ignore dreams and visions. Hard to do, sometimes. Still, in some places, they do place credence on dreams. During the Kalachakra Initiation, a 2 or 3-day affair, after the first day's teachings, the student is advised to try to remember his dream from that night.  [http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_554862326.html] The common factor between your question and the above, perhaps, is that a Boddhisatva or a Buddha is presemed to be giving the initiation, and perhaps the dream, too. There is also a Dream Yoga practice in the "Six Yogas of Naropa" practices. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_yoga]. In the advanced practice of the Completion Stage of the Mahamudra, the Six Yogas are practiced. One of them is the Dream Yoga practice, which is, again, only useful for advanced practioners. [http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/mahamudra/karma_kagyu_mm/commentary_aspiration_prayer_definitive_meaning_mm/mm_prayer_commentary_02.html?query=six+yogas+of+naropa] Hope that helps.
ps. I tried to make a comment on your Brahma Net Project site, but for some reason the FaceBook login does not work on the network where I work. And I can not figure out how to get an account on your site. Maybe you need an "how to get an BNP site account for dummies page" there. Thanks.

Okay, I liberalized the sign up rules for the forum. Here's a link-- http://brahmanetproject.wakayos.com/ Sign up links on the right, should still be able to use facebook auth as a means to sign in.


text:
Is the Pali Canon the only canon in modern Buddhism?
This is inspired by a comment on this meta post.
Is the Pali Canon the only canon in Buddhism as it currently stands today? So would the term canon be completely synonymous with Pali Canon in the context of Buddhism? If that is true then what is the status of texts such as Bodhicaryāvatāra which aren't in the Pali canon?

Even inside theravada Buddhism (where the pali canon is the greatest reference) you can find different interpretations, there are those that focus only in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka, giving less attention to Abidhamma and also the comments, completely ignoring anything else like jataka stories. This video is from a great monk from Malaysia, I have read his books and watched many of his dhamma talks, it might help with that question by adding an interesting point of view: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FyI35y_VlLE

1. Is the Pali Canon the only canon in modern Buddhism?
No. Additionally, as far as I know, there are also many versions of the Chinese Canon which contain the Āgamas (parallels of the Nikāyas from the Suttapiṭaka of the Pāli Canon), Mahāyāna sūtras & Vajrayāna sūtras.
There is also the Tibetan Canon which contains the Kangyur (material which is similar to the Chinese Canon) and the Tengyur (Commentarial works, Abhidharma and additional treatises).
2. So would the term canon be completely synonymous with Pali Canon in the context of Buddhism?
Bearing in mind what was said above, no.
3. What is the status of texts such as Bodhicaryāvatāra which aren't in the Pali canon?
That text is present in the Chinese Canon1 & Tibetan Canon2.

This is the main source for Theravada Buddhism, but other schools seem to have their own. Some historic version are not available anymore.
At least from a Theravada perspective, this is the closest to Buddha's original teaching.


text:
What is the minimum amount of time needed for a productive meditation sit?
This question leads on from the comments on this post
What is the minimum amount of time that one could productively sit in meditation? For instance if I only had five minutes to sit should I do it or would the time be so short that I should just not delude myself with the pretense of a 5 minute meditation. What about 10 minutes does this change it? Or the other extreme could I sit for a minute - would it be worth it?
I would be interested if anyone could give references from established teachers past or present on recommended guidelines, practices around this.

I think meditation of any duration will help. Sometimes I close my eyes in the middle of my work and do a really short meditation of eleven breaths. It helps me come back to a state of 'mindfulness in action'. HTH

My answer is based on oral transmission from Vajrayana teachers and thus I am unable to provide references.
I've been told that every meditation, however short, will bring about positive results and the only worthless meditation is the one you never did. Imagine that over a period of a month one could sit only for one minute a day but never did thinking that it is worthless. If they actually sat down, they would have done 30 minutes of meditation in total, which, admittedly, is nothing particular, but they would also form a great habit by doing one thing 30 days in a row. It means that 30 times they stopped doing their worldly activities and sat down to change something in their life.
Keeping a meditation session short is actually a common advice for beginners. Meditation should not be perceived as a difficult duty but rather as the best gift one can give to oneself. If one starts off too ambitiously, after a week they would connect 'meditation' with 'sore back', 'confusion', 'uncontrollable thoughts', 'drowsiness' etc. To prevent this, it's better to sit for a few minutes and finish the session while still feeling fresh. Then one will form positive connotations about meditation and will willingly sit down next time and possibly won't be bothered too much with prolonging the sessions step by step.
In Buddhism, one is not interested in immediate results as following Buddha's teachings is a long journey and many lifetimes might pass before one reaches enlightenment. One should do whatever is possible in the current situation and everything that is done with the motivation to follow Buddha's path should be considered productive.
Practising meditation is a very individual issue and coming up with a universal minimum value wouldn't help anyone. Everyone meditates as much as they can and want. If one can only do one minute a day due to a busy schedule, all they can do is to possibly make wishes that soon their conditions will change and they will be able to find more time. There are cases, however, that the reason why people meditate only a little lies elsewhere. They are again busy, but this time with things like browsing Internet, meaningless chatting, gossiping, napping etc. My point is that there is no use making a hard rule about meditation time, rather one might reflect on why they meditate that amount of time and not any more. Checking one's motivation and contemplating on impermanence might help in deciding whether one wants to meditate more.

One minute of mindfulness is better than none. Just remembering to sit and be mindful IS being mindful. I once read from Sharon Salzberg that she knew a man who always sat on his mat at least once a day. Even if he did not have the time for sitting meditation he at least sat down on his cushion daily if even just for a minute. Forgetfulness can be a hindrance to practicing mindfulness. The act of remembering to be mindful of the present moment IS mindfulness.
Personally I sit in zazen for 30 minutes at a time. However if I have 10 minutes or less to spare I will often sit for less. For instance, I was microwaving a baked potato at home, and went and sat in zazen and focused on my breathing. It sure beat standing in front of a microwave just waiting for the "ding".

Longer the better as more you rub two sticks together then you can get fire. But for people to watch out for is if you are putting too much effort. So if you feel mentally or physically wore out or tired after a session you are doing it too long and perhaps you should reduce the time.
Generally 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening / night is good enough.

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

There’s a lot of vague opinion here. Several studies have shown at as little as 20 mins (two 10 minute sittings) a day is sufficient to receive benefits. In fact this level of practice is the basis of one of the most popular book-based Mindfulness courses in the world (Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Finding Peace in a Frantic World).
This book is supported by scientific research conducted by Jon Kabat-Zinn at University of Massachusetts Medical School and Mark Williams at the Oxford Mindfulness Centre.
The quality of your practice probably has more to do with benefits than the quantity.
On an anecdotal level, I’ve personally received some benefits from one 10 minute practice a day over a period of months, but not as much as two. On the lower end, I saw no benefit from several one minute practices a day (as prompted by my Apple Watch).
Finally, everybody can find 10 minutes in a day, even it means falling asleep 10 minutes later. 10 minutes, or even 20, may seem like an impossible amount of time to find, but one of the first things you learn, when you force yourself to make time to practice, is how much time you have to spare without realising it. Really. You’ll be amazed.
You probably spend 10 mins a day on Facebook without giving it a second thought. It’s the practice of slowing down that makes it seem so difficult. Our mind resists at first.
Good luck!

Aside from the meditative benefits of short sits -- i.e. even if there weren't any, which I don't think is the case -- one other benefit is that they can help build a habit of regular meditation eventually leading to longer sits. See here for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKUJxjn-R8

To cultivate rapture on the level of neighbourhood concentration - 90 minutues - per sitting.

DD, check out your email inbox.


text:
Is chanting mantras a common practice in Theravada Buddhism?
In Mahayana Buddhism chanting mantras is one of the core practices and each mantra is associated with a certain Buddha form (yidam).
Since in Theravada Buddhism there is no meditations on yidams (or am I wrong?), I'm wondering what is the role of mantra chanting. Are there secret mantras which can be recited only after receiving the transmission from the teacher or can the mantras be shared publicly and used by anyone? And finally, are prayer beads (malas) commonly used?

Are u chanting any mantra? I did, it's called Cundi Mantra. Though I would like to consider myself as Theravada Buddhist.

There is chanting of Pirith. This is not done as a meditation but sometimes advocated to be done when sloth and torpor is preventing you from meditating to raise energy levels. So in a way it can be used as part of your meditation sitting through not exclusively doing this but use it when needed to progress your meditation siting.

I think the word Pirith is not a pali word. Shouldn't it be corrected as Paritta?

This is how it is pronounced in Sri Lanka.

In this case, us Westerners should try to familiarize with the Sri Lankan spellings or pronounciations of many Buddhist terms. It might come in handy.

In Burmese flavour of Theravada Buddhism, mantras as Sacred utterance with Magical Powers, although believed and practised by many, are not the core part of the teachings. But if you mean mantras as mental notes or chants - they are commonly used to build concentration and the same goes for the prayer beads.
There are no secret teachings in Theravada Buddhism, any teachings that are not aligned with The Pali Cannon are regarded as non-Theravadan.

Chanting is incredibly common in Theravada Buddhism. I'm not sure exactly what would count as "chanting mantras," however. Mantra meditation is common, but it's usually silent.
There are no "secret" procedures in Theravada. Monks aren't allowed to disclose certain things to lay people, but there wouldn't be any secret meditation techniques or chants.
There are some monks such as Ajahn Suchart who see chanting as beginner's level meditation. The same would not apply to mantras, however.

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


text:
Can a person live by the Dhamma and have another religion as well?
As Buddhism is growing in the west, we see this "conflict" a lot. In Asia I met some Buddhists-Hindus, Buddha, Shiva and Ganesh were equally important to them. Here in the west there are some Christian-Buddhists, people who believe in the Dhamma, but cannot stop Praying to Jesus. Let me add here that according to the Bible if you stop believing in God, you will go to hell no matter what, it is a serious offense for Christians.
I live in an almost 99% Christian country. You only find churches here, you don't find stuppas, temples or monks. It also contributes to the "Christian-Buddhist" phenomena as there is no strong Sangha.
According to the Buddha's teachings you should give up rituals, believe in the Buddha's enlightenment and follow the Dhamma, but on the other hand many people are claiming the Dhamma is more a "way of living" than a religion, so it could be adapted to another friendly religion.
Can a person follow the Dhamma and be a Christian at the same time?

I'm curious what country you are talking about. Is it by any chance Poland?

Hi, no. Brazil! Our most famous turistic sight is the Christ over the mountain! :)

Well, few years ago Poland built even bigger statue of Jesus! ;) Jokes aside, even in ultra-Christian Poland there are many strong Sanghas and there are even 2 Stupas now. I know there is also one Stupa in Mexico.  It seems that Christianity and Buddhism can nicely coexist :]

I'm sure they can coexist! My point here is more about stream-entry I guess

@konrad01, olá. In the sutras, the buddha does not really assert that rituals should be given up. As far as beliefs, these don't have that extra quality of mutually exclusiveness abrahamic religions perpetrated. Also, many lay people adhered to his teachings while keeping their own specific belief during his time, with no reprehension from Buddha. Sometimes, these layman requested to learn how to meet brahma, and arahants taught them how, even though that is not the supreme goal, nirvana (I can't remember right now the sutra where this is described).

Oi Thiago, I'm not so sure about the rituals, of course nothing is really mandatory in Buddhism, but I do believe it encourages us to give it up, rituals for a creator God I mean. If I'm not mistaken it is a condition to stream entry

@konrad01 yeah, you're right about non-clinging to them being a stream entry condition.

In this answer on a related question about converting to Buddhism I've quoted a Tibetan Lama who said: "... it is not necessary to give up any religious affiliation to practice Buddhism unless that religion demands actions that contradict Buddhist principles".

In short: no, you can't. Even cursory knowledge of the teachings of the Buddha and the dogmas of Christianity (or any other religion) will prove enough to realize these are irreconcilable. Just to give a quick example, take the Buddhist belief (one of the "Four Seals") that all things/phenomena are empty and devoid of self: this is enough to negate the whole of Christian dogma at once! There is no doubt that the view that Buddhism can be seen as simply a "way of life" stems from a profound ignorance of the teachings and practice of Buddhism, usually based on a feel-good, watered down version of the teachings that doesn't even come close to trying to get to grips with understanding something as essential as impermanence, interdependence, and emptiness.
EDIT: The above comment is not meant in any way to insinuate that non-Buddhists cannot greatly benefit from studying the dharma—far from it, especially when most Western Buddhists come from a (at least vaguely) Christian upbringing. It was only meant to express that truly abiding by the Buddha's teachings entails a worldview that is not fully compatible with that of the major religions.

I tend to think like that, BUT it is possible to benefit from Dhamma even if you are Christian or from any other religion. Yes, the dogmas will colide, you cant really recocile, Dhamma can only be "adapted" to a certan degree, but it is still a good thing to do, more Dhamma would be good for the world.

Well, that was a pretty inconsiderate answer. You really don't understand Buddhism or people if that is your opinion or belief. Compassion is the basis for Buddhism. Without compassion, wisdom is just junk. Those with compassion as well as wisdom can see that all paths can be useful, when practiced with a good heart and open mind.

I am sorry if I sounded inconsiderate. The basis of Buddhism is an understanding of the cause of suffering, which is attachment to that which is impermanent—a realization that does give way to compassion for all beings trapped in samsara. Compassion is always a good thing, and it can flourish in any religious or non-religious context. But Buddhism is much more than just a philosophy of compassion that may be viewed as a simple add-on. I would never discourage anyone from studying the dharma: quite the opposite. That's all I wanted to express.

@konrad01 By the way, I noticed you mentioned elsewhere that you live in Brazil. You're probably aware, but Brazil is home to a large, thriving Vajrayana sangha, heir to H.E. Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche, and they are present in dozens of Brazilian cities. http://br.chagdud.org/centros-de-pratica/

Hi, thanks, but I go with the Theradava tradition, but I appreciate the comment.

Do you mean that there is virtually no true Buddhists in Japan (as Japanese also follow Shinto), nor in China (as Chinese also follow Taoism and Chinese folk religion)?

One of the good things about Buddhism is that you are not compelled to believe everything in it.  Unwavering confidence does not occur until attaining Sotapanna (Stream Entry).  If you have doubt about anatta (egolessness), that is no barrier to practicing 99.99% of the Buddha's teachings.

The (not as recently departed as I thought) Leonard Cohen was a very serious Zen practitioner but never renounced his Jewish faith. He's quoted as saying to Allen Ginsberg when challenged on this point

Well, for one thing, in the tradition of Zen that I’ve practiced,
  there is no prayerful worship and there is no affirmation of a deity.
  So theologically there is no challenge to any Jewish belief

I appreciate your question focused around Christianity but I think is is instructive to look at how an adherent to Buddhism and another Abrahamic religion justifies (or merely describes) their position. Perhaps more directly relevant, Thích Nhất Hạnh's book Living Buddha Living Christ looks specifically at the intersection Christianity and Buddhism. I don't think it's too much of a plot spoiler to reveal that Thích Nhất Hạnh is very respectful of Christianity and sees a lot of commonality between the two faiths.
Generally my feeling is that there wouldn't be too much of a conflict from the Buddhist side of things but other monotheistic religions might have more of a problem with the spiritual 'dual citizenship'

Luckily he hasn't departed yet ;)

@Rabbit hahahaha fooled. I was on retreat and someone told me he had died. Can I use that as an excuse for lack of awareness of the outside world?

There's an entire Wikipedia page on the Jewish Buddhist and apparently a documentary on the subject too.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, has stated:

I want to emphasise that it is extremely important for practitioners to sincerely believe in their respective religions. Usually, I say that it is very important to distinguish between "belief in one religion" and "belief in many religions". The former directly contradicts the latter. Therefore, we should resolutely resolve these contradictions. This is possible only by thinking in contextual terms. A contradiction in one context might not be the same in the other. In the context of one person, a single truth is closely associated with a single source of refuge. This is of extreme necessity. However, in the context of society or more than one person it is necessary to have different sources of refuge, religions and truths.

So if I am understanding this correctly, His Holiness is saying that an individual should stick to one "source of refuge" but our society should be hospitable to many religions.
Source: http://www.dalailama.com/messages/religious-harmony
As Buddhist practitioners, we understand there is no deity that will hurl bolts of lightening at us for believing parts of other religions. But it may simply be a matter of whether it's practical to attempt to reconcile differing viewpoints in one's own mind.

I truly love this answer, as it perfectly my position. Buddhism has some things that are relatively unique (i.e.anatman) that contradict many other religions. But being tolerable enough to allow it has many benefits to society.

While I acknowledge the Ven. Dalai Lama as the representative of his own Mahayana sect (Vajrayana), I do not entirely agree with what he said.  You should believe in what is true.  If you belong to a religion that is not entirely true, it is good to have intelligent doubt.

I believe the Buddha said whoever has awakened can only speak the Dhamma. And he asked his followers to respect any teaching that led to the cessation of suffering. (I'll link to the sutta if I can find it) He never claimed his teachings to be his own, he credited all the Buddhas with having said the same thing.
My own view is it's very simple - let's not complicate things with ideas of the dos and don'ts of a stream entrant, such lists cannot be perfect. Stream entrants too are made of dependant elements, and they will behave in subtle but different ways with respect to the time and place they live in.
Respecting other religions is natural common courtesy. Humans everywhere share the same basic qualities, the same problems and fears. Some solutions may solve some things better than others. There isn't a Buddhist blood, and a Christian blood. There cannot be therefore a Buddhist enlightenment and a Christian enlightenment. The realization of truth has to be the same. If two people get well from an illness one using modern western drugs, and another using Ayurveda or TCM, one doesn't have to be wrong for the other to be right. The same person can even use different medical traditions for different diseases. Same with religion. If the Christian Sangha is more popular locally, by all means reach out to it.
I know a lot of learned religious experts will disagree, but the truth is really simple. The qualities of compassion and kindness are the same in any human, and everyone has Buddha nature, which is not at odds with religion.
Unlike any other time in the past we are a global community today - this brings several religions and ideas together, even within Buddhism. An integration of sorts is taking place if you read the works of the modern masters like Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, and teachers like Roshi Halifax and Shinzen Young - they want to see an integrative wisdom emerge that is not bound by a time and place in the past. The mindfulness movement of Jon Kabat-Zinn is a huge success because of its secular nature.
Just as there are so many kinds of food out there, some healthier than others, some others more affordable, some others more widely accessible, we must view religions as useful but not necessarily perfect. When I eat french fries, I know they are not healthy, and I don't like the taste of mayo on the side, but it doesn't mean I can't eat the fries once in a while with ketchup instead of mayo.
Rains are considered happy events in Buddhism, because India was a dry land, and rain was the harbinger of life. In a wet country like Ireland, rains can seem depressing. Culture and Buddhism have deeply intertwined over the years, and they need to be understood and respected.
Monks in the order of Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh are allowed to pray to Christ and the Buddha, revere St. Thomas and Avalokitesvara, read the Bible as well as the Tipitaka, there is no problem.
HH The Dalai Lama offers very practical advice in his book, Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World's Religions Can Come Together, 2010

When I was growing up in Tibet, and especially after my serious engagement in studies of classical Buddhist thought and practice from the age of fifteen, I used to feel that my own Buddhist religion was the best. I thought that there simply could not be any other faith tradition that could rival the depth, sophistication, and inspirational power of Buddhism. Other religions must, at best, be “so-so.” Looking back, I feel embarrassed by my naïveté, although it was the view of an adolescent boy immersed in his own inherited religious tradition. Yes, I was vaguely aware of the existence of a great world religion called Christianity that propounds the way of salvation through the life of its savior, Jesus Christ. In fact, as a child I had heard the story of how some Christian priests had once established a mission in western Tibet in the seventeenth century. There was also a small community of Tibetan Muslims right up until modern times, who had lived in Lhasa city for over four centuries. As for Hindus and Jains, followers of the two other major religions native to India, I was convinced that the philosophical arguments, found in the classical Buddhist critiques of their tenets, had effectively demonstrated the superiority of the Buddhist faith centuries ago.
Needless to say such naïveté could be sustained only so long as I remained isolated from any real contact with the world’s other religions. [...]
Looking back to this trip in 1956, I realize that my visit to the Theosophical Society in Chennai (then Madras) left a powerful impression. There I was first directly exposed to people, and to a movement, that attempted to bring together the wisdom of the world’s spiritual traditions as well as science. I felt among the members a sense of tremendous openness to the world’s great religions and a genuine embracing of pluralism. When I returned to Tibet in 1957, after more than three months in what was a most amazing country for a young Tibetan monk, I was a changed man. I could no longer live in the comfort of an exclusivist standpoint that takes Buddhism to be the only true religion. When tragic political circumstances in 1959 forced me into exile in India to live as a refugee, I was paradoxically afforded the freedom to deepen my personal journey of understanding and engagement with the world’s faith traditions.

I am not sure what you mean by a Buddhist enlightenment and a Christian enlightenment.  From  the Buddhist perspective, only the Buddha's teachings lead to full enlightenment.  Christian teachings do not.  Is the enlightenment Buddhist?  The Buddha said that once you have attained full enlightenment, then you can leave aside the boat that brought you there, not before then.

Buddhism revolves around the practice of Morality, Mastery over the Mind and Wisdom. Regardless of what you call your self you can practice buddhism since any religion or belief system worth its name cannot have anything against Morality, Control of your mind and Wisdom.

But can a person enter the stream following another religion, I'm talkint about eliminating the lower fetters?

See if you have been practicing the Dhamma for many lifes then some trigger can get you to stream entry through in that life you might be following some other religion. There are many instances in the Tripitaka where some one of another religion hearing the words of Buddha gained some stage of sainthood.

Following the Dhamma is about treating ourselves and others in a manner that will bring more peace and happiness throughout the world, it's about becoming the light among the darkness!
Jesus said, the most important teaching to understand and follow was, to treat others as we would like to be treated!
I see a perfect coexistence between Buddhism and a deity based religion.
Metta.

Agreed. It generally argued that Christianity is based on a being separate from one's self. However, there are Christian monastic orders that use meditation quite like Buddhism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eden-kozlowski/mindfulness-and-religion_b_3224505.html) Indeed, meditation is just another word in many Christian churches. (http://www.wccm.org/content/what-meditation) Awesome!

"Love thy neighbour as thyself" is said to be the second commandment.

There is actually a term describing this method of combining different religions. It's called "Eclectisism". Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi has a section on it in his book The Noble Eightfold Path, p. 2-3:
He writes about how religions and traditions have different ways of practice and that they were not "made" to be compatible with each other. So by combining them one risks having methods of practice that go against each other and thereby giving a blurred picture of a path that might not lead to liberation.

"...One approach to resolving this problem that is popular today
  is the eclectic one: to pick and choose from the various traditions whatever seems amenable to our needs, welding together different practices and techniques into a synthetic whole that is personally satisfying. Thus one may combine Buddhist mindfulness meditation with sessions of Hindu mantra recitation, Christian prayer with Sufi dancing, Jewish Kabbala with Tibetan visualization exercises. Eclecticism, however, though sometimes helpful in making a transition from a predominantly worldly and materialistic way of life to one that takes on a spiritual hue, eventually wears thin. While it makes a comfortable halfway house, it is not comfortable as a final vehicle.
There are two interrelated flaws in eclecticism that account for its ultimate inadequacy. One is that eclecticism compromises the very traditions it draws upon. The great spiritual traditions themselves do not propose their disciplines as independent techniques that may be excised from their setting and freely recombined to enhance the felt quality of our lives. They present them, rather, as parts of an integral whole, of a coherent vision regard- ing the fundamental nature of reality and the final goal of the spiritual quest. A spiritual tradition is not a shallow stream in which one can wet one’s feet and then beat a quick retreat to the shore. It is a mighty, tumultuous river which would rush through the entire landscape of one’s life, and if one truly wishes to travel on it, one must be courageous enough to launch one’s boat and head out for the depths.
The second defect in eclecticism follows from the first. As spiritual practices are built upon visions regarding the nature of reality and the final good, these visions are not mutually compatible. When we honestly examine the teachings of these traditions, we will find that major differences in perspective reveal themselves to our sight, differences which cannot be easily dismissed as alternative ways of saying the same thing. Rather, they point to very different experiences constituting the supreme goal and the path that must be trodden to reach that goal..."

This is such a good and practical approach to this issue; acknowledging that when people are starting out they may be ok with mixing and matching whatever suits them. But also acknowledging that as spirituality matures it becomes time to make a decision about which way to go. At some point you can't have it both ways...and Buddhism is all about learning to let go. Great find. :)

Yes it's well said. I especially like this quote "While it makes a comfortable halfway house, it is not comfortable as a final vehicle". It reminds me of when the Buddha compared his teaching to raft that one uses to cross a river and then one puts it down instead of keep carrying it on ones back. If you have the time then i recommend this book. It's tough to read due to heavy information but the quality of the information is great.

I'm sure they can coexist! My point here is more about stream-entry I guess
I guess that's difficult: difficult for someone to be a Buddhist "stream-entrant" as well as a stereotypical Christian "true believer".
I say that, because some characteristics of a "stream-entrant" are:

There are eradicated three fetters:

Self-view (so, how would they hold beliefs that "I will go to heaven" or "I am a Christian" etc.?)
Clinging to rites and rituals (so, would they go to mass/communion, etc.? is non-clinging, to rites and rituals, compatible with other religions?)
Skeptical doubt (?)

The note about Six actions that cannot be committed also claims that a stream-entrant cannot "proclaim another Teacher", so I don't see how that's compatible with proclaiming Jesus, or the Church or the Pope, as a teacher.

On the other hand:

Apparently one of the Defilements that a stream entrant has abandoned includes "Denigration". Perhaps that means that a stream entrant would avoid speaking ill of other religions.
Furthermore some sects (some people) in other religions seem less dogmatic than others. Within Christian congregations for example consider the Quakers, some of whom are Christian but not theist, and are more-or-less opposed to rites and rituals.
Wondering whether there's such a thing as a Buddhist Quaker I found this quote:

But it's as hard to know what a person will mean by calling theirself "Buddhist," as it is knowing how to interpret someone calling theirself "Christian." Van de Wettering asked the resident Master at his Zen Monastery whether he was a Buddhist, and was told, "No."

I don't know the details of the quote but this answer says,

The Dalai Lama has said that until he visited the Theosophical society in Chennai and met people of other faiths, he was pretty certain only Buddhism had all the answers, and every other approach was wrong.

Let me add here that according to the Bible if you stop believing in God, you will go to hell no matter what, it is a serious offense for Christians.
This isn't the place to discuss Christian doctrine but Buddhism might teach something analogous to that: i.e. that eternalism and nihilism are both wrong view, that right view is paramount, that intention has consequences, that materialism isn't enough, etc.
Jesus himself was accused of blasphemy, wasn't he? For what it's worth IMO each believer has their own relationship with God and only a non-christian could "pick up the first stone" or any stone at all.
I say that because IMO a believer literally has a personal relationship, and because Christian scripture gives them a right to that relationship, and IMO someone who wants to criticize your views should "take the plank out of their own eye first".
Though IMO Buddhist doctrine suggests that such a view (of having a relationship with God) might not be wise (for example it might be fabrication leading to identity view, eternalism, a thicket of views etc.).
Can a person follow the Dhamma and be a Christian at the same time?
I'm not sure how to interpret this: does "follow the Dhamma" mean "intend to be Buddhist", while "be a Christian" means "be seen as obedient to the laws of Christianity?"
Whether you can be called Christian depends on your own conscience and/or on your priest's view.
FWIW I lived in a country or society which used to be governed by the Catholic church but is no longer. I was taught (as I'm sure many others have been) that that religion is the only true religion and that every other religion was 'wrong'. In time my views broadened slightly: now IMO it's not that people with beliefs other than the Catholic beliefs are wrong, it's just that people with beliefs other than the Catholic beliefs would be wrong to call those beliefs "Catholic"; i.e. that doctrines of unity and infallibility are less about excluding and condemning people and are more about preserving the Church from schism (and for the good of your soul).

Added a link to the Dalai Lama story. Also see, the Dalai Lama's book "Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World's Religions Can Come Together "

Silabhatta is often wrongly translated as "clinging to rites and rituals".  The correct translation is "breaking the precepts" or "poor sila".

@Tharpa I think Sīlabbata (or sīlavata) means "ceremonial observances" or "rules of good conduct". The "clinging and attachment" meaning comes when it's used (as it often is used) in a composite noun, Sīlabbata-parāmāsa and/or sīlabbata-upādāna.

I'm aware of the common translations, I'm just saying that they're wrong.  The suffix "bbata" does not occur anywhere else in the Tipitika.  I am asserting that  Sīlabbata means NOT "ceremonial observances" or "rules of good conduct", but the opposite, breaking the precepts or poor sila.  So the compounds mean clinging and attachment to breaking the precepts or to bad conduct.  The context makes this quite clear - when the Buddha gives the requirements for Stream Entry he often (but not always) includes the Five Precepts.

First of all, the Buddha never said it is necessary to give up rituals, though it is a popular misconception.  When you read his teachings, you will see that the vast majority do not contradict the practice of most other religions.  In Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, you will often find people who practice both Buddhism and worship some Hindu gods as well.  Most of Buddhism is about giving up harmful actions (killing, even of animals, stealing, adultery, lying, alcohol) and practicing beneficial actions (generosity, kindness, patience, etc.).  There are many members of other religions who are better Buddhists than many non-practicing Buddhists!  If you become a monk and get very close to enlightenment, you may find it helpful to abandon other paths at that point, but you can worry about that then.


text:
What is the Buddhist point of view of the Law of Attraction?
I've been practicing it and it seems to work well.
It seems that I can explain this in terms of nash equilibrium. I tend to see it that all of us are already physically able to achieve much and paying attention to some topic will subconsciously allow us to manifest what we want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought)
Buddhism teaches that there are laws that govern human nature. There are laws of living objects. There are laws of karma.
Is the law of attraction one such law?
By the way, I tend to see Buddhism as a way to understand life instead of as a religion. I am not Buddhist but I see that there is some truth in what Buddha taught. So that's my background.

I think there is no conflict between law of attraction and buddhism. But as per my understanding what buddha says is as long as you need something you will be born (and in the process you may get it). So there you go law of attraction. But in the process you will get lot more happenings (bad and good things) just being in the sansara. Therefor buddhism says get away from the sansara and to stop that the way is go in the opposite direction of law of attraction. Don't desire or reject anything and then there is no need for another birth and you are done.

My understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is a way to affect what happens to you by thinking about what you want to have happen. If you want to receive money; you think about receiving money.
In Buddhism, the goal is to understand reality as it is. Understanding reality as it is, involves accepting reality as it is. Manipulating circumstances to provide material benefits for oneself would not really be a part of this. The teachings of the Buddha would guide one to giving up many desires rather than chasing after them; as I understand it.
One thing in Buddhism that might be similar is when some Buddhists take a vow to become a Boddhisatta/Boddhisatva. This vow sets their mind and intentions upon becoming a future Buddha . But my understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is more in the here and now while a vow to become a future Buddha might have to be kept for many, many lifetimes to come to fruition.

Also, when you do good deeds, you can wish for it to help you attain Nibbana soon. That way the good deed becomes a Paramita.

The Law of Attraction seems to take certain Buddhist teachings out of context in order to make worldly life more comfortable.
In Buddhism, especially in Mahayana and Vajrayana, there are teachings on illusory or dream-like nature of our everyday experiences. Everything that happens to us takes place essentially in our mind as outside of the mind there are no appearances. The idea is that if we master our mind, we master everything. But it doesn't mean that once we master the mind we can create our reality as we wish. Rather, we will understand the emptiness of all phenomena and thus will get rid of our attachments and aversions towards things around us.
The Law of Attraction seems to advocate that by the power of your mind (thoughts) one can attract things what will make you happy. And this statement already goes against what Buddhism teaches. Instead of learning that all things are essentially empty, one uses thoughts to attract one thing and repulse the other. So in essence one creates even more desires, attachments and aversions which sadly, are seeds for future sufferings.

Law of attraction seems to create and stimulate attachments, people crave for things and think about them constantly, concentrating the mind on different desires, in that sense I think it is hard to mix it with Buddhism, because in Buddhism we try to let go of attachments instead of trying to fulfill the desires.
In Buddhism you learn that you don't put an end to a desire by having what you want, instead it will create an even stronger desire as everything is unsatisfactory (Dukkha), the way to liberation is by letting it go, seeing things as they really are, be grateful for what you have, for that you need to cultivate wisdom and work on the mind.

See the links dependent origination more particularly:
With Contact as condition, Feeling arises
With Feeling as condition, Craving arises
With Craving as condition, Clinging arises
So attraction happens when you get a feeling to which you analyze and give an evaluation as good and bad followed by clinging to it. At the sub conscious level this is happening millions and millions of times. When a meditator develops the insight knowledge of Arising and Passing Away you get a glimpse of how fast this is happening through it may not be a clear or full understanding. (At full understanding you have taken the a dip into one of the stages of sainthood.)
Based on the extent of clinging fabrication starts. This is not perfect but but some of your expectations can materialize. But most often not exactly as you expect it to be. Also note only a few materialize.
Also this aspect is covered in Adhitthana and Chitta Niyama (5 Niyama on Wikipedia). Having a strong mental desire for an out come can influence the possible outcome through the process of conditioning / fabrication.
But it is not advised to have strong desire for a particular outcome as this might lead to covetousness which is a bad Karma. See Kammapatha.

Ah Chitta Niyama. That's what I've been wondering about. Is there something in Chitta Niyama that says that what we want we get

The thins that effect or sensory experience (what we like or dislike) is influenced by the Niyama. So if you have strong metal desire for a outcome it can indeed happen.

The law of attraction is a by product of spiritual alignement. The more you work on your libération the higher your vibration s get, the more you attract pleasant experiences in your life.
The LOA works from a place of happiness not a place of craving therefore the more you are detached from what you want the best chance you have to attract it. When you meditate and enter deep absorption state it is easy to ditch any visualization you want in there…and when you do it’s powerful!
Buddha didn’t talk about the law of attraction but spoke about merits (material, physical, spiritual and supernatural). In regards to these merits he often advised not to get hung up on them as they are part of the way but are not the destination.
It is interesting to see that Buddha and many of his disciples were Kings, deities or Brahmans in their lives prior to their nibbana… it is because the gathered so much merits that they had very comfortable lives and could enjoy the pleasures they offered… regardless, they all had to let go of their comfort at some point to reach total liberation.

Buddhism teaches that there is everything in nothing and nothing in everything. Understanding is the main issue of Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism focuses on the middle path, tells about life to be full of suffering and pain and the main reason for suffering to be desire. The aim here is to achieve salvation/ Moksha. Thoughts are everything, they shape reality. It's done to achieve awakened and spiritual uplift meant. Valid for those individuals looking to achieve freedom from this world full of illusion and distraction. Promote life in austerity and seek nothing in extreme, rather be satisfied with whatever little one has. Aims at awakened self and understanding of the true reality- which is that this life is an illusion and only suffering and pain is universal, and self-awakening and self-actualisation is essential to find and give meaning to life. The dual nature of everything is mentioned as the two extremes following any of which will only increase suffering. Provides with 8 noble paths determining how to keep the right attitude, thought, action etc. Aims at being and becoming a selfless, empathetic, compassionate individual without self-centred thoughts.
Law of attraction -what you visualise that you materialise. Thoughts attract and create reality. Nothing is mentioned about human suffering here. Done to make means and ends meet. Universal law, meaning applicable for all, everywhere. Dream whatever you like and that reality when focused on for a long time will become the existing reality in future. Consequences aren't mentioned, happiness is but suffering and pain, sadness isn't mentioned. Focus only on what and how to achieve, no results nor satisfaction, or content is mentioned. Provides only guarantee of achieving something that you focus upon, nothing good nor bad about the inherent thought is mentioned. It's based on self-satisfaction by maintaining a level of selfishness.
Everything can be interpreted in many ways and the context, situation and time greatly matter when comparing and discussing various analogies. It's the perspective that is chosen to perceive reality. Buddhism has final approaches to life as it explains the noble path, seeking salvation and Moksha /Nirvana and how to minimise suffering and pain in life. Whatever perspective you take, both have their pros and cons, but every theory completes each other. What limitations one theory exhibits, other theories seem to patch through defining their validity and reliability. Everything is interconnected, nothing happens in isolation. Everything is relative, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Collected from Quora


text:
Meditation for higher concentration
What kind of meditation can help one to have a higher concentration; maybe lasting for hours or days? I am a Buddhist, specifically Theravada, and I am trying to keep my mind on one thing. Buddha kept his meditation in the dushkara kriya (self mortification) period for more than 4 years. So is there any way we can apply that concentration technique in our lives?
Thank you.

As far as I've been told, things like higher concentration or attention are not considered to be definite goals of Buddhist meditation. They are rather natural side effects which are of course very useful and much needed. If your motivation is solely to improve concentration maybe some non-buddhist techniques would be more suited.

I think the term for what you are describing is Samatha. On the Wikipedia page, you can find the "Nine mental abidings", a description of the process. There are also Zen teachings such as "The Ten Oxherding Pictures" that describe the process. Most of these teachings follow the idea of meditating "with support", using a focus (such as the mental image of a Buddha). There is also a practice of meditating "without support", as in the Essence Mahamudra of the Kagyu School.
I was also interested to see this in the above Samatha page: "

... samatha is not a strictly Buddhist meditation. Samatha in its single-pointed focus and concentration of mind is cognate with the sixth "limb" of aṣṭanga yoga', rāja yoga which is concentration (dhāraṇā). For further discussion, see the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali."

Just a note: Advaita (Hinduism) Meditation practice is very similar to the Buddhist Mahamudra practice. Since this is a Buddhist Q&A site and the question does not seek similar practices in other religions, I won't post Advaita links here. When one gets "stuck" in one's practice, I think it is sometimes a good idea to see how other practices  approach similar problems.

Here is an excerpt from a book by Gelugpa meditation master Lati Rinpoche that introduces the mode, the obstacles, the techniques, and the stages of Samatha meditation:
The Gift of Meditation

Best is to take a course in meditation or seek guidance of a teacher. Following site has many centers arround the world where you can take a course: http://www.dhamma.org/. There are other centers also.
The way to keep your mind on any object is sustained application to start with until a point where you mind stays without this effort.
E.g. when doing Anapana for each breath be mindful of the whole (start, middle and end) in and out breath and a small pause in between. At each phase make sure your mind is with the breath. At the end evaluate it if you mind wonders off at any point and also the nature of the breath. Do this until you do not need to make an effort to keep your mind on the object.
There are other type of meditations you can do for concentration. They also follow the same method of sustained attention to start with and when you mind stays with the object drop the extra effort. There are centers which teach this also but you might have to go to a country which has a this type of center as there are only lesser number.

Perhaps you are looking for tranquility meditation, Try reading Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification).

The thing I am looking for is like to concentrate in one thing and not to distract from anything.

Yes that is the general describion of Tranquility meditation.