text:
Ṛta, ritual and Buddhism
Not "clinging to rites and rituals" is one of the three requirements to become a Sotapanna.
But in creating a Sangha with strict rules (especially given the extensive permutations within the Tripitaka), the recitation of the Patimokkha etc, do followers of the Dhamma and Vinaya inadvertently accept the usefulness of ritual? Was the Buddha's warning more specifically against any practice that is not grounded in empirical experience?
And given that the Noble Eightfold Path establishes a concrete method and practice for the attainment of the goal, did the Buddha embrace Ṛta - the natural order of the Universe or Truth - if only in its most stripped down, empirical form?

Sīlabbata-parāmāsa: Attachment to rites and rituals
I struggle with this one but I think the key word here is attachment. Coffee, tea, cell phones: at what level is the attachment? Being aware of avoiding extreme approaches to these words would be wise in this context. Which means pursuing "no rituals" could become a ritual.
Be cautious, avoidance of rituals, or repetitive inaction can become an "extreme" attempt to be free from this chain (or fetter). In this sense you might free yourself from one chain only to become shackled to another. In the end I found guidance from:

Ud 6.08 wrote:
What's been attained, what's to be attained,
are both defiled by one who trains in line with the afflicted.
Those for whom precepts & practices
are the essence of the training,
for whom celibacy is the essence of service:
this is one extreme.
Those who say, "There's no harm in sensual desires":
this is the second extreme.
Both of these extremes cause the growth of cemeteries,
and cemeteries cause views to grow.
Not directly knowing these two extremes,
some fall short, some run too far.
But those who directly know them,
don't exist there, don't conceive things through them.
And for these people, there's no whirling through the cycle to be described.

Clinging to rites and rituals
It is mis-belief in something miracle and shortcut. It is mis-belief in worshipping the creator or god can bring the worshipper's liberation/salvation. It is something one is throwing away own efforts and nurturing own knowledge and wisdom. It is just mis-belief in some powerful beings (god) or some powerful things (fire [in some india place people worship to fire]) that ultimate liberation/bliss can be offered/transferred from it. It is mis-belief that the manners, habits and practice of dog or cow(bull) can cleanse one's impurities in mind.
Noble Eightfold Path
Noble Eightfold Path is one needs to practice oneself. The practitioner of Noble Eightfold Path never expects the salvation from anyone/anything. The very first of the Noble Eightfold Path, Right View already gets rid of the idea of "Clinging to rites and rituals" and so the two path clearly opposite to each other.
Vinaya
Vinaya is set of rules to monks. The tipitaka indicates that it is purely from Buddha's authoritative order (there is no one who defined Vinaya and only Buddha did). The purpose of Vinaya is clearly stated by Buddha in Vinaya pitaka as follow:

To accept and be disciplined by Sanga that Sanga likes to comply
To be in Sanga with pleasant mind/body by complying Vinaya
To identify and punish the committed one
Complied monks stay together peacefully/cherishing
To get away from present dangers/prosecutions by broking the law (vinaya)
To get rid of future dangers/sufferings
To be pleased by lay people who has not done to do so
To be more pleased by lay people who already has done to do so
To maintain three Sasana(s) more longer
To promote the vinaya (rules)
So it is the purpose of Vinaya and it is clearly intended to Sanga (the organization of monks) to be followed, disciplined and complied. The lay people is not abided by the Vinaya.

To attain the Nirvana, it is only one needs to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. It is not necessary to to be part of Sanga, be a monk(eventually it is not necessarily to be disciplined by Vinaya). So Vinaya is optional to lay people and it is only adopted when joining the Sanga.
For about Rules (Vinaya)
In above 10 purposes of Vinaya, Buddha clearly stated that to get rid of dangers and sufferings by complying it. By following it, one can free from accusing/prosecuting oneself at least. On closer learning of vinaya, it is trying to get rid of Five hindrances to some extent.
There is another example that would not go deep like above statement. Even in some club membership (and some religious matters) in real world, there are some ridiculous rules need to follow by new members. The only explanation is "it is tradition" and nothing more will be detailed.
Here is another example also stating that rule is not ritual. For travelers to Singapore it is illegal to bring/consume Chewing Gum but nobody say Singapore is in ritual by applying this law. There are many queer/odd rules applied by a number of countries but it does not totally apply those countries are in ritual. So there is clear distinction between rules and rituals.
Buddha's vinaya is clearly path-ed/reasoned than those of that. The two reasons (7 and 8) of vinaya on Sanga are because organization of monks (Sanga) is totally relied on offerings (meals, robes, accommodations and medicine) of lay people; in terms of living on donation. So it is very heavy burden for monks to comply rules so that people are pleased to see that their offerings go not in vain (they are not offering things bought by their hard-earned money to total jerks for nothing).
And another meaningful of vinaya is by following it, the complied person can feel oneself free from harms. Opposite to this, in ritual, the practitioner cannot clearly state why ritual has to be done, the practitioner cannot explain more than it is a tradition, it must be done but no reason. After completing/fulfilling the ritual, there is no obvious proof that result/outcome is achieved. The only thing is forced to believe. Let say a weight-controlling lady avoids any solid food meal after noon and after some days/weeks practicing this she can feel she lost her weight and feel better, healthy and active. Ritual is not close enough this in the sense of "Result oriented".
In conclusion, Vinaya is not ritual and set of rules bound to Sanga only. It is optional to lay people who follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Vinaya has 10 reasons to be put in place and Vinaya is trying to get rid of bad deeds as much as possible so that the practitioner can please himself and prone to mindfulness (good concentration) but ritual only based on belief (not clearly defined outcome/result of achievement).

Great answer! Hope to see more like this.

Following is a good writeup on rights and rituals:

SILABBATA PARAMASA is generally translated into meaning the adherence to wrongful rites, rituals and ceremonies. Believing that a wrong practice is a right practice is called Silabbataparamasa, which is believing, maintaining, or supporting a wrong belief in the practice. According to the teaching of the Buddha, apart from the Eightfold Noble Path, all other practices are wrong practices and taking them as right practices amount to wrong belief in the practice.
Everything that appears at the six doors of senses constitute the Five Aggregates of Grasping, namely, rupa and nama, the Truth of Suffering. Meditating on rupa and nama is practising the Path by which the Four Noble Truths will be understood. Believing in and practising any other method which keeps aside the magga Path and which does not lead to understanding the Four Noble Truths, is wrong belief in the practice (silabbata paramasa ditthi).
There are people who are preaching that "It is not necessary to practise meditation nor to observe the precepts (sila)." That is to say, they are saying it is sufficient to simply listen to sermons and learn by heart the nature of rupa and nama." It will be necessary to consider whether such views amount to silabbata paramasa. In the opinion of some, such preachments amount to teaching wrong view in practice as this method excludes the three disciplines of:

Samadhi
Sila
Vipassana

Although a person at a lesser level of insight may participate in Wrong Practice and even be unaware of such, a Sotapanna, a person of the first level of The Four Stages of Sainthood, and those above, being well-established in the knowledge of the Right Practice are not liable to hold the wrong view of silabbata paramasas. (1)

SILABBATA PARAMASA DITTHI PRESENTED BY: the Wanderling
In essence rights & rituals here are are the ones that do not contribute to the path. Vinaya, on the other hand, contributes to morality which is one part of the path.
You can say the Buddha taught a form of Ṛta in the:

37 factors of enlightenment
4 Noble Truths
Dependent Origination
Cause and effect
Abhidhamma
Karma (Buddhist theory of)

But the above teaching contrasts contemporary teachings:

thus, bhikshus, regarding what
was unheard before, there arose in me vision, there arose knowledge, there arose wisdom, there arose
insight, there arose light

Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta

Rituals can have their useful and beneficial functions, such as reinforcing teachings of morality, Karma, generosity, humility, surrender, etc. They can even be taken as opportunities to exercise mindfulness or meditation within the movements of the rituals or the vibrations of the chanting. And of course many directly teach Dhamma.
That being said, if one is overly attached to the rites and rituals, and unwilling to let them go when appropriate, it becomes an obstacle to liberation and release (as any clinging does). It is like a booster rocket on a space shuttle, necessary to get one off the ground, but to be jettisoned once it's usefulness has passed.
While on intensive meditation retreats, I have had monastic teachers comment on the difficulty of progress on the Path to liberation for those who grew up in Buddhist communities where rituals are the norm. The rituals and beliefs accompanying them become deeply ingrained, and hard to see past or let go of. Belief that the ritual itself is the means to liberation, or letting it distract one from the pursuit of liberation, is that which a Sotapanna has let go of. They have completed the Path at least once, and therefore know what led to it's completion and what didn't, there is no more doubt within a Sotapanna.

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


text:
Plato's Parmenides, Samsara and Nirvana
Plato's Parmenides contains the following eight deductions:

(D1) If the G is, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.
(D2) If the G is, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.
(D3) If the G is, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.
(D4) If the G is, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.
(D5) If the G is not, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.
(D6) If the G is not, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.
(D7) If the G is not, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.
(D8) If the G is not, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.
(where ‘con-F’ refers to the property contrary to the property of being F):

Do the eight deductions within the dialogue offer a convoluted view of the two truths?
Deductions 1, 4, 6, 8 have conclusions only stated in the negative.
Deductions 2, 3, 5, 7 have conclusions only stated in the positive.
If the classical concept of Form (that from which Essence is acquired) is kept, then:
D1 through D4, which assume "the one is" demonstrate that "the one is not".
D5 through D8, which assume "the one is not" demonstrate that "the one is".
Is this not dissimilar to the duality that the Buddha stated, where "being" and "non-being" 'reinforce' each other - are dependently originated? Are the eight deductions a kind of logical (binary) glimpse of Samsara?

The 'two truths' in Pali Buddhism are different to the 'two truths' in Mahayana Buddhism. Possibly, the 'two truths' of Mahayana Buddhism are more relevant to Plato's Parmenides.
In Pali Buddhism, the 'two truths' refers to the difference between how enlightened & unenlightened people interpret certain (mundane/moral) teachings of the Buddha, as follows:

The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.
Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true, on account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  false speech does not arise in the Teacher,  who is Lord of the World,  when he speaks
  according to conventions.
Commentary by Buddhaghosa

In Pali Buddhism, the translations "being" ('bhava') and "non-being" ('vibhava') refer to two kinds of dependently originated 'becoming' ('bhava') based on two kinds of dependently originated craving (as defined in the 2nd noble truth in SN 56.11), namely, 'bhavatanha' (craving to be) and 'vibhavatanha' (craving not to be). Both kinds of craving & becoming involve 'self-view'.
In other words, 'non-being' is not synonymous with the enlightened or unconditioned state of selflessness/emptiness (sunnata).
Some relevant texts that show how the translations 'being' & 'non-being' are used are below:

Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī,
  seyyathidaṃ—kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā
Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence/becoming (bhava), accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for
  sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for
  extermination. SN 56.11

~~

So neva taṃ abhisaṅkharoti, na abhisañcetayati bhavāya vā vibhavāya vā. So anabhisaṅkharonto anabhisañcetayantoanabhisañcetayanto: ? bhavāya vā
  vibhavāya vā na kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ na paritassati, aparitassaṃ paccattaṃyeva parinibbāyati. ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ
  brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.
He does not form any condition or generate any volition tending towards either being or non-being. Since he does not form any
  condition or generate any volition tending towards either being or
  non-being, he does not cling to anything in this world. When he does
  not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally
  attains Nibbāna. He understands thus: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy
  life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no
  more coming to any state of being.’ MN 140

~~~

sato vā pana sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti
Those who describe the...extermination of an existing being (satta)...Just as a dog, tied by a
  leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around
  that very post or stake, through fear of identity and disgust with identity keep
  running & circling around that same identity... MN 102

'Samsara' is defined as the state of the mind circling & running around in ignorance & craving:

From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving are running around & wandering on....Just as a dog, tied by a
  leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around
  that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person...keeps running around and circling around that
  very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very
  fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from
  form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from
  fabrications... not set loose from consciousness...
SN 22.99

Therefore, dependently originated "being" and "non-being", namely, wanting to be this & not wanting to be that,  are certainly  characteristics of 'samsara' & probably reinforce each other.
However, whether they relate to Plato's Parmenides is another matter.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do you see this article fitting in with Buddhist principles?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
Fascinating read, and I wondered what the wisdom of the crowd was on how closely they thought this notion fit with the principles of Buddhism, most notably the idea of reality being an illusion, and the liberation of ourselves from the chains of perception?

If you probe with reason, you will get a result within reason. If you probe with mind, you might loose reason. It is the same old scientific materialism trap: a mathematical model can only give mathematical results. Why these equate "reality"? There it lies, the true delusion.

I was asking about points of concordance... I can clearly see the points of dissonance. :-)

Buddhism does not state 'perception' ('sanna') is a chain. In fact, without perception, enlightenment (perceiving the true nature of things, including perception itself) cannot occur.
Instead, Buddhism lists the following chains (fetters):

belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)

doubt or uncertainty,
especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)

wrong use of morals and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)

sensual desire (kāmacchando)

ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)

lust for material jhana, lust for material things (rūparāgo)

lust for immaterial jhana, lust for immaterial things, such as status,
fame, etc (arūparāgo)

conceit (māna)

restlessness (uddhacca)

ignorance (avijjā)

Fetter (Buddhism) adapted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the perception of the 'illusion of perceptions', if this was actually seen clearly, desires & attachments would end because, in reality, the mind only desires & attaches with concrete (solid) self-belief to concrete (solid) objects .
It is one thing for a cognitive scientist to create concrete ideas & theories about the illusion of perception, which may not end the desires & attachments of the scientist. It is another thing to actually see the illusion of perception meditatively, which will certainly end desires & attachments.

Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it &
appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it &
appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage?
In the same
way, a monk sees, observes & appropriately examines any perception
that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or
subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing
it & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void,
without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
Phena Sutta

I was being metaphorical when I said 'chains of perception', but I sincerely thank you for your comment :-)

After considering what I would say.. I'll try this: All 10 of these are conditioned by our perceptions. That is to say, we have derived what is 'good' and 'bad' from our ( and our ancestors' )  perceptions of reality, including the perceptions in meditation. If we agree that our perceptions of reality are distorted so seriously that we are not even close to seeing what "is there", or if we say there is no "there" to see, only our perceptions are real and there is no underlying reality.. can we not say with some confidence that we need to go much deeper to find Truth?

My intention is not to discourage you posting questions of the main forum. Please post. But possibly you should learn more about Buddhism before making comments since your comments seem to be common esoteric generalisations rather than Buddhism per se. Ultimately, the 10 fetters listed are conditioned by ignorance and not by perception. Perception itself is not intrinsically distorted. There are ignorant/distorted perceptions & there are realistic perceptions of reality. Perception is not the problem in Buddhism. Ignorance is identified as the problem or leader of wrong views. Kind regards.

Thank you. I am actually quite familiar with Buddhism, Madhyamaka in particular, and am being general intentionaly to explore the edges. I do not agree with all of the precepts (some of which you mention above) and do not wish to use this forum to get into philosophical nitty gritty.

I don't think it fits well.
The article claims there's an "independent reality"; and that evolution has shaped how we perceive reality (it's not specific, but if I'm to fill in the gaps and play devil's advocate, an example might be that we've evolved to see sex and violence as good?).
The article is full of words which aren't well-defined (e.g. "independent reality"). It evokes quantum mysticism again, which I'm averse to. It implies that "first-person conscious experience" is inescapable, perhaps the only possible view (which is naive and maybe contradicted by Buddhism).
It makes statements like ...

Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth.

... without defining what "truth" is, thence argues that perceptions are "illusion".
In a statement like ...

I can pull the W out of the model and stick a conscious agent in its place and get a circuit of conscious agents. In fact, you can have whole networks of arbitrary complexity.

... I think he's introspecting: he's thinking about the "I" and has reached "a thicket of views". He might be explicitly trying to discard "fitness" from his view: he thinks that viewing things as "fit or not fit" (e.g. for evolutionary survival) prevents us from seeing what "true" (which he hasn't defined, and which he argues we can't perceive without bias).

In contrast to that, if you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (or the Pali suttas) it categorizes things as good and not-good ... "things" including feelings, and views, and intentions.
So one of the differences between Buddhism and this article, IMO, is that Buddhism discusses what's good and not-good ... which this article doesn't, at all. Instead this article tries to discuss what's true and not-true, what's real and not-real (but the article doesn't succeed, and/or isn't useful).
Also I think that if Buddhism talks about "illusion" (and I'm not sure that it does), that illusion doesn't consist of failure to perceive reality, instead it's failure to assign the proper value to perception: e.g. the illusion is perceiving something that's unpleasant as pleasant, perceive something that's impermanent as everlasting, perceive something that's not-self as self, etc. I'm really not sure what Buddhism says about "illusion": but it might be a more accurate or a more common translation to say that Buddhism talks about "ignorance", and that "ignorance" is a cause of "wrong view" (as opposed to "right view").

I appreciate your criticism.. I think we need to be very careful about "what we think we know", and should always allow for error and misinformation, or a mistaken point of view. 100% of all view points can be mistaken, no matter how long they have been held, and so this is why I am being very open about assimilating this idea, and giving it a fair shot without going straight to "why this is wrong" on particular grounds.. The Suttas can be wrong, just as anything else can be. We need to be able to evolve to Truth, since it isn't a static thing.

I might have missed the point/purpose of the article: I didn't find it prescriptive/actionable. It wasn't suggesting I change my behaviour in any (specific) way; nor change my views; nor did it give me a new tool or view which which to see/understand the world. It's only message was, "Your perceptions aren't evolved to perceive reality truly", which (in addition to other faults I find with it) isn't a constructive criticism.

Maybe it's intended as (maybe you value it because you see it as) an antidote to beliefs (e.g. "Science has always been a third-person description of the world" and "the very notions of ‘physical things’ sitting in ‘space’") that I'm already quite dubious about, so to that extent it's not news to me: the new bits aren't true and the true bits aren't news.

So... you are saying that you do not think it is important that how our mind models the Universe is based on inputs that are essentially bereft of meaning? For me, the fact that any scientist would tread on this ground is pretty impressive, and heralds the possibility of penetration into the halls of science for the "relative reality" which we are so familiar with in Buddhism.

As a reference, I have studied many Pali Suttas, and am very familiar with Alan Watts and his work.and  Robert M. Pirsig, etc. I am trying to be totally non sectarian when I ask this question. I may fail.. but Im trying :-)

The article doesn't mention "meaning" anywhere at all. It claims our perceptions are a simulation of "an external reality" (which is what Science claims too), but that because of "evolution" (and/or "quantum woo") our perceptions are tuned to optimize "fitness" rather than "reality". Well, I value Buddhism because it has something useful to say to sentient beings. IMO the article is too abstract to be useful, and/or so basic that it's a truism (e.g. it is just canonical philosophy of science to say that "science consists of 'observations' and 'predictive models'").

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


text:
Meditation and 'not trying to change anything'
I've been practicing mindfulness meditation for around three months now. I've heard many times that a key aim for meditation is to be with whatever thoughts and feelings are present, without trying to change anything. I understand to a large extent why this is important, as much upset is caused by suppressing and mentally running away from things that we are afraid of.
However, in my practice I have found that if I consciously try to relax during a session (muscular tension is an issue with me) it can be a much more fulfilling, refreshing experience. Is this not an example of trying to change something, and therefore 'bad' practice?

I can't post an answer anymore, but keep in mind that you are fresh at it. Putting yourself in bodily pain during meditation does not help you. It is perfectly valid to spend, say, 5 minutes at the beginning of the meditation to get your body in a position where it does not bother you constantly with pain or tension. Also, depending on the type of meditation you are doing you certainly can "do something" about pain arising during the meditation. Of course, you should not hop around constantly, but when your knees start hurting, you better do something about that. Be nice to yourself!

It is very important to distinguish what buddhists call threefold training (sikkha), see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Training. Each of the training parts has different methods and different goals.

Morality training (sila-sikkha), or, in today's language I'd say "personality development", deals with making one's ordinary life conditions suitable for meditation practice: both externally (like livelihood, relationships, health) and also internally (like some basic psychological sanity). It is called "first and last training", because one starts here (and it includes 5 precepts which are basic transgressions to be avoided) but is also never perfect and can always improve. The goal is not to harm oneself and others, and do good.
Concentration training (citta-sikkha), which is samatha (tranquility, concentration) meditation. The goal is to be fluent in attaining various mind states, especially absorptions (jhanas) and to develop concentrative power of the mind. Some lineages don't do this training separately, e.g. Mahasi Saydaw taught practices where concentration is developed along the way with the next one. Whether this training has some end point is a question which is disputed.
Insight training (panna-sikkha, wisdom training): vipassana meditation. The goal is to see clearly things as they are, especially (the accent depends on the lineage) in terms of 3 characteristics (uncontrollability, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness). Theory says that this training has an end-point, which is final enlightenment (attainment of the 4th path knowledge, thereby destroying all "fetters").

Note that in 1. and 2. you are supposed to manipulate your experience as a part of the training, where as in point 3 (vipassana), non-manipulation is essential. It is very important to be aware of this context, otherwise people might use meditation instruction in daily life (e.g. being mindful of pain or other's suffering instead of going to see doctor or helping someone).
During vipassana practice, you should be aware of things happening; this might include what you conventionally think you do, such as stretching or relaxing, but actually happening in a way by themselves (that is one of the 3 characteristics - anatta, non-self or non-controllability), though we are often in habit of ascribing them to ourselves and making ourselves guilty of such actions, thinking we are performing "badly". Before you relax, try to become aware of feelings taking you there (disliking, maybe feeling of helplessness, thoughts about the pain never going away, craving for peace or similar - dunno) which actually make you want to relax. And if you relax anyway, be mindful of judging thoughts or whatever else comes afterwards.
As others said, fulfillment from the practice is something very hard to measure and is definitely not co-extensive with good feelings during the practice. In the long run, you actually want to bring bad feelings up (so that you deal with them), a little bit in the line of "no pain, no gain", but let the practice take you there, it does its own thing quite well if you don't interfere :)
(PS: I attribute the 3 trainings discussion and difference in goals they have to D. Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha.)

Thanks for this, I felt your answer was the most helpful for my current stage of practice. Also thanks to the others who answered - certainly a lot to chew on. All the best.

The 3 trainings are essentially one training, compared to 3 strands that comprise of one rope; or, in terms of the 8 fold path, 8 strands that make up 1 rope. They cannot be separated. Trainings 1 & 2 are the foundation. Training 3 cannot be done properly without trainings 1 & 2 being firmly established. Thus the scriptures state: calmness & insight occur in tandem; there is no wisdom without stability (concentration); the concentrated mind without an act of will sees things as they really are. Regards

@Dhammadhatu: Not sure if that's a comment or an objection. Of course they are sequential and intertwined, that's why #1 is #1 and so on. But they still should be separated conceptually, and also in the practice. When doing sport, workouts and stretching are also necessary for each other and work in tandem, but mixing them at the same moment makes the training ineffective. I will adjust the text to say "threefold training" rather than "three trainings", you have a good point.

'Not trying to change anything' is a modern idea and is not what is taught in the original Buddhist teachings.
In the original teachings, there are four right efforts, namely: (i) effort to prevent unwholesome states of mind; (ii) effort to dispel unwholesome states of mind; (iii) effort to cultivate wholesome states of mind; and (iv) effort to maintain & increase wholesome states of mind.
'Refreshing' calmness/tranquility ('samatha') is considered a wholesome state of mind that is preferably developed. To cultivate calmness requires a keen/observant yet very gentle effort to keep the mind clear & equanimous.

For him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path...the
four right efforts... go to the culmination of their development.
[And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity
(samatha) & insight (vipassana).
MN 149

The OP speaks about mindfulness meditation (which is the English rendering of vipassana) which means "seeing things clearly/distincly/as they are" (I guess you know this better than me). "Not trying to change anything" is very much present in that "as they are", even though it is not the traditional way of putting it.

A mind that is not calm & clear cannot "see things as they are". The term "seeing things as they are" does not refer to a psychotherapy type of insight of seeing the neurosis of the mind as it is. This is why people go to psychotherapy because they actually cannot see clearly. "See things as they are" or "vipasssa" refers to seeing the inherent impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & non-self of things. When this occurs, the mind does not have any emotions.

From the suttas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html ""For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are."

Insight or Vipassana meditation is about finding out the real nature of phenomena. Achieving relaxation or some kind of a refreshing feeling is not the goal. The correct method is to note all conditioned phenomena as they are without trying to alter or make things easy for you. The effort you put into doing that is the right effort indeed as it cuts-off(over time) the causes of unwholesome(greed, aversion, ignorance) mind states; It prevents already arisen unwholesome mind states from propagating; it cultivates & improves on wholesome(non-craving,non-aversion, wisdom) mind states.

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
  seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
  heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
  the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
  yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
  seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
  reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
  cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
  there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
  there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
  two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2] - Bāhiya Sutta

"This, just this" :)

"[...] a key aim for meditation is to be with whatever thoughts and feelings are present, without trying to change anything."
Regarding the "without trying to change anything" part, this advice is a popular (but often confusing) way of teaching equanimity (pali: upekkha), an important skill in the Buddhist curriculum.  In a sense, the advice's purpose seems to aim both at preventing mindless habitual reactions to a certain event and preventing reactions based on aversion (pali: dosa) or craving (pali: taṇhā), two of the five hindrances that prevent us from progressing.

In Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation, Ven. Analayo explains equanimity as follows:

"Equanimity or equipoise, upek(k)ha, from the etymological perspective suggests a mental attitude of 'looking upon', not an indifferent 'looking away'. The term thus conveys an awareness of whatever is happening combined with mental balance and the absence of favoring or opposing."
[...] "equanimity is [...] a mental equipoise that rounds off a systematic opening of the heart which has been brought about through cultivation of the other three divine abodes".

Here's, for example, how the Buddha teaches the development of equanimity in the suttas:

"Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a noble one is there the unexcelled development of the faculties?
"[...] when touching a tactile sensation with the body, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a strong man might easily extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to tactile sensations cognizable by the body.
-- Indriya-bhavana Sutta, MN 152 (Thanissaro Trans.)

As illustration, here's a sutta narrating the attitude of the Buddha when in physical pain:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at the Maddakucchi Deer Reserve. Now at that time his foot had been pierced by a stone sliver. Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him — painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed. Having had his outer robe folded in four and laid out, he lay down on his right side in the lion's posture, with one foot placed on top of the other, mindful & alert.
-- SN 1.38

It's important to note that equanimity is not some kind of passivity as if one should remain idle when facing a threat to one's health. One should still take care of one self and others equanimously － instead of trying to take care of oneself and others moved by fear, despair, anger or craving.
Another related sutta is the The Arrow which illustrates the differences between pain and suffering.

"However, in my practice I have found that if I consciously try to relax during a session (muscular tension is an issue with me) it can be a much more fulfilling, refreshing experience."
During meditation, specially, the samatha aspect of the practice, that's good. Here's the Buddha describing his own experience:

[...] But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

So, as you can see, "consciously trying" is necessary in the Buddhist training. Knowing what to try to do and what to prevent doing, however, requires understanding what are wholesome actions and attitudes (those leading to enlightenment) and unwholesome actions (those that lead to more suffering) as well as knowing the skills and goals to be developed during a certain practice.

On the importance of equanimity, it is an important factor in many doctrinal aspects, among them, the 7 enlightenment factors. They are:

Mindfulness (sati)
Investigation (dhamma vicaya)
Energy (viriya)
Joy or rapture (pīti)
Relaxation or tranquility (passaddhi)
Concentration (samādhi)
Equanimity (upekkha)

On the five hindrances:

“Bhikkhus, there are these five hindrances. What five? The hindrance of sensual desire, the hindrance of ill will [aversion], the hindrance of sloth and torpor, the hindrance of restlessness and remorse, the hindrance of doubt. These are the five hindrances. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five hindrances, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
SN 45.177

In meditation one observes everything. That includes your muscular tension, you're subsequent conscious effort to relax, en your enjoyment of your relaxed posture afterwards. It can include your thoughts about "bad practice". After you are done sitting you can continue your meditation by observing your body and thoughts move around again. After a while you will conclude that you were actually never not meditating.
My advice is to forget about "bad practice". Observing yourself as you truly are is the essence of meditation.

There is nothing wrong with making a concious effort to relax your body (you mentioned having muscular tension) during meditation. Indeed, it's helpful. It's also good to approach your meditation with an open, relaxed mental state. The rest will follow naturally -- give it time. I think some of the other replies are over thinking/analyzing the issue.

Its not really not trying to change anything. This probably stems from a bad interpretation of Zen/Chan Buddhism where one practice is to observe the mind. Thoughts that come whether good or bad will arise then pass so you can observe them realizing they are impermanent, non-self, etc or simply observe them without attaching to them.
A Chan master taught a series of five techniques of increasing subtlety. All are misguided in some way apart from the fifth and ultimate method.

A direct awareness of the arising of deluded thoughts.
An examination of that awareness.
The prevention of the arising of thoughts.
The perception that thoughts have no intrinsic nature (that is, they are empty).
Awareness of the arising of deluded thoughts without analysing or pursuing this awareness, so that thoughts are freed the instant they arise.

Some Chan Teachings: Therefore you should not suppress concepts. Whenever they arise, if you do not fabricate anything but instead let them go, then they will stay as they are and come to rest by themselves; thus you will not pursue them.
Some Chan teachings: When you are engaged in contemplation itself, look at your own mind. Then, the lack of any mental activity at all is non-thought. If there is movement of the conceptual mind, be aware of it. “How should one be aware?” Do not analyse the mind which is moving in terms of any kind of quality at all: do not analyse it as moving or not moving; do not analyse it as existing or not existing; do not analyse it as virtuous or non-virtuous; and do not analyse it as defiled or pure. If you are aware of mind in this way, it is natureless. This is the practice of the dharma path.

Meditation and 'not trying to change anything'

Yes. You are not trying to do something through you are doing it with a objective relieve your stress.
If you try there is a possibility of subtle craving. If at all you are changing anything is to calm your fabrications and tame your afflictions.

However, in my practice I have found that if I consciously try to relax during a session (muscular tension is an issue with me) it can be a much more fulfilling, refreshing experience. Is this not an example of trying to change something, and therefore 'bad' practice?

If you generate any anger or aversion towards this feeling or any liking towards another state or wanting something else then it is bad. Otherwise it is good. Relaxing means you can:

meditate for long hours
concentrate your mind
and perhaps a basis for Piti and Passaddhi

Also see: What is Mindfulness?  What are the 6 Rs?

Whether relaxation is "good" or "bad" or whether not changing anything is "good" or "bad" is not a helpful framework. It gets into unhelpful all-or-nothing thinking, or "always" thinking.
A better framework is "Is it helpful, in this instance?"
===
A few points:

If you are trying to change your tension to get relaxation, and that is helpful, go for it. One clear example is if the relaxation can help you stay concentrated on the breath, if that is your goal. Then go for it.
However, if you can be concentrated on the breath, but you keep on "futzing" and adjusting and searching for "how can I be even more relaxed?", that is not helpful to your goal. I have seen this happen, where people are looking for the "perfect" way to sit on the cushion where there is no discomfort.

A humorous way to put it: If you can never concentrate on the breath (anapanasati) if there are mosquitoes buzzing, then how will you learn to concentrate when your mind is buzzing even more! However, you shouldn't start meditating in a room full of mosquitoes, as it will sap your resolve.
It is possible, also, for something to be helpful today, but not be helpful in 5 years. At the start, I would say that most beginner meditators in America need more relaxation. However, an experienced meditator (even in America) who is just focused on relaxation is not following the Buddhist path as fully as they could.
===
Similarly, for not changing anything, when is it helpful and when is it not helpful?

If your goal is to watch the subtle sequences in how your mind is involved in all processes, then it's important to look at where the urges (like the urge to relax) comes from, and not change anything. Just watch. This applies for specific thoughts (just watch the worrying about family drama) all the way to fundamental perspectives (just watch selfing, me-making, I-making).
If you are watching the subtle sequences of your mind, but you are being overwhelmed by anxiety that prevents you from watching, it is probably helpful/skillful to address the anxiety.  (At some point, you might choose to watch the anxiety process and not change anything. But, early on, you won't be able to. Gritting your teeth and watching the anxiety does't always work. For one reason, the "gritting your teeth" is also an action. And that would be a violation of not change anything.)

I'd also add that you are free to try it both ways, and see for yourself. (Ehipassiko)
===
Again, it is possible for something to be useful today, but not useful at the end of the path. At the end of the path, even conceptualization has to be let go of. And "not changing anything" and "changing things" both have to be let go.  But before then, conceptualization is a very important part of building the skills for the path.

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


text:
Why is Buddha presented as an overweight man?
I am not trying to offend anyone of to be disrespectful, but I cannot help to notice that the images of Buddha always represent him as an overweight man.  In my culture an overweight person is associated with an healthy lifestyle.
So I am curious to know why Buddha presented as an overweight man?


text:
Dasa Paramitha - Sources
Where can I find sutras describing about the 10 paramithas and the 3 types of paramithas in the pali cannon? I couldn't find a proper sutra on it.

You can find a study guide here by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: The Ten Perfections
A Study Guide
There seem to be four types of perfection, and not three.

Passages in this guide are drawn from the Pali canon and from the teachings of Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo.

The four determinations:
One should not be negligent of discernment,
should guard the truth,
be devoted to relinquishment,
and train only for calm.

— MN 140

You can find a further commentary here by Bhikkhu Bodhi: A Treatise on the Paramis
From the Commentary to the Cariyapitaka


text:
Buddhas after Bhadra Kalpa
I have seen in certain books that there is gonna be a lot of buddha shunya kalpas after the bhadra kalpa. Also it has stated about names of 10 Buddhas after the Bhadra kalpa.
Is there a sutra source for these facts? Where can i find them?

There's no mention on the future buddhas except Metteyya buddha in the pali canon. However, there's a book, Dasabodhisattuppattikatha which was written much later than the compilation of the pali cannon, possibly influenced by Mahayana bodhisattva ideals. Here's a list of the 10 buddhas in that book.

Metteyya
Rāma
Dhammarāja
Abhibhū
Dīghasonī
Cankī
Subha
Todeyya
Tissa
Sumangala

Source: https://what-buddha-said.net/drops/III/The_10_Future_Buddhas.htm


text:
Past Buddha's : Sources
I came  along with this (http://www.aathaapi.net/dwncounter.php?number=29)  detailed description of the Buddhas (during vag and mano pradani era of Gautama Bodhisattva) before the 28 Buddhas. 512000 in number to be exact. I have also heard about this fact in some texts as well.
Is this stated in the pali canon? What are the sutras?

I would check out the (dubious) Digha Nikaya, particularly the Mahāpadāna Sutta.

It is now ninety-one aeons ago, brethren, since Vipassī, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in the world. It is now thirty-one
  aeons ago, brethren, since Sikhi, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha
  Supreme, arose in the world. It was in that same thirty-first aeon,
  brethren, that Vessabhu, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme,
  arose in the world. It was in this present auspicious aeon, brethren,
  that Kakusandha, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in
  the world. It was in this auspicious aeon, brethren, that Koṇāgamana,
  the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in the world. It was
  in this auspicious aeon, brethren, that Kassapa, the Exalted One,
  Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in the world. It is in this auspicious
  aeon, brethren, that now I, an Arahant, Buddha Supreme, have arisen in
  the world.

MN 50 also contains a story.

Venerable Mahāmoggallāna saw the Evil One stuck in the throat and said, I see you there too. You are stuck in the throat. In the past
  there was an Evil One named Dūsi. To me there was a sister named Kāli.
  You were her son. Then you were my nephew. It was at the time of the
  perfect rightfully enlightened Blessed One Kakusanda's time. To the
  perfect rightfully Enlightened One, Kakusanada, there were two chief
  disciples named Vidura and Sañjīva

(Disclaimer: Based on human & social evolution, I personally doubt there were any past Buddhas. For example, the Mahāpadāna Sutta appears state the very first Buddha had 6,800,000 or 68 lacs arahant disciples; the older the Buddha, the more arahant disciples they had, which seems to contradict historical evidence of human population. The above genre of suttas that number a handful among 1,000s of suttas, which also contradict SN 22.79 in talking about literal 'personal' past lives, I would speculate were later writings rather than words of the Buddha.)

I don't think you can ever compare with the human and social evolution with the Buddha eons. Because the current social and human evolution is based on the tangible evidences we have and it is still changing. Also a Maha kappa(aeon that is mentioned above) is a world cycle that contains the creation and destruction of the universe. For every aeon this happens. Also 91 aeons ago means 91 cycles like i mentioned above(91 big bangs in other terms) ago. So we actually don't have sufficient evidence to even.

And in Mahapadana sutra it is talking about the 1st Buddha of the past 7 buddhas. That doesn't mean that there weren't before. Also there is no possible way of having tangible evidences of the Vipassi buddha cause it was 91 world cycles ago. 91 big bangs ago. So there is no possible way of reaching that history unless a person achieve a higher state of mind and see for himself


text:
What is considered consciousness?
Could someone illuminate me in "consciousness"?
Is it simply the ability to rationalize, analyze and most important concentrate? With or without ego?
Does consciousness dictate who we are?

Refined now from the thoughts of very knowledgeable sources ..I am now leaning towards awareness as a way to be as it is ...it appears that at some point consciousness is complicating some things in my mind yet consciousness is needed for life ...also aware of self consciousness being a hindrance !

You have added the tag "Vipassana" to the question. Does that mean that you are looking for answers pertaining to a purely practical (insight meditational) perspective?

Also, are you looking for Sutta pitaka-answers or Abhidhamma-answers?

Insight meditation is all I have and learnd from temple ...I found profound clarity and light in a dark room so I took vippsaana to the forest ....became a recluse for many yrs and am slowly reengaging in society frm my understanding of reality.

Yes to Lanka and first question ...to me the right way to reach right view is vippassna as it once truly appreciated and refined can Pearce the vale of ignorance and illusions to see things as they truly are .

Your experience sounds like what Lisa Cairns talks about in her videos. There is a "Buddha at the Gas Pump" interview with her that you might be interested in. She mentions living in the forest for 3 years after her initial awakening (in Australia). "Sudden Awakening" is one of the ways that people get to nonduality. Usually takes years of refinement after, though. See also Byron Katie (TheWork.com), another sudden awakening situation.

In Pali Buddhism, 'consciousness' ('vinnana') is the sense awareness or cognition that operates through the six sense organs to facilite: (i) seeing; (ii) hearing; (iii) smelling; (iv) tasting; (v) touching &; (iv) knowing of the mind's internal feelings, perceptions, moods, thoughts, images, etc.
To use a rough analogy, 'consciousness' can be compared to the mere reflecting of an image by a mirror. Consciousness only 'reflects' sense objects, like a mirror, that is all. Consciousness does not 'think' or 'analyse', just like a mirror does not think or analyse.
To quote:

And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness
SN 12.2

~~~

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises.
Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...
Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...
Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...
Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
Dependent on intellect (mano) & ideas, intellect-consciousness (mano-vinnana) arises.
The meeting of the three is sense contact.
MN 18

In Pali Buddhism, the ability to rationalize, analyse & concentrate are other functions of other kinds of mentality (called 'mano', 'nama', 'sankhara khandha', etc).
Each of these mental functions, be they consciousness ('vinnana'), intellect ('mano') or mental intention ('sankhara khandha'), can operate without ego or self ('atta'). 'Ego' or 'self' is a natural instinctual yet ignorant idea the mind imputes upon conscious experience & mental activity. (If interested, read more here).
In Buddhism, what 'we' are is a product of the mind's accumulated & conditioned intentions & thinking (sankhara khandha) & thus 'what we are' is essentially unrelated to consciousness itself (even though what 'we' are are thoughts about what the mind is conscious of).
In short, we are what we 'think' we are. What we think we are is called 'bhava' ('becoming' or 'existence') in Buddhism. To quote:

The craving that makes for further becoming (bhava) — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving to be (bhava), craving not to be (vibhava):
  This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification
  described by the Blessed One.
MN 44

The 'view' or 'belief' ('ditthi') of 'what we are' is what the mind clings or attaches to (rather than what the mind is conscious of). To quote again:

There are these five clingings to the aggregates, friend Visakha: clinging to the form (body) aggregate, clinging to the feeling (vedana) aggregate, clinging to the perception (sanna) aggregate, clinging to the fabricating aggregate (sankhara khandha), clinging to the consciousness (vinnana) aggregate. These five clingings to the aggregates
  are the self-identification ('sakkhaya ditthi') described by the Blessed One."
MN 44

For example, a small baby, before its mind/brain is mature enough to develop ideas of "me" & "I", is continually conscious of an image, sound, smell, taste & touch of a certain woman. Then one day, when the mind/brain became mature enough, it started to categorise (label & solidify) those images, sounds, smells, tastes & touches as "my mother". This categorising of "my mother" was the beginning of developing the ideas that dictate what we are or what we think ourselves to be.
To continue the original quote from above so to incorporate the process of thinking:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies
MN 18

What "we" are, namely, "self-identification", is what the mind thinks & objectifies about.

Certainly an interesting and yes factual answer to my question..I guess at the point of contact with senses and mind is what we could call consciousness!

Also like to clarify that to my knowledge " consciousness " is more subjective. Than " awareness " which is not so much a sense driven vehical ,,!

Thanks. Science uses the term 'consciousness' is many ways but, in Buddhism, consciousness is something 'objective'. It is the various perceptions & mental categorizations that arise after consciousness which are 'subjective'. Essentially our 'eyes' each see an object the same but we each may judge or impute a different meaning onto that conscious experience, which is the subjectivity. Regards

Yes true again ...my humble layman's truth in Buddhism so far let's me know that this is an inward study into each of our minds ...the difference is the ego , and the hidden gems are in consciousness and awareness as I think we now safely say that each is dependent on individual perception ...ie two people looking at the same cloud in space might see it in a personal form or for what it is simply a cloud in space ,hence Buddhism is the latter,,

The Sutta MN38: Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta might be helpful:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns —
  a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Welcome ...this is very much of my like in more lesser words ...pls chk new comment ...the judging or identifying is where some of us miss the greater picture of which could simply be look ..feel ...think ..hear... smell don't attach just experience the moment for what it is a transient moment that's all it will ever be all else is clinging .

Consciousness is simply to know or awareness of contact.

Is it simply the ability to rationalize, analyze and most important concentrate? With or without ego?

What you describe there seems like thinking and pondering. Through thoughts ego arises and always associated with and unwholesome root. Also see: Tanhā Jālinī Sutta

Does consciousness dictate who we are?

Yes and no. Concies does not on its own does nothing to dictate who we are. We are formed due to past conditioning. This is decided by whether we react to the feelings arising from contact with craving, aversion and ignorance. E.g. you touch a soft fabric and think I want this. This creates fabrications and becoming.

Yes partially agree with the latter to my knowledge is concerned with I am looking ( eye ) = conscious of seeing soft fabric the ego will then say I want it  , all of the above will be under the management of awareness ie the imagery , thought ,emotion and observation will = awareness of what's going on .much appreciate all the answers.


text:
Three types of Raaga
In the Cakkavatti Sihanaada Sutra it is mentioned about three types of raaga or unwholesome acts that people did at the lifespan of 500 years. It is named

Adharma Raaga
Visama Lobha
Michcha Dharma

What does these 3 mean? The meaning is not specially mentioned in the pali canon.

Page 19 of the Dharmafarer PDF says they're explained in the commentary:

The Commentary here explains them as follows:

“abnormal lust” (adhamma,raga) as incest, that is, “lust between mother and mother’s sister and
  father’s sister and maternal uncle’s wife and other such improper situations” ;
“excessive greed” (visama,lobha) or “neurotic desire,” as excessive greed by way of consuming
  things (in other words, unbridled materialism and
  consumerism); and
“deviant conduct” (miccha,dhamma) as homosexuality, ie, sex “between men and men, women
  with women.”

I haven't quoted the whole page here: see page 19 of the PDF for more.

My impression based on what I have read & heard is the suttas are silent on homosexuality. What is the source of Piya Tan's commentary here. I browsed the PDF but this was unclear to me. Thanks

@Dhammadhatu I was surprised at that too. Page 2 of the PDF says, The Commentary here explains “abnormal lust” as incest, “excessive greed” or “neurotic desire,” as unbridled materialism and consumerism, and “deviant conduct” as homosexuality (DA 3:853). According to page 17 of Technical, Textual and Scriptural Abbreviations, "DA" is the Sumangala-vilasini which is "Buddhaghosa's commentary on the 'Digha-nikaya'" (from the 5th century).

These three terms appear to be not mentioned anywhere else in the suttas, which, like many suttas of the Digha Nikaya, creates doubt to whether the Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda-Sutta was spoken by the Buddha himself. The doubt is increased with verses by the Buddha, such as in AN 4.77, that state:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

Or MN 122:

'I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
  cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding —
  i.e., talk about...the creation of the world & of the sea...

When these three terms are first mentioned, the Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda-Sutta states:

Among humans of the latter span of life, brethren, three things grew apace: adhammarāgaṃ visamalobhaṃ micchādhammaṃ.
Thereby the life-span of those beings and their comeliness wasted, so that, of humans whose span of life was five hundred years, some sons
  lived but two and a half centuries, some only two centuries.
Among humans of a life-span, brethren, of two and a half centuries, these things grew apace—lack of filial piety to mother and father,
  lack of religious piety to holy men, lack of regard for the head of
  the clan.

Based on the suttas, 'adhammarāgaṃ' (non-dhammic lust) in the context of "lack of filial piety to mother/s and father/s" does not necessarily only mean extremes such as 'incest', as has been translated. It can also refer to sexual promiscuity in general, as follows:

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
  teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
  other honored persons.
AN 2.9

This is confirmed, when the Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda-Sutta later states:

Among such humans, brethren, they who lack filial and religious piety, and show no respect for the head of the clan—’Tis they to whom
  homage and praise will be given, just as today homage and praise are
  given to the filial-minded, to the pious and to them who respect the
  heads of their clans.
Among such humans, brethren, there will be no [such thoughts of
  reverence as are a bar sexual intercourse with] mother, or mother’s
  sister, or mother’s sister-in-law, or teacher’s wife, or father’s
  sister-in-law.
The world will fall into promiscuity, like goats and sheep, fowls and swine, dogs and jackals.

Similarly, 'micchādhammaṃ' can more broadly mean 'wrong religion' or 'wrong doctrine', such as religions that worship sex &/or money; engage in human & animal sacrifice; or preach tribal warfare.
I personally doubt micchādhammaṃ refers explicitly to homosexuality, given promiscuous (rather than non-promiscuous) homosexuality would simply fall under 'adhammarāgaṃ'. To blame homosexuality for major world problems is what fundamentalist Christians, Catholics & Muslims do.
Unlike 'adhammarāgaṃ' & 'visamalobhaṃ', there is no reference to homosexuality as being a major problem anywhere in the suttas. Where as forms of 'adhammarāgaṃ' (eg. AN 2.9) & 'visamalobhaṃ' are described in many places as being significant problems, such as:

Now, craving is dependent on feeling, seeking is dependent on craving, acquisition is dependent on seeking, ascertainment is
  dependent on acquisition, desire and passion is dependent on
  ascertainment, attachment is dependent on desire and passion,
  possessiveness is dependent on attachment, stinginess is dependent on
  possessiveness, defensiveness is dependent on stinginess, and because
  of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful
  phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives;
  conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and
  lies

The Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda-Sutta later states the following, which could also apply to 'micchādhammaṃ' ('wrong religion'):

Among such humans, brethren, keen mutual enmity will become the rule, keen ill-will, keen animosity, passionate thoughts even of killing, in
  a mother towards her child, in a child towards its mother, in a father
  towards his child and a child towards its father, in brother to
  brother, in brother to sister, in sister to brother.
Just as a sportsman feels towards the game that he sees, so will they feel.
Among such humans, brethren, there will arise a sword-period of seven days, during which they will look on each other as wild beasts; sharp
  swords will appear ready to their hands, and they, thinking ‘This is a
  wild beast, this is a wild beast,’ will with their swords deprive each
  other of life.

Some examples of this (killing family in the name of religion) from the Bible include:

Someone else may say to you, “Let’s worship other gods.” That person may be your best friend, your brother or sister, your son or daughter,
  or your own dear wife or husband. But you must not listen to people
  who say such things. Instead, you must stone them to death. You must
  be the first to throw the stones, then others from the community will
  finish the job. Don’t show any pity. Deuteronomy 13:6

Leviticus 20:9 Whoever curses their father or mother must be put to death. They cursed their father or mother, so they are responsible for
  their own death!

Leviticus 21:9 If a priest’s daughter becomes a prostitute, she ruins her reputation and brings shame to her father. She must be burned to
  death in the fire!

To conclude, I would confidently guess 'micchādhammaṃ' means 'wrong religion' or 'wrong doctrines'.

Thank you for answering. When you mentioned "promiscuous homosexuality", the "page 19" that I cited claims that homosexuality was an example of narcissism (self-love), which is why it's not in the same category as adhammarāgaṃ (not that I want to argue that, but only for the sake of reporting what's written; it's not clear whether that opinion/conjecture is from Piya Tan or from Buddhaghosa). Also, apart from the Biblical Old Testament, a more topical example of killing family for the sake of religion might be the opening of the Bhagavad Gita, where Arjuna faces his relatives in war.

Thanks Chris. Sounds like lots of subjective judgments about 'homosexuality' in general. 'Micchādhammaṃ' is such broad term. It can mean anything. Where as "adhammarāgaṃ" is very specific, namely, about lust.


text:
Dharma should be free?
Dharma is usually donation-ware.
There is a really valuable dharma book that my friend is in no financial condition to buy (it is $100) but he also does not want to download it for free from me.
Is there any sutta which clearly states that dharma is donation-ware and that it is OK to redistribute dharma content even if it is copywritten?

Can dhamma have a copywrite according to the Buddha's teaching? Can we violate such a copywrite according to the Buddha's teachings? Is that what you'rd asking?

@Uilium yes exactly..

I doubt you'll get better answers than already exist in "Does illegal downloading or viewing of copyright material violate the second precept?".

Thanm you that is a good related question.. but i could swear i remember seeing a sutta where it is claimed that dharma is free.. i wanted that reference..

@Ahmed I think it may be against the vinaya to sell the dhamma (or to teach it in exchange for donations) ... but I presume that's not applicable here, though (because the author in your question isn't a monk). Also, I think that copyright is relatively modern, which therefore wouldn't be mentioned in suttas.

The Buddha did say:

"One should not go about making a business out of the Dhamma"

This web page gives a source for the quote. They use a different numbering scheme ("Ud 66") to Access to Insight, which gives it in the verse at the end of "Ud 6.2 PTS: Ud 64":

One   should not make an effort everywhere,
      should not be another's hireling,
      should not live dependent on another,
      should not go about
          as a trader in the Dhamma.

However, this is on the side of the seller. The seller is putting wealth above sharing the dhamma which is why this normally is considered to give bad karma. This quote says nothing about the buyer. Just because selling the dhamma is not a wholesome action does not mean that taking the dhamma is a wholesome action.
There was no written language at the time of the Buddha so there was no such thing as taking the dhamma which was not given.
You'll have to make your own decision about whether you should pirate the book. The second precept may also be relevant but some consider it to not apply to pirating. "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given"

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

I have a significant problem with this as well... the enriching of one self in either money, status or both, by charging for Dharma teachings. It is the primary reason I stopped going to for pay teachers whatsoever. It is also the reason I do not often buy Dharma books.
Begging or putting out a donation box is one thing. Charging is another. Even more insidious is the giving of favors to those who donate.
If you are serious about teaching, why on earth would you care about any of this? Your life isn't about having 'things' beyond food, shelter and companionship, and so there is no need to charge. A monastery or dharma center could easily make ends meet if they ran a few simple businesses that had nothing directly to do with The Dharma, such as selling malas, clothing, icons, and so on, Even better would be an unrelated thing, such as running a grocery store, accounting group or research team.
The teachings should always, always be free. The teacher should always, always be able to turn away anyone, for any reason other than money or material things.
Stopping charging actually frees the teacher up to do 'right action' in teaching. He isn't bound to make himself available to those who pay a large sum of money. He isn't bound by anything material except society, which seems to be the trickiest part of this. And he isn't bound so much that he is forced to say, when asked "How do you know all these people are ready to hear these teachings?" he says "By virtue of their Karma, they were able to afford it, and thus must be worthy" which to me is ridiculous.
As far as books go, the teacher should accept an amount to cover costs, and when that has been repaid, he should offer the book for free.

I agree with your last statement. Good point. There are a lot of hidden costs that go into research, explanation, translation costs (lots of sacred texts are yet to be translated), publishing, etc. but once they are paid off seller should alter the price. :/

All Dharmas are from the Buddha so it's free by nature, a teacher re-teaching the Buddha's Dharma is like a GNU GPL software redistributed by the none-original program-creator. As far as I understood redistributing a GNU GPL Software with fee is absurd or even illegal. @Ahmed an authentic translation of sacred text can't be price-tagged, usually involved "Celestial inspiration". Not anyone/scholar qualified just because he/she has that professional knowledge, though the nature of ur issue is unknown to me I'm only talking in general case.

The word 'dharma' is not exclusive to Buddhism. All Indian religions are forms of 'dharma'.
The Buddha-Dhamma ('dharma of the Buddha') is a "benevolent gift" thus is given free.
To quote:

This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again Dhamma to those who wish
  for it and who listen attentively. This, monks, is called the power of
  benevolence.
AN 9.5

Buddha-Dhamma is found in the Pali suttas. A Wall Street opinion about what Buddhism may or may not be is obviously not Buddha-Dhamma. It is another type of 'dharma'.
Therefore, if the Wall Street Dharma is not free, taking it without paying for it is stealing. Buddhism does not allow stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

I would be careful here... if someone is "rich" off of stealing from others, then stealing from them wouldn't be wrong action. And remember, excessive wealth is something the masses allow to exist.. not necessarily something that is necessary.
I know many teachers ( including The Buddha) have condemned this way of looking at things, however it is clear to me that this is done for political and social, and not dharma, reasons. Clearly, if everyone thought "eye for an eye" justice was appropriate, we would live in chaos. But that doesn't make it 'wrong'.

My understanding is the 2nd precept is: 'not taking what is not freely given'. Regards

If you perceive something as theft, or 'taking that which is not given', then best to avoid it. Since you intend not to steal, but perceive something that is close to it, if you wish to avoid it, don't do it! If you don't perceive it as some form of theft, and do not intent to steal, then you're fine!
https://suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-bu-vb-pj2 for the permutations!
As for the price, given the cost of publication, I would guess covering costs would be reasonable, but $100 seems a bit much. Also is counter intuitive that a person who follows the Dhamma truly would try and make themselves rich off it!

There are sometimes tremendous translation costs not to mention publishing, etc. and this is why it is necessary to charge a higher price.

I suppose Bikkhu Bodhi's individual Nikayas go for $60 on Amazon, so $100 not much of a stretch for cost. As the quote on Hugh's answer says, it shouldn't be a business venture. Recovering costs and making no profits is arguably not a very good business model! (I guess subject to a reasonable definition of costs too!)

Hmmm.. money talks !! I would not buy this book ....if you are looking for the real thing visit a temple some have libraries ...you can borrow a real book !! Or some wealthy temples will even give you the book with all the trimmings ...also you will notice a donation box around somewhere in the the temple ..." What do we do then "? Shall we  donate for the cost of the book as we shouldn't get something for nothing the question is how your mind works ....personal effort is what the great Lord wanted ..he only gave us the directions for the path ....be free all is well.

Demanding is wrong view.

He takes, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness [Internet] that belong to others and have not been given by them.
There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves. Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta

So the question "should..." is already wrong. If asking "is it good to share and give of what is mine, I am given to give, not needing to take what is not given.": Especially giving Dhamma is the highest gift.
There is nothing destroying Dhamma faster as dealing and selling Dhamma and taking part. But there is no way to help those greedy beings, not to speak of those even demanding and believing to have such as rights.
Being even in association not only with bad lay friends but also with monks of wrong view who encorage to revolution, demanding and are not shy to walk the thievery Robbin Hood way, who would be able to help aside of big suffering that naturally follows if aware of causes later or even already yet.
How much have you given till today, and how much do you demand? Most are not even able to make right anf fair trade and belive that paying the proper amount is already meritorious.
As for those poor being, making a livelihood from selling Dhamma, teaching, or what ever with this precious heritage, what else as being slaves for a religion that has been disappeared can they aspect. And think about it, how it could come that you need to pay money to gain at least mostly even fake Dhamma?
It's not possible to gain anything in regard of Path and Fruit having bought the teaching of the Buddha. Look of how much they read and pay for meditation. Their situation has causes, and so those today Dhammadealers will end afterwards, meet each other again and wander on in same ways.
And? What are you doing right here? Right now? In giving, what is not given to give here?
Hugh gave a good and right answer here, Sadhu! Take care of such previous friends understanding the basics and teaching you a goid for long time benefit.
Those shares with their attitude and confirming that, are of great demerits opposing right view, the Buddha, Dhamma and specially the Savaka Sangha and nurishing on their heritage.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gain]

Dhamma was never, is not, and will never be free, but requires sacrifices, like everything in this world. Yet, if proper attained, by being given (without trade back to the world) by the owner, and proper received in this cause, binds only toward one: liberation. What ever Dhamma is either not proper given (without string toward world), not proper received (taken not given or payed) will not bear the Sublime Buddha's and his Sublime hire's (Sangha) purpose of it and will not lead to right view and liberation.
So what would you be willing to give at first place, of what would you eager try to abstain to take on not given? One just thinking like a thief is bond to stay bond.
A given starter toward debtlessness: Respect, Confidence and Patient

In responding here I am mostly relying upon logic. I therefore implore you to use your own judgment and not accept my arguments or pov as, for want of a better term, Gospel.
Downloading ebooks of copyrighted material is not taking something that is not given, since the ebook is not only not the original item, it is not even physical property.
However, the person who copied the original content is without doubt breaking the contract entered into when purchased if there is a statement of prohibition with regards to copying. So copying  the material is definitely going against the wishes of those responsible for producing the material.  Although it is ambiguous as to whether anything is being taken that is not freely given and so depriving the producers of their material, there  is the possibility that the producers of the material are being deprived of either recuperating their production costs or their ability to continue producing similar Dhamma material.
If someone received a hard copy as a gift then they did not, strictly speaking, have any contract with the producer, however, if the work contains explicit prohibitions against copying, just having possession would obligate the possessor to not deprive the producer of the ability to recuperate the costs of producing the material or their abilty to continue producing such material. Downloading the material is making a copy and therefore going against the wishes of the producers, again with the same potential deprivations. Charging a fee for Dhamma material whether hard copies or ebooks isn't necessarily charging a fee for Dhamma, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that what is being charged for are production costs of the medium in which it is propagated. Effectively, monks and nuns, and even the Buddha, were paid for transmitting the Dhamma by way of alms. Without donations of sustenance they could not have continued living the holy life and therefore unable to offer the Dhamma to their fullest extent. Their medium of transmission is/was their bodies. With hard copies and ebooks the principle remains, regardless of the medium of transmission. However, there arises a further ambiguity. The prohibition statements within Dhamma material could be considered requests for alms from further recipients of the Dhamma whenever someone passes copies on.  It's somewhat like "I'll tell you the Dhamma but if you tell anyone I want the alms".
I have actually collated (in digital format) the complete Pali Canon in English translation for my personal use.  It took me approximately six years scouring the internet to acquire approximately 95% as that was all that was available. The only material that was not available in English translation was the Niddesa. However, a rough translation has in recent months become available.
I am tempted to upload the entire Pali Canon in English translation and to offer it to the world for free. The only thing stopping me is copyright violations. I am considering contacting the publishers of the parts that are copyrighted and requesting permission to distribute so that there is an online resource that offers the complete (100%) Pali Canon in one place. Albeit in varying degrees of quality.

There's already a project aimed at uploading the entire Tipitaka in English: Wikipitaka (and Sutta Central, though I don't know if that's an explicit goal there). Also please don't rely on my Nid. translation, "rough" is an understatement, but hopefully I can revisit it this year.


text:
How does big bang happen in terms of Buddhism?
Want to know about big bang in terms of Buddhism point of view

This may be a related topic: Can one practice meditation to gain knowledge about the universe?

In Buddhism the universe goes through 4 phases from expansion, expanded, contracting and collapsed states. This cycle is infinite hence there is infinite Big Bangs hence the no single point of origin whist the "Big Bang" is not the origin of the universe but start of this world cycle. See: The Big Bang and the Buddha's View of the Universe by Bhante Vimalaramsi. In fact there are infinite parallel universes which are at various stages of development. See: Abhidharmartha Pradipika by Amaradasa Rathnapala.
The start of the "Big Bang" is triggered by by lust and craving of beings in Ābhassara Brahma World ending their life span there which causes the lower planes to be formed. As their lust grows then come and inhabit lower realms without the merit to go back.
Finally cosmology does not help eliviate stress in your current exitance and perhaps case more stress through theorising hence unless you make your living as astonomer or cosmologist then this is best left aside. Also see chapter: The Origin of the World of What Buddhists Believe by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera and Can one practice meditation to gain knowledge about the universe?

The Pali Buddhist scriptures concern themselves with suffering & freedom from suffering rather than ideas about the creation of the universe. Therefore, the 'Big Bang' is unrelated to Buddhism because it is unrelated to freedom from suffering & because it is not knowable,i.e., it is superstition.

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
AN 4.77

~~~

'...talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
  cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening or Nibbana —
  i.e., talk about...the creation of the world & of the sea...
MN 122

There is no 'creation' story within Buddhism, at least not as such.. there are 62 beliefs (wrong views), from some of which you can infer different 'starts' to the universe, but it is literally the first Sutta within the Sutta Pitaka, and effectively asks the individual to abandon all of them!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
Wrong View 5 reminds me of the Big Bang/Big Crunch model, but again - these views are usually a-priori metaphysical views, and not confirmed by evidence or experiment. In any case, their discussion is not conducive to the goal.
(Science and Buddhism do meet, here is a fun philosophy article: http://philpapers.org/archive/CAPIOQ-2.PDF , but they have overlap within the philosophy of science, more than science itself!)
Within Buddhist thought, the Universe does not have a first cause (since it is illogical), rather it keeps on going 'around' within Samsara..

Note the other answers, which say that conjectures about the Big Bang are irrelevant to Buddhism.
The "beginning" is also described (it's described as being something which cannot be discerned), in suttas, for example the Gaddula Sutta:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said:

"Monks, from an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.

Dharmafarer translates this same sutta as,

“Without a beginning or an ending, bhikshus, is this samsara [cycle of lives and deaths]. A first
point cannot be discerned of beings roaming and wandering on, hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving.

Still you might also be interested in these references:

Buddhist cosmology - Temporal cosmology
Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)


text:
How to pronounce Ksana?
It's 刹那 in Chinese, is the smallest unit of time, from Sanskrit.
My question: How to pronounce Ksana in Sanskrit ?
Please leave phonetic symbol or click here.

www.spokensanskrit.de says,
क्षण    kṣaṇa   m. n.   moment

I am asking how to speak Ksana, or what it is sounds like ?

In Hindi, it's क्षण which you pronounce like the English word Shun.

I assume you are looking for a sound ...saaa...shaa sana ksana k is like shhh..

I still do not understand :(

Ok the word ksana ( minute , moment ) is pronounced as a shhh sound it's tricky some letters in Sanskrit ( mother of all languages )are pronounced different much like in English where a J ...could be a Y sound or sometimes there are silent letter like H in the word honours ...there's a English to Sanskrit tattoe site on Google but sure of Chinese to Sanskrit //hope it helps

刹那 chànà क्षण kṣaṇa.
An indefinite space of time, a moment, an instant; the shortest measure of time, as kalpa is the longest; it is defined as 一念 a thought; but according to another definition 60 kṣaṇa equal one finger-snap, 90 a thought 念, 4,500 a minute; there are other definitions. In each kṣaṇa 900 persons are born and die.

You can find a pronunciation example of "kṣa" in kṣaṇa (क्षण), in this video at the timestamp already part of the URL, which is 15:50.
In that example, he speaks kṣaya (क्षय).


text:
In Buddhas Time Did Kings give Freedom to His Sex Wives(Anttappura Wives)?
in lord Buddhas time their was many kingdoms in India. these kingdoms had many kings. kings had many wives. some kings had 500, 1000 (Antappura) wives but they all have main 1 queen & other wives used for sex uses.most of these kings became followers of Buddhism & Buddha & they obtain nirvana (1st 3 stages as below)

The First Stage – Skt srotaapanna (The stream-winner)
The Second Stage – Sakridagamin
The Third Stage – Anagamin (The non-returner)
so my question is after these became Buddhist & obtain nirvana did these kings given freedom to these Wives who use for sex uses?

One such instance was King Bimbisara giving freedom to Khema to enter the order. Many more may be found in the cemeteries and many may not even be documented!

So my question is after these became Buddhist & obtain nirvana did these kings given freedom to these Wives who use for sex uses?

When one wins Nibbana one has lived the holy life and done what had to be done, i.e. one has destroyed all fetters and achieved complete security from all bondage.
One has removed the veil of ignorance permanently and therefore do not produce either wholesome or unwholesome kamma. Instead one's kamma becomes purely functional (kiriya), meaning that its no longer kammically potent and creates no further resultants (rebirth). The cittas that arise in the javana process is no longer kammically determinate since craving has been destroyed.
Since an enlightened being has destroyed all fetters and root defilements its not possible to hold other beings captured against their will or use anyone for personal gratification.

I guess your question is after meeting Lord Buddha and achieving Nirvana would sex be permitted , one point I'd like to make is present day Buddhism does not condemn sex between a loving husband and wife .. But sex for the use of pleasure would be inappropriate in a secular area such as temples etc or those in  robes who take wows to abstain from many types of pleasure in the physical body also having more than one partner is kinda unfaithful too. There would be as then a certain moral code once you reach Nirvana or some enlightenment. Sorry just to clarify ...I think what you've asked is whether the Kings post enlightenment allowed their former concubines to be used for sexual pleasure? To my knowledge no body after enlightenment would approve of prostitution!

Just to clarify ...is your question  ,,,after being in the presence of Lord Buddha and reaching enlightenment would it be permissable for these wives to partake of sex ?

i'm asking here that in Buddhas time their was kings. these kings had many wives. after these kings became Buddhist (The First Stage – Skt srotaapanna (The stream-winner)
The Second Stage – Sakridagamin
The Third Stage – Anagamin (The non-returner) did these kings give freedom to his wives who used only for sex?

Yes I understand but to what extent will knowledge of this from a enlightenment point of being b useful...?


text:
Can good and evil live in harmony?
Presently I found an old steel bangle belonging to the sheik faith ...and I started to think of circle and unity how pleasent it would be to flow freely, and then I had the ephifany that this is possible except for the friction caused by opposites that have put a stop to  my flow.
Is it me or are we as yet not free from this cosmic and earthly struggle between contradictions ie good and evil //heat //cool ..night //day there seems to be a checker board pattern emerging to me . the  sessation of suffering according to my knowledge of Buddhism is to recognise the hindrances.
And rectify them in order to escape from the karma wheel of cause and effect .  so again .. Conflict if opposing ideas or suggestions would be suffering to me as well as all sentient beings in this case I'm yet again asking like many before me can there exist harmony amongst chaos ? Or good amongst evil both subjectively and objectively ....good - a small Daisy flower evil - this very flower will kill a person allergic to it!!

I'm closing this question as both question title and content is unclear. Question can be reopened once rephrased in a clearer way. Please add relevant context to the question that reflects question title. Also specify what is meant by "good and evil" and "harmony". Also, you might consider adding the "ethics-tag" to your question.

Lanka you have appeared from the tear drop island and are causing a lot of pain ...it's a fair question

Edit: added line-spacing to increase readability. I still think question-content is unclear. We will give it a try and see what the community decides. Question reopened.

Ok good show ol chap!! Here's a very important question for you Lanka ..is your mind as you would know it belong to you or the great Lord Buddha? Very best in your responce...

(this is less Buddhism than a demonstration that actions within the empirical world do not suit Essential concepts like 'good' and 'evil'.. though to me this flows from the Buddha's analysis!)
Moral system 1: Killing = Evil (100%).
You wake up and find yourself faced with two option (you are placed in this position by a third actor).
Option A, kill 1 person.
Option B, 100 people are killed (by that third actor).
Knowing that 'Killing = Evil', you choose option B (within that 100%, the non-relational, there can be no justification for choosing A).. In that you do not personally pull the trigger, you are not the 'efficient cause'. You have done no wrong (within your moral system).
Moral system 2: No killing > less killing > more killing.
Logically, B is never reasonable.
An essential moral construct like 'good' or 'evil' will agree with a relational moral construct in all scenarios, other than the one where it is compared to itself. As such, it is simply inefficient. No need for opposites in their essential form!
"Treat this as this, not this as that or that as this" As the Buddha said. (in other words, not 'This=This'.. given evidence from empirical experience, the law of identity is flawed!)
Now how this fits in within the Buddhist world view, whether you can put it down to past karma for finding yourself in such a position.. how to square that you are damned either way is the more interesting question! :D

In buddhism you perceive everyhit experience in 2 opposites may it be hot or cold, long or short, good or evil, etc. as simply:

favorable or
unfavorable or
do not care

If you perceive something favorable you get a good feeling about it and get attached and if unfavorable you get a bad feeling about it and get averse.
What ever experience you should keep a balanced mind and use each experience to eradicate the unwholesome roots. See: Pahāna Sutta. The bipolar evaluation something as favorable and unfavorable always result in either craving or aversion hence result in misery. Also may result in Sensory Desire and Ill Will.
Moreover, if you are allergic to a flower and if hurts someone, this being good or bad is matter of perception hence resulting is pleasant and unpleasant sensation followed by craving and aversion followed by becoming. So if might be that the perception which may create more misery now and in the future than a person who is getting an allergic reaction. The allergic reaction maybe his Karma or negligence. When you harmonise your mind the notion of good (being favorable) and evil (unfavorable) will not be present but you will be equanimous.

Conditioned responce is what I think you referring too... My question however is between good and evil is there an underlying factor that is inhibiting harmony...ie we all need to be happy then deciding so and applying methods like Buddhism should work

There is no good and evil per say. It is just a perception. What comes close is skillful and unskillful.