text:
Praying to God - What are the consequences?
I was raised in a Catholic environment, however I'm adding more and more Dhamma in my life, currently I spend much more time with Buddhists practices than Catholics.
the point is that I still keep the habit of praying to God before going to sleep (and before flying too), but if I'm not mistaken this is seen as something bad in Buddhism (wrong view/attachment to rituals)
Can someone explain what are the bad consequences, from a Buddhist's perspective of praying to God? If any.

I'd like to get some more info so I can edit my answer to be as helpful as possible. Do you believe in an all-powerful God? And how do you view your Buddhist practice? As a means of gaining ordinary well being or are you striving for enlightenment?

Your answer was very good

How you should consider what do to depends on your situation. Have you converted to Buddhism? Do you believe in an all powerful God? If you haven't converted to Buddhism and still believe in a God and are just adopting Buddhist practices because you find that they give you wellbeing I wouldn't worry about it too much. But if you are trying to work out the full path to awakening according to the teachings of the Buddha then there could be a problem.
If you have decided to strive for enlightenment according to the Buddhist path then belief in a God is problematic because it is in conflict with the teachings that all things apart from Nibbana are impermanent, incapable of giving true happiness, and are non-self. So if you believe in an all powerful God and pray to him that will reinforce that belief and interfere with developing right view.
Apart from interfering with right view and thus delaying the attainment of enlightenment until such view is corrected, I can't see any direct consequences. Belief in God can lead some people to be heedless thinking that God will look after them and everything will automatically turn out all right, and still others sometimes give up their consciousness to their concept of God, but the actual belief in the existence of God itself isn't going to create bad Karma directly or anything.

Chogyam Trungpa spoke about theistic vs. non-theistic perspective:
For most people, God is a dualistic concept. Meaning, for a typical person the unspoken assumption is: "I am here and God is over there". So when I think about God, when I speak to God -- I inevitably imagine some power outside of myself. It is in this power that I place hope for good life and for salvation; it is this power that I blame for unfairness etc.
There are several problems with this approach. First by attributing to God the power to save us or to send difficulties etc. we alienate ourselves from our own power. In Buddhism (except Pure Land) our liberation is always in our hands. (As Trungpa said, no one is going to descent in the golden chariot to take care of you. In fact this very feeling of loneliness/hopelessness is one of the main ingredients for the gunpowder of Bodhi.) As long as you keep looking up to some higher power, how can you be the master of your life?
Second, by relating with external God, we confirm our own existence, our illusory ego. "I pray to God, therefore I exist." -- This is good old dependent-coarising at work. When that is, this is. From the arising of that comes the arising of this. So the more we praise God, the more we cement this little "I", the subject of God.
Instead, from the non-theistic perspective, "I" and "God" are two equally illusory ends of the same stick. It is not that I am infinite, and therefore I am God. Nor is it that "I" does not exist and everything is God. Neither is it that the little "I" is inside of, or a part of, God. Nor is it that God only exists as a concept of my mind. Rather, all of these are interpretations of the fundamental situation in which my power and the power of God is the same power, my will and the will of God is the same will, and my spontaneity and the spontaneity of God is the same spontaneity. Perhaps even this is implying too much. There is power / will / spontaneity, but no one who wields it. It just is. Using it and being used by it refers to the same activity.
Two of my teachers preferred to emphasize one side: using it. My Zen Master said: "People say, 'God bless you', but Enlightenment is when you bless God". My current teacher says: "utilize God". Both of these serve to remind us of our inherent mastery. The power is us, and we are the power.
So a regular prayer, addressing God as "You", from Buddhist perspective is counterproductive. It dependently co-creates "I", takes away our power, and leads astray from enlightenment. A better perspective is, as Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (i.e. my true nature and the nature of God is one and the same). This corresponds to what Buddha called "a state of Brahma" (brahmapatta, AN 4.190) and praised as a valuable intermediate attainment. In Tibetan Buddhism there is this beautiful prayer, spoken from the perspective of Kuntuzangpo, the Primordial Buddha -- i.e. the nature of intrinsic awareness, before separation into beings, which is another way to refer to God. This prayer is perhaps as good as a prayer can get from Buddhist perspective.

An archetypal Christian prayer is this one, from the Garden of Gethsemane:

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

You were asking about "wrong view".
My personal opinion is that there are not bad sentiments in this prayer:

"take away this cup from me" -- this cup is 'suffering'
"nevertheless not what I will" -- this is cessation of attachment

Other parts of the prayer don't have an obvious Buddhist corollary, i.e.:

Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee

Except that, for all I know (and, to be clear, I don't know), even "prayer" (perhaps not that particular prayer) might be found in some forms of Buddhism (for example, like this). There may be a split in Buddhism which I'm not qualified to explain. Searching for someone else's description, I find e.g. this:

Nowadays, Buddhism is little more than a thing of tradition in most parts of Asia, and "Mahayana" has degenerated into a system of worship and prayer to numerous Buddhas and Bodhisattvas that hope, fear and superstition have populated the cosmos with. Ignorant of the Buddha's Teachings about Karma and the importance of developing spiritual self-reliance, people weak-mindedly turn for help and salvation to celestial beings. They imagine Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as remote from them -- somewhere in the sky, perhaps -- similar to the deities of other religions. And so, they miss the whole point of the Buddha"s parting injunction: "Work out your own salvation with diligence". Enlightenment is an intimate inner experience, not something that comes to us from outside.

It is (I still don't know) possible that the above quote is doing an injustice to what "Buddhist prayer" is.
For another point of view, you should see for example: this answer.
If you're interested, you might want to ask another question: perhaps about "Buddhist prayer", instead of about "praying to God".

One more thing, you also wanted to ask about "attachment to ritual".
I don't know how to answer that from a Buddhist perspective. Though I may be off-topic, let me try to address "Christian ritual".
The Quakers are a Christian sect who believe a number of things, an important belief being the priesthood of all believers, i.e. that you don't need a priest who intervenes between you and God.
The founder, George Fox, travelled around preaching. Margaret Fell became his wife, and this quote is her description of the first time she heard him preach. If you read it, you will see that he believes that Christ was divinely inspired, was in communion with God.
So, Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane isn't to be imagined as an empty ritual, but as an authentic, real experience. It's a description of what Jesus did.
Looking around the net for other places where this quote appears, I stumbled upon this which includes the quote,

As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."

That quote sounds to me similar to the "already-having-been-saved" which Methexis mentioned, which is using the "Perfect tense" mentioned at the start of this answer.
Her profile links to several Buddhist (and other) blogs, which is more than I can read at the moment.
I guess my point was that according to some people, prayer isn't just ritual.

Like you, I was raised Catholic. Like you, I now spend more time involved with the dharma than directly with Catholicism. However, I increasingly see a synergy between the two "systems", and not very much collision (the "orthodox" from both sides may disagree, but that doesn't make them right).
Crucial to me seeing this synergy was coming to see that the notion of "God" that I had in my childhood, and also the notion of God of most Buddhists I've met, is really not a very coherent notion at all. Or, put it more simply, it's wrong. If someone says Buddhists don't believe in God, it's important to know exactly what that person means by "God". Odds are they're talking about some kind of sky fairy or such like, and classic Catholicism doesn't believe in that either.
If you look a the works of St Thomas Aquinas -- maybe get yourself some commentaries first, before tackling the summae head on -- you'll find that the notion of God that is at the heart of Christianity (and, I'd add, Islam and Judaism) is far harder to pin down as something that is at odds with Buddhism. For example, trying to apply the words "permanent", "satisfying" or "self" to "God" is almost a category error.
In conclusion, I wouldn't worry about prayer and praying -- in other words, just keep doing it if you want. Or not. Don't fret either way. And if you do continue, you can even develop it, but perhaps look into the contemplative side, since that has a lot in common with many Buddhist approaches -- especially Tibetan. I recommend reading "The Seven Story Mountain" by Thomas Merton as a useful story of one man's journey. Also, look into the work of Thomas Keating, on centering prayer.

I'ved studied St. Thomas Aquinas and I don't really see what you mean. Aquinas understood God as having a soul or spirit, is eternal and unchanging, and that true happiness consists in the beatific vision of God himself. I don't see how that squares with Buddhism.

@Bakmoon, stack exchange isn't the best place for us to discuss, so all I'll say here is that if you interpreted Aquinas as understanding God as having a soul or spirit then in my opinion you have fundamentally misinterpreted Aquinas. Also, exactly what is meant by "beatific vision" is open to interpretation, and it's not clear to me that all interpretations are problematic vis-a-vis Buddhism. But as I say, this isn't really a discussion forum. Maybe you could raise the topic as a question?

I think starting a chat on the issue might be a better format.

Yep, makes sense. (Although I do have a problem in that I have ever been able to login to chat since starting my SE account -- some weird collision with an old account of mine).

I've started a chat on the subject at http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17708/buddhism-and-aquinas-understanding-of-god

I'll copy and paste my comments into a new question then.

I've just made a question at http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/4056/is-aquinas-understanding-of-god-compatible-with-the-buddhas-teaching-on-the-3

Actually I was thinking maybe it would be better to ask a modified version of this at http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ and then discuss it there. Are you up for that?

@Bakmoon, is that chat area still "open" (if that concept even applies)? I can see your chats, but I see no space to add any replies. That's what always happens. Then when I go to login (even though I'm logged in already) always end up not in the chat area. Then when I re-enter, it all begins again (samsara-like :-) )

It is still open -- it should become frozen for inactivity in several days from. If I click on http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17708/buddhism-and-aquinas-understanding-of-god that takes me into that chat room: I am already logged in (don't need to log in again), and the edit box at the bottom of the page (which would let me compose and send a new message) is enabled.

Yeah, there's definitely still something busted on my account. I can see what's been written but can't write, even when I'm logged in here. And if I try to login again, same deal. Sigh.

You don't have to worry about your practices, keep learning Buddhism my friend. Then You will understand the world is governed by reason and result theory instead of a god. Buddhism teach the world is governed by 5 forces called 'Niyama Dhamma'as

Utu niyaama
Beeja nyaama
Kamma nyaama
dhamma nyaama
chitta nyaama

They are simply explained here
So you have to realize them by yourself with allocate time to think what is the truth. Do not simply stop thinking when there is a complex matter with feeling that was done by the god. If all did so, then there will not be Science. Then after you realize that world is governed by reasons and the results, your journey to nirvana will accelerated. My dear friend we have left very little time. Don't think 80 years are big time. Worst 'bad consequences' in your practice is you are wasting your time with false concepts.

Hi, I'm not new to Buddhism, I have been studying it for 2 years, I did retreats and I have been to different traditions (Theravada, Mahayana...), I read at least 8 good books about it and watched thousands of videos and dhammatalks, I will tell you, it is hard to give up a few thing... I believe a buddhist converting to Christianism will not have as many problems as the other way around

Friend, as I know Tripitaka is not available in English. So you are reading books that summarized or partly grabbed. 2 years means you are very new. I'm learning Buddhism for 15 years. But what I know is very very little compared to what I have to know. And knowing is not enough. You will never understand those complex theories until you practice them.

I have all sutta pitaka in english, found it in Asia :)

And lets not forget the Buddha said time is not important, hehehe anyway I was just trying to explain I didnt find  about Buddhism yesterday :)

According to my tradition, the existance or non-existance of Creator (the G-d in Chrisitan sense) is one of the 'unanswerable quesions' to which Buddha kept 'a noble silence'.
Therefore if it makes you feel better, you are free to keep your daily rituals on.
Besides, in some Mahayana sutras Buddhas are the creators of Pure Lands (not mentioning the paradigm of Tathagatagarbha).
Therefore the answer to your questions depends mainly on how you define the Creator and prayers.

Its nothing bad, if one, for example, would remember the virtue of beings having become gods. The benefits are following in this link. Being attached to wholesome deeds is also nothing wrong, but wise, even if they are still rituals. They can not become natural if not practiced as ritual first.
As for wrong view, yes in certain aspects, since such as believing in an external power (in the case of a creator god) rejects naturally the law of cause and effect, would not bring one beyond the circle of live. If one acts out of this wrong view unwholesome, one certainly does not prepare a good journey. How ever, Christianity, if practiced honestly, is not much different with the Buddhas teachings. It carries Dana (generosity), Sila (virtue) and even certain stages of Bhavana (meditation), and lacks just of panna (wisdom) to come out of the circle.
As far as Atma had seen, most Christian serious practicing people have obviously more changes to accumulate paramis (perfections) and merits, as most of the Buddhists will actually do and doing.
Being able to listen to the good teachings of the Buddha requires conditions and one does not lower his conditions but increase them, by simply stick to good ways, what ever the "tradition" is labeled to.
Being grateful and showing gratitude, is not a wrong thing, if such are the intentions of prayers, but lesser good would be wishing, hoping, demanding... especially if one does not lead a live which would not provide such be own deeds, Mr konrad01.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

If it makes you feel better, the Buddha himself was not above syncretizing deities in from another religion, namely Hinduism.  King Yama from the underworld was used in a parable about the inevitability of death.
What is the likelihood that the country and religious culture that Shakyamuni just happened to be born in, was the one that just happened to have correct name for the underworld deity?  Effectively zilch.  But he used that deity with that name anyway, in his parable.
A practicing Buddhist will not "believe" in any outside deity as being an intervening savior or law-giving authority over himself, but there is no reason you can't contemplate a deity anyway, at least while meditating in one of the lower jhannas.  You could visualize the crucifixion of the Christ, his resurrection, etc. as a means of clarifying the mind, freeing yourself of various mundane concerns.  The twenty-third psalm is helpful if you want attempt to visualize green pastures and still waters; the nineteenth psalm describes the beauty of the sun and stars; and psalm 1 is about a flourishing, sturdy tree.  Plus, the first and nineteenth psalms include the word "meditate" and "meditation", respectively.


text:
Patimokkha Rule On Bathing
I recall having read somewhere that monks are allowed to bathe only once every 15 days. What is the actual Patimokkha rule behind this ? Also, what is the reason behind this rule and what are its possible benefits ? Is there any specific story corresponding to this rule ?

It's Pācittiya 57:

Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper
  occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: the last month and a
  half of the hot season, the first month of the rains, these two and a half months being a
  time of heat, a time of fever; (also) a time of illness; a time of work; a time of going on a
  journey; a time of wind or rain. These are the proper occasions here.

(Thanissaro, trans)

The reason is ostensibly that bathing is an unnecessary luxury. The benefit to the rule is that monks will not become overly attached to cleanliness and that they will not become a burden on society. The story behind it is that the king was unable to bathe because the monks were bathing.
Note that the rule only applies to bathing; showering is not mentioned.

Ven. Sir - What, in this case, can be considered to be a difference between bathing and showering ?

Bathing is getting inside a tub, a river or a lake and submerging oneself in water. Showering is just using the shower in the bathroom.

There seems to be less reason why showering should be something different, not at least because such as shower in a bathroom is even till today unknown, as well such as taking a full bath on many places.

@Monk To Bathe is clean oneself in some sort of body of water, such as a tub or lake. To shower is to be sprayed with water while cleaning oneself not in a body of water. I hope that makes the distinctions clear.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Compassion to friends: stepping in vs. letting them learn on their own
There is a story about how the Buddha will knock on your door if your house is on fire, but he will not kick it down because you have to answer the door yourself. This is analogous to the Four Noble Truths, in which one must realize their suffering, and from that they can make the effort to find the path to the cessation of suffering. The Buddha will not force you down that path, nor will he be your savior; he will only help you if you ask him. However, the Buddha also asks those to practice sincere compassion for others.
My question is: if I see a friend suffering (let's say from a slight alcohol abuse or they think that they are ugly), yet I think they will never understand their suffering, how can I give my compassion to that being that needs help to deal with their suffering, when their understanding of suffering must come from within? They need to come to the realization of their suffering, but I know that these people will never see the light themselves. Where's the balance in this tricky situation? These friends are unwilling to change their unhealthy habits, but I, as one who tries hard to practice compassion, find it hard to just let it slide and hope someday they will realize their suffering and understand that it exists, and that there's a path to the cessation of it.
Any insight would be much appreciated. And I hope my thoughts make sense to some of you.

In addition to the good answers below, I would add:  remember that pity is the "near enemy" of compassion.  Notice when you're going to sympathy ("You're sad, so I feel sad") which is less helpful, or going to empathy ("You're sad, and I care about that") which is more helpful.

Two perspectives: 1) In the movie The Hotel New Hampshire, one of the main characters said, "Helping people is the same thing as messing with them." 2) The story of the dog that died saving a toddler in a house fire by lying on top of it. Your call.

The truth about the Buddha, as far as I can see, was that he was disinclined to do much of anything after his enlightenment:

'With great pains have I acquired it. Enough! why should I now proclaim it?
  This doctrine will not be easy to understand to beings that are lost in lust and hatred.
  'Given to lust, surrounded with thick darkness, they will not see what is repugnant (to their minds),
  abstruse, profound, difficult to perceive, and subtle.'
-- Mv. 1.5 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

Of course, we see a complete reversal of intention after the Buddha was first asked to teach and he looked and saw "beings whose mental eyes were darkened by scarcely any dust, and beings whose eyes were covered by much dust, beings sharp of sense and blunt of sense, of good disposition and of bad disposition, easy to instruct and difficult to instruct, some of them seeing the dangers of future life and of sin." (Ibid)

'Wide opened is the door of the Immortal to all who have ears to hear;
  let them send forth faith to meet it.
  The Dhamma sweet and good I spake not, Brahmâ,
  despairing of the weary task, to men.'
-- Ibid

But the point remains that his whole life of teaching depended upon being asked to teach. The first question you have to ask yourself is, "why help someone else at all?"
Some of the things you have to keep in mind when answering are:

Will I actually be able to help this person, given I'm not a fully enlightened Buddha?
Will they accept my help or will they reject it?
Will helping this person distract me from my own practice or will it help make me a better person?

What you shouldn't do is let your partiality for this person lead you to spend more energy on them than is appropriate; if the same amount of energy could obtain greater results elsewhere, it stands to reason that you work for the greatest gain possible.
Compassion means an attitude of non-harming; it fails when it becomes a desire to free others from suffering, because that is a type of craving that leads to suffering when it is unable to obtain its desire. This means that true compassion requires the person to approach you in some way - approaching them to probe into their personal life or nagging them about seeking help is not compassion.

Compassion  is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering.
  Its function resides in not bearing others’ suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty. Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by
  suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside and it fails when it produces
  sorrow.
-- Vism IX.94 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Of course, simply crying in your presence or making a fool of themselves would be enough to elicit an appropriate response, since it would be cruelty to repress the intention to comfort others or warn them of their bad behaviour, etc.
In most cases, your friendship with the person will put you in a position to nudge them in the right direction as a simple matter of course. What you don't want to do is want to help them, since that will have negative consequences, most likely for the both of you. In the end, we are all responsible for our own fate; this is what sets Buddhism apart from theistic religions, that we have to save ourselves.

Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great.
  Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.
-- Dhp. 166 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Still, you should not underestimate your influence on others, nor should you dismiss the power of small acts of goodness.

Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.
-- Dhp. 122 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Simply being mindful and conscientious around other people can have a profound impact on them over the long term, if you are patient and truly compassionate with them.

Is there a connection between "your influence on others" and "the power of small acts of goodness"? Because line 122 in the Dhammapada says that the wise person, by doing good, accumulates (becomes full of) merit. I'd like to think that an "act of goodness" towards a friend can "do good to the friend" or "be good for them" or even "make them better", but that's not clear from the text (instead it says that merit is accumulated by the doer). The last sentence ("Simply being ... profound impact ... compassionate with them") might be usually true, but unusually difficult with an alcoholic friend.

No, the Buddha did not wait for people to ask for help. Only at the beginning, after attaining the Buddhahood, he waited for the invitation of the Maha Brahma, to preach the Dhamma to the world. That is customary to all the Buddhas.
The issue with making it a rule to wait for people to ask for help is that people rarely realize that they need help. Even when they are in a pathetic condition, they don't realize the type of help they really require is the Dhamma. Lord Buddha would often open conversations with strangers without waiting for the other person to engage. Sometimes he would travel great distances, just to meet one person. ex: the story of King Pukkusati. Sometimes he would use Samyak-Prayoga to convince someone to practice the Dhamma. Ex: The story of Prince Nanda. All Nanda wanted to do is to marry Janapada Kalyani. He had everything and never felt like he needed help.
If you want to bring a friend to the Dhamma, you have to be smart about it. You can study the likings and dislikings of the friend and figure out what method of convincing would work best. If one method doesn't work, you can try another. Read about how Anathapindika, the chief supporter of the Buddha, convinced his son Kala to listen to the Dhamma. Also read about how Ghatikara the potter convinced his friend Jotipala to go see the Buddha.
Sigalovada Sutta lists down four kinds of good friends. The 3rd kind is "he who gives good counsel".
No one can force someone into Nibbana. But that doesn't mean you should always wait for the SOS. :)  But, if you get upset when your friends don't listen to you, that is not Karuna. That is expecting them to act according to your liking. That is a defilement.
One important thing to notice is that in most of those stories, the person who does the convincing had already attained a stage of enlightenment. Anatapindika was a Sotapanna. Ghatikara was an Anagami. So it's best not to waste too much time trying to convince others, if you are still ordinary. Focus more on seeing the Dhamma yourself first. It's not very effective, trying to pull others out of the mud, if you yourself are still stuck in it.

Other kinds of "warm-hearted friends" are also good, IMO, including "he who is the same in happiness and sorrow".

I agree! The Buddha once said that the survival of the whole Sasana depends on Kalyana Mittas, a.k.a. good friends.

Thank you for saying "Kalyana Mittas" because that let me find this translation of the Upaddha Sutta. I read that before in another translation, which says, "The half of the holy life, Lord, is the friendship with what is lovely etc." In that translation, "fellowship with what is lovely" is so abstract (or "ideal" an idea, instead of "real" a thing) that I didn't understand it was even talking about people, about friends. I had guessed "lovely" meant "Dhamma".

Welcome! Yes, I've always heard it as real people. One takes refuge in the Dhamma. For monks, the Kalyana Mittas would be the Ariya Sangha.

There are great answers here, but there's something you said, in both the title and body of your question, (well, in your original title, before editors removed it), that no-one here is speaking to:
the focus on "Change From Within", and "their understanding of suffering must come from within."
Must it?
Here's why I'm putting a spotlight on the question:
1) Because everything is connected.
2) Because of the importance of the Sangha.
3) Because of the Buddhist focus on Anatman, rather than Atman.
4) Because of the value of "practices".
5) Because of personal experience, of impacts, limitations, and drawbacks--mixed blessings at best--related to this concept, that ... must come from within.
This emphasis on "change from within" is such a cultural assumption of the 60s, and of the New Age movement, and of Americanized Buddhism... but I'm not clear how much it was part of Buddhism's "original product".  (Someone else speak to that?)
Does change come from within?  Absolutely.  Does change come ONLY from within?  Absolutely not.
(Not dealing with, right now:  whether enlightenment actually involves "change"... and is there anything that needs to "come from" anywhere.)
Following the numbering above:  (1) ItsAllConnected:  if the "inside" and the "outside" are actually One, then why not notice the intermingling, when doing "inner work"?
(2) The importance of the Sangha.  A quote from Buddha:  "Admirable friendship is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk [or anyone else] has admirable people as friends... he can be expected to develop and pursue the Noble Eightfold Path." (http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-quotes-quotations-buddhist/sangha-monks-nuns.htm)
If change is from within, what does the Sangha do?
(3) Anatman, rather than Atman.  This focus on what's "from within" can actually be isolating.  I'm not making "retreat" wrong -- it definately has value -- but want to point out that we can be standing in the point of view of the "us" we're being connected with.  Some of the most enjoyable meditation I've experienced stands in this point of view... and just standing there, and noticing how that interacts with feelings, can be transformative.
(4) Are practices "internal"?  If it's all from within, then why sit?  Because the internal and the external are in cooperation.
(5) When you stand in the point of view that "the real stuff comes from within", it automatically presents you with a quandary, whenever anyone tries to contribute to your process:  you have to somehow make it "within", for your "self".  And sure, approaches like that to "internalizing" things can be of real value...
but it can also add a "chronological step" (this has to happen, before that), that doesn't actually always have to be there.
We're in this together, and if what you're saying resonates / feels like a fit / aligns with the Four Immeasurables (equanimity, love, compassion, empathetic joy), then is that enough to simply run with it?
Or do I need to make sure it first "works for me"... whoever "me" is?
In a similar way, while it would be one form of separateness (superiority), for you to see your buddy as "needing you to tell him," it would be another form of separateness (isolation), for you to withhold because "he's got to get it on his own."
((Another thing I'm not going to try to handle right now:  healthy "boundaries", which, lol, I think can paradoxically serve a purpose, even in a point of view of connectedness.))

Maybe "boundary" is just another word for "relationship".

You have all this compassionate feeling in Buddhism, as you have seen from other people's (good) answers, helping others is part of all major religions and Buddhism is no different.
On the other hand we have several stoties (Dhammapada for instance) where the Buddha said we should leave bad friends behind, the fools can only harm us or at least delay our realizations, it doesn't mean we should go around judging people and removing them from our lifes, but it means (in my interpretation) that association with fools should not take place, therefore you must offer help and simply go away if they refuse.
So what will determine if he is going to get help or not?
His karma will plan a very important role in this situation, if he created good karma, your offer for help will create the conditions for his good karma to reapen and he will accept your generous help, however if he wants to keep destroying himself, at the end of the day, that's his call.

If we take Buddha's own example, we can see that he faced the same dilemma: "Now that I've reached the other shore and clearly saw that most people seek in a wrong direction, should I invasively mess with their quests or should I let them figure it out on their own?" The answer Buddha chose was not entirely black or white.
Buddha helped people, he did not just wait until everyone gets Enlightened on their own using whatever methods that existed before him (jains, ajivika). He was pretty disruptive towards what was then the establishment. However, the way he helped people was never against their natural inclinations so to speak, but always going along with them. With Brahimns he spoke of how to be a true Brahmin. With ascetics that denied everything, he spoke how in order to be consistent they should deny the denial. With people seeking purity he spoke how his Path is the path of purity. With people seeking Nirvana -- how it leads to Nirvana etc.
If you think about it, this is a rather wise and skillful approach. Instead of fighting with student's impulse, we use it as the force to propel them to a gradually deeper realization of Sat-Dharma.
So in your example, of someone who drinks too much, in order to help them you would need to find out why do they drink. What do they want in life, what do they think is right, how does that light of goodness look from their perspective. Perhaps they drink because they think the society is messed up. Then you find out what "messed up" means for them, perhaps it means this success-oriented society they don't want to, and cannot be, a part of. Then you can probe what their higher value is. Perhaps it is Truth. They want to live in Truth but everyone around them lives in a lie, therefore they can't be part of this society, and that's why they drink. Then you use Truth as a lure to get them out of their personal hell. You teach them that in order to be consistent, they have to live by the Truth themselves. And then you slowly-slowly work with them, always going with what they are motivated to do so far, until they will naturally realize that they don't want to drink and never really wanted to drink, because it goes against their own Truth.
Easier said than done of course. I am only beginning to learn to do this myself.
BTW that house on fire story, you got it wrong. The story says, if house is on fire and the kids are inside, the father will lure them out with toys or whatever they like, to save their lives. This is a parable from the Lotus Sutra.
That said, thanks for the warning friend! :)

+1 for getting the parable right, at least. "I stand at the door and knock" is Christian.

thanks for the "at least" remark, it made me warm and fuzzy ;)

yes, no "damning with faint praise" O:-)

Perhaps beware of "finding out why they drink"? A converse theory might warn that they drink for a wrong reason (whatever the reasons are, the reasons are wrong). So asking "Why drink?" reinforces the drinking-logic (in the same way that prayer might reinforce the God-ego duality). Perhaps a psychiatrist (not that I'm one) must be careful to not reinforce their patient's delusion. For example if someone with a psychosis said "I am Christ" then entertaining a conversation about that e.g. "Oh? So, uh ... who have you saved recently?" wouldn't be on-topic.

Your replies should ideally stay grounded on consensus-reality, e.g. to "I am an omnipotent being" you might say "So, you're feeling good today?" Perhaps I'm exagerating (there's no evidence that the friend is psychotic), but still: beware of sharing/accepting delusion. Finding out "what they want in life" might be problematic too: if it's "I want to drink". I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying it can be difficult.

Not disagreeing, it is difficult and is playing with fire. That's why I upvoted Bhante's response up top that says "1. Will I actually be able to help this person [or harm], given I'm not a fully enlightened Buddha?"

You can visit an Al-Anon meeting (or eventually several meetings).
There, people who are or have been in that situation will speak out of their experiences. Hopefully you will develop insight into what works and what doesn't, what's effective and what's harmful.

Sankha's answer says, "It's not very effective, trying to pull others out of the mud, if you yourself are still stuck in it."
Some would go further, and suggest that if you are in the mud then your attachments might be part of the problem (your views and your behaviour may be helping to put or keep your friend in the mud).
From an Al-Anon web site:

Who are alcoholics?
They could be anyone, from all backgrounds and walks of life. Over 95
  percent of alcoholics have families, friends, and jobs. They may
  function fairly well, but some part of their life is suffering. Their
  drinking causes a continuing and growing problem in their lives, and
  the lives they touch.
How do alcoholics affect families and friends?
Alcoholism is a family disease. The disease affects all those who have
  a relationship with a problem drinker. Those of us closest to the
  alcoholic suffer the most, and those who care the most can easily get
  caught up in the behavior of another person. We react to the
  alcoholic's behavior. We focus on them, what they do, where they are,
  how much they drink. We try to control their drinking for them. We
  take on the blame, guilt, and shame that really belong to the drinker.
  We can become as addicted to the alcoholic, as the alcoholic is to
  alcohol. We, too, can become ill.

I guess I should add, why I suggest Al-Anon.
They have more experience with (effects of, reactions to, causes of) alcohol abuse than the general public does (Buddhism in particular says to avoid alcohol, I don't know whether it has much to say to help people, to say about helping people, specifically, who don't avoid it).
They (people who attend one or several Al-Anon meetings) can talk about the subject for longer, so you'll get more information from that than from a web site.
They're confidential (and somewhat anonymous) so the information exchanged can be more personal (hurtful).
Hearing other people's stories helps to give you a more detached view (insight) of your own stories.
When you see other people in person, they can be a more fulfilling (role) model.
Your relationship with your friend might have unhealthy inter-personal boundaries. Meeting new people lets you develop/see new relationships/boundaries with those people, which may be healthier than your current boundaries with your friend. Learning about healthier boundaries might help you both. Your having healthier boundaries to live within might make you more capable (capable of helping you both).

Still, this isn't really an answer from Buddhism...

@yuttadhammo You are right: it isn't; though it is further to Sankha's conclusion. What's more, people sometimes say that AA or Al-Anon meetings are "spiritual", but if anyone does ever mention a "higher power" a Buddhist might have to understand that as "letting go, it's not me that's in control of all the world". If someone posted to ask about a unexplained, chronic pain, would "I suggest you see a doctor" be part of a useful or responsible set of answers? So I recommended non-Buddhist specialists in that subject, expert in treating that malady. Can you give a more skillful, Buddhist answer?

Challenge accepted.

@yuttadhammo When I read your answer, I was glad I had asked you to. It seems well-balanced and on-topic. I thought of "Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!" but wasn't sure that was appropriate, so I just "+1" instead. I especially like the "drip, drip" drop-by-drop image which you included: it reminded me of the "knock, knock" image in the OP (perhaps returning to knock again each day). And whereas konrad's answer (which I also upvoted) is about the present, saying "at the end of the day", yours is about the continuing/continuous present.

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


text:
Could Lobha(craving) and Dosa(aversion) be working in tandem?
Is wishing for a pain to go away an instance of aversion(Dosa) or an instance of craving(Lobha)? Or both working in tandem?
ex: leg pain while doing sitting meditation.
Aversion is obvious, if the pain becomes unpleasant. But there is also the wanting for it to disappear(Vibhava Tanha) or the desire for the non painful state.
An Abhidhamma answer would be much appreciated.

If you want an abhidhamma answer, you have to speak in abhidhamma terms. "Wishing for pain to go away" is a sutta statement. It involves a wisher, and describes a sutta action.
lobha and dosa cannot arise in the same citta, certainly. They are mutually exclusive cetasika that arise in the javana cittas of the process of a single experience, and all of the javanas in any given thought process are said to be the same, since they arise from the same votthapana citta.

Only one type of citta runs for all seven occasions of the javana process.
-- Bhikkhu Bodhi, Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p. 157

One act - of wishing for pain to go away, for example - may contain many such processes, each one with javana of different makeup.  So, in wishing for pain to go away, there are probably multiple consecutive lobha, dosa, and moha cittas - though all unwholesome cittas contain moha.

Corresponding Wikipedia articles to help me translate what you said are lobha (desire), dosa (aversion), citta (heart/mind or mindset), moha (ignorance), javana.

@ChrisW I guess the thought was that anyone who could understand an answer from the abhidhamma will at the very, very least be familiar with the terminology. To explain them all (and the mind process itself) is beyond the scope of this question.

ven. @yuttadhammo, thank you for the answer Bhante! So the 17 thought moments in a single experience of which 7 are Javana cittas can only have either aversion or craving? But not both? I'm familiar with the terms 'Sassankarika', 'Asankarika', 'Somanassa', 'Domanassa', "Patiga Samprayukta" etc.

Thank you. I didn't expect you to change what you're saying (presumably Sankha understood you), and I didn't edit your answer to include those hyperlinks inline. I posted them to help me study, to help me towards understanding it; like some 'commentary'.

@SankhaKulathantille yes, as Bhikkhu Bodhi says, "Only one type of citta runs for all seven occasions of the javana process". (Comp. Manual of Abhi., pg 157)


text:
Where is the sutta that mentions the Five Niyamas?
I am trying to find Buddha's word about Five Niyamas in Sutta. Or does it exist only in commentaries?

I've never seen it in the suttas. Only in the commentaries.

@fxam Are you asking this because you are wondering if all things are caused by karma? If so, then the Buddha did explicitly say that not everything is caused by karma in several Suttas, so even if you are reluctant to follow the commentaries, you can rest assured on this point.

@Bakmoon, thanks. I am aware that not everything is caused by karma :) Just curious about the origin of the Five Niyamas.

They are not the Buddha's words, I don't think. They are enumerated and defined in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī-aṭṭhakathā (Cittuppādakaṇḍo, Abyākatapadaṃ, Ahetukakusalavipāko, Vipākuddhārakathā):

Imasmiṃ pana ṭhāne pañcavidhaṃ niyāmaṃ nāma gaṇhiṃsu – bījaniyāmaṃ utuniyāmaṃ kammaniyāmaṃ dhammaniyāmaṃ cittaniyāmanti. Tattha kulatthagacchassa uttaraggabhāvo, dakkhiṇavalliyā dakkhiṇato rukkhapariharaṇaṃ, sūriyāvaṭṭapupphānaṃ sūriyābhimukhabhāvo, māluvalatāya rukkhābhimukhagamanameva, nāḷikerassa matthake chiddasabbhāvoti tesaṃ tesaṃ bījānaṃ taṃtaṃsadisaphaladānaṃ bījaniyāmo nāma. Tasmiṃ tasmiṃ samaye tesaṃ tesaṃ rukkhānaṃ ekappahāreneva pupphaphalapallavaggahaṇaṃ utuniyāmo nāma. Tihetukakammaṃ tihetukaduhetukāhetukavipākaṃ deti. Duhetukakammaṃ duhetukāhetukavipākaṃ deti, tihetukaṃ na detīti, evaṃ tassa tassa kammassa taṃtaṃsadisavipākadānameva kammaniyāmo nāma.
...
Bodhisattānaṃ pana paṭisandhiggahaṇe, mātukucchito nikkhamane, abhisambodhiyaṃ tathāgatassa dhammacakkappavattane, āyusaṅkhārassa ossajjane, parinibbāne ca dasasahassacakkavāḷakampanaṃ dhammaniyāmo nāma.
Ārammaṇena pana pasāde ghaṭṭite ‘tvaṃ āvajjanaṃ nāma hohi…pe… tvaṃ javanaṃ nāma hohī’ti koci kattā vā kāretā vā natthi, attano attano pana dhammatāya eva ārammaṇena pasādassa ghaṭṭitakālato paṭṭhāya kiriyamanodhātucittaṃ bhavaṅgaṃ āvaṭṭeti, cakkhuviññāṇaṃ dassanakiccaṃ sādheti, vipākamanodhātu sampaṭicchanakiccaṃ sādheti, vipākamanoviññāṇadhātu santīraṇakiccaṃ sādheti, kiriyamanoviññāṇadhātu voṭṭhabbanakiccaṃ sādheti, javanaṃ ārammaṇarasaṃ anubhavatīti ayaṃ cittaniyāmo nāma. Ayaṃ idha adhippeto.

A translation might be useful :-)

According to Wiki article on niyamas these were written 5 to 18 CE. This is way after the Buddha's death. Also, according to wiki article, these are only commentaries. The article mentions which specific texts mentions them. They are quite a few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama
This article seems to refer to the niyamas as something the buddha said:
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/tp/The-Five-Niyamas.htm

The O'Brien article just repeats the misrepresentations of Sayadaw and Rhys Davids. O'Brien can't read Pāḷi, so doesn't know what she's talking about.  The teaching is clearly not the words of the Buddha, since we know that it is the words of Buddhaghosa and his 13th century Burmese successors.

@JayaravaAttwood O'Brien can't read Pāḷi, so doesn't know what she's talking about - seems quite a statement. Do you have any further evidence or articles about why we should be a little cautious about Barbara O'Brien. I'll be honest - the opinion seems a little harsh (passionate maybe). Thanks

So let me rephrase. I've never seen any evidence of O'Brien knowing Pāḷi, there's certainly no knowledge of Pāḷi or the texts in question on display in this article. Her article simply uncritically repeats the mistranslations of Ledi Sayadaw's Niyāma Dīpani: http://mahajana.net/texts/kopia_lokalna/MANUAL04.html. This would seem to make O'Brien an unreliable guide to the niyāmas.

For example utuniyāma does not mean "the natural law of non-living matter. " Utu means "season" anything that comes in regular cycles including the menstrual cycle - definitely living matter!. It is used by Buddhaghosa to show that karma produces timely results. Utuniyāma most certainly does not explain "the nature of heat and fire, soil and gasses, water and wind." Nor anything like it. O'Brien calls herself a "Buddhist expert". Far from it.

As the other's have said the pañcavidha niyāma or "five-fold inevitability" is a commentarial way of talking about dependent arising. That said the idea of a limitation (niyāma) is found in many places in the Pāḷi Canon and was also taken up by the Yoga tradition. The term often occurs alongside the term dhammatā 'natural' in relation to paṭiccasamuppāda - experiences that arise in dependence on conditions are dhammatā.
In 2012, I located all the Pāḷi texts which use this list and translated them. At present the draft is free and on my website: Source Texts for the
Five-fold Niyāma (pañcavidhaṃ niyāma). This document also includes mentions of dhammatā and niyāma in suttas. I hope to turn this material into a book at some stage.
There are two layers of commentary. Buddhaghosa, writing in about the 5th Century of the Common Era, and others writing in about the 13th Century, which was a very active time in Burma. Buddhaghosa is clearly most concerned with explaining karma in terms of bījaniyāma and utuniyāma, i.e. he uses analogies drawn from nature to explain why the effects of actions are appropriate and timely. The later Burmese commentators were more concerned with explaining how the cittavīthi or process of mental activity (aka cittaniyāma) worked using the same analogy.
My friend and Colleague Dhīvan (aka Dr Thomas Jones) has written about the modern history of the idea. It seems that Ledi Sayadaw and C. A. F. Rhys Davids reinterpreted the fivefold niyāma as "the five niyāmas" and made them into different "orders of conditionality". A theme that was taken up by Sangharakshita, the founder of the Triratna Buddhist Order. However this new formulation has almost nothing in common with the Pāḷi texts. Dhīvan's article for the Journal of Buddhist Ethics is The Five Niyāmas as Laws of Nature: an Assessment of Modern Western Interpretations of Theravāda Buddhist Doctrine. Dhivan has also written a more accessible account of the niyāmas on his blog: The ‘Five Niyamas’ and Natural Order.
I have also written some short essays about the term in other Indian darśanas, e.g.
 - Niyama in the Sāṅkhyakārikā and Buddhaghosa's Commentaries
 - Dharma-niyama in the Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya.


text:
Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow
Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala
The Layperson's Code of Discipline includes,

"These four, young householder, should be understood as warm-hearted friends:
(1) he who is a helpmate,
(2) he who is the same in happiness and sorrow,
(3) he who gives good counsel,
(4) he who sympathises.

And

(2) "In four ways, young householder, should one who is the same in happiness and sorrow be understood as a warm-hearted friend:
(i) he reveals his secrets,
(ii) he conceals one's own secrets,
(iii) in misfortune he does not forsake one,
(iv) his life even he sacrifices for one's sake.

I thought I could guess the correlation between being "warm-hearted" and being "the same in happiness and sorrow"; but, my guesses didn't really match any of the four ways given, except for the 3rd way (i.e. perhaps I understand why "being the same" includes "does not forsake", but don't understand the others). So:

Does "being the same in happiness and sorrow" mean Upekkha?
Does "warm-hearted friend" mean Kalyana Mittas?
Why are revealing and concealing secrets mentioned? What kinds of secrets? What do "secrets" have to do with being "the same in happiness and sorrow"?
The last item, "his life even he sacrifices for one's sake" -- can that be reconciled with the answers to the question, How to be compassionate to a friend in need? Those answers seem to suggest that you can only help yourself.

suhada means simply "good-hearted", though it seems to be merely another word for "friend".

In indo-european folklore the common expression "the same in happiness and sorrow" usually means one who stays a loyal friend not only in happy times but also in times of trouble, when having all responsibilities of a true friend could be taxing. This corresponds with #3 on the list, "in misfortune he does not forsake one".
By extension, "the same in happiness and sorrow" means one who is not seeking a benefit for oneself from the friendship, but sincerely gives oneself away to the friend. This is where the other three come from:

(i) he reveals his secrets,
  (ii) he conceals one's own secrets,
  ...
  (iv) his life even he sacrifices for one's sake.

"Warm-hearted" means a friend whose relationship of trust and commitment comes from the heart, is unforced and natural. Such friend would not have to make an effort to "sacrifice his life for one's sake", it would come naturally.
Altogether, the above is not to be understood literally, but is meant to portray the attitude of uncalculated selfless fondness, almost love, as the perfection of friendship.

Thank you. I had mis-read it or taken it out of context.

The last item, "his life even he sacrifices for one's sake" -- can that be reconciled with the answers to the question, How to be compassionate to a friend in need? Those answers seem to suggest that you can only help yourself.
Apparently the question in the OP was mistaking the purpose of a "friend": if you are wise your friend isn't there to help you (i.e. doesn't exist only to help you), although, they do help you; instead your friend is there (i.e. is with you) so you can help them.

Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he spoke yet again:
The friend who is a helpmate,
the friend in happiness and woe,
the friend who gives good counsel,
the friend who sympathises too  —
these four as friends the wise behold
and cherish them devotedly
as does a mother her own child.

If you're wise you will cherish your "friend in happiness and woe" and (as does a mother her own child) keep them from the harm. Another translation says, instead of "cherish", "attend on them carefully".
In other words if someone is your friend then you will cherish them.
Not everyone is (defined as) your friend:

These four, young householder, should be understood as foes in the guise of friends

The Buddha does not recommend that you cherish these:

these four as enemies the wise behold,
avoid them from afar as paths of peril.

It's not clear how (or by whom) such a "foe" can ever be helped or cherished.
In summary if someone is a genuine friend (helpful, constant, good advice) then cherish them; if someone is a false friend (costly, a friend in word but not deed, a flatterer with bad advice, dissolute) then avoid them as perilous.


text:
How can Nirvana (Nibbana) be permanent?
If everything is impermanent and this is used as a reason why Buddhists do not believe in a creator and eternal God, how can Nirvana be permanent?
Did the Buddha ever explain this point?

Who said everything is impermanent?

Bhante, it is common to hear that, I'm not saying it is necessarily right, by the way, this is exactly why I'm making the question!  Feel free to challenge this assumption, I will appreciate it.

Things that arise due to a a reason perish at the destruction of the reason. Buddha has never told everything is permanent.

There is a famous set of verses of the Buddha that go as follows:

“All conditioned things are impermanent” – when
  one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from
  suffering. This is the path to purification.
“All conditioned things are unsatisfactory” –
  when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away
  from suffering. This is the path to purification.
“All things are not-self” – when one sees this
  with wisdom, one turns away from suffering.
  This is the path to purification.

-- Dhp. 277-9 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Do you see the difference?
Nowhere did the Buddha say that everything is impermanent, because it is not true. All things that arise must cease (SN 56.11), and that is the key to answering this question, because nibbaana is unarisen:

And what is the noble search? Here someone being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;
-- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans.)

The logical conclusion of not being born is not dying, and so:

being himself subject to death, having understood the danger in what is subject to death, he seeks the deathless supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;
-- Ibid

Do you see the difference? I think you're saying that Nirvana is a thing that is not-self and (because it is not a 'conditioned' thing) it is not impermanent.

"Nowhere did the Buddha say that everything is impermanent, because it is not true." -- Sadu! Sadu! Sadu! bhante, Shakyamuni Tatagatha Lord Buddha knew everything and this Dhamma has been preached precisely! There is no contradiction even in a single word! Exactly this Dhamma is Svakkhato!

This very point is a subject of doctrinal disagreement between Mahayana and Theravada. According to Theravada, Nibbana has svabhava (self-nature) that is unconditioned, deathless and totally transcendent to the conditioned world. But according to Mahayana (specifically Madhyamika), the fact that Nirvana is called shunyata means it does not have svabhava, just like everything else. In other words, according to Mahayana, Nirvana is permanent because it does not exist, or to quote Chogyam Trungpa it is "completely indestructible because it is not existent".
As my current teacher says, "Nothing is permanent, everything changes -- except one thing. Which one thing? The fact that everything changes." This is a hint ;) What we call Nirvana is not something "transcendent to the conditioned world", it is the self-existing nature of everything.
According to Mahayana, Nirvana is the very nature of Samsara. The three marks of existence are non-escapable. Any attempts to run away from them are part of the wanderings in Samsara. Only when this escape is brought to an end, when we clearly see that our hope to reach Enlightenment was a hope to escape the three marks of existence, then we can finally loose the ground under our feet, fall through space, open our eyes and look around, and see unarisen Nirvana and self-existing Enlightenment. I hope it's clear now.

I think it's clear now: if you're talking from a Mahayana-not-Theravada viewpoint, "unarisen Nirvana" presumably means "shunyata not svabhava"; and "self-existing" Enlightenment means "not transcendent to the conditioned world". Also the nature of Samsara is voidness -- there is not other thing (no other svabhāva, independent, transcendent thing, e.g. Buddha-nature) to pursue or avoid (such a thing, such pursuit/avoidance, would also be Samsara).

That's sounds pretty much right @ChrisW, but let's not forget that shunyata should be realized, the pursuit should be brought to completion, and self-existing Enlightenment should be awakened to. I would not call it Mahayana-not-Theravada viewpoint though, but rather Mahayana-as-true-hidden-meaning-of-Theravada viewpoint.

Actually this position makes a lot of sense, Nirvana is the end of suffering, the absence of suffering does not posit that the end of suffering is a 'thing', but is defined by the non existence of suffering. Since to end suffering is also caused and conditioned, it is therefore also impermanent. What is ever present is both Suffering (1st Noble Truth) and the possibility of ending it (3rd Noble Truth) as well as the cause (2nd) and the path (4th), yet because all of them are caused and conditioned, they are 'empty' and 'don't truly exist' as stated by the Heart Sutra.

Let me try a simple answer.
"Everything" is impermanent because everything is a "compound thing" which has no "independent existence". For example, here we are on a planet: sometime in the astronomical future there will no longer be a planet (because of the lifecycle of our solar system's sun) therefore "things" which depend on the existence of the planet will be not continue to exist: these things are impermanent.
Similarly each human body, each mountain, each city, each relationship is a "compound thing" which is not permanent.
But Nirvana is not a "compound thing". It can be described as an ending which does not begin again.

I think it's worth reading this description of Nirvana (if only because it goes a long way towards explaining the Fire sermon, which is famous).

Forgetting what I said above above the planet ending, there's another (perhaps non-Buddhist) tradition which says that "Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky".
Seen in that light, I once saw a movie which was set in probably the lower hills of Nepal. A character is walking and comes to a kind of cairn that is a pile of face-down slates, on which people have written messages.
He picks one up in his hand and turns it over to read its message, which says,

How do you make a drop of water last forever?
Put it in the ocean.

The following may be like explaining a koan so the following is spoiler text:

 - It's by loosening the attachments it has to/within itself that the drop spreads through the ocean
 - Having dissolved its self that drop will never reappear (there's no such thing as the same drop)
 - The 'ocean' is also used for various metaphors: including for Dhamma, for Freedom, for Unbinding, for Heedfulness; but it's also used as a metaphor for forms, including forms of the mind i.e. Dhamma.

Beware that samsara might be endless? So that some attempts to describe the permanence of nirvana might be describing, instead, the endlessness of samsara?
Maybe samsara is not endless, though; it is perhaps beginningless (Assu Sutta and Timsa Sutta), however it has (or can have) an end; or at least dukka if not samsara can have an end: that is the Third Noble Truth.
There seems to be some debate about what causes (is at the root of) samsara.

Some say that it's the Three Poisons
Others suggest that ignorance is the root cause.

If you accept the view that it's caused by the three poisons, apparently you can gain "non-returning" by thoroughly abandoning any one them (except that, I don't know, some say that 'non-returning' requires you to abandon other 'fetters' too).
If you accept that it's caused by ignorance perhaps the antidote is knowing (knowing continuously? knowing endlessly?) the four noble truths.

I like the beginning of your answer, however I fail to see the link between that part and the final conclusion, Nirvana still seems to me as something to be understood only by Buddhas!

The Buddha's last words included, "Behold (my body): all compound things are subject to decay." The body is compound, made of several things put together. These component things eventually separate, then the compound thing is no more. That's why "everything" (i.e. "every thing") is impermanent. But Nirvana isn't a thing, not a compound thing, not a component thing ... I won't say "it's nothing" I'll say "it's not-a-thing". Because it is not a thing, it's not subject to the "all compound things are subject to decay".

Yes, but how? Why only Nirvana is different? Requires faith I guess (or buddhahood) to believe in it.

@konrad01 Is this helpful? Any compound thing ends because it comes apart, and its components continue on. Nirvana means 'unbinding': it's a word for the coming-apart. The trick (if I can call it that) is to take it apart so thoroughly/completely that the compound thing doesn't restart, doesn't come together again: in that way the unbinding is permanent.

Nibbana is not a state of mind or state of being or state of consciousness. Perhaps, I can describe it as "the complete absence of suffering".
It is what the mind experiences when it is completely free from defilements, suffering and discontent. It is a mental object.
It is also the only unconditioned unborn phenomena. It's permanent and it's always there whether you experience it or not.
Also, please see this answer for details.

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss!
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
nothing is felt?”
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
blissful about it (Nibbana).”
AN 9.34

The born, come-to-be, produced,
The made, the conditioned, the transient,
Conjoined with decay and death,
A nest of disease, perishable,
Sprung from nutriment and craving's cord —
That is not fit to take delight in.
The escape from that, the peaceful,
Beyond reasoning, everlasting,
The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states linked to suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.
Iti 43

One meaning of nirvana is "snuffing out" or extinguishing. Extinguishing what? Whether nirvana is permanent can partially be answered by an explanation given of sunyata, the greatest wisdom, as signifying the "great void", and calmness and extinction. It (sunyata) can be considered as the endpoints of the rising and falling of phenomena. "All existences exhibit void-nature and nirvana-nature. These natures are the reality of all existence." Sunyata (Emptiness) in the Mahayana Context It has been my experience that nirvana is not static and "achieved", otherwise it would/could not dynamically respond to manifestations of phenomena by revealing itself as a transformative "reality". I have found that nirvana is a state closely related to sunyata in that they both exist beyond time/space, but they are nonetheless inherent in its fabric.
However, the essential question being asked in the current exchange is "How can Nirvana (Nibbana) be permanent?" Perhaps discerning between static and non-abiding nirvana can partially answer the question. Here is an excerpt that speaks of non-abiding nirvana..."An important concept of Mahayana Buddhism which is not there in Theravada is that of “non-abiding nirvana” or apraḍiṣṭhita nirvāṇa in Sanskrit. The word ‘apraḍiṣṭhita’ actually means ‘non-stationary’ or ‘not fixed in one place’ or something like that, so the translation as ‘non-abiding’ seems quite appropriate. Many Theravada followers, when they hear about non-abiding nirvana have a hard time understanding what it is really about."
The article goes on to say..."The main difference between static and non-abiding nirvana is that those who attain the latter actually speaking reside neither in samsara or nirvana. For them the distinction between samsara and nirvana breaks down completely. The arhats believe that there is such a distinction and they forever remain on the side of the static nirvana. The Buddhas and highly realized Bodhisattvas, on the other hand, do not remain in this static condition, for they are always motivated by their bodhicitta vows to help ferry sentient beings across to the other shore. So they cannot remain completely still and static."Non-abiding Nirvana

Permanence is something we use to describe something that is created but lasts for ever.
Buddha clearly states in many places that things that are created are perished.
Hence the definition of permanence is not usable in this context.
Furthermore, assuming Nirvana is me, or mine, or my souls, is also a false view according to Buddha.

Nibbana is not composed of name-&-form, feeling, seems to be associated with the cessation of feeling & perception.

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

Nibbana is outside of the realm where concepts like "permanent" and "impermanent" exist.
The Creator (Brahma) exists but is temporary (even if His existence is for an extremely extremely long time-period) and is subject to the laws of kamma.

Those that follow the Buddha's teaching don't try to really believe anything, instead they try to see the exact truth of what is coming through the senses and mind in every moment, moment by moment.
There is no Creator God in the Buddha's teaching because the concept never came up when the Buddha discovered the Dhamma.
Nibbana is technically not permanent because there is nothing to be permanent. What is permanent in Nibbana is "nothing" so if  nothing arises in Nibbana, suffering is permanently ceased, see? Nibbana is the ultimate abode of those that become disenchanted by Samsara

This is going to be a short answer. Nirvana is not an arisen thing. It is the cessation of all things.

In the holy text, the Buddha never say whether nibbana is permanent or not.
Nibbana is permanent as regard to the atta-entity. Note: At nibbana, it is zero self.  The atta-entity is still present, and is at a certain energy level. Over infinite time, the energy will reduce toward zero but never touch zero. In this context, Nirvana is permanent.
However the Buddha never say so. This can only be possible if the Buddha detect the difference between the atta-entity energy level over time.
To answer truthfully, The Buddha need to monitor the atta-entity energy level for infinite time. Such task is impossible over the Buddha lifespan.
Adapted from http://ylopin.blogspot.com/2018/09/implication-of-analogous-comparison.html
Note: SOEL-entity in the above web reference is equivalent to atta-entity.

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


text:
Nirvana with benefits?
Is the state of Nibbana the state of "not existing at all in any way" or is it nonexistence with benefits that are too deep to understand from the perspective of samsara? Does the only "bliss" pertaining to  Nibbana happen during the Arahant's life or when an arahant dies? Just to be clear (because I hear conflicting words concerning this) we will be "no more" if we become enlightened and the path is learning how to accept this, right?

The Path is learning how to accept everything. I would tag this question with Nonduality, but the Tag is not approved yet.

My limited understanding is that 'I' never really was in the first place.  That which never appeared cannot vanish.  That which was never born cannot die.  The cycle of birth and death is broken by truly realizing that the entire cycle is predicated on ignorance.  Practice is the road to the eradication of ignorance, though doing good, avoiding evil and purifying this mind.

Did the Buddha ever say that there is not an "I"?

The Khemo Sutta seems relevant in this context http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089x.wlsh.html

Nibbana isn't just something that happens after death, but can be experienced during meditation during fruition. The only difference between this Nibbana experienced in life and the Nibbana after the death of an Arahat is that in the case of the Arahat, they don't come out again. If you can experience Nibbana in this life as at least a sotapanna then you can be certain that it is something good and not mere non-existence, and thus you can be certain that Parinibbana is also something good and also not a mere non-existence.
(Note that in this context I'm refering to Nibbana in the sense of the deathless element rather than as the mind which is totally free from defilement. Such a mind is in Nibbana in a sense, but that is a different sense than the actual fruition attainment of Nibbana.)

It's some kind of a permanent mental state of no arising. Permanent because there's no arising? A zone where one is fine with no arising forever because there is no wish to be anyway. Nothing needing or wanting to arise is what's good?

@user535875 When the mind experiences Nibbana there is no arising and ceasing, correct. But Nibbana is much more than just the absence of arising and ceasing. It is also called 'The Other Shore' and 'The Refuge' for example.

Is the state of Nibbana the state of "not existing at all in any way" or is it nonexistence with benefits that are too deep to understand from the perspective of samsara?

I think it's cessation, described in the third noble truth: no longer suffering because no longer clinging to that which is impermanent.

Does the only "bliss" pertaining to Nibbana happen during the Arahant's life or when an arahant dies?

I think the dharma is supposed to be immediate, and (with enough training and practice, and right view etc.) applicable and effective now.
This description of Akalika, Timelessness says,

Akalika: Timelessness, A synonym for Arahantship, An attribute of the Dhamma

Various translations include:

Timeless, Outside of time
The negation of "of the present, involving time, not immediate"
Not a matter of time
Not subject to time
Not dependent on time; not limited to a particular time; immediate, immediately effective
  etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bliss pertaining to Nibbana" but the Kimattha Sutta for example describes states (joy, rapture, serenity) which I infer are experienced during life.
I suppose it means something like the Present continuous, or the Perfect.

Just to be clear (because I hear conflicting words concerning this) we will be "no more" if we become enlightened and the path is learning how to accept this, right?

I tried to ask about that in this question: What are examples of identity-view? to try to understand what's meant by abandoning identify-view or self-view.
The question isn't great but I found all the answers helpful.
Identity view is just one of the fetters, and "abandoning identity-view" is the first of the four stages of enlightenent:

I think that ("identity-view") is what you were talking about, when you were asking about "we will be 'no more'".
As for what it is or isn't: I think it's what it is, i.e. it is "such": see Tathatā.
Being a "non-returner" (i.e. 'abandoning sensual desire') help make you immune to suffering in this world. Abandoning the final fetters (e.g. "material-rebirth lust" keep you from being reborn after you die, so you're immune to suffering in the next world.

It is too deep to understand Nibbana (or Nirvana as in the text below) from the human perspective, but it is possible to experience it.
Dogen is a very verbose Zen master who has left many trails. Here TRICYCLE states some of Dogen's beliefs. If you want straight from Dogen, you can try some of his books from Shambala.
http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/fundamentals-dogens-thoughts?page=0,1

Nirvana is often described in Buddhist scriptures as “the other
  shore.” One crosses the ocean of birth and death toward the shore of
  total freedom. In Mahayana teaching bringing others across the ocean
  of suffering to the shore of enlightenment is considered to be as
  important as or even more important than bringing oneself over. Those
  who vow to dedicate their lives to this act of “ferrying” others are
  called bodhisattvas, or beings who are dedicated to bodhi. In some
  schools of Mahayana, Zen in particular, there is a strong emphasis on
  the immediacy of enlightenment, indicating that the ocean of birth and
  death is itself nirvana.
As quoted earlier in this introduction, Dogen says, “Between
  aspiration, practice, enlightenment, and nirvana, there is not a
  moment’s gap.” Thus, nirvana is one of the four elements in a
  practitioner’s spiritual activity. For Dogen, nirvana is inseparable
  from enlightenment, and it is inseparable from one’s practice at each
  moment. In other words, there is no authentic practice that lacks
  enlightenment or nirvana.
While Dogen discusses aspiration, practice, and enlightenment in
  detail, he does not explain the last element, nirvana, which seems to
  be an invisible element in his teaching. It is as though he talks
  about the experience of nirvana without using this word.
Nirvana is regarded as the realm of nonduality, where there is no
  distinction between large and small, long and short, right and wrong,
  appearing and disappearing, self and other. It may be called reality
  itself, or the absolute place beyond time and space. This is a realm
  that cannot be grasped objectively. The intuitive awareness or
  transcendental wisdom that goes beyond dualistic, analytical thinking
  and leads us into this realm is called prajna in Sanskrit.
Dogen calls this place of inner freedom the buddha realm. It is where
  one is many, part is whole, a moment is timeless, and mortality is
  immortality. To experience this beyondness in the midst of the passage
  of time, change, and decay is a miracle. For Dogen, this miracle can
  happen each moment, as each moment of duality is inseparable from a
  moment of nonduality.
Duality and nonduality, change and no-change, relative and absolute,
  coexist and interact with each other. Dogen calls the experience of
  this dynamic “actualizing the fundamental point.” It is an immediate
  but subtle and mysterious unfolding of nirvana within a life of change
  and decay. Dogen suggests that we can realize this dynamic of “not
  one, not two” by going into and maintaining the deep consciousness
  that is experienced both in zazen and in daily activities conducted in
  a meditative state of body and mind.

Dogen is saying Nibbana is always here but the human mind that does not practice the Buddha Way is not aware of it. The question of whether we exist or not could be restated to in what way do we exist or what is our real beingness. When we drop the mask and look in the mirror of consciousness we see more clearly what is and what is not. Talking about it before or after that point has minimal value. Experience in the practice of meditation is the great revealer.

So  Beautiful !!

It is so beautiful. That reminds me of the people that discovered when a person put up a ladder and looked over the great wall the person disappeared over the wall. So they watched this happen again and again. Finally they decided they would put a rope on the man so he could not go beyond the wall and then he would tell them what they saw. So when the man looked over the wall they pulled him back with a rope. When he got down all he could do was smile. He could say nothing, just smile. It is so beautiful!

As my teacher says, everything has its price and, Completion being the highest joy -- it has the highest price. We have to give away everything :)
So (Mahayana) Nirvana is not as much a state of "not existing at all in any way" as it is a state of not holding on to anything. Remember Bob Dylan? "when you've got nothing -- you've got nothing to loose"... Not in the primitive sense; this means not holding on to any kind of ground, any territory -- conceptual or psychological. It is a place beyond hope and fear. Naturally it is also a place beyond coarser problems such as obsessions, aversions, and holding on to mistaken assumptions.
At the same time as Buddha of Pali Canon warned us in the parable of the cow, when letting go of hangups we must go through progressive stages, so we can get stable on each level before taking the next step.

The bliss you are referring to can be understood in this way....
Now you are alive and you are feeling countless emotions.Those can be divided into 3 groups

feelings born because of lust  (no just the erotic sense simply
lusting for anything)
feelings born because of hate
feelings born because of confusion

As long as you are like anyone you will burn in these three fires there is no hope of true peace of mind until you are free from these three.So this also says another thing that there is only a small room for  some comfort.
And this is what you try to reach with everything in your life.
That's why you

Eat the food you like
Wear the clothes you like
Talk of things you like
Hear the songs you you like
Find someone to love
Think the things you like

So as you can see there is no escape, let me provide an example from Lord Buddha......
"A normal being (a one who hasn't reach Nirvana) is like a skinned cow which lives,if it stand birds attack it,if it go into the water fish attach it,If it lay on the ground worms attack it. Like this there is no escape for a normal one he is always driven by his six senses burning in lust hate and confusion."
So where does the bliss comes from?
imagine if you can be free from these three,it will be absolute freedom and peace wouldn't it?
So imagine an Arahant....
He has no burning caused by those three,he is in bliss of peace.So is it only when he is alive?
No,Look at yourself you are not only burning from the fires of this life you are burning from the fires of last lives
let me explain....
Don't you have a fear about what karma would bring tomorrow?

Whether you will live or not
Whether you will have your arms and legs attached to you even after
tomorrow
Whether you will face an accident
Whether you will live long or not

You are not going to get away that easy,You are burning from fires of your next life and lives to come.
Don't you think about these.....

What your life will be in next life
what will happen to you in that life
where you will be born and as what

So the bliss after death is?
Imagine yourself as an arahant....
As of this moment you are free from

feelings born because of lust
feelings born because of hate
feelings born because of confusion

you have no fear of today, because you have done what was needed to be done.Which is freeing yourself from the never ending fire of lust,hate and confusion (Reaching nirvana).As of this moment you are in the bliss of nirvana.You have nothing to fear about the future you can choose the time of death even before the life does it for you( giving up "Aayu sanskara"),You know there is no more living (no more next lives).So there is no suffering and there is no more suffering to expect.This is the bliss, the realization of "I have seen the end of all and i am free now".
I am sure you are confused,let me end my question with the last explanation and you will get it all after this...
When an arahant dies his or her mind does not create itself another life,why?
because their karma has been deleted by them being arahant. So there is nothing more left to give them a birth. The example given in Buddhism is "Like a lamps fire blown by from the wind".they do not collect any karma,that function is no longer available to their minds.So when they die it is like deleting a file from your Phone or Computer,it is gone forever.It is not gone somewhere else,it is not gone to a different format.It is simply no more.This is how an arahant's mind work in the last moment.
So the bliss is nothing but having to go trough this pain no more.
If you have any questions about the answer please leave a comment.
May Triple gems bless you!

+1 but your file example is a little confusing...

can you explain @draks...

Because I had some interresting answer on "Is emptiness comparable to a switched off computer?". Maybe confusing was the wrong word; it reminded me...

OK : ) @draks...

Reading the 33 Sermons on Nibbāna by Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda will offer many insights on the topic.

Introduction:
  The present set of thirty-three sermons on the topic of Nibbāna were originally delivered between 1988 and 1991 as fortnightly lectures at Meetirigala Forest Monastery of Sri Lanka by the Venerable Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda at the behest of the Venerable Mātara Sri Ñāṇarāma Mahāthera. They combine deep insight into the Dhamma with academic erudition, being based on copious quotations from the Pāli discourses that alternate with illustrative similes and useful indications for meditation practice.

http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/ms/html/Mind%20Stilled.htm#Mindstilled33

Is the state of Nibbana the state of "not existing at all in any way" or is it nonexistence with benefits that are too deep to understand from the perspective of samsara?

The state of Nibbana is neither "not existing at all in any way", nor "existing in all ways". It is neither "nonexistence with benefits", nor "existence with benefits".

Does the only "bliss" pertaining to Nibbana happen during the Arahant's life or when an arahant dies?

The "bliss" pertaining to Nibbana happens during the Arahant's life when Nirvana is attained. When the arahant dies, Nibbana is attained, which is "beyond bliss" - neither "bliss", nor "not bliss".

Just to be clear (because I hear conflicting words concerning this) we will be "no more" if we become enlightened and the path is learning how to accept this, right?

The path is learning how to experience it. One of the prerequisite to experiencing it, is to accept we will be "no more" if we become enlightened.


text:
Is there any explanation on why only humans and animals do not remember previous life?
I have heard from a Buddhist monk that hungry ghosts usually return to their familis searching for food, which makes me believe they have easy access to memories of their previous life. Some hell beings also know what they did to deserve their punishment (according to what I have heard) so they have access to memories as well, I'm assuming devas should know it too.
Apparently only Humans and animals do not remember previous lifes, is there a reason for that in the teachings?

All the beings you mention as remembering past lives are spontaneously reborn (opapaatika), whereas humans and animals are either egg-born (aṇḍaja), womb-born (jalābuja), or moisture-born (saṃsedaja). Only spontaneously reborn beings are readily able to remember their past lives; most others have their past life memories repressed by the trauma and general coarseness of their rebirth.
I know this is all general Buddhist knowledge, but I can't find a reliable source from the original texts; if anyone knows of one, please feel free to put it in the comments.

All the beings you mention as remembering past lives are spontaneously
  reborn (opapaatika), whereas humans and animals are either egg-born
  (aṇḍaja), womb-born (jalābuja), or moisture-born (saṃsedaja). Only
  spontaneously reborn beings are readily able to remember their past
  lives; most others have their past life memories repressed by the
  trauma and general coarseness of their rebirth.
I know this is all general Buddhist knowledge, but I can't find a
  reliable source from the original texts; if anyone knows of one,
  please feel free to put it in the comments.  - Ven. Yuttadhammo

This is in reference to Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer.

"Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the
  four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born
  generation and spontaneous generation.
"What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking
  out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation. What
  is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out
  from the caul; this is called womb-born generation. What is
  moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten
  fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in a
  sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What is spontaneous
  generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human
  beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous
  generation. These are the four kinds of generation.
(Maha-Sihanada Sutta, MN 12)

You can refer to : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

Moisture born would be egg born too right? I believe those beings are born in eggs however so small we cannot see them with naked eyes

@konrad01, for more info on moisture born http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1576/what-is-the-equivalent-scientific-term-for-samsedaja-what-kind-of-beings-on-ear