text:
Did Buddha say "this is the Middle Way"?
Various Buddhist schools and traditions can have rather different outlooks. And they don't deny this. But most traditions seem to have at least one thing in common and that is calling themselves/their way "the middle way". Is "middle way" what the Buddha called his teachings? Can anyone point me to where and how Buddha formulated the middle way?

In the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha gives his monks a discourse on the "The Exposition of Non-Conflict". In here he mentions the Middle Way:

"Here, bhikkhus, the Middle Way discovered by the Tathagata avoids both these extremes; giving vision, giving knowledge, it leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. It is a state without suffering...and it is the right way. Therefore this is a state without conflict.
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words.
-- MN 139: Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta, p. 1085 - Bodhi, Trans.

In the Samyutta Nikaya, The Buddha also mentions the Middle Way. Here in the "The Book of the Six Sense Bases":

"There are, headman, these two extremes which should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth into homelessness: the pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. And what is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision . . . leads to Nibbana?
It is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view . . . right concentration. This is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana.
-- Samyutta Nikaya: IV. The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Saḷāyatanavagga), p. 1350 - Bodhi, Trans.

In the Anguttara Nikaya, The Buddha mentions the Middle Way in relation to the practice of meditation:

“Bhikkhus, there are these three ways of practice. What three? The coarse way of practice, the blistering way of practice, and the middle way of practice".
“And what is the middle way of practice? Here, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings . . . mind in mind . . . phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. This is called the middle way of practice.
  “These, bhikkhus, are the three ways of practice.”
-- Anguttara Nikaya: The Book of the Threes: Ways of Practice, p. 372-373 - Bodhi, Trans.

What Lead to Conceive the Middle Way (or How This Was Conceived)
The middle way is avoid extremes in the form of asceticism and hedonism. The middle way was conceived based on based on the Buddha's experience of these extremes (asceticism and hedonism) when he realized this is not taking him to the final goal.
In chasing after sensual pleasure your moral virtue many perhaps laps. So there is a notion of virtue this puts some breaks on it.
Also you would chase after pleasures since your mind is not in your control and you are a slave to it. You overeat, chase after ladies and womanise, all because you are a slave of the mind. The Buddha mentioned to have master over the mind.
Also we fall into these extremes since we do not know reality as it is. We might think enjoy while you can or perhaps take the other extreme of austerity thinking through this you can get salvation. The Buddha taught that we develop wisdom of reality as it is so we do not fall into unconducive practices which do not give the expected results and outcome. Also lack of right understanding lead to attachment to various other view like creator God, Brahma is eternal, etc.1 This is categorized as wisdom.
These 3 together forms the 3 main division of the middle path:

Sila - morality
Samadhi - mastery over the mind
Panna - wisdom or to know things as they are

Morality is based on refraining from, delighting in, i.e., abstinence from any form any action which is harmful to oneself and others in terms of verbal action, physical conduct and may or earning your livelihood.
Mastery over the mind is to get control over the mind than it being wondering on its own. This control can be used to get sustained focus on any experiance (sometimes called absorption) which is feld so you can understand it better by closer scrutiny and analysis, i.e., right concentration. In order to do this you need be aware of what these experiences, i.e., right mindfulness. In order to realise this you have to apply effort to have the right mind states to foster development of concentration.
Ultimately this gives arise to the understanding on how the eradicate stress and suffering, i.e., Right View. With the propers understanding, your resolve is always conducive, i.e., Right Intention.
Where this was Conceived
This was formulated by the Buddha based on experience of his aesthetic practices and princely life before when he said realised it is futile to follow both paths.2 Final realisation coming under the Bodhi Tree in Bodh Gaya on the day of enlightenment, i.e., following the middle path worked hence if was confirmed through direct experience. 3
Where was this 1st Preached and What Elaboration are Available
This was 1st preached in the Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta as the middle way was preached in Sarnath. More detail elaboration of it is found in the (Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta. Right view is one of the most important items as without it you will not take or walk the path. A detail elaboration of this is found in the: Samma,ditthi Sutta.

1 See: An Introduction to the Brahma,jāla Sutta by Piya Tan and Brahma,jala Sutta.
2

...
But by these painful austerities, I did not attain any superhuman state, nor any distinction in knowledge
  and vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to awakening?’ Then, Aggi,vessana, I thought thus, ‘I recall that when my father the Sakya was occupied while
  I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from
  unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first dhyana that is accompanied by initial application
  and sustained application, zest and joy born of seclusion.
  Could that be the path to awakening?’
  Then following on that memory, Aggi,vessana, I realized, ‘That is the path to awakening!’
  I thought thus, ‘Why do I fear the pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and
  unwholesome states?’
  I thought thus, ‘I do not fear the pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome
  states!’
  I thought thus, Aggi,vessana,
  ‘It is not easy to attain that pleasure with a body so excessively emaciated. Suppose I ate some solid
  food—some boiled rice and gruel.’
  And so, Aggi,vessana, I ate some solid food, boiled rice and gruel.
  Now at that time, Aggi,vessana, the five monks were waiting upon me, thinking, ‘If our recluse
  Gotama achieve some higher state, he will inform us.’
  But when I ate the boiled rice and gruel, the five monks were disgusted and left me, thinking, ‘The
  recluse Gotama now lives luxuriously. He has given up the quest and reverted to luxury!’
...

Source: Maha Saccaka Sutta
3

...
When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated
  from the influx of sensual desire,
  from the influx of existence, and
  from the influx of ignorance.
  When it was liberated, there arose the knowledge: ‘It is liberated!’ I directly knew: ‘Destroyed is
  birth. The holy life has been live
...

Source: Maha Saccaka Sutta

Wondering why there is a downvote. Is there anything I have missed in the answer? Can the voter please leave a comment with a view to improve the answer.

Hi Suminda. The question did ask for "where and how Buddha formulated the middle way?"

Added this part to the answer.

Hi Suminda :) The statement "The middle way is avoid extremes of asceticism and hedonism", needs to be qualified, as the word 'extreme' is subjective, and open to personal interpretation.

This was a miss wording asceticism and hedonism are the extremes though Duthanga can sometimes considered a mild form of asceticism .

According to Prajnaparamita tradition, here are the sutras where Buddha gave definition of the Middle Way:
SN 12.15 - Kaccayanagotta Sutta

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

And here is what apparently is a more ancient version of the same sutra, from Samyukta Agama #301:

Thus have I heard. At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the village of Nādika, at a residency deep within the forest. At that time, Kātyāyana Gotra approached the place of the Buddha. Bowing his head at the feet of the Buddha, he then withdrew to one side, and addressed the Buddha, saying: “Bhagavān, as the Bhagavān speaks of ‘right view,’ what is the right view? What does the Bhagavān establish as the right view?”
The Buddha told Kātyāyana Gotra, “The worldly have two kinds of support to which they grasp and adhere: existence and non-existence. This grasping and adhering is either supported by existence or supported by non-existence. Suppose one is without this grasping, not grasping at a mental realm which causes suffering, not dwelling, and not discerning a self. When suffering arises, it arises, and when suffering ends, it ends. He regards these without doubt and without confusion, and then without these, he has self-realization. This is called the right view, and what the Tathāgata establishes as the right view.
“Why is this so? One who sees arising in the world, is not one who holds to its non-existence. One who sees extinction in the world, is not one who holds to its existence. This is spoken of as ‘freedom from the Two Extremes,’ which is called the Middle Way. That is, that this existence is the cause of that existence, and this arising is the cause of that arising. These are caused by ignorance, including even the entire arising of the pure mass of suffering. When ignorance ends, then from this comes the end of such actions, including even the end of the pure mass of suffering.”

According to this, Buddha defined Middle Way as synonymous with Idappaccayatā (sanskr. idaṃpratyayatā).
Further, from SA 297/SN 12.35, The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas:

“Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises, someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does aging-and-death belong?
“And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.
“To say that soul is the same thing as body, or to say that soul is one thing and body another, these have the same meaning, though they are expressed differently. For one who has the view which says that soul is the same thing as body, there is no point in the noble life. And for one who has the other view which says that soul is one thing and body another, there is also no point in the noble life. Following neither of these two extremes, the mind should move rightly toward the Middle Way.

From SA 300/SN 12.46:

The brahmin said to the Buddha: “What does this mean? When I ask, is the one who acts the one who experiences the result, you say that that is not to be declared; and when I ask is it that one acts and another experiences the result, you also say that that is not to be declared. What is the meaning of this?”
The Buddha said: “To declare that the one who acts is the one who experiences the result is to fall into the eternalist view. To declare that one acts and another experiences the result is to fall into the annihilationist view.
“Teaching the essence, teaching the dharma, I avoid these two extremes. Keeping to the Middle Way, I teach the dharma, namely: When this is, that is; this arising, that arises.

This was meant to be a comment, but it exceeded the word limit, so posted it as an answer.
The world (loke) is like a tar ball. You get stuck to it if you cling to it's sensual baits, and you still get stuck to it if you get into conflict with it. The middle path (this is not a statistically average way) is to see the tar ball's true nation, i.e. a volatile unpredictable place with repeated births and deaths, and let go of attachment to the world and any conflict towards the world. Practicing the middle path, one will become unbound from the tar ball.
Mr. Piya Tan's translation and commentary of the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (S 12.15) explains on what really is the middle way.
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6.13-Kaccanagotta-S-s12.15-piya.pdf

Does not answer the question. The OP asked for a quote of Buddha words defining the middle path.


text:
Importance of Tipitaka in Mahayana Schools
This site 'Buddhist Texts' says that while Mahayana schools revere Tipitaka as holy texts, they add many other sutras, the most famous being the 'Lotus Sutra' and the 'Heart Sutra'. My question is how important are Tipitaka in Mahayana schools. One may gauge its importance based on:

Is Tipitaka taught and learnt by monks in monastery?
How often Tipitaka is referenced in lectures by monks? (for e.g. I was once listening to discourses of Dalai Lama and he was talking of Nagarjuna, Milarepa, Ashvaghosha etc. It might be that he did not reference Tipitaka in those lectures but might have referenced in some other lectures)
Are laypeople encouraged to learn Tipitaka?

These are just guidelines. One might use their own criteria. Answers from different Mahayana schools are welcome.

Also, see Why did Mahayana leave out the Pali Canon? and What is/was the role of agamas in Chinese and Japanese history

Tripitaka is taught to and learned by monks in the monasteries and laypeople are encouraged to learn. From a Tibetan viewpoint, the texts H.H. quoted are included within one of the three baskets. Shantideva's Bodhisattvacharyavatara is included in the Sutra Pitaka (although it is not a sutra), Asanga's Mahāyāna Sūtrālamkāra kārikā is included in the Abhidharma Pitaka, Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation belongs to the Abhidharma Pitaka, Nagarjuna's Karika belongs to the Abhidharma Pitaka as well, and so forth.
In the ninth chapter of the Bodhisattva Deeds, Shantideva explains that anything that is included within one of the three baskets was the speech – or at least the intention – of Lord Buddha. His Holiness the Dalaï-Lama highlighted this principle. In Illuminating the Path to Enlightenment, he writes:

As Dromtönpa lay dying, his head rested on the lap of one of his chief
  disciples, Potowa, and he noticed that Potowa was crying. Then Potowa
  said, “After you pass away, in whom can we entrust our spiritual
  well-being? Who can we take as our teacher?” Dromtönpa replied, “Don’t
  worry. You’ll still have a teacher after I’m gone—the tripitaka, the
  threefold collection of the teachings of the Buddha. Entrust yourself
  to the tripitaka; take the tripitaka as your teacher.”

Furthermore, in 'Transcendent Wisdom', His Holiness writes:

The three baskets are (1) Vinaya, dealing with moral discipline; (2)
  Sutra, dealing with the training in meditative concentration and other
  facets of the path of awakening; and (3) Abhidharma (sometimes
  translated as "higher knowledge"), concerning a diversity of topics
  ranging from psychology to cosmology. For a further explanation see
  Opening the Eye of New Awareness, pp. 47-52.

We hold that the Tibetan translators showed to which basket the text they were translating belonged, by way of paying particular homage. As His Holiness writes in his commentary to Stages of Meditation:

The intention [of the Tibetan translator paying homage when
  translating Nagarjuna and so forth] was to cearly indicate to which of
  the three divisions [the pitakas, or baskets] of the Buddha's
  teachings any sutra or commentary belongs. [It goes as follows:]
  1. Supplication is made to all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas if a text belongs to the Collection of Discourses [i.e. Sutra Pitaka].
  2. And if a text belongs to the Collection of Knowledge [i.e. Abhidharma Pitaka], supplication is made to Manjushri.
  3. In order to indicate that a certain text belongs to the Collection of Discipline [I..e Vinaya Pitaka], supplication is made to the
  Omniscient.

Is Tipitaka taught and learnt by monks in monastery?

Yes, traditionally. From the beginning one would learn to cite them. Today of course, many have adopter other ways like simply oral, by reading books and just learning to spell it right.

How often Tipitaka is referenced in lectures by monks? (for e.g. I was once listening to discourses of Dalai Lama and he was
  talking of Nagarjuna, Milarepa, Ashvaghosha etc. It might be that he
  did not reference Tipitaka in those lectures but might have referenced
  in some other lectures)

Most would do it as good as possible. Its certainly so that people who have developed different things are not able to cite and well educated people would certainly know if he speaks the words of the Buddha, in words and meaning.

Are laypeople encouraged to learn Tipitaka?

It does not look like as if the Buddha wanted laypeople to learn to cite them like monks, but of course he encouraged to learn and know his teachings independent whether one walks the way as a monk or a layperson.
There are some Mahayana Schools who highly respect them (Pali Tipitaka) or needs to respect them (would be a break of the root vows if disrespected!), such as most Tibetan schools and certain schools who totally reject them, having developed there own texts later on.
Since monks in many Mahayana Schools do not really stick to Vinaya (diszipline), they are also not so open to share those texts to lay people.
In argumentation, the old suttas are in fact very important, even for followers of other paths, since they hardly have anything to relay on aside of later developed texts and interpretations out of own opinions.

I'm sure many different Mahayana schools do many different things, so it's impossible to generalize, but it is certainly true that, contrary to popular notion, Mahayana tradition does not reject the Pali texts, many of which are found in translation in both the Chinese and Tibetan canons. It is, moreover, a violation of the bodhisattva vow to disparage the Hinayana or dissuade anyone from Hinayana practice. In the Tibetan tradition, the Pali texts are studied quite seriously and the Dalai Lama has been known to cite Theravadan authorities, eg., Buddhaghosa, as authoritative. The issue is not acceptance but interpretation and acceptance of additional non-Pali sutras as "Buddhavacana."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the definition of passa ?
The answer on this question mentions passa in the comments.
Having never encountered the term in my studies, what is an overview of the term? What school of Buddhism does it originate from?

In Sutta MN 148 phassa is described. And in many other Suttas.
Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets

"'The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. 'The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the fourth sextet.

I guess that maybe "should be known" means "the doctrine about phassa should be known" and not "phassa itself should not be avoided". Access to Insight includes other suttas with statements like "Sensuality should be known" and "dukkha should be known".

You are right, I removed that statement for a better answer

As per my dictionaries:
Phassa (sanskr. sparça): contact, touch, tangibility, tactile sensation, a momentary union of the sense-object, sense-door, and sense-consciousness.
It's a standard term coming all the way back from the Pali Canon and used widely by Theravada and Abhidhamma.

So to avoid passa you would sit in a room with your eyes shut?

As per "hinayana"-level understanding, I suppose so. Per "mahayana"-level understanding you avoid phassa by not reifying the object nor the subject of the sensation as truly independently existing.

On a side note, what dictionaries do you use? I could use a good resource for terms like these.

Good answer @AndreiVolkov , But please don't use the word "hinayana" again. Because "hinayana" means the lesser path. It is clearly an insulting word and it is pointed at a single community in my country and few others. We have kept the oldest tradition alive for 2600 years and this is the reward we get. I am completely aware of this word's meaning because it belongs to my language and i kindly request you not to use this word again.

@Theravada I don't use it to refer to Theravada, I use it to mean "primitive/basic level of understanding" (whether in Theravada or in Mahayana). See my answer here for more details. You don't disagree there are people who have simplistic understanding and people who have more in-depth understanding? That's what I use it for.

@hellyale for Sanskrit I use http://spokensanskrit.de/ and for Pali http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/

passa does not end by shutting eyes.  From dependent origination, because,sense-base as condition, contact comes to be; because of   Mentality-materiality (name-form) as condition, sense-base comes to be.  further more, passa ends when sense-base is ended; sense-base ends when Mentality-materiality (name/form) is ended.  look up Pratītyasamutpāda for further research.

the union of the sense-object and the sense-consciousness at the sense-door doesn't produce sense-perception?

@Ryan no, because this is not a materialistic perspective, this is a phenomenological perspective. Sense-object is a mind-made model.

Oh, so its apples and oranges?

Why? It's only oranges. No apples.

Some places where it's defined or described:

Wikipedia: Sparśa
PTS dictionary: Phassa
Nyanaponika's dictionary: Phassa
Access to Insight: Phassa (contact)
Obo's Glossology: Phassa, Phassaharo

Phassa is Pali, and Access to Insight references its being used in Pali suttas.

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


text:
Metta and Loving-Kindness as a Team
Can Metta be practiced in a partnership or as a team?
I can think of

two people practicing Metta together, or
a group which meets for meditation, or
across borders, across continents people meditate together at a certain time.

Are there any indications of a Sutta?
Are there practices of a tradition?

Hi Lou and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

Meditation influences the surrounding by vibration created. (You can really feel the vibration when you experience Piti) So when you pratice as a group these vibrations influence others, especially when you are having a bad patch in meditation then the influence of others will help in to develop calmness and concentration and perhaps dispel agitation and other hindrances that might have surfaced during your worldly interactions.
This is true for all types of meditation but most effective when doing Metta as vibrations tend to be stronger.

Yes there is a mentioning, the famous sutta, its starts out with hints of being withdrawn from the world like "not overly attached to families" and is actually not meant as a social event. But since "sex" sells it is broadly sold like that, introduced like that. If one just likes to maintain pleasant feeling, one can go on an thinks this way, but if one has certain metta (maybe for the living beings that would lose there lives to be able to meet in a beloved group) and like to put his practice also in line with metta, this first lines of the Suttas become to have reasons.
There is a nice summary of all qualities required to practice metta and its really not an ordinary mans task and so is it with the benefits one would gain, of which you would just gain sort time pleasure if its made for simply some personal pleasure.
Karaṇīya Metta-Sutta - The Message of Peace and Universal Friendliness, by Ven. Ñāṇadassana Maha Thera.
And to your question if there are such metta-events and practices, actually 95% are of such as you have thought of.
One might also consider the question and answer here in: Metta and Loving-Kindness as a Team
See also: Metta Means Goodwill (Thanissaro Bhikkhu). At least metta is not meant to get involved, but more a beneficial kind of thought for others for one who is actually on leave or on a journey, leaving for a good with the thought "Sabbe sattā sukhī attānaṃ pariharantu." "May all living beings look after themselves with ease." (The Sublime Attitudes | audio)
So where do you like to go?
(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.)

You are allowed to practice as a team. In fact in Lord Buddha's time and even now people and Monks do it. But the important thing is to use this good friendship as a boat and use the excitement of teamwork to your benefit.
Remember not to be too attached to the team. You will be more willing to meditate when yo got friends around.
Even Lord Buddha said

Good friends (Kalyana mitta) are the strength of Buddhism

But never discuss your meditation with your friends, Because it will awake each others ego and that would do more harm than good. But if you have any issues with your practice seek the help of a good master. I would advice you to seek a kind monk because ordinary people can be a bit ego driven.

"In fact in Lord Buddha's time and even now people and Monks do it." Yes?! and "Good friends (Kalyana mitta) are the strength of Buddhism" <-> "But never discuss your meditation with your friends" Yes?! So one seeks out for friend, to remember that they are no friends and then meditates with them and try to be exited in hope for a unordinary person to say "you have to walk alone"? or how should it be understood?

One must seek out friends when that person is new and need extra push towards dhamma because it is easy to loose the way and return to the common life. This method is approved by Lord Buddha and when they have matured enough they can walk alone. Like a child a new comer to Buddhism need the help of good friends. And friendship do not necessarily mean attachment. After all even arahants used to gather and chant or discuss dhamma even though there is not reason to do it as they all have achieved Nirvana. They did this because good company is always nice and comforting to a Buddhist @SamanaJohann

"They did..." Is mr/mrs Theravada sure?  "...this because good company is always nice and comforting to a Buddhist.." and what about this? and that an Arahat might be maybe not a Buddhist, even does not seeks for freinds? "One must seek out friends when that person is new and need extra push towards dhamma because it is easy to loose the way and return to the common life.", is quite a good advice, to be advised. Isn't it that there are two main tasks? Discussing the or dwell in silence (e.g. 2 Jhana+)

Yes they did, As you may have heard many teachings exist that has nothing to do with a dialog of lord Buddha but a dialog between Two Arahats. These dialogs play out as if they are teaching each other but they have already realized these things. I learned from a monk that these dialogs played out as the outcome of a custom That arahats had, a custom to re-memorize or chant,discuss dhamma so that they feel the depth of the path which was some sort of a commonly respected thing among arahats which also provided much needed elaboration to deep teachings to ones who listened. @SamanaJohann

If you seek you will find some good deep conversations from great Kashyapa arahant who was considered "Dhamma senadhipathi" (General of Buddhist teaching). @SamanaJohann

As you already know Lord Buddha directly said "No being can reach nirvana or goals in nirvana without being a follower of the path taught by Lord Buddhas". An arahat who is not a Buddhist is not possible, As lord Buddha explained there is a value only Lord Buddha's hold which is called "Samma sambuddha" which means "Ralized the path without the help of a teaching or a teacher". So the most major difference between an arahat and a Lord Buddha is that an arahat had the help of the teaching to reach nirvana and Lord Buddhas did not. @SamanaJohann

It is possible that an arahat would not choose friends and stay in isolation but it is not possible an arahat not being a Buddhist. This is not my saying it is Lord Buddha's saying, refer the "Sutta/Sutra pitaka" in theravada to learn more. The only way to have a person become an arahat without previously being a Buddhist is if that person was a Bodhisattva who started the path in his last life. And with him being an arahat he would also reach the status of a Lord Buddha or the other kind of Buddha's who do not build followers (Pase Buddha). @SamanaJohann

What does Theravada think? Is wanting to be something or somebody a reason for suffering quarrel and stress? Is being something and not loosing it a reason for suffering quarrel and stress? Does somebodies destiny depend on what he/she is, depending on his definition on his birth? Is defining one self with a group the reason of suffering quarrel and stress? Would there be quarrel and suffering, if people would not misunderstood?

@SamanaJohann Now i am answering these questions in the Abhidhamma point of view,not in a day to day standpoint.  Wanting to be somebody is not forbidden to a buddhist,but this is essentially a product of the illusion that normal beings have called "Sakkhaya ditti" (The misunderstanding that people have that there is a soul or a person).  But if we look at the question will trying to be someone become a source of suffering, the answer is yes. Not just in normal lie even in a Monks life this exist. This suffering exist because of not yet reachng the goal in mind and it will continue to exist...

...Until the goal is met. This suffering exist even in the path towards Nirvana. Lord Buddha clearly stated that. And the simple answer is, Yes wanting to be someone is accepted and allowed in Buddhism but who ever   is trying to do that will face some stress and suffering which is temporary. This uncomfortableness will disappear when the goal is met. @SamanaJohann

@SamanaJohann , As Lord Buddha said everything is temporary and who ever alive is also the same. So if someone has something that thing is going to go away eventually. Let's say i got a car and it does run very well, and lets think it worked forever. Now there is nothing wrong with the car and it works well until eternity. But i will still loose it when i die. So there is nothing that does not loose from a being. So there is no way someone will feel bad for not loosing something because everything goes away one day. And the only thing that does not go away is Nirvana and the goals of the path.

@SamanaJohann , As Buddhists we do not believe in destiny. What we believe is "Karma". So what you said is exactly the other way around. Karma defines a persons appearance,skills,intelligence,wisdom and etc. So Karma is always a dominant factor. But as Lord Buddha said Karma alone does not define everything, your choices do effect as much. Karma will define the Birth,gender,cast,environment,Body and etc. But unless very powerful Karma exist a person can change a lot by his or her will and choices.

@SamanaJohann , Being in a group or being alone is not the reason of suffering. But Having to part from the ones a person like or having to be with people a person does not like will cause suffering. The reason for suffering as to Lord Buddha is "Aviddhya" (Not realizing). What a person should do to part from pain or suffering is to learn and realize dhamma (the teaching). Until then where a person is will not matter because the issue is within the person not outside.

@SamanaJohann , Other people matter to normal ones like us because it is going to affect our ego. But other really do not matter because no one can truly convince all the people. As you might have learned even lord Buddha had people who wanted to take revenge from triple gems. There has never been a world without misunderstanding. And it does not matter either because pain like any other emotion is born in our own heads. The reason it occur is that we have given it grounds to grow. We feed all our emotions and therefore we are responsible for what we feel,not the outside world.

It not good to think in terms of we, Upasaka Theravada. Its modern and many people use it for concernment. Buddha Dhamma is a medicine to heal individualism and use it as a group medicine causes even more attachment and suffering. When one grows more independent and had developed metta for this one is able to help. Its not good to make something dear. Dear Ones, remember the metta sutta "not attached to families". It needs a lot of real metta to walk the way for the benefit of all.

True bhante, what i wanted to say to this OP was that if someone needs help he can get it even though isolation can benefit him. What i was thinking was that a saying from my teacher, he said "The path has not changed but the people have and that's why we do not have great ones among us like the old days who reached nirvana and other goals, The way i see it it is a matter of will/conviction that people seems to lack. In the age of Lord Buddha people were with very strong will and they reached heights because of that, but today people have shraddha but not the will to keep pushing...."

...and because of that i think it is better if you can find good friends who would encourage you more into the path as everyone and everything else is already there to push you away".   This is what my teacher said and i honestly think it is true. What do you think? @SamanaJohann


text:
Ajahn Brahm stated that he ate snakes and frogs during his training, does this mean that it is acceptable to kill animals?
It is famous solution to eat meat only if it is offered by somebody and when the animal was not killed specifically for the person receiving it.
Amongst the many videos of Ajahn Brahm on his youtube channel, he stated, in at least one, that during his training in thailand, he spend a few days or weeks, with other monks, in the forest and he boiled frogs and ate snakes. He added that this training was quite though, with the meals not pleasing.
Do we know more about the thai tradition when the monks go in the forest and eat there, in particular to know whether it is acceptable to kill animals, ourselves, directly for our personal consumption?

Any reference to your claim that he actually killed them?

I've also heard ajahm brahm, at the end of one of his talks during Q and A, advise lay people that it was alright to exterminate Termites that were making a nest near their house; ergo, I don't personally put much stock in what Ajahn Brahm says.

@Ryan, Source? I watched a talk where this came up and I don't think he advised them to...if it's the same one I believe he said that if you are going to, then you should also do some good karma, e.g., giving.

Perhaps I'm mistaken in my recollection then, but in either case he was asked if it was alright, and Im fairly sure he didn't give no as an answer. Which in my book is tantamount to yes.

The impression I got was that he assumed they were going to do it anyways, and didn't want to offend the sensibilities of householders in general by giving a radical "monk answer" , as it were, in the eyes of most people, as that would be like saying "sure, be alright with losing your home". In my mind, this is incredibly inconsistent of him, waffling back and forth to not upset his supporters. As this is clearly not the advice a Buddhist monk should be giving

@Ryan Maybe the orthodox rules are inconsistent -- for example monks aren't allowed to dig earth, and lay people are (expected to); and monks aren't allowed to command lay people to dig, but they are allowed to hint that they want something dug.

Its maybe good to rephrase your question after having read the Article in more detail, so that there is no wrong assuming, Mr/Mrs Lola.

Here's an extract from an article by Ajahn Brahm, What the Buddha Said About Eating Meat,

Towards the end of the Buddha's life, his cousin Devadatta attempted to usurp the leadership of the Order of monks. In order to win support from other monks, Devadatta tried to be more strict than the Buddha and show Him up as indulgent. Devadatta proposed to the Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians.The Buddha refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden, and as long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered specifically for them.
The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks. Nothing could be further from the truth - I was a strict vegetarian for three years before I became a monk. In my first years as a monk in North-East Thailand, when I bravely faced many a meal of sticky rice and boiled frog (the whole body bones and all), or rubbery snails, red-ant curry or fried grasshoppers - I would have given ANYTHING to be a vegetarian again! On my first Christmas in N.E. Thailand an American came to visit the monastery a week or so before the 25th. It seemed too good to be true, he had a turkey farm and yes, he quickly understood how we lived and promised us a turkey for Christmas. He said that he would choose a nice fat one especially for us... and my heart sank. We cannot accept meat knowing it was killed especially for monks. We refused his offer. So I had to settle for part of the villager's meal - frogs again.
Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food and no meat, well... monks may not complain either!
May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

My understanding therefore is that "frogs" is what the villagers shared, as alms.
Wikipedia's Thai Forest Tradition article talks of a morning alms round (and not of monks catching animals and killing them and cooking their own food).
Other Google search results say things like, "Thai forest tradition monks cannot handle money or cultivate, cook or store ...", and "The monk does not store or cook food but daily enters the nearby village ...".

Its not a matter of "Thai forest tradition monk", its a matter of Bhikkhus keeping Vinaya. Certain food can be stored but difficult without having laypeople or novices to handle it actually, Upasaka Chris.

Yes it is a matter of Bhikkhus keeping Vinaya. I gave a Google search for quotes which specifically describe the forest tradition, because that was Ajahn Brahm's condition, in case the OP thought that "forest tradition" monks might have a different lifestyle (catching and killing frogs).

Ajahn Brahm: "Even the Buddha ate meat" - this must be the Brahm-buddha, belongs only to Ven. Ajahn Brahm; definitely not our Buddha, if not, at least not the Mahayana (Chinese) Buddha Shakyamuni.

@Bhumishu米殊 See for example footnote 38 Sukara-maddava on this page.

Thx @ChrisW I know without reading what is Sukara-maddava I read this long time ago in Agama Sutra, the Sukara-maddava in Chinese translated as 樹耳, which means fugus of the tree, a type of mushroom, why it's related to pig is because like truffles its found by the pigs like truffles are sniffed to be discovered by using pig. It maybe the modern Thereavadist like to think instead it means pork.

Instead I'm interested in your link in it Ajahn Brahm talked about a story Uppalavanna 蓮花色 offerred Buddha beef cooked by herself but Ajahn Brahm said not sure if Buddha ate it. He didn't provide the relevant Sutta to authenticated his claim. I tried to find if there is really this piece of this Sutta but failed by using Google, if u know appreciate to give me the link, I'm interested to read it, thanks.

@Bhumishu米殊 My Googling suggests that's based on the story translated on page 475 of this PDF (i.e. the Vinaya rather than a Sutta).

Thx. I also found an equivalent [Vinaya in Classical Chinese] [1]http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T23n1443_009 Verse 0954a15 is the main. These verses recorded the same incident, but in rather very different details. There were 500 thieves, the thief-chief was so impressed by the meditative Uppalavanna he left the very best offering [food] wrapped in very expensive cloth hanging on the tree. Since Uppal. took by her own hands she couldn't accept the food by rule, also must offer to a Bhikkhu or likewise. At the gate Upayin saw her asked for the cloth, so he find one of the Bhikkhu quickly to...

...have the food so he could take the wrapping cloth. Nothing about cow, beef, under-garment of Uppal.; nor the food was offerred to the Buddha as described in the Theravadist record! This Chinese Vinaya was translated by Yijing (635-713CE) who study in Nalanda for more than 10 years. Unless there are different accounts of the same incident else it would be interesting to compare the record, especially the accuracy of the translation of the Pali as provided by ur link.

The two quotes of Ajahn Brahm's article the footnote referred to p.324, 325, I found the pages in ur link but they were completely different text, I wonder if u know how to find the original source. Thx in advance!

@Bhumishu米殊 I guess the "pages 324 and 325" Ajahn Brahm's footnote refer to the text in this PDF, i.e. THE BOOK
OF THE DISCIPLINE
(VINAYA-PITAKA)
VOL. IV
(MAHAVAGGA)
TRANSLATED BY
LB. HORNER, M.A.
ASSOCIATE OF NEWNHAM COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
Published by
THE PALI TEXT SOCIETY
Lancaster
2007.

Merci Beaucoup!

Killing for any reason is a serious offence for both monks and lay people.
Monks can't cure or cook food. They are allowed only to reheat already cooked food. They are not allowed to eat uncooked flesh or fish.

Interesting. Can you please share the source which says monks are prohibited from cooking food? Also, what is "cure food" means?

i know a method monks in thai forest tradition would do. Monks would sun (or air) dry plain rice received from alms round and then soak it in water when ready to eat.  Vinaya (monastic codes) allows monks to keep food for certain period.   PS.  Snake is one of 10 meats not allowed for monks.  I think it might have a context to it when ajahn Brahm said he ate one.

There are less kinds of "food", which he could keep. As for meet or other main food, there are no ways. It would need to be offered again.

That is right, also for you, there is not fault is simply eating. There is no unwholsesome deed with eating meet. It would be of course unwholesome to kill, or to tell someone to kill or being happy or approve the killing.
As for a monk, he would not be allowed to eat certain kind of meat, so for example snakes. A Bhikkhu would also not allowed to accept raw meet. So in relation of those questions, you would need to ask him further. Maybe they found corpse and used them for their nourishment.
Once more, for a Bhikkhu, if seen, heard or assumed, that a living being was killed for his nourishment, he is not allowed to eat it.
As for killing (by body, speech or though - in being happy about it), all of them are unwholseome deeds, what ever reason and for whom ever. As for breaking the precepts formal, only bodily actions or verbal actions who cause end effect the death of a living being, are a fault at least.
As for the frog story (just saw Upasaka Chris added the article). Its very usual under framers in SOAsia to eat frogs. They are prepared in various ways. Having lived in a small remote forests village in northern Cambodia as an Anagarika for a while, it happened often that villager came and gave frogs as a alms donation. Honestly Atma was not able to eat them having be boiled, although he has rarely a problem with any kind of food. They are like balloons (if you know the Shrek cartoon). How ever, with time, when people find out that you are not seeking pleasure in this or that kind of food they will naturally avoid to give such, not to speak of even kill that they are able to give. Alms are shares of what one has. Its seldom really Dana if it is taken for the purpose to give.

Ajahn Brahm is a British Theravada Buddhist monk, and a disciple of the Gautama Supreme Buddha. This this issue is of no concern to him. He knows very well that his master, The Supreme Buddha did not encourage us to eat meat or become vegetarians. The choice is entirely up to us. The important point is to take to heart the Buddha’s guidelines in MN 55 on the three conditions for unallowed and allowed meat.
A monk is not allowed to cook and has to be totally dependent on the offerings of lay supporters. He is also taught that he should be easily supported and looked after. Since he is not allowed to ask for any preferential food (except during sickness), a monk cannot choose his food. He has to accept what is being offered. Lay people have more freedom to choose their food, and for lay people it is entirely up to individual preferences when it comes to eating meat or becoming a vegetarian.
So it is very beneficial for those who want to walk this path to its conclusion, not to be too critical of others no matter what our preferences are. The most effective way to reduce the killing and cruelty in the world is for people to understand the Buddha’s teaching. Ultimately, suffering (dukkha) is a characteristic of life, and the way to end suffering is to practise the Noble Eightfold Path of the Buddha to get out of the rounds of rebirths.

Not to kill animals is the 61st pattimokkha infraction, in the section called paccittiya, rules entailing confession. Thus, until the monastic confesses his infraction the sangha is tainted.  Confession alone is sufficient to expiate the infraction.

This comment speculates that there was killing involved, the question does not mention such, Mr. Alexander Duncan. Maybe you like to put your answer under an "If..."

I do not understand your comment.

Why did Mr. Duncan gave this answer in regard of the OP?

The comment is that the allegation (that the monks killed frogs) is unproven speculation (and is most likely incorrect), therefore your answer might be better phrased as a conditional (using "if") instead of continuing with the same mistaken assumption: so, for example, "If the monks killed animals then that would be an infraction of the etc."

I don't think this discussion is particularly useful or productive so I will not be responding again. However, to clarify, I am answering the QUESTION, and the QUESTION is "Ajahn Brahm stated that he ate snakes and frogs during his training, does this mean that it is acceptable to kill animals?" I don't know what COMMENT you are referring to - I rarely read the comments when I answer a question. I hope this clarifies the matter for you.


text:
Resources to study the Abhidharma in the East/North Asian schools of Buddhism (e,g, Mahayana, Tibetan, Yogacara, Dharmaguptaka, etc.)
What are good resources and references (ideally online) to learn Abhidharma from East and North Asian (Mahayana, Tibetan, Yogacara, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Dharmaguptaka, etc.) schools of Buddhism.
NB: I am aware of BPU BPhil 3rd Year Lecture Notes. So I am looking for resource other than this.

Broke it down from school to narrow it down as not every one person may have expertise in both schools. E.g. instead of asking what all abrahamic religions say about X breaking it down as What Christians have to say about X and What Muslims have to say about X and What Jews have to say about X.

There is an accepted answer below, but do not consider the question closed. If anybody finds anything else please post.

The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra, also called the Satyasiddhi Śāstra, is an extant abhidharma text written by Harivarman, a 4th-century monk from central India. Harivarman is often thought to come from the Bahuśrutīya school, but the Tattvasiddhi contains teachings more similar to those of the Sautrāntika Sarvāstivādins. This abhidharma is now contained in the Chinese Buddhist canon in sixteen fascicles (Taishō Tripiṭaka 1646). Paramārtha cites this abhidharma text as containing a combination of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna doctrines, and Joseph Walser agrees that this assessment is correct. Ian Charles Harris also characterizes the text as a synthesis of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, and notes that its doctrines are very close to those in Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra works. (from Wikipedia)

A PDF scan is available here at Scribd.com

The Abhidharmakośakārikā or Verses on the Treasury of Abhidharma is a key text on the Abhidharma written in Sanskrit verse by Vasubandhu in the 4th or 5th century. It summarizes the Sarvāstivādin tenets in eight chapters with a total of around 600 verses. The text was widely respected and used by schools of Buddhism in India, Tibet and East Asia.
Vasubandhu wrote a commentary to this work called the Abhidharmakośabhāsya. In it, he critiques the interpretations of the Sarvāstivādins, Vaibhāṣikas and others of the tenets he presented in his previous work from a Sautrāntika perspective. This commentary includes an additional chapter in prose refuting the idea of the "person" (pudgala) favoured by some Buddhists of the Pudgalavada school. However, later Sarvāstivādin master Samghabhadra considered that he misrepresented their school in the process, and at this point designated Vasubandhu as a Sautrāntika - upholder of the sutras. (from Wikipedia)

PDF scan of the 80-pages summary by Stefan Anacker for Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies
PDF scans of complete Abhidharmakośabhāsya: vol 1, vol 2, vol 3, vol 4
Hard copy of the bhāsya is available for purchase on Amazon
Hard copy of the commentary by 9th Karmapa on Amazon
Study materials for Abhidharmakośakārikā by Korin Pokorny:

Historical overview and introduction
Chapter 1. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 2. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 3. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 4. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 5. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 6. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 7. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 8. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 9. Text. Explanations.
Everything in one PDF

Abhidharma-samuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) is a Buddhist text composed by Asanga. Abhidharma-samuccaya is a complete and systematic account of the Abhidharma. (from Wikipedia)

An edited transcript of a series of lectures given by the Venerable Traleg Kyabgon, Rinpoche at Kagyu E-Vam Buddhist Institute (KEBI) from July to October, 1983
PDF scan of complete Abhidharma-samuccaya
Hard copy is available for purchase on Amazon.

Just wondering if there is a more clean copy of Tattvasiddhi Śāstra which includes the whole text?


text:
What are good resources to study the historic evolution and comparative studies of Abhidhamma
What are good resources and references (ideally online) to learn historic evolution of Abhidhamma. Also comparative studies on different Abhidhamma schools.
NB: I am aware of BPU BPhil 3rd Year Lecture Notes. So I am looking for resource other than this.

Perhaps this may be of use to you? http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

Hope this helps.
Abhidhamma Studies III: Origins of the Canonical Abhidha(r)mma Literature
Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time;
and Abhidhamma Studdies--Introduction, both by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera
Studies in Abhidhamma Literature and the Origins of Buddhist Philoposhical Systems by Erich Frauwaller. At Sunypress.edu
Similar books and/or articles:
Karl H. Potter (1970). Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D.
In The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Motilal Banarsidass
Chandra B. Varma (1992).
A Concise Encyclopedia of Early Buddhist Philosophy: Based on the Study of the Abhidhammatthasaṅgahasarūpa. Eastern Book Linkers.
Jay Garfield, Translation as Transmission and Transformation.
C. L. A. De Silva (1937/1988).
A Treatise on Buddhist Philosophy, or, Abhidhamma. Sri Satguru Publications.
Gustav Roth (ed.) (2009).
Stupa: Cult and Symbolism. Aditya Prakashan.
H. W. Bailey (ed.) (2010).
Buddhist Poetry, Thought, and Diffusion. International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan.
Richard King (1998).
Vij Aptim Trat and the Abhidharma Context of Rarly Yog C Ra. Asian Philosophy 8 (1):5 – 17.
Noa Ronkin (2005).
Early Buddhist Metaphysics: The Making of a Philosophical Tradition. London ; New Yorkroutledgecurzon.
Herbert V. Guenther (1976).
Philosophy and Psychology in the Abhidharma. Distributed by Random House.
Eli Franco (2004).
The Spitzer Manuscript: The Oldest Philosophical Manuscript in Sanskrit. Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften.


text:
What are good resources to study the Abhidhamma of Central/South Asia Schools (e.g. Sthaviravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, Mūlasarvāstivāda, etc.)
What are good resources and references (ideally online) to learn Abhidhamma from school of Buddhism in Central/South Asia (Sthaviravāda, Theravada, Sarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, Mūlasarvāstivāda, etc.).
NB: I am aware of BPU BPhil 3rd Year Lecture Notes. So I am looking for resource other than this.

There is an accepted answer below, but do not consider the question closed. If anybody finds anything else please post.

Here is what I found:

Series of audio lectures on Sarvastivada Abhidharma with
accompanying slides by Bhikkhu Dhammajoti.
Sarvastivada Abhidharma, book by Bhikkhu Dhammajoti.

Also see this question and answer by RobM for a link to Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" downloadable as PDF.

If you find any more material please keep posting.

I am wondering if there Sarvastivada Abhidharma 4th expanded edition online


text:
Monastery or Temple in California
Hope you all doing excellent!
Would like to know if there's any monastery or Theravada temple in San Francisco, OC or LA?
I know there's one in Redwood Valley, but it's a lil too far off.
Pls share, if you happen to know any nearby.
Thanks.

There is nothing specific to Theravada nearby (other than what you found in Redwood Valley, which I'm guessing is Abhayagiri), but just in case it is helpful, here are some other monasteries and temples that are somewhat close:

Berkeley Buddhist Monastery
Buddha Gate Monastery
Wat Mongkolratanaram, a Thai Buddhist temple
Berkeley Buddhist Temple

Also less than an hour away is also the Insight Meditation Center, which is neither a monastery nor a temple, but is very much rooted in Theravada teachings (so maybe worth mentioning).

I've attended Vipassana intensive retreats at Tathagata Meditation Center in San Jose, a Mahasi style center. I found the atmosphere conducive to advanced meditation practice and the other yogis who practice there were equally intense/not many beginners.

Did you try the World Buddhist Directory?

According to Worldwide Mahamevnawa Branches there's a
"Mahamevnawa Meditation Monastery of California" in Torrance (in the region of Los Angeles).


text:
How can you use daily walks for spiritual growth in Diamond Way Buddhism?
For a variety of reasons, my daily routine will include two one-hour walks per day during the coming couple of months (one in the morning, one in the evening). I want to use that time for my spiritual growth. In some branches of Buddhism (Zen) there is a walking meditation.
I'm practicing Diamond Way Buddhism and I'm wondering if there are any exercises in that tradition I could do while I'm doing those 2 walks per day.

From how I was taught, in Zen the best way to use daily walks for spiritual growth is to not use them for spiritual growth ;) In the true spirit of Parjnaparamita, forget about "spiritual growth" which is a very deluded motivation, and just walk.
From Karma-Kagyu perspective, I guess we can get into more details...
When you walk, it is very important to feel your entire body -- and not ignore any tension or tightness. The tension manifests in your posture and your gait, in how you hold your head-and-shoulders, your torso, your pelvis, how you put your weight down on your feet, what you do with your hands. When you feel comfortable, you can open up and your body parts can move more freely and be in harmony with each other. And vice versa - when you make your body and feet conveniently positioned - then your mind can feel comfortable. Imagine how a king or Buddha would walk, to us it looks like they walk "with pride". The reason they walk like that is because they always keep themselves very comfortable. They don't maintain negative stories and they don't maintain body tensions.
As you walk and see things, try not get caught up in stories. When you see something, if you habitually relate to it as "good" or "bad" then you no longer see it, instead you see your thoughts overlayed on top. Usually when we judge we judge on the basis of one or few "signs" or "marks" (nimitta - characteristic features that give us hints about qualities of the object). We then make inferences based on those signs and interpret what they tell us. This formula "marks => qualities => story" is what my last teacher called "preconception". They (preconceptions) come from our past experience. We then compare that story with how things are supposed to be in the perfect case. And then we evaluate it as "good" or "bad" - and we feel corresponding emotion. When this happens we no longer see things as they are, we only see the "signs" and the "story" colored with some feeling. Instead, when you don't let this mechanism go on autopilot, then you see things more fully - you see many other aspects than just signs, your experience becomes much more rich and nuanced. In Buddhism we say you see things "as they really are".
Same thing happens if seeing some things or some people makes you judge yourself. This happens in two cases. Either you see something or someone that you evaluate as "very good" - and then you start comparing it with yourself and come to a conclusion that since you are not "so good" - then you must be "bad". Or there is a case when you imagine how someone must be seeing you from their perspective and you imagine what they probably think about you (awesome/worthless, smart/dumb, handsome/ugly etc.) There are many variations of these - but basically they all involve some comparison and imagination. So again, instead of feeling yourself as being fully yourself - you are making up some story in your head. Needless to say, when this happens you usually lose the sense of your body and posture/shoulders/lower back/pelvis/feet. Instead, when you don't alienate (deny, disown) yourself and you allow yourself to be natural/uninhibited/spontaneous, we say you become "an authentic person" or a "true person".
So the idea with walking meditation is to get out of your head and just walk, walk while seeing the world in all its multifaceted colors, and while feeling you are who you are with all your various qualities - without getting caught in those imaginary stories.
Of course, when you walk you don't need to think about any of this - you just walk comfortably and look around. It's the simplest thing in the world.

You mention not getting up in stories however how does one achieve this when there is a continual flow of interactions with people and environments that don't necessarily support this or make it very challenging?

Secondly, if one does not pay attentions to marks that signify qualities, how does one make decisions between someone who may  harm you or someone who is willing to help you?

you'd still make those decisions - but your thinking would not be as "discrete" anymore. 1) you have to put your will to it.

What do you mean by it won't be as discrete?

like intuition that sees everything afresh without getting caught up in simplistic preconceptions

So you are suggesting that every situation is approached or seen as something afresh? How does this work with patterns that developed for each situation to respond to similar events as they occur?

You don't discard that entirely either. But you are significantly less driven by simplistic past-experience based knee-jerk reactions, and more open to assessing the whole situation.


text:
Between death and offence what is the choice?
One day here on this SE i had an comment to one of my answers suggesting that it is rather discomforting or hard to accept that Buddhists have chosen death as their choice in difficult situations like Genocides,War,Racial conflicts and etc against killing for survival.
But there are some war stories too. As i did not had a chance to learn all sides of this interesting question i thought to ask a question and openly invite the community to share their version of teaching on this matter.
Feel free to add your ow personal experience too.

so the questions are...

What does different schools and traditions of Buddhism teach about reacting to an
offensive or a war?

This offensive can be a one against Buddhism,race,country or any other social aspect.

Is there a Buddhist offense?

You might find there are answers already in these questions for example Can Buddhism give any justification for military violence? and What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?

See also "What do buddhists do in a situation of war where all able-bodied men must become soldiers?".

What does different schools and traditions of Buddhism teach about reacting to an offensive or a war?

The going to war is in many cases beyond your control and even if it is it is governed by norms and even law. Say another country declares war then you might not be able to do nothing. This these case if you have exhausted the avenues to stay away you might have to participate. This is not justifiable by the Dhamma but you have to comply with the laws of the land. Also be mindful of the Karmic repercussions and try to do somethings to counteract this perhaps like Metta Bhavana, helping the wounded, etc. when you can.
If you look back at Buddha's time, even his devoted disciples hard to go on war. E.g. Ajatashatru. This is a worldly norm. You can not endorse them, as any for of offensive is not endorsed in Buddhism, but they cannot be avoided and eradicated.

Is there a Buddhist offense?

Within the Dhamma offensives are not justified.
But there are instances like Dutugamunu who when to war to save Buddhism. This is not endorsed by the teaching of the Buddha as a King wars and punishments according to regulation and norms are inevitable. These are more of individual action and retext in most cases and cannot be called Dhamma offensive. If you are willing to suffer the Karmic consequences, then offensive in the pretext of Dhamma is the choice of the person making the decision, which can be individually or collectively endorsed, but this endorsement is not in the Dhamma but by the people.


text:
Is it possible to achieve universal detachment? How?
I have, for some time, tried to detach from things in my life so I can find true happiness without needing anything. Although I have had some success detaching from some things, like the need to be right or material stuff, I still am too attached to some other things, like girls and people that should not be a source of attachment.
I can tell myself I don't need something(and I really don't) but something deep inside still makes it come up on my mind every so often, and mostly together with fear of loss, desire and imaginary situations of both good and bad outcomes.
So my question is about detachment.. how can I practice to be more and more in control of what I feel attachment for, regardless of what it is? It seems that it controls me, and makes me miserable sometimes.. how can I let things go?

I have, for some time, tried to detach from things in my life so I can find true happiness without needing anything. Although I have had some success detaching from some things, like the need to be right or material stuff, I still am too attached to some other things, like girls and people that should not be a source of attachment.

Any external object brings pleasurable, painful and neutral sensations1. It is these sensations you have to let go there by letting go of the external object thereby letting go of the roots which create this attachments2. Say you are still reacting to external sensations by you have let gone of external objects your mind still can crave for them.

I can tell myself I don't need something(and I really don't) but something deep inside still makes it come up on my mind every so often, and mostly together with fear of loss, desire and imaginary situations of both good and bad outcomes.

You are doing this at an intellectual or conceptual level. There are other religions which preached non attachment but inevitably they got attached to the view orr concept of non attachment which would have been more subtle and difficult to eradicate than external attachments.
The way to go is the be able to objectively observe the arising and passing of any sensation from contact. May it be you stay in one posture and want to shuffle around (pain in the old, pleasure in the new posture). May it be sensation just arising. Also thinking caused sensations.

So my question is about detachment.. how can I practice to be more and more in control of what I feel attachment for, regardless of what it is? It seems that it controls me, and makes me miserable sometimes.. how can I let things go?

The method to do this is as described in Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 and Pahāna Sutta, whereby cut the source of attachments, through being aware of arising and passing of the sensations in what is felt.

1

Then there remains only consciousness,
    purified and cleansed.
    What does one know [cognize]
    with that consciousness?
    One knows, "It is pleasant."
    One knows. "It is painful."
    One knows, "It is neutral."
    On account of a contact that is felt as pleasant, there arises a pleasant feeling.
    When one feels a pleasant feeling one understands, "I feel a pleasant feeling"
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as pleasant,
    the pleasant feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."On account of a contact that is felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling.
    When one feels a painful feeling one understands, "I feel a painful feeling."
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as painful, the painful
    feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."
    On account of a contact that is felt as neither pain nor pleasure, there arises a neutral feeling.
    When one feels a neutral feeling one understands, "I feel a neutral feeling."
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as neither painful nor
    pleasant, the neutral feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."

Source: Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
2
See: Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 and Pahāna Sutta

With regards to desire,
There is nothing to be gained or lost. Just watch that feeling closely they come and go but as soon as you think about losing it or compare with others that desire will follow you until you die and after you die.
You are just borrowing it temporarily during your life time.
With regards to your being not in control,
I will tell you in simple terms.
Watch your habits phsically also mental habits created from them. Adjust accordingly and naturally.
And keep practice and study Dharma.
Simple breathing meditation.
Don't intentionally breathe in and out.
Do it naturally without thinking.
Focus on your breathing by counting 1 through 10 for example.
Count 1 when you brathe in trhough nose.
Count 2 when you breathe out through nose.
1 through 10. 10 through 1.
Repeat them until it becomes second nature.
Buddha said the Truth.
Search for his jewel.
Read Diamond sutra.

The problem can't be solved as long as you keep the opposition between "I" and "other things".
In fact they aren't separable.
So trying to detach "me" from "anything else" is futile.
The correct way to liberation is changing the point of view. Realizing that actual "I" and "other things" are mental constructs.
Letting processes go naturally.
Then pleasant and unpleasant sensations come and go, human bodies react, but there is nobody who would be fettered.
PS. Attachment is a mental process that would develop on top on that natural flow of processes; non-attachment is when that mental process does not develop.

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


text:
Female Zen teachers and writers
The Zen center where I live is very male dominated. This might be because it's very small. Anyway, I think Zen sometimes tend to be a bit masculine in its form, wit a kind of quasi militaristic approach. I find this kind of fun and try to have an ironic attitude - irony is indeed a good medicine.
There are plenty of famous women in different schools of Buddhism, esecially Tibetan. But not so much in Zen, it seems.
Is there anyone who knows a good book on Zen practice written by a woman? And I'd also like some online resources/courses/training on Zen by women.

Charlotte Joko Beck revolutionized how Zen - if not the whole of Buddhism - is taught in America.  Her books are extraordinary.  She also started the San Diego Zen Center.  Peggy Jiyu Kennett started Shasta Abbey.  Those are two that I know off the top of my head.
And a link.

Shundo Aoyama Roshi is a Sōtō priest who wrote a few books (I'm afraid just one was translated to english, however: Zen Seeds: Reflections of a Female Priest). She is the teacher of Coen sensei, former head of the Sōtō community in south america.


text:
Playing repetitve music as meditation practice
The way I see it, music (like everything else?) is empty of inherent existence. This is not obvious. Plato and Aristotle believed that harmonies and rythm express/represents "charachters". Contrary to the Greek champions, I do not think musical harmonies and rythms express or represent anything in and of themselves. The "meaning" and interpretation of music is dependent on causes and conditions, dependent on its parts, and imputed by mind. Music is empty.
My question is how this emptiness of music can be incorporated into my practice. In stead of giving up music because I want to spend my time with meditation, I am wondering if the emptiness of music might in stead and in addition be used as a "mantric device" in mediatative practice.
Here's the idea. I play bass. Me and my fellow musicians love minimalist repetition. Some say practicing an instrument is boring because you have to to the same thing again and again, but I don't agree. I think playing the same bass line over and over (alone or with others) is giving the same experience as meditation with mantras. When you play a simple line hundresds of times, you don't have to think about playing. And after a while you don't know where the line starts and ends, it's circular. The mantra is in my fingers and not my mouth. In the end, both mouth and fingers are in the mind anyway.
It may be a long shot, but I wonder if this way of using repetition is used as a meditation device in any Buddhist practices. What schools of Buddhism is most open to this kind of idea?

I fail to understand where you are trying to get, what antidote you wish to generate, what mind you are trying to oppose. This being said, generally speaking, it is better to take a virtuous object and it is "ok" to take a neutral object (such as the breath) but definitely not an object of attachment.

It's not really clear to what you mean by generate antidote/trying to oppose a mind when I ask about using very simple sound patterns as mantras? Can you please elaborate?

One meditates to cultivate non-attachment to oppose attachment, or to cultivate love or patience in order to oppose anger, or to cultivate a realization of emptiness to oppose all afflictions altogether. The other types of meditation are merely steps in between. How do you mean to tame your mind?

Ok thanks. I think  this kind of meditation, as supplement to ordinary - as I have to practice anyway - can help to cultivate patience and single pointed concentration. I also felt sometimes that very simple repetition of notes is evoking the sensation of the emptiness of the sequence of the tones. "this 'melody'/sequence can't be pinned down anymore.  It doesn't begin or end anywhere" I don't mean to any it is a direct experience of emptiness but it's enhancing the understanding of music as empty and enhancing concentration

You HAVE to practice guitar? Or you choose to?

I choose to have to. And it's a bass

Everything is music

The biggest issue with music is:

you can get attached to it
can created mental recitation of the lyrics which in turn creates verbal fabrications

Hence best is to resort to more conservative meditation pratice. Having said this Richard Shankman of Metta Dharma Foundation teachers mindfulness of sound as an alternative meditation technique. Excerpted from “The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation”:

Mindfulness of Sound
In the instructions for mindfulness of breathing we let all other experiences stay in the background of our awareness, not forcing or pushing them away but bringing a gentle sense of allowing them to be in the background while giving some preference or predominance to awareness of our breathing. In the same way, with this practice we allow other experiences to stay in the background and we give preference or predominance to the experience of sound. You may feel a natural draw or pull to awareness of hearing, and this practice can be very calming and settling. Those for whom mindfulness of sound works well commonly report it as an easily accessible and even compelling meditation object. You may be drawn to awareness of the sounds themselves or you may be more naturally aware of the act or the process of listening or hearing.
Mindfulness of sound entails working with either inner or outer sound. Even though it may be very quiet where you are meditating, you may feel drawn to rest your awareness in listening to however many or few sounds may be present at any time. Other people hear an inner sound, a clear perception of ringing or some other sound, experienced not through the ears but in the mind. You can see if you have such an experience and if you are drawn to rest in awareness of inner or outer sound.
If you are working with mental noting, you can mentally repeat hearing or sound if that helps keep you stay connected and centered with the auditory experience. If you practice mindfulness of sound, just substitute hearing every time I use the terms breath or breathing.

Since you seem to like music the main question would be how you can do this without attachment in order to make this effective, i.e., using music as a means to meditate.

Also perhaps the following might might help you (thanks to @ThiagoSilva for point out): Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta

This very helpful. I am aware of the attachment aspect, and this is one of the reasons for doing meditative practice without words/lyrics and with very very simple sound patterns. I agree completely that this cannot be a substitute for sitting quiet. It is only meant as an addition since I play anyway

+1! I would also recommend the Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta (link to a discussion+translation of this sutta by Piya Tan) for further study on how to train the senses.

Two things:
1) repetitive sound has been used for a long time (thousands of years) to promote and reinforce certain mental states which might be regarded as meditative. If you read about Shamanic Journeying, this practice is facilitated by a loud drumbeat of around 120-140 beats per minute. This produces a particular brain wave which alters consciousness.
2) The alpha state is a form of consciousness that people find calming and uplifting, as well as clearing out verbal thoughts.
It is very easy for me to enter an alpha state while driving with music on, or walking with music. So much so, that I now know how to promote this state without music. This allows me to be present to the environment and enjoy the experience of being. To me, this sounds like Vipassana. It generalizes to any conditions where I do not need to speak or use a lot of rational thought.
Is this what you were looking for?

Indeed. I'll read about shamanic journeying. And 120-140 bpm is usually the tempo I use too. No wonder I find this meditative.

Meditate on your desire to meditate using music as a meditation device. Or on your love for minimalist repition.
That's how I would approach it at least.
Becoming aware of wanting, desire, boredom. And how your mind relates to them.

The deepest meditation happens in silence. Usually a mantra is given to beginners. The mantra purifies the thoughts, because it possesses a sacred vibration and meaning. This is why most mantras, Buddhist and Hindu are Sanskrit, which is a language which has a very deep resonance to the mind and body. It is unlike mundane music or language. Spiritual music is good and can create devotion and states of meditation, but it does not replace a genuine practice of meditation in silence. All of the masters, no matter what tradition emphasize this. Stillness, silence, erect posture, focusing between the eyebrows. The mantra is used at the beginning for giving something the mind can grasp onto. This is the same principle as the form of music you are talking about. But eventually the goal is to have the mind steady enough it no longer needs to grasp anything, and becomes independently stable without any support. What you are suggesting, I am not trying to imply is bad. It is just not a substitute for the traditional meditation in the sense of Buddhism. Often we want shortcuts or to make things easier, that is natural. But we should stick to the instructions of the masters who have attained the goal.


text:
What are the Ānāpānasati Kammaṭṭhāna as Taught By Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero
I am curious to know how Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero teachers Ānāpānasati. Does he follow the 16 stage instructions or perhaps something similar to the 8 step method1 or combination of both or something different with or without overlap.
NB: In answering this please make this a self contained answer without having to navigate links and audio files.

1
Anapana Sati Meditation on Breathing by Ven. Mahathera Nauyane Ariyadhamma

Is it possible to elect an answer now? Anything specific you were looking for in the answers?

I am looking for more step by step guide with proper online citations.

Have you seen this? http://mahamevnawa.lk/meditation/

Answer to this would be a summary of that is in these talks.

Mainly it is concentrating on one's breath as "l'm inhaling short, I'm exhaling short" or otherwise "I'm inhaling long, I'm exhaling short".
This is what Lord Buddha asks us to do in the beginning. He also says this meditation isn't for everybody. This meditation isn't the only way to understand the Four Noble Truths.
Official Website: http://mahamevnawa.lk/
Meditation Section:
http://mahamevnawa.lk/meditation/
You can find English sessions of Sound Cloud in that website and might find English guides on meditation.
The thero also published a book in sinhalese called É Ama Nivan Suwa Bohoo Dura Nowe (ඒ අමා නිවන් සුව බොහෝ දුර නොවේ - The Nirvana is not that far away) which explains Maha Satipattana Sutta, which contains the above form of breathing. Buddha states also to note that the breath isn't me, mine or my soul (hence the book contains it).

The mundane way to do the Anapanasati Meditation is given in the interpretations
 that are out there of the following Doctrinal Discourses -  Ananda Sutta (Leading to Awakening) SAMYUTTA NIKAYA 12:10; Girimananda Sutta (To Girimananda) ANGUTTARA NIKAYA 10.60; Anapanasati Sutta (Mindfulness of Breathing)  MAJJIMA NIKAYA 118 Etc. Etc.  The Supreme Buddha explained to Venerable Ananda (Among the greatest 10 disciples of the Buddha, the one who had the most retentive memory), “This one factor is Anapanasati, which when developed and pursued brings the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Cattaro Satipatthana) to completion. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness, when developed and pursued bring the Seven Factors of Enlightenment to completion. The Seven Factors of Enlightenment, when developed and pursued bring Clear Knowing and Release to completion.”
The million dollar question is whether any of these interpretations of the Anapanasati Meditation is correct or not.

I'm glad you asked Suminda here are some of Mahamewnawa teachings on Vipassana...
This is the only one i could find on Anapanasathi Meditation
Liberation through Breath (Meditation of Breathing)

Our monastery concentrate more on the vipassana Meditation. Here are some of the popular ones.......
Just a body with movement (Meditation of posturest full awarness)
   A bag with an opening at both ends (Meditation of foulness)
   Slaughtered cow (Meditation on elements)
   Verily my own body, too (Meditation on nine cemetery contemplations)
Asubha – Anapanasathi Meditation

The OP wanted an answer, and not a link to an audio file -- see also Should I flag answers which contain only a link as “not an answer”?, and, Are answers that just contain links elsewhere really “good answers”? -- can you answer, possibly answer by summarizing what's in the audio file (if the audio file does contain an answer to the question)? Or is the answer that the monastery doesn't teach Anapanasati?

Does the questioner seeks for an answer or seeks for nurishment of his field? Its good to see "there are gifts and sacrifies" rather to demand, isn't it Nyom @ChrisW ? Not to speak that the OP-operator started him self with less effort to explain his question in providing a link. So how about Question containing links? To risky to limit in this sphere and failing to get enough food?

@SamanaJohann The purpose of this site is to get and give answers to questions (see the policy described at e.g. "Answers vs Advice"). So if an answer doesn't answer whatever the question is, I comment to try to encourage the user to answer the question. The OP said "without links to audio files" and Theravada posted links to audio files, so it doesn't answer the question. The OP (Suminda) probably already tried to answer his own question by reviewing the Mahamevnawa web site and already found nothing but audio files.

More and more Nyom @ChrisW appears like a brain washed slave of this page, not a little able to read listen an reflect. Is he aware of this I-am-a-bot-mind ? Then, if not found, he would be great in giving like he likes to receive and not play another SE-slave and force growd-work for other mans business, wouldn't he?

Ven. Ariyadhamma left his last life already meanwhile, some about not a year ago, so one more less to pay respect and ask proper.

The fist answer is neither down voted nor rebuked at the same time, just to make dust more visible.

@SamanaJohann A purpose of comments are to suggest improvements to the answer.

@SamanaJohann When you address comments like "@ChrisW appears like a brain washed slave" or similar, what kind of reply or reaction do you hope to read in reply?

None, just that @ChrisW might make use of such for his welfare. But it's up to him whether he takes it to refelect or to just react, programmed like. Atma trusts that he is actually wise enought.


text:
What is a phenomenological perspective?
I have seen in answers on this site (about consciousness in connection with rebirth) that Theravada adhere to a phenomenological perspective on consciousness. Can anyone explain for me what it means to have a phenomenological perspective? And which schools does not have this perspective?

Generally, "a phenomenological perspective" refers to phenomenology as expounded by Husserl, and so forth. It is a way of speaking that is typical of contemporary students. It refers to a perspective that underlies the manner in which phenomena appear to one's consciousness, or (a step further) the aspects one's consciousness take.
Therefore, in relation to 'lower rebirth', a so-called phenomenological perspective would approach the way one experiences suffering. The aspect one's consciousness takes when it is subject to this or that suffering.
Generally, such a perspective entails suspending facts and factual inquiries (as in "let us not take rebirth altogether as a fact or a non-fact, and let us not bother with determining whether there is indeed rebirth"). When one suspends all judgments about the supposedly external world (or its quality of being external), that suspension is called epokhē, an ancient Greek term.
From that viewpoint, a phenomenological perspective relates to a form of skepticism.
Some people take another stand by even negating (not just suspending) such or such a phenomena as a fact, as in: "there is no such thing as rebirth and hells, but that doesn't matter because we might very well experience the world in a hellish way". This amounts to a form of criticism.

My assumption is that this would have something to do with the Theravada's reluctance to speculate on ontological matters, preferring instead to investigate consciousness as it is experienced while bracketing any metaphysical or ontological questions.

In Buddhism there are:

Concepts or mental construction - pannatti
Atomic, indivisible constructs - paramattha

If something is a mental construct it should be constructed in the mind of a being using the atomic building blocks. These constructs form as reaction to stimuli which is felt through consciousness. The related constructs are also felt and known though the mind sense door. Also consciousness need to be directed to the object which needs feeling or experiencing. Since there needs to be an observer with consciousness to know and feel phenomena you can say "Theravada adhere to a phenomenological perspective on consciousness".

Our everyday perspective is what I call "the Fish-in-the-tank Perspective" (or more formally "the Agent Perspective"). There are all these fishes in the tank, competing for resources and occasionally making love or fighting, and we identify with one of them.
Instead, the Buddha offered a perspective I call "phenomenological reductionism". Everything is reduced to the experiences of five senses and "the inner eye" (mind). Switching from the fishtank perspective to the phenomenological perspective helps the student get away from the focus on chasing some external objects and avoiding others - and to focus instead on one's own reactions, emotions, mindstate etc.
So instead of the objects being "real" and your reactions being involuntary "caused by the objects" we flip the perspective and take ownership of our reactions, while reducing the objects to merely projections of our interpretation. The idea is that this way we can 1) optimize our behavior because we now can modify our reactions instead of being driven by the objects and 2) we can control our own level of happiness independently of what happens in the external world.
The phenomenological perspective plays the dominant role in Theravada and Yogacara schools. This is not the only perspective utilized in Buddhism though - there are also the "Dharma Path perspective" (karma, rebirth, levels etc.) used for beginners - which is really just a modified version of the fishtank perspective; as well as the global/objective/non-dualistic perspective which in Early Buddhism surfaces as the practice of the Four Immeasurables and the Three Marks of Existence, culminating in the attainment of the "divine eye" (dibba-cakkhu) - and in Vajrayana as the lower levels of Dzogchen. Then there is the perspective of Emptiness - or perspective of no perspective - famously cultivated as Prajnaparamita and on the higher levels of Dzogchen...
So in (Mahayana?) Buddhism the perspective is not something dogmatically declared to be true - it is used as a tool. This pragmatic attitude to perspectives is itself a perspective as well, cultivated e.g. within the Mahamudra tradition - as much as I can assume to understand it.
But yeah, coming back to what I said in that comment - what I meant was, that Theravada (within the larger perspective of phenomenological reductionism) specifically as pertains to explaining "consciousness" - sees it as a linear single-threaded sequence of experiences discussed exclusively in the first-person's perspective. In this sense, any idle talk about rebirth should be seen as a mere slippage back into the fishtank perspective.
My point in that discussion was that from errr.... my perspective, consciousness is not a single threaded series (santana) but rather a network of influences spanning time, space, and a number of media - some of which happen to be sentient beings. So from this perspective, consciousness is not one or many, in fact it's not an entity at all - it is a name for an activity of imprinting/reflecting/influencing that takes place in the world at large.