text:
Is Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra later creation?
I was thinking to read this big text because the chapter claims to be the teachings of Gautam Buddha while departure from the Earth. Before buying I wanted to be sure whether the text is authentic or not & actually contains last teachings of Gautam Buddha or not. Can anyone shed light on the authenticity of the text Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra?

I have a somehow long text from a scholar in a (controversial) discussion, but in German - and would not attempt to translate it. Unfortunately I don't find a link using Google only (it sems from a buddhist forum but seemingly not been captured by Google). If you find someone being able to translate I'd put it on some webspace to be accessible. The main line in that comment is that it is of later creation date (than the assumed initial canonization on first council shortly after the death of the Buddha) and also has been subject to various alterations

@GottfriedHelms I have in PDF in English.

what does it mean: "I have in PDF in english"? (forgive, I'm not native in english)

@GottfriedHelms I mean I have this sutta in English but not in hardcopy.

Here, I've even a question based on the text. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21126/what-gautam-buddha-said-about-self-in-chapter-three-of-the-mahayana-mahaparin

For instance a short excerpt on the authenticity of the Sutra by S. Hodge: "(...) It seems reasonable from the chronological data alone  to  deduce  that  the  MPNS  was  formed  during  the Úâtavâhana  era.  The  Mahâmegha-sûtra,  which  is  a  precursor to the MPNS itself, mentions a Úâtavâhana king  who  was  the  “restorer  of  the  lineage”  and  this
must  be  none  other  than  Gautamîputra  Úâtakarn.i  (r106- 130 CE), (...) " It is a time ago when I engaged in a discussion about this and cited this (and more) S.Hodge statements, but as well that is mainly in german.

Ah, Tamas, thanks for the link to the earlier question. What I can contribute are the mentioned (german) comment of the zen scholar(?) Ralf Boeck ("SoGen") in one discussion and my (german) controversial discussion from 2007 but where I have cited some (english) statements of the scholar and translator of the MPNS S. Hodge. I don't like to get involved again into this discussion because it has been -all in all- a much displeasing experience in that mentioned controversy.

I cite here from my older discussion, where I copied&pasted from a website on the MPNS but which possibly does no more exist, didn't check it (but noticed such a remark in a more recent discussion found via google).
(my original compilation should be findable using google on the newsgroup de.soc.weltanschauung.buddhismus beginning at 10.apr.2007)

(...)
  Historical Background (2)
  There follows a fascinating, informative and thought-provoking
  lecture (originally delivered at the University of London, SOAS, in
  early spring 2006) by Buddhist scholar and translator, Stephen
  Hodge, on the Tibetan version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. I here
  hand over to Stephen!
  [S.Hodge]
  (...)
  It seems reasonable from the chronological data alone to deduce that
  the MPNS was formed during the Úâtavâhana era. The Mahâmegha-sûtra,
  which is a precursor to the MPNS itself, mentions a Úâtavâhana king
  who was the “restorer of the lineage” and this must be none other
  than Gautamîputra Úâtakarn.i (r106- 130 CE),
  (...)
  Virtually 90% of the remaining text of the MPNS involves this person
  as the untiring interlocutor who by his questioning draws out of the
  Buddha a wealth of teachings concerning the permanence of the
  Buddha, the importance of preserving the authentic Vinaya, the need
  to purge the San.gha of miscreant monks, the importance of upholding
  and promulgating the MPNS, and most of all the tathâgata-garbha
  doctrines. Is it possible that we are hearing the actual voice of a
  historical individual , called Sarvasattva-priya-darúana by his
  devoted followers, his words transformed into a sûtra format to
  ensure the preservation and dissemination of his teachings ?
  THE ICCHANTIKAS
  (...) help, who are excluded from this message of hope: a group of
  people collectively known as the icchantikas - the “extremists”.
  In the later strata of the text, the MPNS fulminates stridently
  against these people, repeating statements like
  “apart from icchantikas, the cause of enlightenment will become
  present in everybody”
  or
  “even those who commit the downfalls or perpetrate the heinous deeds
  and those who believe that the generation of the aspiration to
  enlightenment to be unnecessary will be established in the cause of
  enlightenment - apart from icchantikas who are like death”.
  So who were these people that the MPNS calls “virulent serpents” ?
  This question is succinctly answered thus - “any person, no matter
  whether they are a monk, a nun, a lay-man or lay-woman, who rejects
  this sûtra with abusive words, and does not even ask for forgiveness
  afterwards, has entered the icchantika path . . . . Those who have
  no concern about the
  (...)
  And make no mistake about this - the fate of the icchantikas is
  indeed terrifying, for the sûtra says,
  “the cause of enlightenment will not be and cannot possibly be
  engendered in icchantikas”,
  “they resemble burnt seeds because they have extinguished their
  wholesome roots”,
  “the icchantika has no seed and there is no possibility of him
  having any thought of confessing and begging for forgiveness”.
  In other words, the MPNS is quite emphatic in its view that these
  icchantikas will never awaken the potential of their
  tathâgatagarbha, never achieve liberation and never become Buddhas
  throughout all eternity.
  CONCLUSION
  There is one final twist to the story. As we have seen, the sad-
  dharma and the bodhisattvas who uphold it were predicted to
  disappear around 220CE, if our calculations are correct. It seems
  likely that the MPNS was circulated as the final life- belt for the
  sinking raft of the Dharma - those who had ears to hear had this
  last opportunity to save themselves. But what then ? No more
  authentic Dharma, no more true teachers and no hint here of future
  Buddha-saviours to come in this corner of sam.sâra. In fact, there
  is this chilling passage in the MPNS:
  “Who do not see the goal ? It is the icchantikas who will not see
  the goal, for they will not see the goal as long as cyclic existence
  lasts. I have summarized and taught the significance of this, but
  you should fear what is extremely fearful ! Supposing that all
  beings in unison were to become fully awakened to supreme and
  perfect enlightenment, then even if it were possible for the sinful
  icchantikas to become fully awakened to supreme and perfect
  enlightenment, they would not see the goal. In that manner, you, o
  hero, should understand things !
  “Whose goal does not end in failure ? The Tathâgata's goal does not
  end in failure. When all beings who dwell in the cycle of existence
  have become fully awakened to supreme and perfect enlightenment,
  then the Tathâgata's goal will not have ended in failure and then,
  having passed into parinirvân.a eternally, the Buddha will become
  impermanent, like the flame of a lamp whose wick has been consumed.”

Hieran anschließend folgt die Einschätzung:

in this world - and eventually in the entire universe. Then, those
  who by definition can never be liberated - the icchantikas - will be
  left behind to wander lost life-time after lifetime for all
  eternity. What a bleak scenario !

So it is very less likely to be the last teachings of Gautam Buddha?

I also listen Osho almost daily and Read  Krishnamurthy occasionally. Can you suggest me some good enlightening books? :)

Tamas: I can't speak with authority here, just with common-sense. "Gigantism" - things like the orgiastic large numbers of Arhat & monks at the Parinirvana-event - if it is more than, say, 1000 or 2000 then in my private view result of some sick phantasy and nothing worth to think long about. In the Pali-canon the Buddha is painted as a normal human -who, of course, has achieved high, perhaps the highest, level of enlightnement, but still is a touchable human being,with consent and common sense. -- About Osho, Krishnamurty: I began with the same :) then went to Hakuin, finally Thich Nhat Hanh.

A book which I value much is that "Cutting the spiritual materialism" although it seems to be somehow "too dry" to be a real "revelation" - anyway I rediscover many thoughts which I was thinking on and found them put in a well and modern way. I liked very very much Osho's books about the (Zen) patriarchs and later the simple but very usable books of Thich Nhat Hanh: "old path, white cloud (...)" and "the heart of the buddha's teaching" .From another approach: that of Sister Chan Khong "Learning true Love". But basically I reread very often the sutras in the Pali-canon online & offline...

Thanx, will be looking forward to read those books. :)

I'd add Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sadhguru, Mooji and Rupert Spira. Krishna Prem's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is wonderful. Philip Kapleau's 'Three Pillars of Zen' is a good read. There are so many good books (and these days videos) that we're spoilt for choice. Nagarjuna's ''Letters of a Friend' might be helpful, or 'Become What You Are' by Alan Watts. There's so much that is good.       ,


text:
My explanation of six realms of existence
The six realms states of mind
This is my graphical interpretation of existence of six realms by Buddha.

I have attempted to decode the great concept of Buddhist teaching consider the state of mind as all beings possess the mind:

X axis represent the level of mind or level of happiness and suffering which can’t be measured by scientific apparatus.
Y axis represents time which only feels by mind and time can’t be measured. (Absolute time)

White paper represents space.

God’s realm
Here is it. Gods are always in happy mind and maintain it effortlessly long time and happiness is stable.
Time is very fast as they are in happiness and pleasure. Their physical body has been evolved to feel and maintain the happiness and pleasure. Human can’t measure anything on this realm except feel the state of mind just a few seconds or minutes.
No 1 represent this in graphical way e.g. poor, financially oppressed human has collected the bundle of 1 million dollar notes. So his happiness suddenly reached his climax and enjoy the pleasure and overflow his happiness for few seconds or few minute etc……. and once he feel the fear of robbers, hesitations of the future and thinking about what to do in future and he is collapsed on human level of human mind again. If he is with cardiac problem then he is dropped down to hell being as suffer cardiac pain or death as can’t control his thought and overflow of happiness. Time is extremely fast on this realm.
Demi gods or Asura
Normally Demi-gods are below the gods. They are confident on their power of fighting nature. Intelligent and born to fight. Physical body has been designed for it. Muscular, strong body, intelligent and master on weapon usage and create new weapons. They are born to survival and they normally not possess for survival. But someone on craving and try to possess in front of Asuras, they will fight for grab it even though the object is useless for them. Once they possess the object they are in climax of happiness and fade it gradually with time. E.g. this can be experienced with kids some time neglected toy get the attention child the second child also come with desire for same toy and they will fight for it.
Time is fast and varies in this realm.
Humans realm
They can think the middle way. That’s the reason Buddha specially states about Human realm. Any psychiatric can explain the human mind. Time is average in this realm
Animal realm
Driven by instincts and ever one know range of physical appearance. No spiritual vision, no religion, no art, no science and only they have well adapted to physical environment by evolution of physical body.just big fish eat little fish is the only law.
Animals never use apparatus to measure time and they synchronise the time with environment. Animals fight for survival not for possess anything. Animals fight, flight, eat, drink, sleep etc…….are the purpose of their existence. Time is passing slowly in this realm
Hungry ghosts.
They always overflow with craving and desire. Mind is driven to fulfil craving and desire and they are not fulfilled by achievements. Time is very slow as they are always in overflow by non-satisfaction.
Hell being
Always suffer from intensive, extreme and unavoidable pain both physically and mentally. But mental pain is the most. (As modern psychiatry says mental suffering is difficult than physical pain) and it is extremely difficult to escape from this realm and time is very very slow in this realm. E.g just imagine a person who is wounded badly and has to suffer intensive pain in hospital ICU units.

Is my explanation of the six realms of existence consistent with common Buddhist explanation?

Hi D S. This is a question & answer forum. Therefore, I edited to your post to include the question at the end. Regards

it looks kinda beautiful, thanks

According to your description and graph, does this mean that the 6 realms are just different states of mind (for a person)?

Yes this is correct this is the way a mahayana views reality. And this is the reason a theravedan disagrees! LOL.
To the theravedan the six realms are not visible in the human world. Or rather with human eyes the six realms are not visible on earth.

The explanation does not appear to conform with common Buddhist interpretations, which say:

Godly realms can still result in suffering (e.g. AN 4.123) &;

The human realm is the ideal place to reach enlightenment & Nibbana; where Nibbana is the highest (Dhp 203) & only secure nonfluctuating (MN 140) happiness.

The human realm is described below:

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
SN 56.47

Does it say there's suffering in the Godly realms? Only that they're impermanent. I'm not even sure Gods acquire any bad kamma there, only that they use up (and, presumably, don't acquire more) good kamma.

god realm is a state of happiness and it is possible to drop down lower realms.once in god realms no feeling of suffering and saturated with happiness and pleasure.

Chris, impermanence and clinging is what leads to suffering, so higher realms can have. Suffering simply means "unknown amounts of work ahead". :)

All the lokkas you call "states" are just as real as the robe and the bowl...
Keep calling Buddha a liar; with continual grasping at "mind" and you will feel the realness of the lokkas with body attachment; If you have not already heard them for yourself by hearing the lokkas speech attachment; In "self and other" soon enough.
Do: Practice, practice, practice. Do not: Think, think, think.
Grasping of the eye, ear, nose, mouth, and tactile sensations are each a consciousness and aflame with skandha in each sense consciousness making six jealousy's to break the link... breaking the link of the eye skandhas is just one, consciousness conquered.
At least; Three rounds of birth and death are required to attain the fourth noble step into truth on the path.
The essence of: "Practice as if; One's head is on fire." Is a direct pointing to this.
When you are sitting in your grave; and Mara is tearing your hair out by the roots? Don't forget to smile.
"Whatever an enemy might do to an enemy, or a foe to a foe, the ill-directed mind can do to you even worse."
~Dhammapada
That quote is past tense from someone thus gone sharing their wisdom, worthy of gifts and offerings.
When you yourself find yourself alone in the grave and yet still living? And Mara after Mara of either "Body" "Speech" or "mind" is tearing your hair out by the roots; speaking or growling disembodied; Trying to possess your "precious human form"? As any ol' preta is apt to do? Do not forget; They only see humans as a vessel, an easy to conquer vehicle due to the three poisons the attachment is so strong in craving and desire for the three poisons; not having form? They only want yours as soon as you become untangled.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
self-hypnotization-autosuggestion - chanting
I am looking for a solution for my complete lack of control  - tried many things (doing lot of meditation doing 1 minute meditation - no formal meditation - but i never manage to keep it more than a few days usually 1-2 days even with only 1 minute meditation a day)
what im trying to do now is to avoid doing bad stuff in hopes to do good stuff  but i have no self control and always fail in it
thought about a way to change that using some self-hypnosis  - auto suggestion something i asked about here :
Should I use autosuggestion to make myself meditate
now im thinking of doing chanting of sabba papassa akranam  (As to the focus of avoiding doing bad i will do good)   maybe during the day maybe just repeat it 108 times one time a day ?
Do you think this will have a benefit ? can this "work" and cause a big change ?   any tips advice on how to this ?

Sure, best maybe just ten times, when possible situations appear which could be approached by bad thoughts, words or deeds before not doing such. That's the most effective time with most benefical fruits, and if doing seriously and heedfull, watching over it's requirement, Breath will see it's great effects very soon.
Best make a strong resolve and promise to do. Maybe by chanting 108 times, having bowed before the Three Juwels, taken refuge in a small personal sermon. Before going to bed every day, in the case if chanting in such situations was forgotten, chant it 108 times and renew the promis like at the beginning. If having chanted if in situations and did not do the deeds then, best rejoice on it and try to just dwell silently in this joy. If feeling inspired, maybe good to devote gratitude to the Gems at the end.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange. It's given as guest and not as subscriber, as possibility given by the owner of this page here.]

In my experience autosuggestion can help.
Things to try telling yourself:

"I am seeing the wonderful, always usefulness of meditation"
"I love to sit and be aware"
"I am enjoying being free of crazy activity"
"I am feeling good sitting here to work on my spiritual cultivation rather than scurrying about in materialistic existence"
"I am stable and normal becoming free of external influences"
"I am growing in my basic living skill of being aware and calm"
"I am not attached to any phenomena even this affirmation itself"
"I am not attached to not being attached"

Basically, the affirmations are not going to lead you to concentration or enlightenment directly but they will help you reign in your crazy worldly mind so that you can keep practicing!
However, use the affirmation itself as an object of awareness. See it working its way into you.
Smile. Breathe.
Do not attach to the process of affirmation and try to focus your mind 99% on the Buddhadharma itself.
You are only using affirmation as a tool to get yourself out of your neurotic, scattered habits.
After you are calm, steady and concentrated, you will be cultivating closer to jhana and it will be important to learn to concentrate even when you don't feel like--observing the "not wanting to sit" as another phenomena.
You cannot just affirmation away those kind of things. You will need to cultivate actual meditation.
Anyway, those are some early stage and mid-stage tips for you. Hope that helped.

what about  "not doing bad stuff"    chanting specifically ?  not to remind myself but to make myself control myself for example not to watch youtube videos for fun

Yes, chanting can really direct the mind but I wouldn't include "I am" because it reinforces the worry that it is increasing my attachment to ego. I would replace "I am" with "Imagine" or "Imagine when there was ". So, I would say, "Imagine when there was love to sit and be aware" or "Imagine feeling good sitting here to work on  spiritual cultivation" or "Imagine being full of energy".

@breath try to visualize the satisfied feeling of doing something else. Or death visualization is the proper buddhist technique.

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


text:
Are there any prohibitions on participating in other religion's practices?
Does any Buddhist tradition have an explicit prohibition on participating in the rituals and practices of other religions? Are there any rules about entering other religions' holy places?

I suppose there's usually not much reason/cause to participate in rituals or to enter other places. What kind of reason (for doing that) were you thinking of? I think it's possible to find (rare) anecdotes in which a monk at least entered a church building for one reason or another.

Basically this is a comparative-religion question.  I was thinking about how some branches of Judaism prohibit adherents from visiting a Christian church, and how one of the strongest prohibitions in Islam is against worshiping iconic gods.  It is interesting that the analogous teachings in Buddhism, if they exist at all, seem to be a much weaker prohibition.

No, if we are talking about what the Buddha teaches in the Pali Suttas but one has to keep the precepts and practice in line with the Buddha's Teaching while participating in the other religion's practices.
In other words, the other religion's practices need to be compatible with the Dhamma.
In other words the other religious practice has to be dhamma.
I would say that in general, the various traditions usually frown on one practicing anything outside the tradition.
I would say that in general, teachers usually frown on it too because it can cause a lot of doubt, wrong view,  misunderstandings and interference in the teacher's particular technique.

Yes, if these religious practices you want to participate go against the precepts.
ex: Animal sacrifice or slaughtering animals for food to celebrate a religious event.
Another is participating in worshiping Gods when you have taken spiritual refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha. It's like when you see a group of people who are boiling sand expecting it to be rice, you go participate in the same activity instead of showing them the proper way to cook rice.
Having said that, it is fine to participate in any activity that is in conformity with the Dhamma. ex: giving food to poor, releasing animals sold for meat etc. Also it is ok to take part in festivities as long as you don't get involved in activities that go against the Dhamma.


text:
What is Mastery In Reviewing?
The books and videos all describe it as,
Looking at jhana and its factors in retrospective knowledge
What does this mean exactly? Is it going over the events that happened during the jhana?  there anything specific you suppose to do?

Suttas have the phrase "Knowledge and vision of things as they are", in the Supporting Conditions I think. This would necessarily be knowledge of things that have happened, how they come about (cause and effect), thus: 'retrospective', as opposed to seeing what will happen.

I think you go over the meditation, what you did, how, compare with other meditation sessions to find out how to easily get jhana.
I did this and this and I got that result and the other time I did that and that and got another result.
So in time you get better at recognizing the factors and how to get in jhana.


text:
Why Buddha rejected Upanishad and Veda?
For what reason did Buddha rejected Upanishad and Vedas?

Upanishads and the 4th veda didnt even exist in the Buddha's time. In Tevijja Sutta there are only 3 vedas mentioned.

Because nibbāna of Upanishad and Vedas is sassata-diṭṭhi (eternalism) in brahmmajālasutta. But nibbāna of buddhism is enlightened by ariya at the finish line (enlightenment) of the middle way, that is in the midst of whole extreme teaching around the universe, such as eternalism,  annihilationism, egoism, altruism,  theistic determinism, determinism that only past-life's karmma is cause of present life (i can't find the correct word of this view), accidentalism, nihilism, Marxism, democrazy, communism, science, capitalism, etc.
What is the middle way?
The middle way is ariya-magga (The Noble Eightfold Path), the best balanced teaching which must leads to the complete and perfect whole suffering cessation (anupādisesa-nibbānadhātu). The middle way must have these whole properties as their results, not just some properties:

Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:
By avoiding these two extremes, O bhikkhus, the Tathāgata has gained
the knowledge of the middle path which leads to insight, which leads
to wisdom, which conduces to calm, to knowledge, to the Sambodhi, to
Nirvāna.
....
‘This, O bhikkhus, is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering: (it ceases with) the complete cessation of this thirst -- a
cessation which consists in the absence of every passion -- with the
abandoning of this thirst, with the doing-away with it, with the
deliverance from it, with the destruction of desire.
...
‘And this knowledge and insight arose in my mind: "The emancipation of my mind cannot be lost; this is my last birth; hence I shall not be born again!"’
ādittasutta (ādittapariyāyasutta):
“Monks, the learned, noble disciple seeing it thus turns from the eye and forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings,
pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of
eye-contact, he turns from that too  re  He turns from the mind,
deas, mind-consciousness, mind-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant
unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of mind-contact, he
turns from that too. Turning loses interest. Losing interest is
released. Released knowledge arises to him, I am released, birth is
destroyed, the holy life is lived to the end, duties are done, I have
nothing more to wish.”
The Blessed One said thus and those monks delighted in the words of the Blessed One.
When this exposition was done about a thousand monks released their minds from desires without anything remaining.
mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:
"These are the single gold paths to the purification of beings, to the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, to the disappearance of pain & distress, to the attainment of the right method, & to the realization of Unbinding — Summary are the foundations of mindfulness.

Tipitaka studing that heritage from Arahanta, tipitaka reciting, and tipitaka memorizing his tipitaka knowledge, these 3 things make the buddhist practitioner understands tipitaka.

past-life-kamma = eternalism

@Dhammadhatu the present translated tipitaka use eternalism as sasata-diṭṭhi. And sasatadiṭṭhi = {determinism that only past-life's karmma is cause of present life, determinism that  past-life's and present life's karmma are causes of present life, determinism that only present-life's karmma is cause of present life, determinism that only past-life's karmma is cause of present life and next life, etc.}

Reference to the Upanishads does not exist in the Pali suttas. Only reference to the Four Vedas is found in the Pali suttas. The Buddha was not aware of the Upanishads and had no interest in the superstitious ideas found in the Four Vedas.
The Buddha found the complete cessation of suffering, which is not found in the Vedas. The complete cessation of suffering occurs with the utter destruction of "self-view", which includes the destruction of ideas about "Brahma" and "Atman".

A few Upanishads are pre-Buddhist but the majority came later. Most of the Vedas were however pre-Buddhist.
The Buddha definitely rejected the idea of the Atman (an indivisible indestructible eternal self at the core of beings) and he also rejected the concept of eternalism. Atman and eternalism are core doctrines of the Upanishads.
Not just this, there are rituals that are either contained in or derived from the Vedas like the following (from this site):

In its simplest form, which is still practiced by many Brahmanas and
  members of the higher castes, it is practiced just before the dawn by
  standing in a water body such as a river or a water tank and offering
  water (tarpana) to the Sun as it rises in the east with a prayer and a
  salutation (vandanam), which makes the sacrifice both an external and
  an internal cleansing worship.

In the Sigalovada Sutta, the Buddha rejected the ritualism behind the Vedic bath prayer ceremony (as above) practised by a young householder by the name of Sigala, and put a new spin on it, according to the Buddha Dhamma.
Also, from the Canki Sutta, the Buddha hints that even the learned brahmans themselves are unsure whether the Vedas are true, by their own empirical validation:

"And among the brahman seers of the past, the creators of the hymns,
  the composers of the hymns — those ancient hymns, sung, repeated, &
  collected, which brahmans at present still sing, still chant,
  repeating what was said, repeating what was spoken — i.e., Atthaka,
  Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja,
  Vasettha, Kassapa & Bhagu: was there even one of these who said, 'This
  we know; this we see; only this is true; anything else is worthless?'"
"No, Master Gotama."
"So then, Bharadvaja, it seems that there isn't among the brahmans
  even one brahman who says, 'This I know; this I see; only this is
  true; anything else is worthless.' And there hasn't been among the
  brahmans even one teacher or teacher's teacher back through seven
  generations who said, 'This I know; this I see; only this is true;
  anything else is worthless.' And there hasn't been among the brahman
  seers of the past, the creators of the hymns, the composers of the
  hymns... even one who said, 'This we know; this we see; only this is
  true; anything else is worthless.' Suppose there were a row of blind
  men, each holding on to the one in front of him: the first one doesn't
  see, the middle one doesn't see, the last one doesn't see. In the same
  way, the statement of the brahmans turns out to be a row of blind men,
  as it were: the first one doesn't see, the middle one doesn't see, the
  last one doesn't see. So what do you think, Bharadvaja: this being the
  case, doesn't the conviction of the brahmans turn out to be
  groundless?"

In the Sangarava Sutta, the Buddha rejected purification rites using water.
In the Sundarika Sutta, the Buddha rejected caste by birth.
In the Paccha-bhumika Sutta, the Buddha rejected the use of prayers to help the deceased go to heavan.
In the Samannaphala Sutta, the Buddha forbade his monks from doing fire oblations or fire sacrifices, practising astrology, reading omens, calculating auspicious dates for marriages, consecrating sites for construction and worshipping the Sun. Some of these practices are religious, while others are cultural.

Yes: together with "self-view" (mentioned in Dhammadatu's answer), "rites and rituals" (mentioned in your answer), a.k.a. silabbata, are among the first of the "fetters" to be abandoned.

I think the parable of the poisoned arrow is extremely relevant here:
When The Buddha was asked of the 14 metaphysical questions, he simply didn't respond to them. He said, for a man shot with the arrow, the important thing is to get rid of the arrow (the suffering) and not the material of the arrow or the angle it came from.

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

That said, The Buddha also always paid respects (and made his followers respect) to all of the great masters of eternity, in the past, present and the future. So that would include those authors of Upanishads that presented their perspective of the reality.


text:
past memory of recall previous life
There are discussions about previous life recall and it is can't be scientifically proven. According to modern science memory are electrical traces on neuron cells in brain and that is scientific fact and modern scientist have recreate memory artificially as it is. So memory has physical aspect rather than mysterious spiritual aspect. My specific question is how do it prove that recall of previous lives which does't cope with facts?

I didn't understand the last sentence, which contains the question. What's the question?

recall of previous lives related to memory.my question is memory only has physical aspect as it electrical traces in brain.

Your statement or claim, the "fact" which you say is true, is that "memory only has physical aspect as it electrical traces in brain". What is your question though? The last sentence is asking something about proof and facts, but I don't quite understand what it's asking.

so how do I explain to you? What I try to emphasize that memory is just pattern of electrical traces on neurons in brain(fact). if some one can recall past  lives memories means he has linkage to  memory of his previous life.Now can you explain that linkage?

In other words is there any possibility of transmigrate memory from previous life to this life if so how is it happen? ( pattern of electrical traces of neurons in past life transmigrate to neurons of this life. Is it possible?

So the question is something like, "Given that memories are recorded in (or linked to) the brain, can you explain how people remember a previous life?"

yes you are closer to it

Your original question was asking something about "proof" and about "not coping with facts", which I didn't understand. By the way there are nearly 200 other questions on this site already, about [tag:rebirth].

Here is the problem CW. you are trying to link me with concept of rebirth. I am asking for explanation on about memory linkage to previous life. memory recall of previous lives is proof of rebirth. without proper explanation how to transmigrate memory from previous life to this life how do you think about rebirth?

You want science to be the authority in which you trust and dispel your doubt but that can't be done by anybody else but you.

My intention is not either crowning the authority of science nor confirm my beliefs but use the facts and create fruitful discussion. I am born as Buddhist,impressed by Buddhism and science buff. The teaching of buddha emphasize not cling only to scriptures,traditions etc....in kalama sutta. I request you to study the question deeply and make comments.

Think of the brain as a proxy server connecting you to the internet(all past life memories). Just because your browser can only see the proxy server, is it wise to assume that the whole internet is contained in the proxy server?
Think of the electrical traces stored in neuron cells as the information stored in the cache memory of the proxy server. If somebody alters or adds new content to the cache memory, it will be shown on your browser. Then is it wise to assume that the whole internet is just electrical traces stored in the cache memory of the proxy server?
The brain is simply a tool used by the mind. Mind doesn't cease to exist even if the tool breaks.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

You asked something about "proof" which I don't understand.
I think that changes to neurons aren't "proof" of memory. The proof of memory (i.e. evidence that memory exists) is for example being able to find your keys again, recognise people you know, etc.
I guess there are different kinds of "evidence" for memory of past lives, used in Buddhism:

It says so in the scriptures: e.g. in suttas, there's something about the Buddha recollecting his past lives -- though some people say that this is a mistranslation or misunderstanding);
there are also stories like this, which explain today's events based on what happened in past lives.
People look for (and sometimes find) contemporary evidence, of children who seem to remember something of a past life: see e.g. searching for the next Dalai Lama; or see e.g. Ian Stevenson who looked for tales that he couldn't disprove of people remembering a past life.
Logical argument: e.g., "If there's no rebirth then why not suicide?" and "How are bad people punished, and good people rewarded?"

I think it's for these kinds of reasons (this kind of evidence) that people believe in rebirth and past life memories.
Then when you're considering the subject (of memory) you might wonder what the mechanism for that is ("I wonder how it works, where is memory recorded?"):

You might say it's recorded in the body (in "neurons").
Some Buddhist schools say there's an alaya consciousness -- see also eight consciousnesses.

If your question was meant as proof, I wasn't (logically) convinced by its argument: for example you wrote, "so memory has physical aspect rather than mysterious spiritual aspect", which I doubted, because maybe it has a physical aspect and a mysterious spiritual aspect? Or something else, maybe it has a physical aspect which survives the breakup of the body? The fact that a sight is recorded in a photograph, for example, doesn't mean it can't also be recorded another way as well.
Anyway I don't want to argue the topic one way or another: because it seems to me to be examples of various kinds of identity-view, a "thicket of views", of the type we're warned against in suttas like MN 72 and SN 12.15.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

According to modern science memory are electrical traces on neuron cells in brain and that is scientific fact and modern scientist have recreate memory artificially as it is.

Is it according to modern science?
If you corner a serious neurologist to be precise about the real cause for remembering, they would not say those words (specially if they understand philosophy of science). What they would be forced to say is something in the lines of:

We've detected co-relations between activities in certain areas of the brain and the act of remembering.

In a serious scientific field, it is expected that scientists write their work with that kind of care. Non-scientists have a hard time with this, for example, being bias to think co-relation means causation, or that a certain cause is the primary source of an event when it's just a symptom. Particularly journalists, who tend to exaggerate the claim of scientific studies.
That's why you would probably have a hard time finding a scientific paper stating that remembering is simply caused by electrical traces on neuron cells in brain. For a scientist to state that, they have to show evidence of causality, beyond co-relation and show that there's no earlier cause and so on. Which is very, very hard to do.
For example, imagine a scientist centuries ago thinking about memory. He would then ask a few people to describe to him a past event from their lives and notice the subjects raising their eye balls. He might be tempted to conclude that "looking up" is the cause of memory retrieval.
So, the fact that A and B are observed to happen together does not mean that A causes B. Maybe B causes A. For example, maybe remembering is what causes "the electrical traces on neuron cells". Or, further yet, maybe there's a cause C, beyond the observed data, that causes both A and B. In that case, brain activity and the effect of remembering would be just symptoms of an earlier event.
It's evident  that memory has physical aspects to it, alzheimer being one obvious field of study. But even if changes in the brain affect memory (either making it difficult or easier to remember), the changes themselves don't explain the mechanism of recalling -- how they were originated and why. It doesn't explain if these physical activities are symptoms or cause. So you are back looking for the cause C, which remains unknown.
In conclusion, recalling past lives is not a closed question.

Your problem is with the nature of science. You are not distinguishing between scientific theory and scientific fact. Science has yet to solve the mind-body problem. That is a scientific fact. The notion that the brain is a computer and that the mind is a program that runs that computer is strictly a working hypothesis. The Buddha used his siddhis (psychic powers) to solve the mind-body problem. The answer to your question: Get on with your practice, gain Enlightenment, and see for yourself. Of course, you could wait for science to solve the mind-body problem. But you probably will not live long enough, because the mind-body problem defines a true and very scientific (not “spiritual”) mystery. You might google the “hard problem of consciousness.”

In the Pali suttas, the words translated as "recalling past lives" are "pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya". The word "nivāsā", in particular, does not mean "lives" ("jiva") but means "abodes", "dwelling" or, literally, "homes".
The Pali dictionary makes no difference between the words "nivāsā" & "nivesā". The word "nivesa" means "adherences", as found in the Haliddakani Sutta, as follows:

And how, householder, does one roam about homeless? The desire, lust, delight, and craving, the engagement and clinging, the mental
  standpoints, adherences, and underlying tendencies regarding the form
  element: these have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the
  root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more
  subject to future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is called one who
  roams about homeless.

nivesa settlement; a dwelling-place, a house, a home. settling (on or in), attachment (to); where one settles.

In summary, the practise of "recollecting manifold past abodes" is only described in the Khajjanīya Sutta. If the Khajjanīya Sutta is read, it will become apparent that "pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya" is unrelated to recalling past lives but related to recalling when in the past the mind ignorantly attached or adhered to one or more of the five aggregates as "self".

Answer undeleted.


text:
Music and Buddhism
Why is music (sorta) frowned upon in Buddhism? Or it isn't?
For people like me, music really helped me get into spirituality.
What I'm really trying to understand here is, is there any specific format or type of music that we're not supposed to listen to, or is it just music in general?
-Noob here. All help appreciated :)

Further reading: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393521/obo-9780195393521-0136.xml

Music is a tasteful sensation, in Buddhism we learn to realize (understand the truth, see things in their true forms) and listening to music is breaking that understanding. We listen to music to entertain ourselves, which will break our practice of “Sila” and “Samadhi”, two of the eightfold paths/practices.

Dang. I now know what will be one of the most difficult things to do while practising Buddhism. Thank-you!

Can you please tell me about the music used during meditations? For example, music generated using Tibetan Bowls and such. :)

These training rules are observed by laypeople during periods of
  intensive meditation practice and during uposatha (lunar observance)
  days. The Eight Precepts are based on the Five Precepts, with the
  third precept extended to prohibit all sexual activity and an
  additional three precepts that are especially supportive to meditation
  practice.
The Eight Precepts:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
  I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not
  given.
Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.
Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs
  which lead to carelessness.
Vikalabhojana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami I undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after
  noon).
Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music,
  going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and
  beautifying the body with cosmetics.
Uccasayana-mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami I undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

The Eight Precepts

It is very easy to attach music. Then music will waste practitioner's time, because music is inserted into practitioner's mind instead of meditation object, while the  practitioner listening/singing/thinking of a music. So the practitioner's 5 power can not meditate, increase level up, while attaching music.
While listening music, one can feel joy. But it is the worldly joy [sāmissa=5 cords+5 hindrances]. So, it will hinder one from meditation. therefore, according to Niramisa Sutta, the practitioner can increase his meditation level up, just after he can perfectly & completely quite secluded (=stop) from sāmissa, such as music, etc.

Upasaka Kalpesh Mange,
as told be others here, it's at large distruction for the mind, and given your intent here, you should best be sure about it.
How ever, even for monks, while my person nevertheless likes to give much appreciation to it, musik or singing, that increases or gives rise to samvega, is not unskilfull perse. For serious lay people the use of what is called smot, a special style of singing and proper text, is very usuall here in south east asia, and a specially used on occations of going forth, to increase gratitude toward parents. Usually giving a possible liberating lake of tears, being about suffering and taking leave at most.
But also this can become a distacting issue, if clinging on the pleasure of sound and certain upcoming emotions.
Singing yourself (even in mind), even if smot, especially when monk, is not as skilfull to be seen, and hardly bring on a base where it does not gets against certain precepts, if taken.
So, as mostly everywhere, one is also left alone here, to be honest about ones intent.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


text:
Is there a Buddhist explanation for why envy manifests as hatred?
I have observed that when I am envious of somebody, I feel an impulse to malign them, and sometimes experience feelings of hostility toward them. Is there a textual explanation for this phenomenon?

You specified pali-canon but I think (admitting I'm merely skimming translations) that definitions of envy are similar in Mahanaya texts too; for example one of the Tibetan texts, A Necklace for Those
of
Clear Awareness
Clearly Revealing the Modes of
Minds and Mental Factors, defines it as,

Jealousy (phrag dog)
Regarding jealousy, the Compendium of Knowledge says:

QUESTION: What is jealousy?
    RESPONSE: It is a deep disturbance of mind that cannot tolerate another's
    marvelous attributes due to excessive attachment to gain and honor, and is
    involved with hatred. It has the function of [causing] mental unhappiness
    and of not abiding in contact [with happiness].

Just as it has been said above, it is a deep disturbance of mind that cannot bear
  another's success due to attachment to gain and honor. It produces serious undesirable
  [consequences] in both this and future worlds [i.e., rebirths]; in this life there will be
  mental unhappiness, and in future lives one will be impelled into bad migrations.

On Access to Insight there's some textual explanation here, not in a sutta but in the translator's introduction to a sutta:

A glance through the list (see Note 2) will show that all these sixteen defilements derive from greediness and selfishness, from aversion, self-assertion and conceit, or their combinations. If we take, for instance, contempt, being a weaker nuance of (5) denigration, we see that aversion and conceit contribute to it; (7) envy is fed by greediness and aversion. The pairs of contributive factors here exemplified do not, of course, occur at the same moment of consciousness; but their repeated, separate presence favors the arising of such derivatives as contempt and envy. On the other hand, if those secondary defilements such as contempt and envy (and all the others) appear frequently, they will bring about a close serial association of their "feeders," as for instance hate motivated by conceit, or hate motivated by greed; and these may easily become habitual sequences, automatic chain reactions in our impulsive life.
Interlocked in such a manner, the negative forces in our mind — the defilements, roots of evil, and fetters — will become more powerful and much more difficult to dislodge. They will form "closed systems" hard to penetrate, [etc.]

I read that as saying that:

Envy is fed by greed and aversion
Hate is (or may be) motivated by envy
It becomes tangled, inter-related, hard to disentangle

The statement that "[factors] do not, of course, occur at the same moment of consciousness" is I'd guess an abhidhamma statement (that you can only be conscious of one thing at a time).

My personal opinion is that in theory I can imagine two motives for the impulse to malign someone:

A primitive belief in the zero-sum nature of things, e.g. "He has what I want, if I could destroy him then I could take his place and have that for myself"
Or perhaps some egalitarian belief, e.g. "If he has more than others, he doesn't deserve it"

Perhaps I'm wrong, it seems to me that the suttas don't examine negative emotions in great detail. Perhaps it assumes we know what they are, but doesn't dwell on them (and doesn't encourage us to dwell on them) -- for example, consider verses 3 through 5 of the Dhammapada.
I think the antidote for envy may be mudita, by the way, if you want to read more about that -- if you do read more about mudita then I think you'd incidentally read something more about the nature of envy.

Yes. Not seeing things as they really are. Identifying with things as being I or mine.
When covetousness leads to hatred, it means that you were not being mindful, and therefore did not apply the correct antidote, which is letting go.
As soon as greed or aversion arises in the mind, it must be seen/observed with proper insight and let go of. Also, as Chris mentioned you can also apply mudita, after having observed the arising and ceasing of envy.

Going back to the first principles, this-that-conditionality (Idappaccayatā):

Someone compares his situation X with someone else's situation Y.
He or she reaches conclusion that situation Y is "better".
S\he then craves to be in situation Y.
S\he then despises situation X.
S\he then feels miserable about being in situation X (i.e. experiences dukkha).
S\he then identifies the other person being in situation Y as the cause of one's suffering on step 5 above.
On the basis of which, there arises the desire to destroy the source of suffering.
Which manifests as anger towards the object of envy.

In abhidhamma, while envy mind arising, it always arising with hatred, too. It is mind's and mind factors' nature.
IMO, if one doesn't hate somthing, they will not envy it, too.
For the example: A girl hate the time which her boyfriend talk with another girl, so she envy (doesn't want to see them be together) him and that girl.


text:
What is the meaning of the word Sankhara?
In the quote " Sabbe Sankhara Anicca", what is the meaning of word Sankhara?
Is the word "Sankhara" derived from Sanskrit word "Sanskara"?

Sankhara can be a mental fabrication (e.g., a thought), a cause (condition), a process (conditioning) or an effect (product of conditioning/a conditioned thing). In the phrase "Sabbe Sankhara Anicca", the word sankhara means a conditioned or compounded thing, i.e., anything that is made up of & exists due to causes, conditions, sub-elements, etc. For example, a tree is a conditioned thing (sankhara) because it exists due earth, water, sun, etc, & is made up of various parts & elements (such as leaves, bark, nutriments, atoms, etc). In short, EVERYTHING is a conditioned thing (except Nibbana)

“Sabbē sankhāra aniccā“ or “all sankhāra are anicca” (cannot be maintained to one’s satisfaction). Sankhāra are our intentions, hopes, and dreams, followed by our speech and actions to fulfill them. “sankhāra” mean all three types (manō sankhāra, vaci sankhāra, kāya sankhāra) that lead to any action, speech, or just thought; however, they all arise in citta (our thoughts). The root cause of that suffering is sankhāra (abhisankhāra). This is why it is said that, “Sabbē sankhāra dukkhā“. Any sankata has a finite lifetime, and is subjected unexpected changes (viparināma) during that existence.


text:
How are there good overweight monks?
If you are mindful  you don't eat for taste -  so chances are you over eat are smaller.
There are a few monks I know and I truly believe are advanced practitioners (meaning I won't be surprised if they are arahants)  who are overweight.
And this really clashes with the concept of eating mindfully  - can someone help reconcile the fact they are overweight and being advanced practitioners ?
Edit : just to be clear there are overweight people who eat little and have self control  and healthy but have bad metabolism which makes them fat  ... and skinny people who are gluttons and eat a lot of fat foods and are still skinny  ....   I'm just giving the most extreme example which are of monks who are extremely mindful and don't need to give 0 consideration to enjoyment from the food and are aware of their bodies.

What about thyroid disorders?

If you have access to actual enlightened monks then why not ask them?

well if i ever have the chance to ask anything the monk im thinking of it would need to be a much more important and useful question - i would feel bad wasting his time on a question like this

You shouldn't equate being overweight or obese, to being a glutton and a sloth. You are implying that the overweight monk is a glutton and gluttony is contradictory to Buddhist teachings. Obesity could be a result of metabolic problems caused by disease e.g. hypothyroidism and/or genetics.

i added an - edit part  -  to make it clearer  ---- but you are right

A well-known monk with a bodily disorder was the deceased Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, who was given all kinds of diets when he was alive. Buddhadasa was fat most of his life.
However, for example, some current Western monks (based in Western Australia) have put on lots of weight, which looks like eating too much rich food & doing too little exercise; devoting their lives to teaching, scholarship & administrative duties.
You reach an age when you start to put on lots of weight. You must reduce your food intake because your body obviously does not need so much food anymore.
Two years ago, I cut my life-long food in-take by 50% & stopped eating certain foods (cheese, ice-cream, bread; I never ate much sugar). I lost 12kg but notice if I eat certain prohibited foods (such as when visiting my mother), I add weight quickly.
These monks are often given lots of Asian sweets & cakes and drink lots of sugar drinks.
Years ago, I spent lots of time in a certain monastery in Asia. The last time I visited, after five years of absence, I noticed how the core monks had all lost lots of weight. Obviously, the abbot thought the monks were too fat and instructed to reduce food, for the sake of public image. Having known these monks for 17 years, I could not believe how thin they were.

Dhp 395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and who meditates alone in the forest
  — him do I call a holy man.

I think it’s possible to eat in moderation and be overweight. I’m not saying it’s possible to become overweight, but rather, to maintain your excess weight.
Two factors come to mind:
1) monks don’t really have a physically active lifestyle. That makes it harder to lose weight.
2) different foods have different impact on your body weight. I would guess this monk is not eating a sugar-free, whole plant based diet. Is he?
Buy finally, and most importantly: ask them yourself. From what you described, I gather they are pretty wise people, so they won’t get offended by the question.

well if i ever have the chance to ask anything the monk im thinking of it would need to be a much more important and useful question - i would feel bad wasting his time on a question like this .......  he has good food btw not too fattening but  lets say a monk has only donuts to eat  and he notices he is overweight which harms his functioning and health than he will eat half the amount of doughnuts  cause hes not attached to the taste of them so he wont mind eating less doughnuts

I wouldn't judge a monk by body weight unless he is obese up to the point that he can't even move. There are lot of skinny people who eat a lot but never get fat because of their genes and there are others who get fat very easily even if they eat moderately.

The biology behind gaining or losing weight is simple. Simplified, the body is like a house which needs to be kept at a certain temparature all day long, so you have to constantly add fuel to the fire (which is measured in kilo-calories, kcal). The bigger the house is, the more fuel you need to keep it warm (which is why overweight people can eat more than normal people without gaining additional weight), and if you move or work out, you also burn more.
However, your body can only tell you how it responds to food: How filling it is, how it tastes and so on. It has no built-in sense or mechanism to determine how many kcal you already ate. There is often, but not always, a correllation between these: The more bread you eat, the more filled you feel, the more kcal you have is a positive example. But if you eat cake, then you also feel filled (eventually), but a short time later, you are hungry again, even though cake gives you a lot of energy in form of kcal. It is a common misconception to think that just because I feel filled, I had just enough and not too much (or too little).
Furthermore, "healthy" food can still contain surprisingly many kcal. In other words: You can get fat on healthy food as well. That is especially true for fruit or juice, but also for e.g. nuts. If you decide to start your day with a fresh fruit smoothie spiced with Chia seeds, your daily kcal intake will go up dramatically (unless you substitute one meal for the smoothie)
Additionally, our body tends to prefer food which was hard to come by not a long time ago: Sugar and sweets, salt, that kind of thing. The reason is that the body stocks up on things while it can, to depend on it when nourishment is harder to come by.
The combination of all this can make it challenging to keep a normal weight, even when eating mindful. Many people can get it right intuitively, but many others don't.
One more thing:
If someone is overweight and then starts paying attention to what they eat - even with the above in mind - he or she would still not lose weight, because you actively have to ingest less kcal per day than needed by the body, which is something your body normally wants to avoid.
With all this in mind, your observation of people eating mindful, yet being overweight, is not a contradiction in itself, but can have many explanations. The fat could be a relict from the past, before starting to eat mindful, it can be a side effect of a energy-rich diet and so on.
As it is in many cases, in order to change something you have to fully identify the problem - which in this case would mean  acknowledging the facts stated above, analyzing the own diet and then changing it.

Budai is traditionally depicted as a fat, bald man...He was considered a man of good and loving character...According to Chinese history, Budai was an eccentric Chan monk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

He managed it somehow.

I searched "buddhist monk diabetes" and found for example Why Thailand is putting its Buddhist monks on a diet.
The reasons given in that article and other articles like it:

Lay people prefer to give food with "high value and taste" i.e. fat and sugar
Monks may have no or limited education about diabetes and nutrition
Can't control what they eat
Drinking "allowable" sugary drinks after noon with an empty stomach
Are only allowed limited physical exercise

Among other things, lay people are now being encouraged/taught to give healthier food choices -- brown rice, vegetables, protein rather than sweets -- but still not everybody does.

I'm going to point out — just so that it's noted — that any person who is sufficiently developed on the path is not going to be subject to the pervasive social attachments to health, beauty, and social image. Why would a monastic be overly concerned with thinness? If a monastic is at all awake, then he or she is not:

trying to attract sexual partners through physical beauty
trying to gather social regard, either in person or through media
trying to fit his or her physical appearance into some idealized form of a 'proper' monk looks like
trying to extend this life indefinitely through strict health regimens
trying to avoid every form of sickness or ill health that might arise
trying to develop the physical attributes of this body, in accordance with
some 'perfect self' ideal

Monks (of course) have pasts, and pasts carry karma that may have led to them be overweight. But does a monk really want to develop a new set of attachments: a new set of cravings to meet socially defined standards for the state of the physical body? There may be a natural tendency for us to be drawn to that man or woman who is thin and fit, with flowing hair, a dulcet voice, the finest robes, and skin that positively glows with health, but... are those things signs of attainment?
I'm not certain we should criticize a monk because s'he does not share our own peculiar obsessions with the body.

The idea is to be detached which includes being detached to how one looks. There is no need for validation. The other idea is to have self control. But as certain translations of the Vasistha say, asceticism does not get one closer to truth.
One may have self-control over food in the mind but the body still eats too much. Too much self-control can create a physical reaction in the body. That is why balance is better than self control. That 108 year old woman who has a cigarette every night just enjoys that simple pleasure but does not over do it.
The body does better with small enjoyable meals. This is true with sex as well. When the monks deny their bodies of sex they make up for it by eating too much. But the ancient Brahmans and Siddhars were not celibates. They balanced attachment with detachment. They enjoyed themselves without overindulging.
It’s traveling on the razor’s edge.

The Buddha's advice to King Pasenadi in Donapaka Sutta may be helpful to monks and laypeople alike, who are struggling with weight and health problems:

Once when the Buddha was living at Savatthi, King Pasenadi of Kosala
ate a whole bucketful of food, and then approached the Buddha,
engorged and panting, and sat down to one side. The Buddha, discerning
that King Pasenadi was engorged and panting, took the occasion to
utter this verse:

When a person is constantly mindful,
And knows when enough food has been taken,
All their afflictions become more slender
— They age more gradually, protecting their lives.

Now at that time the brahman youth Sudassana was standing nearby, and
King Pasenadi of Kosala addressed him: "Come now, my dear Sudassana,
and having thoroughly mastered this verse in the presence of the
Buddha, recite it whenever food is brought to me. And I will set up
for you a permanent offering of a hundred kahaapanas every day." "So
be it, your majesty," the brahman youth Sudassana replied to the king.
Then King Pasenadi of Kosala gradually settled down to [eating] no
more than a cup-full of rice. At a later time, when his body had
become quite slim, King Pasenadi stroked his limbs with his hand and
took the occasion to utter this utterance:

Indeed the Buddha has shown me
Compassion in two different ways:
For my welfare right here and now,
and also for in the future.

The dont take another step dare is trying to force a stagnant Bhumi some people are scared to walk or do anything to disturb other life forms in that Bhumi. Also had an Elysian field style purgatory couldn't remember anything at all just stupefied. Slowly went back to normal eat sleep drink and be merry though.
That just remain there moment however isn't practical to just sit there remaining dead, stand there remaining dead, lay there remaining dead... know you're dead and go about your business. Gotama didn't know he was dead... woman fished his corpse out of the Ganges as he was floating down it; all he remembered was his last grasp on the bank... she fed him back to not being dead She showed him the middle way we all get to learn these days and to think... he gets all the credit for it by being a big ol blabber mouth. :P
Of course you should know Theravadins aren't allowed to keep or store food in their tradition what they don't eat they throw it out for animals and preta... Bodhidhamma came from the North to Kung Fu those Southern corpses back to life. Fat and bloated corpse and pass the bowl to the skinny starving one should be the contemplation of those that can't see it clearly.

To all the apologists claiming that metabolic afflictions can cause obesity, I would add that I agree that such conditions make it difficult for the one afflicted to control his or her appetites.  But at the end of the day, it is purely a matter of self control.  If you do not eat more than your body uses for its daily activities, nothing will go to fat.  Anybody that doubts this should consider that there was not a single fat person rescued from Auschwitz.
But it is also important to remember that Buddhist monks are humans, not gods.  Just the other day I saw the abbot (head monk) of the Buddhist temple near me completely lose his temper.  He was so angry that he threw a couple of rocks at a layman, and was screaming obscenities at him.  Not very Buddhist.  But then, he was only human and something overloaded his emotions beyond the point of his control.
It would be better for a monk to be fat that to have an uncontrollable temper and physically assaultive behavior.

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


text:
Personal practice regarding meditation
Now I feel lazy to meditate because less thoughts  no breath to observe. once I observe the body ,it isn't  disappears .experience  the vibration of mind and feel there is a connection  between  brain and mind  through blood.

There is a warning in one of the suttas which says that many stop making effort after they reach a certain level of attainment. Is this what you are saying?

Yes. I think so.

In Buddhist meditation, the primary meditation object is 'letting go' (vossagga). The other things (breathing, feelings, etc) are just side-effects or 'signs'. For stream-enterers, letting-go (or little Nibbana) is the meditation object.

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn
  from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters
  & remains in the first jhana... SN 48.10

The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When
  love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and
  undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and
  earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against
  anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the
  disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential
  peace is disturbed to no avail.
The Way is perfect like vast space where nothing is lacking and
  nothing is in excess.
Verses on the Faith Mind by Chien-chih Seng-ts'an  Third Zen Patriarch
  [606AD]


text:
Which eliminate the hindrance permanently Noble eightfold path or supermundane?
Do they both play a role in getting rid of the hindrances or is one better then the other? How do they eliminate them?

What do you mean by supermundane? The fruit?

To your question, “Which eliminate the hindrance permanently, Noble Eightfold Path or supramundane?” …. There are two level to this Path – the Mundane and the Supramundane. It is at the higher level of this Path that the Hinderances are eliminated permanently, but it happens in stages.
As aforementioned, ascertaining the truth has two parts, i.e; mundane truth and supramundane truth. Ascertaining the truth in matters superficially is known as mundane truth and at this level, the five hindrance remains. This mundane truth would lead to the supramundane ultimately. The ultimate meaning of samma dhitti (right view) is ascertaining the supramundane truth.
What involves in the category of supramundane truth that would help eradicate the five hinderances? It is the understanding that nothing existing in the world can provide long-lasting happiness in the long term, and that there is hidden suffering and that suffering can be eliminated] and that one is really helpless in this rebirth process if this Path is not pursued.
There is the encounter between the Buddha and Mahānāma (Majjhima Nikāya Sutta 14,) a Once-Returner and the householder cousin of Anuruddha, in which Mahānāma asks the Buddha why he can't bring himself to go forth. The Buddha tells Mahānāma that it's because he hasn't sufficiently experienced the pleasures of meditation. One can only assume from this that Mahānāma is somewhat stuck in the five hindrances (nīvaranas).
At Stream Entrant stage one comprehends the anicca nature of this world to some extent. For the mind to grasp that concept, it must be free of the “coarse defilements” or “panca-nivarana” or “five hindrances” that cover one’s mind. For that one has to live a moral life, start contemplating Buddha Dhamma, and experience the “cooling down” that results.
A Stream Entrant is incapable of actions of craving and hatred that will definitively lead to rebirth in the four states of misery (Hell, Asura, Hungry Ghost and Animal realms), but the remaining gross craving and hatred is only eradicated when one becomes a Once-Returner; subtle craving and hatred are eliminated for the Non-Returner.
The Stream Entrant is incapable of False Speech, but is capable of both Malicious and Harsh Speech, which are only eradicated when one becomes a Non-Returner. In this way, we are able to see the emergence of reasonable criteria for the Once-Returner: the emotions would be gentler, more skilful, and one would no longer be subject to any outbursts or compulsions associated with craving or hatred. The Once-Returner has basically 'broken the back' of these fetters, so that they are rendered weak and feeble.
The Once-Returner is no longer dominated by hatred or craving, that there are no longer any times in their lives when they are overwhelmed by such unskillful emotions. These emotions may arise occasionally in a weakened form, and only during awareness – they don't dominate.
In addition to having broken the first three fetters and possessing an unshakeable faith in the Three Jewels, the Non-Returner has attained complete ethical purity. It's not that they don't conceal their unskillfulness, they just don't have any, whether of body, speech or mind. They are almost flawlessly motivated by generosity, love and wisdom.
The last five fetters remain of course, but these are exceptionally subtle in comparison to what has been broken in the fourth and fifth fetters. Also, because Non-Returners are not subject to any hindrances, the Eight Jhānas are readily accessible to them.
There’s a simile where a man is suffering from pain. He gets tied up in anxiety and misery around the pain. And the Buddha says it’s like being shot with an arrow and then shooting yourself with a second arrow. The physical pain is the first arrow; the mental pain is the second one. And it’s the mental one that’s important. As the Buddha says, the enlightened person, the awakened person, may still get shot with those first arrows but doesn’t shoot him or herself with the second.  It is because an Arahant has gone beyond the last of the four kinds of clingings – the Attavada Upadana (attachment or upadana is “firmly grasping”.) Attavada is the last of the attachments which is in other words a hindrance to the realization of Nibbana. So this tells us how hinderances are eradicated in stages.


text:
Craving-clinging leads to volitional actions that can be used for duties. If I let go of craving, how would I do duties to family?
If I let go of craving by doing Vipassana, then according to dependent origination, there would be no clinging. With no clinging, there would be no volitional actions - without these actions, how would I do duties to family members?

I would say that craving and clinging lead to actions that are compelled, not volotional.

Craving is not required to help your family. You only need compassion(Karuna) and kindness(Metta). Craving only makes you worried and sad.

Hi Sankha - Is it bhava tanha , if I am doing it because it is “my” family http://daronlarson.blogspot.com/2008/12/three-kinds-of-craving.html?m=1

Taking anything as 'mine' is ignorance. Bhava Tanha is the  craving for becoming. None of those are required to help family members.

Every condition of dependent origination is ignorant or affected by ignorance. Therefore, when ignorance ends & enlightenment occurs, the only action performed are wise & compassion actions, similar to the actions of the Buddha.
If you continue to do actions because of the idea of "my family" then your vipassana has not been fully successful.
In summary, the Buddha did not teach his noble path was for householders. For householders, the Buddha generally taught the path to 'heaven' rather than the path to Nibbana.

Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has
  gone forth from the household life. There is devotion to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of
  ordinary people, unworthy and unprofitable; and there is devotion to
  self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy and unprofitable.
Avoiding both these extremes, the Tathagata (The Perfect One)[1] has
  realized the Middle Path; it gives vision, gives knowledge, and leads
  to calm, to insight, to enlightenment and to Nibbana.
SN 56.11

The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a
  householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:
(i) they restrain him from evil,
(ii) they persuade him to do good,
(iii) they love him with a kind heart,
(iv) they make him hear what he > has not heard,
(v) they clarify what he has already heard,
(vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state
DN 31


text:
Chuthi Patisandhi chitta
The concept of chuthi patisandhi cittas- ie. generation of patisandhi citta conditioned by chuthi citta in a minute fraction of a second- is a very important concept mentioned in Abhidhammaththa Sangaha. This is so important that only by describing the mechanism of chuthi-patisandhi in this way the main teaching of Buddhism that there is no soul or ego (anaththa) can be justified.  Can I find any reference in Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Patisandhi citta is not conditioned by the Cuti citta. Cuti citta merely marks the end of that life. The Javanas that occur just before the Cuti citta determine the nature of the Patisandhi citta. Read more here: The mind at the time of death.

To undertstand “Cuti” and “Patisandhi “, first it is good to know the difference between bhava and jathi. When one gets a human bhava (existence), one could be born (jathi) many times in succession until that kammic energy runs out. This is why people can recall past lives in recent past. Otherwise, since the human existence is very rare, how would one remember so recent past lives?
There is no "gap" between two adjacent "bhava", i.e., no "antarabhava". There is only a single thought moment between cuti (death in the current bhava) and patisandhi (grasping the next bhava). Death of the physical body is not the end of the current bhava, unless the kammic energy for the current bhava has runs out. Patisandhi (“pati” is bond and “sandhi” is joining - thus patisandhi means joining a new life at the end of the old) happens in a thought moment in the body of the dying person; if the next life is human or animal, then the gandhabba for that life comes out of that body at the end of that last citta vithi.
The transition of a life stream from one existence (bhava) to another takes place during the last citta vithi of the present bhava, for example from a human to an animal or a deva. each of our sense inputs coming in though any one of the five physical senses is received and analyzed by the mind in a “citta vithi” (series of cittas) with 17 cittas. These are called pancadvara citta vithi. Pancadvara (“panca” + “dvara” where “panca” is five and “dvara” is door) means five (physical) doors.
To undewrstand this process better, one has to refer to citta vithi processes in Abhidhamma. It is a bit too complex to go into detail but to put it in a nutshell, as stated in “Cuti-Patisandhi – An Abhidhamma Description

“the last citta vithi of the old life with 17 citta run in the standard way: atita bhavanga, bhavanga calana, bhavanga upacceda, pancadvara vajjana, cakkhu vinnana, sampaticcana, santirana, vottapana, and then javana sequence (7 javana citta) starts. After the fifth javana citta, there are two more javana citta left. The sixth is the cuti citta and the seventh and last javana is the patisandhi citta.”
”In the last citta vithi, a previous kamma vipaka provides an arammana (thought object) associated with that kamma vipaka through one of the five sense doors: it is normally a visual or a sound associated with the new existence (bhava). Even though the person’s physical faculties may be very weak, the person will see or hear very clearly whatever the nimitta presented by the kamma vipaka. Then at the vottapana citta, the mind makes a decision to act on that arammana based on the person’s gathi. The person has no control of it. It is called, “kammaja pure jatha; cittaja pacce jatha”, i.e., kamma vipaka comes first, and then accordingly the javana citta flow grasping that new bhava.”
“First there is the vipaka citta; then it induces kamma sambhava. “Vipako kamma sambhavo” is initiated at the vottapana citta. The vottapana citta decides how to proceed with the arammana (object) that came from the kamma vipaka, and the being normally gets attached to that object via greed/hate and grasps a new existence in the javana cittathat follow. Thus “vipako kamma sambhavo” starts with the first javana citta. After 5 javana citta kammic energy is optimized, with each subsequent javana strengthening via asevana paccaya from the previous javana. The sixth one is called cuti citta, and the next citta grasps the new bhava.”
”Now let us take a look at the last citta vithi of the old life in detail. This citta vithi was started by the last bit of kammic energy from the old life, and it will run its course of 17 cittabefore it comes to an end. It is like throwing a stone; even though the energy was fully spent by the time the stone was released, the stone will be travelling until its energy is all spent. In the same way, even though the kammic energy for the old life has ended, the last citta vithi will run its course of 17 citta including the last two bhavanga citta after the 7 javana citta.”
“ In that last citta vithi, by the time atita bhavanga, bhavanga calana, and comes to bhavanga upacceda, the kammic vipaka from the old life are finished. Now what comes to the pancadvara is the kamma nimitta, asanna kamma, or a gathi nimitta; it is the vipaka citta that powers the new life: “kamma vipaka vajjanti”. It is received by the sampaticcana, santirana citta and then “vipaka kamma sambhavo” happens at the vottapana citta, i.e., a decision is made on what to do and this decision depends on the level of avijja (in the form of one’s gathi and asavas).”
“When this last citta vithi ends, the old hadaya vatthu is dead too; it had exhausted all its kammic power. The next citta vithi starts with a new hadaya vatthu in the new life that is powered by a new kamma beeja. The new hadaya vatthu if formed by the new kammaseed that was grasped at the 7th javana (the patisandhi citta), and immediately the first citta vithi for the new life starts. The gandhabba is formed and comes out of the dead body.”

your understanding about relationship between abhidhamma and anattā is correct.  But your abhidhamma knowledge still wrong.

The concept of cuti patisandhi cittas- ie. generation of patisandhi citta conditioned by cuti citta in a minute fraction of a second- is a very important concept mentioned in Abhidhammaththa Sangaha.

No, every abhidhamma and sutta described that whatever kamma of javana in the past, just in a minute or in the trillion rebirth ago, determine the nature of the next life's Paṭisandhi-citta (resultant). And the same kamma in the past of present life's Paṭisandhi-citta  (resultant) let present life's Bhavaṅga-citta  (resultant) and Cuti-citta  (resultant) arise, too.
If you recite and memorize chapter 4th and 5th of abhidhammatthasaṅgaha you will notice that maraṇāsannavithī and paṭisandhi-citta which appear in 4th chapter, that you mentioning,  were specially described in 5th chapter and in 5th chapter, the title: "iii. Fourfold Kamma" come before the title: "iv . Procedure with Regard to Decease and Rebirth", because most of the kammas in iii. cause the resultants in iv.
Furthermore, there are too many cause more than kamma condition paṭisandhi-citta, such as many sahajāta-nāma/rūpa, many past upanissaya-nāma/rūpa, etc. But many cannon often focus at kamma as the main cause of paṭisandhi because of paṭiccasamuppda.
For conclusion, you have to recite paṭiccasamuppāda, then read this answer:
Sacca-pabba Is The Reason That Commentary Commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", Right?
Another mention of you:

This is so important that only by describing the mechanism of cuti-patisandhi in this way the main teaching of Buddhism that there is no soul or ego (anaththa) can be justified. Can I find any reference in Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Abhidhamma is vipassanā-cannon.
Commentary said:

The vinaya is too much adhisīla. The suttanta is too much. The abhidhamma is too much vipassanā.

Also commentary said:

Sāriputta school studied abhidhamma.

And commentary said:

1st saṅgāyanā saṅga gave majjhimanikāya to sāriputta school students for keeping by reciting and memorizing.

Another commentary said:

Majjimanikāya is  mahāvipassanā (too many vipassanā).

Who is venerable sāriputta, aggasāvaka?

Bhikkhus, I do not know of any other person who could follow up the teaching proclaimed by the Thus Gone One other than Sāriputta. Bhikkhus, Sāriputta follows up the teaching proclaimed by me.

http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka2/v.php?B=20&A=585&Z=627&eng=metta_e

Path of purification was written follow sāriputta's cannon, paṭisambhidāmagga. Many quotes and sequence in Path of purification follow paṭisambhidāmagga.
According to mahāgosiṅgasālasutta venerable Sāriputta was a teacher of venerable Mahākassapa, venerable Mahāmoggallāna, venerable Mahākassapa, venerable Anuruddha, venerable Ānanda, and venerable Revata, too (except ānanda, sotāpanna-ariya, the others were arahanta-ariya).
According to understanding section in Path of purification, that mostly describing about vipassanā (adhipaññā-sikkhā), you can found too much abhidhamma in this section of Path of purification.
So, your understanding about relationship between abhidhamma and anattā is correct.  But your abhidhamma knowledge still wrong.

Seeing impermanence is not actually necessary for seeing not-self (anatta), even though the Buddha first taught anatta as a characteristic related to impermanence . Merely discerning the aggregates as 'aggregates' and merely experiencing the mind void of self-view is enough.
Philosophies such as Abhidhamma or Nāgārjuna Madhyamaka is for intellectual non-meditators. In other words, these extreme philosophies are alien to the Buddha, which are why they are not found in the Pali suttas.
In summary, the concept of cuti patisandhi cittas is not nececessary so no soul or ego (anaththa) can be justified (unless, similar to Nāgārjuna, you engage in worldly intellectual debates).


text:
For a non-believer, what good does realizing impermanence do?
Does a realization or just thorough understanding of impermanence, as it appears in Buddhism, benefit a non-believer in the rest of Buddhism, at all, especially not karma?
I'm not asking if they can reach samadhi or be on the path, but if the effect of karma is really quite small and more a matter of character than empirical events, what good does an understanding of impermanence grant, in that sort of world?

hope that the question is not so badly worded as to be unclear. just let me know and i'll edit!

sure. @nocomprende any idea what's unclear about the question :)

i mean, i'm not just saying anything about "deities". i might be able to know where the beer garden is, that doesn't make that knowledge particularly useful important or refined etc. @nocomprende

Ok, so your question is basically: does this knowledge have any validity? Is it knowledge, and if so, what use is it to me? I guess I always thought that the basic premises of Buddhism were obvious. Whether they serve your ends depends on what your ends are, and whether your ends will serve you, ultimately. The problem with having a mind is that it can become impossible to change it.

Why "atheist"? I mean, does realising impermanence benefit a theist somehow? Perhaps if you explain why it benefits a theist, that would clarify why you're asking about the benefit to atheists?

You are asking something like "if Buddhism is wrong, is there a benefit to realizing impermanence for atheists?". It's such a strange and oblique question.

Look in to Nonduality, that is really what the question is about.

@SankhaKulathantille yeah good point, but it's an interesting question i think

What can one possibility gain by an answer to such a question? It's like asking  if Mathematics is wrong, is there a use to learning addition and subtraction for someone who does not believe in algebra :)

@SankhaKulathantille i just don't believe in rebirth, and while i believe in literal karma (after death) i am uninterested in it, on those grounds. you're right that it may just be bizarre to link that to buddhism.

Maybe you should rephrase the question as "Is Buddhism useful to people who faithfully believe that there's no rebirth?"

@SankhaKulathantille i think this is more specific, but thanks. :)

this question no way unclear!

I took several efforts in writing an answer, but it is hard for me.  I personally doubt that you can fully realize impermanence without "believing" in the rest of buddhism. At the end of the day, Buddha teaches a way to end suffering, so if you believe in his teachings, a benefit would be "being one step closer to end your personal suffering". But it is only one step. Can you reach the mountain top when you only take one step?  No, all you did is one step. You have to do the others eventually as well. But if you did one step, maybe the next one will also be obvious from where you (then) stand.

Realising impermanence is a big part towards ending dukkha. If you can see that all things must change then it'll be easier to see that these things don't bring happiness and you'll transition towards non-attachment. This will benefit you in this life.
Note that realising impermanence doens't necessarily mean you become unattached. For example, some people see and accept that they must die but this frightens them. You need to know impermanence and also see that impermanent things aren't worth clinging to.

Three words to help a secular accept of impermanence: Negative visualization, early retirement, and Hedonic adaptation.
Awareness of impermancence is also one of the basic pillars of Stoicism. Once you become aware of, and appreciate, impermanence you'll: find joy every day you get to spend with your children, you'll learn to appreciate your daily cup of coffee.
When you lose something, or break something, you'll have spent significant time understanding that the things was already broken or lost. Because you have internalized that the thing was going to pass away some day, you will not only have appreciated it more while you still had it, you have also spent time preparing yourself for its demise, significantly lessenning the suffering associated with the departure.
This day will end; what good have you done?
This job will end; what good did it do you?
Your life will end: what good did you do?
Your children will die one day; what good did you do them?
Amidst all this morbid speculation actually comes an amazing liberation, coupled with a new take on life: make the most of what you have, love what you have, appreciate what you once had, and live now. Live now, 'cause you're already dying.
Here's a capitalist kicker: Once you start to realize the impermanence of stuff, you also get a much more realistic picture of what it's all actually worth. Not what it costs, but what its value is. If you google financial independence you'll find two basic approaches.

Start a company and hopefully make a boat load of money
Learn to live well on very little money and invest your surplus.

Approach number two relies heavily on realizing the difference between price and value. Meditating on the impermanence of everything is an amazing way to gauge that difference.
You see, you become hedonically adapted to everything, and so in time your life starts to suffer from inflation. You want newer cars, bigger homes, more stuff, more everything. Internalizing the impermanence of stuff is a great way to internalize the futility of owning all that..... crap. Hedonic adaptation robs us of our appreciation of sunrises, indoor plumbing, vaccines, a warm seat, a roof over our heads, company, electricity etc.
When you start meditating on the impermanence of everything you'll start to reverse that hedonic adaptation and start to actually LOVE a simple life. This is part of the reason why those 'weird' monks and minimalists are so eerily happy with their lack of stuff, while 'the rest of us' are busy stuffing our homes.
Accept impermanence and you'll learn to love what you have, learn to release your fears when you're stuck in a bad spot (this, too, shall pass), you'll spend less money on things that you don't need in your life, you will get a better perspective on your day-to-day life, on and on.... Once you really grok it, it becomes a pillar of a good and robust life.

For these kinds of reason I think the question is still unclear (even though you replaced "atheist" with "non-believer in the rest of Buddhism"):

According to your definition of "realise", can you "realise impermanence" but still be unwise, fail to benefit, and stay attached, heedless, suffering?
Would your definition of "thorough" be that any sufficiently "thorough" necessarily understanding implies every other "beneficial" realisation?
What does "a non-believer in the rest of Buddhism" mean ... does it mean that you don't "believe in" the four noble truths, for example?
Conversely you said "at all", which might imply that even the faintest fleeting possibility of benefit should count as a "yes" answer.
Does the third noble truth imply that everyone benefits from impermanence, whether or not they even realise it?

I guess, depending on what you mean by "realising", it's not sufficient, and perhaps the answer is no: "impermanence" is not mentioned in Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones, which mentions more than a dozen other "one thing"s as being sufficient

i think you're being finicky

Finicky about not understanding the question? Even so the last paragraph (of answer) stands: realisation of impermanence isn't itself listed as a virtue. Unlike, maybe, the realisation of emptiness or anatta which is listed as beneficial.

Understanding impermanence is important for non-Buddhists.
You need to understand and realize that your life, youth, health, good physique, beauty, good looks, wealth, loved ones, friends, good fortune, happiness, reputation, career, skills, intelligence, ideologies etc. will never last forever. You can lose them suddenly at anytime or you can lose them gradually.
You need to understand and realize that you will grow older, you will get health problems, and eventually you will die.
You need to understand and realize that sensual pleasures that you enjoy and relish e.g. your favourite foods, tourism, music etc. may at some point be unavailable to you for any reason, and this might frustrate you.
You need to understand and realize that human companionship that you enjoy with others may suddenly vanish and you may become alone and lonely.
This will help you accept situations more easily without denial or depression, for e.g. if your spouse suddenly passed away or if you get diagnosed with a terminal illness or if your all possessions got destroyed in a natural disaster. Think of it as fostering good psychology.
Understanding impermanence will give you an underlying feeling of dissatisfaction. You will come to see that if you depend on anything that's not permanent for your happiness, then it will ultimately not satisfy you.
This underlying feeling of dissatisfaction is the realization of the first noble truth that there is suffering. And with that, you would have your first step, to cross over from being a non-Buddhist, to becoming a Buddhist.


text:
The spirit of five precepts
The first precept tells us to refrain from killing living beings. If everyone in a city practices five precepts, everyone will become vegetarian.
Is it true the spirit Buddha wants us to develop is vegetarianism?

If every single person in a city or country practised the first precept with heedfulness, and also practised Right Livelihood, which prohibits trade in meat, then nobody would work as a butcher.
Those practicing Right Livelihood would also not be meat importers, suppliers or retailers.
The first precept is not about vegetarianism, or any type of diet. It's about allowing sentient beings to live with ease.
However, if you observe the first precept, it is still ok to buy and consume meat that was frozen in the supermarket. The reason for this is that you did not have the intention to kill and in fact, you did not kill that animal.
You're simply buying frozen lifeless meat that was long dead before you arrived at the supermarket. Please also see this question for a detailed discussion on this topic .

Perhaps this logic is unsatisfying. It is a crime to buy goods which one knows or suspects were stolen. Most people are capable of following a chain of causes back to its beginning and forming a conclusion, so the obvious question is: why shouldn't we in this case?

Perhaps because in this case, the stolen good cannot be returned to its owner? So rather than throwing it away ...

@ruben2020 But according to most Sri Lankan Buddhists the spirit of vegetarianism is in the first precept (as described above: the more first precept is practiced, the less animals are killed hence vegetarianism), if not, in the Buddha's teaching. Thai Buddhists has totally opposite view. They are both practicing Dhamma from the same Buddha. What the Buddha really taught?

According to my personal interpretation, the first precept reminds us how we hurt ourselves when we perform the action of killing. There is a famous concept from the Harry Potter movies (and maybe the books), "Killing rips the soul apart". They mean it literally in the movies. I find the concept very similar to the first precept.
So it does not really imply vegetarianism, but something deeper. Indeed, many Buddhist monks are not vegetarian. They can not be, because they have to eat whatever food they are given by the laypersons. To be particular about not eating any type of food is likely to become a problem while following a monastic life.

There is no such a concept as "Vegetarianism".It's originally comes from Hinduism. Buddhism emphasis on moral value of respect life. We can practice this moral value up to our capacity and practical conditions.E.g- The citizens of Ice land totally depend on fish for their survival and they got little chance to practice this morality in their life style.But when you have plentiful vegetables and fruits and access to it and still kill animal for food that is your desire for meat and you violate and break the morality. The reason why there is no Vegetarianism as forced concept still you eat only vege farmers kill thousand of insects using pesticides sake of your vege food and you know animals are being killing for your food. This is the nature of Human realm and confirm existence of suffering.