text:
Rebirth as cycle of consciousness?
Wikipedia's article on Rebirth (Buddhism) says,

Buddhist meditation teachers suggest that observation reveals consciousness as a sequence of conscious moments rather than a continuum of awareness[citation needed]. Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state such as a thought, a memory, a feeling or a perception. A mind-state arises, exists and, being impermanent, ceases, following which the next mind-state arises. Thus the consciousness of a sentient being can be seen as a continuous series of birth and death of these mind-states. Rebirth is the persistence of this process.

Two questions:

The first question is about this definition/description/explanation of 'rebirth'
The second question is about this definition/description of 'consciousness and awareness'

So:

Can you give any citations for this explanation of 'rebirth'? Which tradition[s] of Buddhism is this from? Is it described in any canonical suttas, and/or does this idea have any specific names/nouns (e.g. in Pali, Tibetan, and/or Chinese) associated with it?
Is consciousness inevitably always a sequence of moments, not a continuum of awareness? Is this also true during meditation?

It was an early version of this answer which prompted this question. That answer has since been expanded, and it now at least partially answers this question.

In Theravada, these questions are considered abhidhamma material. The goto reference is the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, which says in regards to your second question:
2. Is consciousness inevitably always a sequence of moments, not a continuum of awareness? Is this also true during meditation?

A second distinguishing feature of the Abhidhamma is the dissection of the apparently continuous stream of consciousness into a succession of discrete evanescent cognitive events called cittas, each a complex unity involving consciousness itself, as the basic awareness of an object, and a constellation of mental factors (cetasika) exercising more specialized tasks in the act of cognition.

In the Theravada, reality is reality, whether you are meditating or not.

As to the first set of questions:
Can you give any citations for this explanation of 'rebirth'?
Mahasi Sayadaw says:

Before death the stream of consciousness depends on the physical body and is continuous with one unit following the other uninterruptedly. After death, the body disintegrates and the stream of consciousness shifts to the physical process in another abode. This may be likened to the continuous appearance of light in an electric bulb through the ceaseless generation of electricity. When the bulb is burnt up, the light goes out but the potential electric energy keeps on coming. Light reappears when the old bulb is replaced with a new one. Here, the bulb, energy and light are all changing physical processes and we should be mindful of their impermanent character.
(source)

Which tradition[s] of Buddhism is this from?
Maybe better to ask which it is compatible with... it is compatible with Theravada, and probably most other orthodox schools.

Is it described in any canonical suttas
As with many doctrines, the concept of rebirth as a continuation of a momentary string of consciousness is not explicitly spelled out in the Suttas. The way rebirth works is implicit, for example:

“Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
-- SN 12.38 (Bodhi, trans)

“Bhikkhus, though someone might say: ‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from volitional formations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and rebirth, its growth, increase, and expansion’—that is impossible.
3“Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.
If he has abandoned lust for the feeling element … for the perception element … for the volitional formations element … for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.
-- SN 22.53 (Bodhi, trans)

“Sisters, suppose an oil-lamp is burning: its oil is impermanent and subject to change, its wick is impermanent and subject to change, its flame is impermanent and subject to change, and its radiance is impermanent and subject to change. Now would anyone be speaking rightly who spoke thus: ‘While this oil-lamp is burning, its oil, wick, and flame are impermanent and subject to change, but its radiance is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change’?”
“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because, venerable sir, while that oil-lamp is burning, its oil, wick, and flame are impermanent and subject to change, so its radiance must be impermanent and subject to change.”
“So too, sisters, would anyone be speaking rightly who spoke thus: ‘These six internal bases are impermanent and subject to change, but the pleasant, painful, or neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling that one experiences in dependence upon the six internal bases is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change’?”
“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because each feeling arises in dependence upon its corresponding condition, and with the cessation of its corresponding condition, the feeling ceases.”
“Good, good, sisters! So it is with a noble disciple who sees this as it actually is with proper wisdom.
-- MN 146 (Bodhi, trans)

5“Master Gotama, when a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”
6“When, Vaccha, a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, I declare that it is fuelled by the wind. For on that occasion the wind is its fuel.”
7“And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”
8“When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.”
-- SN 44.9 (Bodhi, trans)

When this was said, the Venerable Moḷiyaphagguna said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, who consumes the nutriment consciousness?”
3“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One consumes.’ If I should say, ‘One consumes,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who consumes?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, for what is the nutriment consciousness [a condition]?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the production of future renewed existence.
When that which has come into being exists, the six sense bases [come to be]; with the six sense bases as condition, contact.’”
-- SN 12.12 (Bodhi, trans)

and/or does this idea have any specific names/nouns (e.g. in Pali, Tibetan, and/or Chinese) associated with it?
The term for the stream of consciousness is viññāṇa-sota:

Again, having done this and gone further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next. That is the third attainment. Again, having done this and gone still further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness that is not established either in this world or in the next.
-- DN 28 (Bodhi, trans)

The term for the consciousness that links back to a new rebirth is paṭisandhi-viññāṇa.
The term for the process of the mind is citta-vīthi.

You described the "succession of discrete evanescent cognitive events" as being called "cittas", but Gurusinghe described them as 'mindlet' or "Naama".

"In the Theravada, reality is reality, whether you are meditating or not." Yes, good point. :-) Still, I wondered if meditation might affect (the continuity of personal) consciousness.

FMI there are a couple of Abhidhamma documents online in English at the palicanon.com website.

Mindlet... That's a new one :) Citta is the pali word for a single arisen mind or consciousness

This is similar to how my Zen teacher (an ordained Korean Seon monk) described rebirth, he said it happens moment-to-moment.
In Mahayana, consciousness is not a sequence of moments, nor is it a continuum of awareness. Consciousness is an ocean of interacting forms-are-emptiness. Sequence of moments is an illusion, a hallucination. In Theravada, consciousness may very well be a sequence of moments, because Theravada adheres to phenomenological perspective.

Did your Zen teacher say whether it's possible/desirable to stop that rebirth, and (if so) how?

@andrei Was the "forms-are-emptiness" a typo? Or is it a real thing. Thanks.

@ChrisW he did not, but according to me sure, the illusion of gapless moment-to-moment continuity of the ego is to be stopped. How? By not appropriating any dharmas as "me" or "mine".

@David, yeah that's a nod towards "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" of Sutra of Heart of Prajna Paramita.

So you're not saying whether that 'rebirth' is to be stopped, but you are saying that the illusion that the ego is continuous should be stopped: and that (according to Mahayana) it's neither continuous, nor a sequence because sequence is also an illusion. Well that's food for thought. I don't think of my 'ego' as continuous, but I do think of it as habitual or recurring. I interpret your statement about "sequence of moments is an illusion" as meaning "all present-moments are equally real, other moments in time exist just as much as the present one".

@ChrisW, that too is right, sure, but I meant it in the sense that it's not a single thread.

Phenomenological is a word I hadn't seen before. I guess you're saying that Theravada is concerned with subjective matters. The beginning of that Wikipedia article suggests that the antonym of phenomenological is Cartesian...

Right - subjective, experiential, first-person. I believe it was Thanissaro Bhikkhu who first said (Theravada) Buddhism operates in phenomenological context.

What did you mean by "not a single thread"? For example, are they several/diverse tendencies in the self (e.g., to oversimplify, selfish and altruistic tendencies within a person)? Or did you mean, something like, that every person and every other object or component in the world has its own trajectory?

I meant there is no single trajectory, instead it's a network.

I'm reposting my answer to the question Isn't enlightenment the ultimate death?
My understanding is the term rebirth was used metaphorically in early buddhism . Buddhism practiced current times may be slightly different in many ways ,because it was many many years after the death of buddha the great king Asoka retrieved the teachings and made the efforts to propagate it. and pressures from hindu elites to keep the religion not to go against hindu teachings many times ended up in persecution of buddhism by hindus and ultimately the near death of the religion in india.
Consider rebirth like this You are not the same person now comparing to what you where at the age of 10 or 20 ,so humans change many times during their lifetime and each change is a birth of new personality,
and at a certain age it is possible to achieve a state of mind where you don't have craving,suffering etc..you have a supreme knowledge and you attain a stage where your mind is calm as still water, (It may not be possible for everyone but Buddhism emphasize on keep trying. ) and it is the death of personality changes not person,the cycle of personality changes ceases and you are in a state of supreme consciousness . Thats my view, others may disagree. but i think all these jataka tales mentioning of buddhas reincarnation are stories to teach moral lessons.
The various realms mentioned in buddhist cosmology is thus easier to understand, devas are considered to live in higher realms ,while naraka or hell the realm of greatest suffering. Consider them as state of mind ...if a person is suffering from mental illness then he is living in Naraka or hell...I think the realm of Atata or shivering hell ..may be related to to some neurotic illness ,neurosis causes hand to shiver when the person is very anxious. So all these are planes of existence ,these planes exist in the mind and also in real world. It is both mental and physical.


text:
When during meditation we forget where we are
As far as I understand, awareness is an important concept in buddhism, and an asset to develop through meditation.
During meditation (following vipassana as taught by Goenka), it has happened to me that I forget where I am at that moment. When this question/feeling arises, the answer comes little by little
being really general at the beginning, and gradually refining to a more detailed description of where I am, like:
you are in this country, you came to this place, you are in a retreat, your are sitting in this meditation hall, etc.
My questions are:

Is this feeling expected at any meditation stage ?
Is this experience maybe pointing out a mistake in the practice ?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

Sounds to me like your mind is drifting from your meditation object.  All that's really important is your awareness of that.  Could you specify the type of meditation that you are doing?  That would allow for a more specific answer.

@enenalan : Updated. I try vipassana as it is taught at Goenka's retreats.

Afraid I can't help you there, but knowing that should make it easier for someone to chime in.

Since you are asking from a specific tradition, I can give a pretty specific answer:
Is this feeling expected at any meditation stage ?
Yes, it is expected at the stage of bhaṅga-ñāṇa (knowledge of dissolution).  Though generally available texts don't mention this phenomenon, teacher manuals make reference to it. Here is the general state that leads to this phenomenon:

For at that time each object that is being noticed seems to him to be entirely absent or to have become non-existent. Consequently, at this stage of knowledge, it seems to him as if he were engaged in noticing something which has already become absent or non-existent by having vanished; and the consciousness engaged in noticing appears to have lost contact with the object that is being noticed.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Progress of Insight

Is this experience maybe pointing out a mistake in the practice ?
No, but it is common in bhaṅga-ñāṇa to think that your practice is not progressing because of an inability to notice objects clearly (only noticing their disappearance):

It is for that reason that a meditator may here think: "I have lost the insight"; but he should not think so.
-- Ibid.

The reason for losing perception of where you are in bhaṅga-ñāṇa, or the similar observation also common to bhaṅga-ñāṇa of losing perception of the position of the body (i.e. thinking the body or part of the body has disappeared), is because with bhaṅga-ñāṇa the meditator has broken through the illusion of concept into the reality of ultimate existence, no longer putting attention on concepts like "place" or "body". Since in ultimate reality you aren't anywhere and your body doesn't exist, these concepts have no place in the yogi's mind at that time.

What kind of advice would you give (in particular to beginners) when facing this kind of experience?
I never expected that this experience would have such a deep meaning/implication.

@user3275957 the experience itself is just a bi-product. You think your surroundings/body parts have disappeared because they never were there and you are just realizing it. In our tradition, you would note the experience, e.g. "knowing, knowing", just reminding yourself it is what it is.

Thank you Ven. Yuttadhammo, and OP for the question. This has happened to me on Goenka retreats too, where I've emerged from meditation a few times with temporary loss of awareness of space or time or both. The teacher had told me I was doing something wrong, getting stuck somewhere, but I strongly felt the sit had been useful, so I decided to follow my inner guide and not change a thing.

I've always had trouble matching the words of Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw's progress of insight with my experiences. I've simply come to accept that on a Goenka course, the following things happen to me (so far it's happened each visit)- fear or panic by day 3 or 4, depression and wanting to get out of there because I can't concentrate on anything by day 5, amazing happiness, love, kindness etc. by day 6 or 7, and then usually some difficulty going back to concentration afterwards. I don't remember clearly everything, but these peak events stand out in my memory. Cont'd...

There's a few periods of body pains here and there, on days 2, 4, etc, can't recall clearly. Definitely there's intense body pain, but also enormous capability to sit through it just before the amazing happiness hits me. One time I observed this transition clearly, just pain everywhere and then a sensation like squirting of liquid (like felt in an injection after the pain of entry is gone), even with an audible squirt noise was heard at the nape of my neck, inside the spine and then suddenly pure happiness. Your verification of bhanga nana helps me kind of put the others on the map.

Our perception of context is a compound phenomena (sankhara) fabricated or assembled (sankharonti) by the mind from multiple individual thoughts: what is this, where is this, what am I doing, what is my goal, where I came from, etc. As you can see thanks to meditation, mind does quite a lot of work to assemble what it calls reality.
This works the same way in the waking state as in a dream, except the waking state gives you more clues, but the effort of fabrication is the same.
This insight, that reality is a fabrication we make, is almost more important than meditation itself. It gives us new frame of reference in which we can finally choose how we perceive reality, by choosing what we turn our attention to ("guarding the doors") and gluing it together with power of will (loosely: faith, determination, mindfulness, concentration). So we no longer have to get stuck in negative thinking of the six kama-dhatu worlds. Instead, we can feed our mind with positive information, until it gets strong and healthy (first 3 jhanas). Once our will gets strong we can be free to choose our reality on case-by-case basis (4th jhana and beyond).
You say "awareness is an important concept in buddhism" -- but what is this "awareness" really? Aren't we always aware of something, even when we are obsessed with desire or negativity? In Buddhism, mindfulness (sati/smrti) is not just passive awareness of whatever worldly activity we may be performing at the moment, it is a mastery over one's context. We can see this power developing through five levels (panca bala): faith, effort, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom.

At entry level mindfulness starts as faith in the live tradition. Inspired by an encounter with Sat-Dharma, your mind gets the bug of Buddha-fever. Unable to resist the urge to find out more, you keep thinking about mysterious Dharma.
At beginner's stage mindfulness means applying effort to constantly check one's current physical, verbal, and mental activity against the context of Eightfold Path. Is my mind presently biased by attachment? Is my current action motivated by egoistic intent?
The next level is when staying always mindful of the context of Dharma becomes automatic and no longer requires effort, which means one is now always operating in the phenomenological context of the Four Right Efforts.
At middling level mindfulness grows into concentration (samadhi) which means we can now design, assemble, and maintain any context we choose.
Finally, at advanced level mindfulness becomes wisdom (prajna), which means seeing all contexts at the same time and freely juggling their elements as required by a situation at hand.

The impression I have is that in general there is an experiential and an intelectual experience of reality. What I describe is experiential and of course, your answer gives an intelectual approach to the experience.Thus, I have the following question: how can we close the 'gap' between the experiential and the intelectual experiencies/approaches?I ask this as, based on the experience of forgetting where I am, I never thought what you describe. Indeed, I can not see how by myself I would be able to come with such intelectual understanding.

Well, first I heard/read the words of the teachers, then  followed their guidelines and attained an experience of the above, and now I use intellect to put it in my own words, but since you don't have quite the same experience, for you it remains just words. Even Buddha had teachers, even he did not invent Dharma from nothing. So you can't just get the above from meditation alone, you have to read it, understand it, play with it in real life, then you will get it. Dharma is practice practice practice in real life, meditation is only a small part.

@AndreiVolkov Can you please help me understand this line in a bit more detail "In Buddhism, mindfulness (sati/smrti) is not just passive awareness of whatever worldly activity we may be performing at the moment, it is a mastery over one's context." Perhaps if you could point me to some reading material which explains it in detail with anecdotes etc. Thanks!

Since the one who keeps track of where we are in time and space, the question really is asking what happens if I forget myself.
Here is how Dogen answers this question
http://zmm.mro.org/teachings/meditation-instructions/

The great Master Dogen said, “To study the Buddha Way is to study the
  self, to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self
  is to be enlightened by the ten thousand things.”

In another text, Dogen mentions forgetting objects of thought. What is the place we think we are in but an object of thought. If we lose our memory through amnesia, the place we are in is not an objective place but a subjective memory experience that can disappear so that we cannot use it as a point of reference.
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReviews/DogenManualofZen.htm

Dogen's second version of the Zazen gi expresses this scheme far more
  clearly. Bielefeldt's sixth chapter studies the vulgate text of the
  Zazen gi, noting Dogen's unmistakable departure from Tsung-tse's
  meditative framework centered on the mental exercise of "forgetting
  objects" of thought. In contrast to "forgetting objects," Bielefeldt
  points to "nonthinking" (hishiryo) as the key to Dogen's understanding
  of true meditation. There, the practitioner, instead of attempting to
  forget objects, becomes the state of nonthinking itself.

So if you are becoming the state of non thinking itself, then your experience is drawing from a deep well.
It may be unnecessary to mention that even if you find you are drinking from this deep well, you must forget that too. Even a greater impediment to our unfoldment and awakening than the attachment to places is the attachment to the idea we are attaining spiritual levels, or we have ATTAINED nirvana. Ditch this kind of thinking as soon as possible. Beginner's mind is every moment is fresh and unattached to the past, good or bad. So whatever you decide, let it go so you can drink deeper in the well of experience.

It is the matter of concentration. Whenever thinking of "where am I" arise, try to focus on meditation with what you start. If you start noticing breathing in and out at the tip of nose , just start it again. But it is not meant that you are not making progress. Mind used to get wander like that. All the things whatever happen , just focus simply on the  meditation with what you start. It is better noting mindfully "breathing in, know it, breathing out , know it". Whenever you noticed wandering thoughts, just focus again on this "breathing in, know it, breathing out , know it".

This feeling isn't unexpected. But to ask if it's expected... one of the meditative points is to overcome the need to have expectations.
If we expect something to happen and it doesn't, then we're more or less causing suffering to ourselves; if we expect something to not happen and it happens, then we're causing the same kind of suffering: conflict and stress from that conflict which arises from dramatising the lack of control we have over the world. It's not unexpected for strange reactions to occur with any form of meditation.
It could be that your focus has gone so deeply on one thing that you're no longer focusing on your "where" but instead are looking at your "what" and the interconnections between mind and heart. Re-check the discipline you're being taught, and manage the situation by reconfirming that you aren't making any obvious mistakes. But once you've done that, it's not necessarily a mistake; it's likely just a reaction from ahaṃkāra (ego). Over time and with practice, it should diminish.
As to whether or not this is a mistake in practice, I think this classifies as "overthinking the situation". Accept that it happens, and it's a part of your experience. Eventually, you may even get into a state of non-locality, which would be excellent. While I wouldn't consider this non-locality, it certainly points to that as a possibility for future practice. But you can't make it happen; it just has to grow into that.
My answer would then be: Let go of your worry. It isn't serving you well.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What's the aim of avoiding attachment?
I've recently started to research Buddhism, and one of the first area's I've been looking into is that of attachment. I found this quote -
"Seeing through the delusion of separation means we no longer give "external things" the power to make us miserable."
So does this mean we are supposed to feel emotionless to everything around us, only relying on ourselves for our emotions?

This seems to be a rather common misunderstanding, that Buddhism is a doctrine of emotionlessness or aloofness. Instead, (Mahayana) Buddhism is a doctrine of emotional maturity, emotional intelligence, mental agility, and robust practical excellence.
In (Mahayana) Buddhism we don't avoid attachments-as-connections, we still form relationships with people, make commitments, pursue long-term goals -- but we learn to let go quickly when situation changes, this saves us tremendous amounts of energy. That's why in English we call them "attachments", not "connections". Connections are alright.
Attachment is a much more broad notion than mere fondness of something good. It could be attachment to self-image, attachment to fairness, attachment to skills and intelligence, attachment to higher values, attachment to security, attachment to a certain perspective and so on. Every time we let go of attachment we let go of a button that "external" world may push to trigger an automatic reaction in us.
This is what that quote says, that when we ("I") consider ourselves a separate entity, we think we are entitled to our pathologies and neuroses. But when we understand that this is an ocean of information riding on top of various media, including the media of the primate brains, we can take ownership of our reactions, and choose not to get pushed around by the fluctuations of the signal.
This does not mean we are frozen cold -- this means we can be positive, energetic, and happy all the time, because we now operate our own electrical generator that works both low tide and high tide, which makes us pretty independent and free.
Another metaphor I can offer is that of a sailboat -- once we learn to balance away the environmental influences, we are free to choose our course regardless of wind. It does not mean we lower our sails and stay in place, which is a metaphor for avoiding relationships altogether, and it does not mean aberrating randomly, which is a metaphor for avoiding long-time commitments, it just means we are not attached to one wind and one current, especially after it's gone.
Plus, "seeing through the delusion of separation" we no longer consider ourselves the center of the world. Once we stop obsessing about our own grief, it magically subsides, our eyes open, and we notice others stuck in all kinds of horror worlds. This is when it feels natural to go and help them out, but of course we must learn to float our own boat first.

I present the perspective of Zen through the eyes of Dogen to show a different shade of meaning of attachment and the universality of attachment and non-attachment as a precept of Buddhism
http://sped2work.tripod.com/dogen_pool.html

Often one becomes attached to form and cannot realize the ultimate
  reality of emptiness. One loathes to see a flower wilt because one is
  attached to the idea that the flower should be beautiful and eternal.
  One separates the flower from the ultimate reality of impermanence and
  interconnectedness. This separation and attachment to "what ought to
  be," causes suffering and blindness to the true reality. The reality
  is that the flower, like all else, grows and dies.

In this way, attachment is trying to make something or someone permanent, when they are only temporal. The struggle to keep something in our orbit is the basis of suffering because all things go from form to dissolution. Trying to make the laws of the universe different is the ultimate suffering because it is impossible to do. Accepting people, things, and activities in our lives in this moment without trying to create permanence also allows us to be more spontaneous and present in this moment.
Dogen takes this one step further (same link as above) his words are in quotation marks.

Recognizing the pervasive emptiness through the attachments
  constitutes Dogen's idea of Awakening. This underlying emptiness
  liberates the practitioner and allows one to see things as they
  are--to see the dual facets of all things in the discursive world.
  Awakening culminates in wanting "to know things as they are. If we
  know things as they are, there is nothing to point at; there is no way
  to grasp anything; there is no thing to grasp."11

The greatest attachment that any human experiences is to their own sense of identity. That is why the path seems so long. It is easy to give up candy and coffee and physical intimacy, but giving up my treasured concepts of myself. Oh not that! But the world acts to take away through events of suffering that gradually make our personal identity less and less a treasure.
In a poem that came to me after meditating for many years, there was an aha moment that speaks to this place of growing non-attachment.
"just to be...
that's enough for me...
not some silly human drama...
just one taste of reality!"
The awakening to non-attachment is to realize that the one who is grasping, trying to make things or people or activities permanent, is not who I really am. Buddhism has many ways of saying who we are not. Only by seeing without the grasping mind can we see clearly what is here before us now.

I'm not sure where your quote is from but when I Google for that phrase, the next sentence recommends "equanimity":

Seeing through the delusion of separation means we no longer give "external things" the power to make us miserable. The ideal is equanimity, free from the compulsion to chase what we want and run from what we don't want.

You can read more about Buddhist 'equanimity' e.g. in these Wikipedia articles:

Equanimity
The four immeasurables

That last sentence ("chase what we want and run from what we don't want") also implies what Buddhism calls "The Three Poisons":

Attachment (chasing)
Aversion (running from)
Ignorance (not understanding reality)

The reason for equanimity, defined as "a steady conscious realization of reality's transience", is:

That's how or what reality is: it's transient
The desire for reality to be other than what it is (e.g. feeling an attachment to what it used to be, or to what you would want it to be in future, or wanting it to stay as it is now) leads to suffering: that is the definition of the 2nd noble truth
Given that reality is transient, not becoming attached to it and feeling dispassionate about it is what leads to the cessation of suffering: that's the definition of the 3rd noble truth

In summary the 'aim of avoiding attachment' is the aim of Buddhism. There's more than one form of Buddhism. In one form called Hinayana, the aim is to rid ourselves of suffering.
Also, feeling "emotionless" isn't what's recommended. This article describing the four immeasurables says that,

... They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, ...

First thing I want to note is that non-attachment, which is the antidote to the poison of attachment, is not avoiding attachment. Avoiding attachment implies an extreme. Buddhists seek to operate in the middle. Aversion is actually another of the three poisons, which was well articulated by another answer. So avoiding attachment is actually as "bad" as attachment.
Now the second thing I want to bring up is that though we talk about the three poisons in a way that implies they exist in an equilateral sense, in fact the poison of ignorance actually causes the other two poisons to manifest. We innately ascribe inherent existence to things, which is our fundamental ignorance. This innate ascription leads to attachment and aversion. By seeking to understand the nature of reality, we minimize the two A's naturally.
However, that doesn't mean that the antidotes to the two A's aren't important. You definitely want to practice all three antidotes (loving-kindness/compassion, non-attachment/generosity, and wisdom). This is because the poisons work in a feedback cycle. Ignorance causes attachment and aversion, but aversion and attachment strengthen and perpetuate fundamental ignorance. The bit about delusion you've quoted in your question is talking about fundamental ignorance.
The aim of all of this is liberation from suffering. That's why I am a believer that the idea of the three poisons is the best Buddhism in a nutshell idea. To me it encapsulates the point very succinctly. Hope this helps you understand the role that attachment plays in Buddhism.

One point which other answers haven't addressed yet is "the delusion of separation" from 'external things'.
I understand that as meaning, for example, "I want a chocolate bar!" (or "I want money", or whatever it is).
And as meaning, "I have no chocolate bar! And I will not be happy, unless/until I get a chocolate bar!"
I might be wrong but I don't think that "delusion of separation" is a normal/standard Buddhist phrase, so maybe I need to guess at what it's talking about.
I guess what it means is that you're thinking, "I am here, and the chocolate is over there, and we are separated." But that separation is a delusion, because what's actually happening is:

I am here
I am entertaining a desire for chocolate
My desire for chocolate is consuming me
There does exist chocolate and other stuff (and other beings) in the world

The key point is that I and my desire for chocolate are both here in me, not over there in a shop. The chocolate is what it is (e.g. sugary, expensive, wrapped in paper, digestible, etc.). My desire for it (which is what makes it special) is within me, is not from separate me.
Also my desire for it is a property of me, not a property of the chocolate: my desire for chocolate exists because I have indulged in chocolate in the past -- it's not (or is not only) a property inherent in the chocolate. The chocolate isn't thinking, "I am desirable", the desire is yours not of the chocolate. Thinking that the object of the desire is separate is a delusion, partly because the desire is internal, and partly because it may not be a desire that you can satisfy: if you had the chocolate, would you then be satisfied? Or would you need more chocolate?
Wouldn't it be more satisfying to not want chocolate?
So one (of many) techniques of Buddhism would be to think, "OK, I'm thinking of chocolate. But this craving for chocolate isn't much fun. I have better things to do than crave chocolate. I don't want this craving for chocolate. This craving for chocolate is unsatisfactory. I experience distaste for this craving."
And so you decide you don't like the desire. Don't want the desire. And that without the desire you also no longer want the chocolate.
"Chocolate? No thanks! It isn't good for me, it doesn't do anything for me."
I'm going to try to claim that this has introduced two other key Buddhist concepts: i.e. "Anicca" (the pleasure of chocolate would be transient at best), and "Anatta" (I am not a desire for chocolate).
I mention this because it too is not exactly "emotionless". Seeing various desire and saying that the desire are unsatisfactory might be called 'Right view' which is the first step of "Noble eightfold path". The next step, which follows from that view, is 'Right intention' a.k.a. 'Right resolve' which includes 'renunciation'.
And that, 'renunciation', finally provides a way to answer your question: which is about "avoiding attachment". It answers the question because you can use it to begin to look-up reference articles about the corresponding word, e.g. Nekkhamma on Wikipedia, or by searching for 'renunciation' on Access to Insight (press the 'Search' button), which returns many articles such as:

All of Us -- Renunciation
Trading Candy for Gold
etc.

The 'Access to Insight' site, which I referenced immediately above, is a "Theravada Buddhism" site. So its views (the perspectives of the authors of its articles) about the "aim of Buddhism" aren't completely the same as those of other schools of Buddhism, hich are given in e.g. some other answers to this question.
There are several Schools of Buddhism, so when you ask about it or when you "research Buddhism" you might want to be clear about which school you're researching; but see also Basic points unifying Theravāda and Mahāyāna.

"The delusion of separation" is a way of expressing the root delusion i.e. things have inherent existence. The phrasing here might make more sense to you if you think of dependent origination and that nothing anywhere is separate because everything is inter-dependent.

Many Buddhists have practices that are aimed to bring them to a point of their existence where they realize (not just know, but know and feel) that there is not anything more important in the universe than any other.
The word that is usually translated as "suffering" is "dukha" which is closer in meaning to "disquietude".
This means that we don't consider anything more or less important than ourselves, and that we ourselves are no more or less important than anything else. And when we can see that we're actually all made from the same stuff, we are easily able to understand that seeing anything as more or less important than anything else is a form of arrogance.
This in itself is a form of suffering, and the basis on which we create the "three toxins".
When we realize--which means to have a real and significant experience--that we actually are the same as everything and everyone and every part and particle and the whole of the universe, then we have achieved Buddhahood.
That's the purpose of non-attachment (which is not "avoiding attachment", which I consider a mistranslation).

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


text:
Which commentary on the MMK should be studied first?
I am currently casually reading various things, and Ocean of Reasoning is one of those things. I've began to feel that I should pick a challenging reading to focus on, but I'm thinking I might want to read Ornament of Reason before Ocean of Reasoning.
Is one or the other traditionally studied first? Or is there some other commentary before these that I should study? I am already well acquainted with the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā itself.

may want to spell out MMK?

I suppose it depends on which lineage you draw your water from. Ocean of Reasoning is a Gelug text, as is Ornament of Reason (I think?), while in Kagyu they study Madhyamakavatara, a relatively early commentary by Candrakirti, with subcommentary by Jamgon Mipham.

Interesting point. I honestly have a really hard time keeping track of names of things in general let alone which lineage believes this or that. I kind of just soak in as much as I can from anywhere I can. Are you aware of an English translation of the Madhyamakavatara? I believe I looked for one and could only find a German translation or something like that.

@JoeMcDonagh, http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Middle-Way-Chandrakirtis-Madhyamakavatara/dp/1590300092/

11 bucks for a used hardcover, on its way now. I guess for that reason I will read this one first. Still curious if there is a clear progression in traditional teaching. Thanks!!!!


text:
Any research on the authorship of the Avatamsaka Suttra?
I was reading through the sutra (well, using global search in my kindle) to find references to the word mathematics. In at least two places the author suggests Bodhisattvas should study all manners of topics to be of benefit to others, including mathematics. And in at least two places, the text goes on and on naming extremely large numbers and describing how to calculate them using powers of ten. These chapters seem to have been written by the same guy-- an interest in large numbers and their application to Buddhism can't be that common.
The last chapter, the Gaṇḍavyūha, even wikipedia says it used to be a suttra separate from the rest of the book.

Kenneth Wilson was from India and he had a deep interest in mathematics till his death in 2013
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/blogs/blogs-the-copernican/article4992321.ece
He has probed deeply into numbers and found ancient sources that attribute large numbers to the Bodhisatva's
Link above has this paragraph.

The incalculable number
Kenneth Wilson did not come up with inclusivity. Yes, he found a way
  to use it in the problems that were prevalent in mid-20th century
  physics. But in the Mahavaipulya Buddhavatamsaka Sutra, an influential
  text of Mahayana Buddhism written in the third or fourth century AD,
  lies a treatment of very large numbers centered on the struggle to
  comprehend divinity. The largest titled meaningful number in this work
  appears to be the bodhisattva
  (10^37218383881977644441306597687849648128) and the largest titled
  number as such, the jyotiba (10^80000 infinities).
The jyotiba may not make much sense today, but it represents the early
  days of a centuries-old tradition that felt such numbers had to exist,
  a tradition that acknowledged and included the upper-limits of human
  comprehension while on its quest to deciphering the true nature of
  'god'.
The Mahavaipulya Buddhavatamsaka Sutra itself, also known as the
  Avatamsaka Sutra, also contains a description of an "incalculable"
  number divined to describe the innumerable names and forms of the
  principal deities Vishnu and Siva. By definition, it had to lie
  outside the bounds of human calculability. This number, known as the
  asamkhyeya, owes its value to one of three arrived at because of an
  ambiguity in the sutra. Asamkhyeya is defined as a particular power of
  a laksha, but there is no indication of how much a laksha is!
One translation, from Sanskrit to the Chinese by Shikshananda, says
  one asamkhyeya is equal to 10 to the power of 7.1-times
  10-to-the-power-of-31. Another translation, to English by Thomas
  Cleary, says it is 10 to the power of 2.03-times
  10-to-the-power-of-32. The third, by Buddhabhadra to the Chinese
  again, says it is 10 to the power of 5.07-times 10-to-the-power-of-31.
  If they have recognisable values, you ask, why the title
  "incalculable"?

As far as authorship, there are several references to translators, but unlike many Buddhist texts, the authorship is attributed to someone that may not have written it, of unknown authorship or a collaborative effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatamsaka_Sutra

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra was written in stages, beginning from at least
  500 years after the death of the Buddha. One source claims that it is
  "a very long text composed of a number of originally independent
  scriptures of diverse provenance, all of which were combined, probably
  in Central Asia, in the late third or the fourth century CE."[6] Two
  full Chinese translations of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra were made.
  Fragmentary translation probably began in the 2nd century CE, and the
  famous Ten Stages Sutra, often treated as an individual scripture, was
  first translated in the 3rd century. The first complete Chinese
  version was completed by Buddhabhadra (Bodhibhadra) around 420 in 60
  scrolls with 34 chapters,[7] and the second by Śikṣānanda around 699
  in 80 scrolls with 40 chapters.[8][9] There is also a translation of
  the Gaṇḍavyūha section by Prajñā around 798. The second translation
  includes more sutras than the first, and the Tibetan translation,
  which is still later, includes many differences with the 80 scrolls
  version. Scholars conclude that sutras were being added to the
  collection.
According to Paramārtha, a 6th-century monk from Ujjain in central
  India, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is also called the "Bodhisattva
  Piṭaka."[4] In his translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya, there is
  a reference to the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, which Paramārtha notes is the
  same as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra in 100,000 lines.[4] Identification of
  the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as a "Bodhisattva Piṭaka" was also recorded in
  the colophon of a Chinese manuscript at the Mogao Caves: "Explication
  of the Ten Stages, entitled Creator of the Wisdom of an Omniscient
  Being by Degrees, a chapter of the Mahāyāna sūtra Bodhisattvapiṭaka
  Buddhāvataṃsaka, has ended."[4]

It may not be that common in Buddhist texts, but Hindu texts are filled with all kinds of numbers. It is apparent that this environment friendly to numbers must have inspired some writers to go down this avenue, perhaps to appeal to potential Hindu converts to Buddhism.


text:
What was the motivation for the prohibition on eating onions and garlic?
I've heard two speculations:
1) Onions & garlic are used to flavor meat, so they are guilty by association. I've heard the Jains have a similar prohibition for this reason.
2) Onions & garlic incite the "passions"-- in other words, its a Indian herbal viagra.
Does anyone know the real motivation for prohibiting onions and garlic? Is the real motivation lost to the mist of time?
This is the 4th minor Precept in the Brahma Net Sutra.

Jains have rules against eating plants which have life in them: my guess was that Jains wouldn't like garlic because is can sprout: similar to not eating carrots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cuisine#Other_restrictions agrees but that's labelled unreferenced and dubious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism#Influence_on_vegetarian_cuisines_in_India suggest that Jainism is influential (maybe they all had 'Ayurvedic' background oslt) and suggests that "onions and garlic are considered "tamasic" as they are believed to have a quality of darkness, lethargy and a putrid smell."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cuisine#Other_restrictions also says, "The respective Vinaya forbid the monks and nuns the consumption of mango and garlic. Both prohibitions followed incidents in which monastics harvested more than they could eat in one day." which sounds plausible (e.g. because sfaik the reason for other Vinaya rules is that they were created following various specific 'incidents').

Page 55 of this books tells a story about why no garlic
http://books.google.com/books?id=91OPcSUTFQ0C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=why+prohibition+of+onions+and+garlic+by+buddhist&source=bl&ots=-zabxvpxAT&sig=GLbsLl7P1h6soNNWDG8SXrzfzM0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GN1OVISdDcz-yQS9q4DgCQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw
The text is from the Chanyuan Qinggui - the stories there are that the nuns were allowed to pick 5 heads of garlic a day but one day picked all of them. The Buddha then banned the use of garlic.
Another story tells that people who use garlic were not allowed near the Buddha when he was giving his sermon because of bad breath, body odor and possibly flatulence.
This seems more plausible to me if you have ever been around someone eating lots of garlic.
Onions, especially sweet onions, do not exhibit these same symptoms after eating.

Interesting, I eat a lot of garlic and don't have body odor. Then again, I have running water and am able to bathe more than once a year.

Even with daily bathing the oils in garlic come out through the skin. Perhaps a small amount of garlic is not very noticeable.

I agree with soulsings. It's particularly noticeable when you go a period of two weeks to a month without garlic or onions. When you do, then you'll notice it as an odor between the nasal membranes particularly when consumed fresh and with little cooking. It can't be washed away: you have to wait for the body to eliminate them or become acclimatized. I haven't done enough meditation to personally vouch for its negative effects alluded to above.


text:
Can we consider any core Buddhist teaching as dogma?
Can we consider the four noble truth or any other core teachings in Buddhism as dogmas that we should accept, or could be learn/understand reality only by experience and mindfulness? Is it possible to come to any other conclusions by meditating and practicing mindfulness? I see dogma as a principle incontrovertibly true. Thanks a lot.

You can come to all sorts of conclusions by practicing mindfulness and meditation.  People do it all the time.  It doesn't necessarily mean that these conclusions are valid, deeply understood, or even the product of insight.

The Buddha said that we should not take his word as truth if it doesn't match up with our own experience. The test, then, is this: do the Four Noble Truths match with observable experience, or are they rules to be taken on blind faith? To simplify: is this a rule, or is it merely an observation? Do we have to accept on blind faith that this is the way things are? The Buddha himself said that was not the case. Thus, it's not a dogma.
The should part of your question implies judgment. Is it a judgment to call something a truth? Could we not say that they are in fact a part of a process, and not actually true or false, but merely steps to be taken? Thus:

There is suffering.
There is identification of suffering.
There is overcoming of suffering.
There is no suffering.

...could be a guide to how to overcome suffering--and is in fact an early form of self-therapy that we might say is an early foundation for modern psychology.
The "truths" aren't actually true or false in the sense of being true or being false; they are more in the sense of being faithful to the ideal of overcoming suffering.
There is, however, a dogma I've run into in Buddhism: the dogma of having no dogmas. It's almost a rule that we should avoid having dogmas of any kind (especially in forms of Zen and Chan Buddhism, though Soto Zen tends to take this to kind of an extreme, in my experience).
So if you take a leap of faith and believe something blindly, you're somehow a "bad Buddhist". But not taking a leap of faith is also a dogma.
Fun little conundrum, isn't it? :)

Can you reference a direct quote for the first sentence, "we should not take his word as truth"? Is there a quote in which he ever says specifically that we shouldn't take his word as truth? In the Kalama Sutta for example he says, "don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, etc." ... which isn't quite the same thing as saying "don't trust my words": shouldn't Buddhists interpret that as, "trust the Buddha's words, not other people's words"? There is such a thing as faith (not 'blind' faith, but faith) in Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism

It wasn't a direct quote. A more direct quote might be: "“Do not believe out of blind faith, do not believe merely on scripture, do not believe on mere tradition. Do not believe me just because it is I who speak. But when you have seen, examined and experienced for yourself, then accept it."
Analectic thought is common throughout the Buddhist teachings. The way we translate words into English can also change depending on whom we ask, etc., so mincing words isn't going to be helpful in such a case unless you also speak Sanskrit.

Can you give an specific reference for "Do not believe me just because it is I who speak"? I ask because although he also invites people to experience and to benefit for themselves, SFAIK he claims to be enlightened, insightful, truthful, trustworthy. I'm not aware of any scripture in which he suggests people might be correct in not believing him ... and certainly nothing to suggest they'd be correct in believing anything that's contrary to his doctrine.

The selectiveness of the ideas was necessary to the methodology of the teaching. If you go by the complete passage in the Sutras (which I have now quoted), he said not to accept his words as truth if there isn't a reason to believe it.

Read the Lotus, Diamond and Heart Sutras... those aren't lengthy, but they will answer the questions you're shooting my way.

Thank you for your reply. Those three are all explicitly Mahayana Sutras, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe I'll find, somewhere in those, the quotes you mentioned.

Not explicitly, no. But Mahayana does make explicit use of them. (See the difference?) The tradition I'm most associated with comes from Mahayana, with some definite leanings toward Hindu, but with a more philosophical bent than a religious one. And by "comes from" I don't mean "directly" or even "indirectly" but "similar to, influenced by, and somewhat related through lineage to".

When you started with "The Buddha said" I suppose I assumed you meant that literally.

I meant "by inference" or I would have led with a direct quotation.

Vishwa Jay, excellent post and I really like that you explain not to get hung up on them as "truths". The 4NT are empty like anything else and I think it's easy for people to attach to them by attributing a sort of absolute "truth" i.e. inherent existence to them.

"A principle incontrovertibly true" is not a dogma. E.g. in math the principle of associativity -- a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c -- is incontrovertibly true, so what? A principle must be "incontrovertibly true" within some domain -- otherwise it would be useless.
Instead, dogma is a thesis to be taken on blind faith, with no logical proof nor practical evidence. Another definition of dogma is a thesis mistakenly absolutized outside of domain where it is legitimately valid.
As any science, Buddhism -- the science of Liberation -- has its principles, its truths. And within the context of Buddhism they better be true -- otherwise we'd have to throw them away!
But yeah, we have to be careful not to take Buddhist truths as dogmas. Which means two things: 1) by all means try and map what it really means that e.g. "the origin of dukkha is craving" onto one's direct experience; and 2) not unwittingly absolutize e.g. the celibacy precept for monks to mean that procreation in general is bad.

IIRC the fact that the addition operator is associative is dogma: i.e. the associative property is part of the definition of the addition operator. There are other operators (e.g. the subtraction operator) which are not associative but which are also useful. But, that's what I learned in a Mathematics lecture: not in the 'real world'.

I think you are confusing dogma with axiom.

I think that (having quoted a definition of dogma), dogmas are axioms. Some philosophers agree. After I defined dogma as 'axiomatic', I found that Wikipedia supports the corollary I suggested, which is that any given doctrine may not deny or contradict a dogma and still be said to belong to that religion. The addition operator, and associativity, were the subject the first Mathematics lecture I attended at university (starting with 1+1=2 and 0+1=1 etc.).

The fact that the words (dogma, axiom, etc.) have these meanings to me doesn't prevent you from saying what you want to, about Buddhism. I found Maths unsatisfactory too (so if Buddhism says that everything is dukkha, it's not wrong there), but I think I recognize an axiom when I see one: and dogma is axiom. Whether the associative addition operator maps to (is useful in) the real world is another question: "applied maths". I don't know why your axiom (or definition) of  dogma is that it is "blind faith". I realize that it's the existence of dogma that enables schism, but that's reality IMO.

I'd take your sentence, "A principle must be incontrovertibly true within some domain -- otherwise it would be useless", and rewrite that as, "An axiom is assumed or defined to true, and the set of axioms define what the domain is." For example in Buddhism the four noble truths etc. are axiomatic. They have theoretical consequences (e.g. renunciation). That set of axioms with all their consequences is the domain (of Buddhism). The practitioner should assess a) are the axioms relevant to the world b) do the theoretical/logical consequences of those axioms (i.e. "theories") match practicalities.

Sorry, actually you are right: one does select an axiom 'on faith' as you said - "supposing or assuming this were true, then etc."

So according to you, mathematics is based on dogma, fascinating. Could it be that the word dogma has a broader meaning in English than it has in Russian? Do you think OP was asking whether Buddhism has axioms and principles, vs. being 100% observation-based like the natural sciences?

IMO, colloquially, "dogmatic" can also be used to mean "annoying and stupid adhering to and insisting on unproven matters of mere faith (issues of trivial consequence)." Mathematically, IMO mathematicians distinguish between axioms (taken for granted but unprovable) and theorems (proven from those axioms). They need to know, "what are the axioms, which are themselves unprovable?" It isn't necessarily "wrong" to try different sets of axioms. So instead of saying "your geometry is wrong" they might say, "your geometry is non-Euclidean", or "your mechanics are relativistic, instead of Newtonian."

@ChrisW yeah I think I understand how axioms are used, my AI professor was very fond of humans' unique ability to posit useful axioms :)

I have been searching for the supporting text: Here is one quotation:
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/do_not_believe_in_anything_simply_because_you/12103.html

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
  believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
  Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
  religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
  your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
  have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
  analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
  conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
  live up to it.”  Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the
  founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)

An almost identical text is also quoted at
http://www.noble-buddhism-beliefs.com/buddha-quotes.html
Shakyamuni Buddha taught monks sermons on the four noble truths and other precepts. My memories are that the Buddha encourages people to take the precepts, study them, try to incorporate them into a meditation practice and finally into one's life.
the online dictionary in google also defines dogma
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority {emphasis mine} as incontrovertibly true."
I have never studied or read a teacher that speaks of incontrovertible [not able to be denied or disputed]. truth in Buddhist literature. The Dalai Lama talks about monks debating all aspects of Buddhist precepts to strengthen their understanding. Discussion and debate are part of the path, including this website.
Dogma also implies a certain blind acceptance of statements without thoroughly digesting them and struggling with them. Buddhism does have principles but by swallowing them whole you will only get spiritual indigestion. Taking one principle and putting it into practice is a more effective strategy than trying to swallow the fish whole.
It is possible to come to conclusions by meditating and practicing mindfulness, but what you will find out is waiting for your experience to reveal with its fruit. The truth is not in the words, the truth is in non-attachment to everything that impedes a direct experience of what is.

The "four noble truths" was the first sermon he gave after gaining enlightenment. I know it as "The Sermon at Benares" or "The Sermon of Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion" a.k.a. the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

Thank you Chris. It inspired me to look further for the quotation and found the one I was referring to.

That quotation is from the Kalama Sutta.

Actually @ChrisW ... http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/

@yuttadhammo My apologies: "that paraphrase is from the Kalama Sutta."

Given this definition of "dogma"

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

If the four noble truths were "dogma", that would mean that statements which deny the four noble truths would not be called Buddhist, and doctrines which denies the four noble truths would not be Buddhism.
Texts like the Kalama Sutta imply that Buddhist doctrine is meant to be helpful, and good to experience:

When adopted & carried out, they lead to welfare & to happiness.

I'd like to say that Buddhist doctrine is not dogmatic, but there are places where the Buddha says that he's perfectly sure that what he says is true.
In the comments to other answers I was trying to understand, whether "dogma" is "blind faith", or whether our personal experience is that it's "incontrovertibly true", or whether Buddhist doctrine defines it as "incontrovertibly true" by definition.
There are places, times, roles for "faith" in Buddhism -- see:

Wikipedia's article about Faith in Buddhism
The second half of this answer (describing faith in Buddhism) and other answers to that question

I was wondering about the cause-and-effect of it:

Do we believe it only after we experience it to be true?
Or must we believe it even before we experience it to be true?

Looking in the Kalama Sutta to see how or whether the Buddha "proves" his doctrine, IMO the following is where that argument has a hinge. Immediately after this paragraph,

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

There is this:

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."

My guess is that's an example of dependent co-arising, of the Kalamas' previous experience (or their understanding of "greed") being combined with the Buddha's question. So they accept his doctrine.
You might agree that they were right to accept his doctrine: that their choice was skillfully made.
But I'm not sure you can call it "incontrovertibly true" that greed arises for harm and not for welfare. Some modern people might argue that people's economic desires are what drive and shape the free market. That, for example, the "greed" of the founders of StackExchange is a reason why this site exists.
You could counter that argument by saying, "that's not greed: that's right livelihood."
Still I suppose that doctrine is not "incontrovertibly true". Instead some people choose it etc., and it requires skill (right view, wisdom, etc.) to apply it properly.
I think that Vishwa Jay's answer suggests that it's a way, a guide (or several guidelines), a recipe.

On paper, Buddhism has no dogma, and the Kalama Sutra is often cited as evidence of this.  Other teachings with a non-dogmatic flavor are...

The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
The Parable of the Raft
The Fetter of Views

However, is this true in practice? How do most Buddhist react to dogma?  What happens when you walk into a Buddhist Temple (or forum) and express doubt about the Buddha's enlightenment, the nature of Nirvana, Rebirth, Karma and so on? My experience has been that dogma rears its ugly head then.
In fact, one can read some dogmatism into the Wisdom part of the 8-fold path, as some state that belief in Karma and Rebirth are a key part of wisdom.  For that matter, some people treat the 4 Noble Truths as propositions to be believed.  What if you were to look into your experience and find that the 4 Noble Truths don't hold?  Would a typical Buddhist accept this?  Would s/he instead claim that the 4 Noble Truths are some kind of law (which sounds suspiciously dogmatic)?
This should come as no surprise.  Dogma is a style of thinking, not a particular body of thought.  Therefore, nothing is immune.  There are dogmatic people of every stripe -- Christian, atheist, Buddhist, scientific, etc... People tend to cling to views, put a premium on believing "the right" things, and react badly to skepticism.
Buddhism isn't magical.  It's a philosophy (or religion, depending on your view) and the sangha is made up of people.  And people have the same shortcomings everywhere.  There's nothing about being Buddhist that magically makes the sangha immune to the rest of the follies that plague humanity.


text:
Theravada using mostly Vinaya and 4 Nikayas
There is a Buddhist monk from Theravada tradition that only follows Vinaya and the 4 Nikayas, he avoids talking about Abidhamma or other sources like Jakata Tales, he said some later stories contradicts the Buddha's teachings and gave some interesting examples, he also avoids the commentaries.
He claimed the true Dhamma the Buddha spoke of before dying (to be the teacher) were the Vinaya and suttas in the 4 Nikayas.
I would like to know, is there a tradition inside theravada that follows this logic? I couldn't ask if he was following a particular tradition/school or if it was just his personal view. I would like to understand and explore it.

I'm always puzzled by such questions... If there is a certain way to interpret something, there will be people interpreting it that way. What difference does it make if this interpretation is passed down a traditional lineage -- would that give it more legitimacy? As if there were no "official" traditions with absurd teachings...

I think to remember some discussions this line in the last years, but none impulse of this type seem to have found big audience or even constancy (but maybe they have but disappear then from the large&wide-discussion). "True Dharma", "Dharma-yana", "Buddha-yana", "Sutta-yana" were some of the labels which have been tried. I confess that I sympathize with that impulse, but cannot give some adress or point-of-access except the hint to ones own studies of that historical material and ones own experiences to be achieved.  (This is only a comment because it may easily be there is a better answer)

Just out of curiosity, would this happen to be the Ven. Dhammavuddho from Vihara Buddha Gotama in Temoh, Malaysia?

Yes!!!! I went to a theravada centre in KL and got a pack of CD with his Dhammatalks, I have been following his teachings since them. I really like him.

@konrad01 Ok, that clears things up. The Ven. Dhammavuddho decided on this system of study and teaching on his own as far as I know. There are others who emphasize the original texts and historical analysis, but he's the only person to my knowledge who specifically identifies with the Vinayapitika and the 4 Nikayas.

Thanks, that answers the question! I personaly like the way he teaches and the examples he gives, he also have (or had) plans to build a monastery without statues of the Buddha, just like in the time of the Buddha, that should be interesting to see

In the Kalama sutta, the Buddha advice the Kalama people to accept what is good and reject what is bad, so I don't understand what is the objective of criticizing the abhidhamma, Jatakas and other buddhists texts that are related to the dhammas. For one with an enlightened mind, watching a leaf dropping from a tree branch itself is seeing the dhamma and what more the Abidhamma, Jatakas and other teachings of the Buddha?

Bhante Punnaji and Bhante Vimalaramsi (following Bhante Punnaji) and Bhikkhu Nanavira also teach this approach to Dhamma study. I also believe this is a good approach from the point of view of investigating an unknown doctrine. Go to the original sources as much as possible.
In really attemtpting to understand Psychology would it not make more sense to go to Freud first, then read those who came after with their modifications and perhaps misunderstandings? I'd rather generate my misunderstandings first hand.
There are those who say that reading the commentaries is helpful for understanding difficult positions. The reply is how can one be certain that the 'clarification' isn't mystification? You can only know by going to the original sources. Why waste the time going in circles like that?
Trust in the mind! To the clear, calm mind the solution to every problem will be seen.
One needs to remember that what Buddhism is talking about is salvation from the eternal round of pain and misery. Are you going to trust your salvation to secondary sources?
The Buddha says over and over again that he has taught Dhamma in the best way to teach Dhamma. see http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/03_threes/an03.123.olds.bd.htm At least until one knows for certain otherwise it seems wise to take the man's word for it. It is, after all, his wisdom one is studying.

I really found your answer very useful, thanks for that

I tend to side with this approach. In many ways a good working example of its beauty is the Thai Forest Tradition. You can read more about it on the DhammaTalks website.
Noted teachers are:
Ajaan Mun,
Ajaan Lee,
Ajaan Fuang Jotiko,
Ajaan Chah, and
Ajaan Suwat.
Also, an American monk who had trained there for over 10 years: Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
There are many things in later texts (e.g. Abdhidhamma) which directly contradict instructions given in the canon - instructions which, though hard to follow, seem to have razor-sharp reasoning and efficiency if adhered to. The Thai Forest Tradition shows that you don't need a PhD. in Buddhist Studies in order to penetrate the message. As Ajaan Chah once put it,

If a mango is five meters off the ground and we want it, we can’t use a tenmeter
  picking pole to pick it, because it’s too long. We can’t use a two-meter
  picking pole either, because it’s too short.
  Don’t go thinking that a person with a PhD. has an easy time practicing the
  Dhamma because he knows so much. Don’t go thinking that way. Sometimes
  people with a PhD. are too long.

I like your answer, I just don't wanna start another debate about Mahayana and Theravada, that is why I tried to keep the question very tied to Theravada, it is better to explore that way. And yes, he gave some good examples of contradictions that caught my attention!

The Thai Forest Tradition doesn't reject the use of the entire canon or the use of the classical commentaries and such. For example, Ajahn Mun himself, the founder of the tradition never traveled anywhere without a copy of the Abhidhammatasanghaha, and I think that Ajahn Chah studied a little bit of the Visuddhimagga.

@Bakmoon Doesn't reject it, but I've rarely seen any favorable mention of it. On more than one occasion, I've encountered criticism toward the interpretations of the Abhidhamma and Vissudhimagga. BTW would you provide a source for the claim regarding Ajaan Mun?

@konrad01 Good point. Left it at e.g. Abhidhamma.

Venerable Sariputta(Upatissa) only needed to hear 2 lines to attain the state of Sothapanna. The first five disciples only needed 2 suttas to attain Arhatship. Venerable Cullapantaka only needed to rub a cloth to attain Arahantship. Does that mean all the other Suttas are redundant? Abhidhamma is the comprehensive and profound preaching of the Buddha. Abhidhamma pitaka and the Vinaya pitaka are said to be preached only by the Buddha. Only the Sutta pitaka contains preachings of disciples. Ex: Madhupindika Sutta, Saccavibhanga Sutta etc.

It's better to elaborate on what teachings in the Abhidhamma pitaka contradict with the Sutta pitaka. Most of these so called contradictions are misunderstandings caused due to comparing teachings taken out of context or comparing teachings at different levels. Ex: comparing high school science with PhD science.

@SankhaKulathantille See wiki about the origins of Abhidhamma - it's said to be a later addition. One contradiction is that the Abhidhamma speaks of so many esoteric details which have no relevance to the practice, like where do Brahamas get born depending on their current plane of existence, etc. This doesn't hold with the "handful of leaves" approach spread throughout the canon.

Here's a better source than wikipedia: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/
It's wrong to assume that preachings such as planes of existences are not useful for one's spiritual progress. Ex: Sapthasuriyuggamana sutta preaches about how the world will end. Many monks attained Arhanthship at the mango grove of Ambapali after listening to that.  Being comprehensive and profound does not contradict with the "handful of leaves" approach. The Buddha is omniscient. So compared to everything the Buddha knew about the universe, even the whole Tipitaka itself is indeed just a handful of leaves.

@SankhaKulathantille Well, you know, each one to his own I guess. If you find that the Abhidhamma works for you, then by all means use it. As to whether it is necessary, or whether it goes neatly with the message of the canon or not, this other people can decide for themselves. Be well.

What teaching is enough for one to attain enlightenment differs from person to person. But I'm pretty sure venerable Cullapantaka wouldn't have discarded the whole Tipitaka and instructed everyone just to keep rubbing clothes, just because that was enough for him. Abhidhamma is a part of the Canon. That's why it's called the Tipitaka :)

Not sure if that venerable's position represents the typical approach. They didn't call it "Tipitaka" (Three Baskets) for no reason.. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka )


text:
Did Buddha ever go outside India to teach?
It is said that Buddha has divine eye (ability to see who're capable of realizing liberation) and psychic power.
Is there any account in pali canon in which Buddha sees someone who could realize nibbana and travels outside India to teach?
It seems to me there would always be someone outside or far from where Buddha dwells who can see Dhamma?

The Buddha visited Sri Lanka on three different occasions. His first
  visit was to Mahiyangana; the second to Nagadipa, and the third was to
  Kalyani (Kelani). On these three occasions he stayed at sixteen
  specific locations and meditated by himself or with his disciple
  monks. For that reason, those places have come to be regarded as
  highly sacred. They are called the Solosmasthana.

Apart from that, the Buddha visited the Thawthisa heaven, seven years after his enlightenment to preach the Abhidhamma to his former mother and the other Devas and Brahmas. He spent three months there.
He also visited a country called Sunaparanta with four hundred and ninety nine arahants, including venerable Kundadhana and venerable Ananda.

Don't forget Sunaparanta :)

Wasn't it a part of Jambudvipa? Anyways, I've added that ;)

Not sure, your link says it's either in India or Burma (some say it's in Middle East). BTW Saccabaddhapabbata is identified to be in Thailand.

Any answer to this question would be purely conjecture. We don't have any secular evidence to suggest one way or the other with any certainty.
The mythology spoken of above can be taken or left, depending on what brand of Buddhism you follow. Zen would not, for example, give two shakes about anything The Buddha did after death, if, indeed, it was possible he could. Tibetan Buddhism has a huge mythology built up around things like this, and mystical events that are quite detailed. Pureland Buddhism would tell you you simply can't become enlightened in this lifetime, and that you must say the Mantra of Amitabha Buddha to become enlightened in the Pureland after death.
It all depends on the flavor of ideology you are involved in.
At its core, Buddhism doesn't care. :-)
Now if you are asking this question in an attempt to get at some historical figure you think that Siddhartha may have taught, can you tell us who that might be?


text:
Question about Dana
The Buddha, apparently, said we should not do dana if the offering harms you or someone else.
I have heard this teaching and I would like to know if: Is it true? Where the Buddha said that, which sutta?
This teaching (if true) seems to contradict the story about the Buddha giving his body to a hungry tigress in a previous life, or not?

Buddha did not give his body to a tigress. Bodhisatva did!

You are right Sankha, but still sounds contradictory

Here are two quotes from The Perfection of Giving (Acariya Dhammapala),

When the Great Man (the Bodhisatta) gives an external object, he gives whatever is needed to whomever stands in need of it; and knowing by himself that someone is in need of something, he gives it even unasked, much more when asked. He gives sufficiently, not insufficiently, when there is something to be given. He does not give because he expects something in return. And when there is not enough to give sufficiently to all, he distributes evenly whatever can be shared. But he does not give things that issue in affliction for others, such as weapons, poisons, and intoxicants. Nor does he give amusements which are harmful and lead to negligence. And he does not give unsuitable food or drink to a person who is sick, even though he might ask for it, and he does not give what is suitable beyond the proper measure.

And,

Herein, giving an internal gift, he gives only what leads to the welfare of the recipient, and nothing else. The Great Man does not knowingly give his own body, limbs, and organs to Mara or to the malevolent deities in Mara' s company, thinking: "Let this not lead to their harm." And likewise, he does not give to those possessed by Mara or his deities, or to madmen. But when asked for these things by others, he gives immediately, because of the rarity of such a request and the difficulty of making such a gift.

This teaching (if true) seems to contradict the story about the Buddha giving his body to a hungry tigress in a previous life, or not?
I might be wrong but I can imagine many explanations for why this doesn't contradict the "tigress" story (versions of which story exist here and here):

The gift of his body doesn't harm the Bodhisattva
Saving several tiger cubs might be more important than saving one human body (see e.g. the story for the pirates being killed; or the Dalai Lama's alleged suggestion that it might be better to kill one cow than several shrimp)
Saving the tigress from killing her cubs (i.e. her sila) is more important than saving the body
The Bodhisattva's gift of his body became a teaching story, so it's also a gift of Dharma

Perhaps we shouldn't "expect" that everyone will behave like (behave as well as) the Bodhisattva: just as not everyone chooses to "go forth into homelessness".
In particular I suspect that if most people did this (killed themselves) it would be an act violence. It was partly the Bodhisattva's insight or wisdom, or something like that, which allowed the Bodhisattva to view it as a (praiseworthy) act of generosity instead of as a (blameworthy) act of killing.

On the other hand, the tigress story and the pirates story are not part of the Pali canon.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu has his own version of the pirate story in this Dhamma talk:

A friend once told me about a question he had posed to a number of his
  friends. The question was this: “Suppose that you’re dreaming, and in this dream
  you’re in a boat with your mother and your child, and a lot of other people you
  really feel you love a lot. A pirate comes along and demands one person’s life.
  What do you do?” He said as he tells this problem to adults, they think about
  their mothers and they think about their children, they think about sacrificing
  themselves and also think, “Well, if I sacrifice myself the kid will suffer…” And
  they can never solve the problem. But if you pose the question to kids they’ll say,
  “Well, wake up. It’s just a dream, right?”

The Pali text talks about 14 suitable gifts.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel367.html#pali

THE DONATIONS
Practically anything useful can be given as a gift. The Niddesa (ND.2,
  523) gives a list of fourteen items that are fit to be given for
  charity. They are robes, almsfood, dwelling places, medicine and other
  requisites for the sick, food, drink, cloths, vehicles, garlands,
  perfume, unguent, beds, houses and lamps. It is not necessary to have
  much to practice generosity, for one can give according to one's
  means. Gifts given from one's meager resources are considered very
  valuable (appasma dakkhina dinna sahassena samam mita, S.i,18;
  dajjappasmim pi yacito, Dhp. 224). If a person leads a righteous life
  even though he ekes out a bare existence on gleanings, looks after his
  family according to his means, but makes it a point to give from his
  limited stores, his generosity is worth more than a thousand
  sacrifices (S.i, 19-20). Alms given from wealth righteously earned is
  greatly praised by the Buddha (A.iii,354; It.p.66; A.iii,45-46)....
Even if one gives a small amount with a heart full of faith one can
  gain happiness hereafter. The Vimanavattha supplies ample examples.
  According to the Acamadayikavimanavatthu, the alms given consisted of
  a little rice crust, but as it was given with great devotion to an
  eminent arahant, the reward was rebirth in a magnificent celestial
  mansion. The Dakkhainavibhanga Sutta states that an offering is
  purified on account of the giver when the giver is virtuous, on
  account of the recipient when the recipient is virtuous, on account of
  both the giver and the recipient if both are virtuous, by none if both
  happen to be impious. Dhammadana, the dissemination of the knowledge
  of the Dhamma, is said to excel all other forms of giving (sabbadanam
  dhammadanam jinati, Dhp.354).

What seems to be stressed here is not the value of what one gives but the intention of the heart. It no where mentions cutting off a part of your body and offering that. If the tiger is a smart tiger and in a suitable environment, its needs will be fulfilled. Carnivores clean up the dead and sickly. Feeding wolves or lions or tigers does not serve a great a purpose as dedicating your life to helping others.
The physical body is only on loan. If we can make no better investment than feeding wild animals, how can we claim buddhahood as our inheritance? To claim buddha nature, we must express buddha nature in its many aspects. An act of suicide, throwing your body to wild animals does not express the highest qualities of the Buddha, and goes against the principal of doing no harm. Doing harm to one's own body or not taking care of it goes against this precept. It cannot be dana under those circumstances.

I agree with your final conclusions, thanks

I had to search for backup in the Dharma, because it is such an instinctive response within me to affirm life, that if I spoke from that it would have been more opinion.

May be you have heard of 550 lifes of Buddha.
In that there are many stories like the story of Wessanthara Jathaka story. In that at last he killed him self and presented his head to a king to save a citizen. As buddha said the life of a man is too difficult to gain that you should live upto what it is expected. Buddha was then living in Dhana Paramitha.(Giving)
So he had to give anything even he gave away his own children and wife for this.


text:
What really Sekha means?
i'm still a bit confused,
i know that "sekha" means literally "a learner; in course of perfection"
but in some article "sekha" means "a pupil or one under training in a religious doctrine."
what i really want to know is if whether the word "sekha" is used for religious terms only, or it can be used in many terms, for ex. student at school or disciple from someone else to reach knowledge or something like that?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. This question may be off topic because this is not a language site, unless the question pertains to meaning within B.

In Saṅgītisutta three types of persons in the world are mentioned: sekkha (learner), asekkha (adept) and nevasekkha nāsekkha (ordinary person or puthujjana)

Tayo puggalā—sekkho puggalo, asekkho puggalo,
  nevasekkho nāsekkho puggalo
Saṅgītisutta
  Three kinds of persons, to wit, the learner, the adept, he
  who is neither.
Saṅgītisutta [en]

A sekha is someone who trains himself in higher virtues, training the mind to a higher degree and training for higher wisdom or basically someone who's training himself in the eightfold path. There are 7 types of sekhas (1) the path to stream-entry; (2) the fruition of stream-entry;
(3) the path to once-returning; (4) the fruition of once-returning;
(5) the path to non-returning; (6) the fruition of non-returning;
(7) the path to arahantship

Sekho, sekho’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sekho
  hotī”ti? “Sikkhatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā sekhoti vuccati.
  Kiñca sikkhati? Adhisīlampi sikkhati, adhicittampi sikkhati,
  adhipaññampi sikkhati. Sikkhatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā sekhoti
  vuccatīti.
Sekkhasutta
Venerable sir, it is said a trainee. How is one a trainee?
  Bhikkhu, one trains, therefore he is called a trainee.
  In what does he train? He trains in higher virtues,
  training the mind to a higher degree and training for higher wisdom.
Sekkhasutta [en]

An asekha is someone who's gone beyond the training or basically an arahant.

Asekho asekho’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā bhante, bhikkhu asekho hotī”ti? “Idha, bhikkhu, bhikkhu asekhāya sammādiṭṭhiyā samannāgato hoti, asekhena sammāsaṅkappena samannāgato hoti, ... Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, bhikkhu asekho hotī”ti
Paṭhamaasekhasutta
Venerable sir, it is said, `gone beyond the training' How is the bhikkhu gone beyond the training?
  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu is endowed with perfect right view,
  perfect right thoughts, perfect right speech, perfect right activity,
  perfect right livelihood, perfect right endeavour, perfect right
  mindfulness, perfect right concentration perfect right knowledge and
  perfect right release gone beyond the training. Such a one is gone
  beyond the training.
Paṭhamaasekhasutta [en]

According to my dictionaries,

sekha means student, beginner, aspirant
sikkhā (as in sikkhāpada of the five precepts) means training, instruction, education -- including both the learning and the teaching sides

In general, sekha/sekkha seems to mean someone who is still striving, still looking up to a higher level of mastery. The meaning seems to be broad and not confined to the religious domain.

Most of the dictionaries I found online, which mention that word, are Buddhist dictionaries: which give the definition which is specific to Buddhism.
I found one dictionary which defines the Sanskrit version of the word, which defines it as learning something slightly different from religion: i.e. learning the "science of pronunciation" when learning the vedas.

Definitions of śaikṣa
m.    a young Brahman pupil studying with his preceptor, one who has recently begun to repeat the veda -    View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mf(ī - )n.    (fr. śikṣā - )  in accordance with right teaching or with rule, correct
शैक्षः [शिक्षां वेत्त्यधीते वा अण्] 1 A student who studies Śikṣā or the science of pronunciation, one who has just entered upon the study of the Vedas. -2 (Hence) A novice, tyro. -a. Well familiar with the studies or sciences; expert; Mb.6.97.28 (com. शैक्षं शस्त्रादिशिक्षा- संपन्नम्)
And
(from Śikṣā) in accordance with right teaching or with rule, correct

You might argue that's a "religious" learner too.
I guess that perhaps all education of that time (including science, mathematics, etc.) might have been connected with religion or taught by religious leaders, but I don't know.
The definition from the Pali Text Society says,

Sekha (& sekkha) [cp. Sk. śaikṣa; fr. siks, sikkhati] belonging to training, in want of training, imperfect Vin i.17, 248; iii.24; Dhs 1016; one who has still to learn, denotes one who has not yet attained Arahantship D

Also the The Sikh Encyclopedia says,

SIKH. The word sikh goes back to Sanskrit sisya, meaning a learner or disciple. In Pali, sisya became sissa. The Pali word sekha (also sekkha) means a pupil or one under training in a religious doctrine (sikkha, siksa).


text:
If the Buddha praised Samatha, why is it losing importance?
It seems like these days, teachers are looking down to Samatha meditation, I would like to understand why, based on the suttas, this the meditation praised by the Buddha.
Could someone explain why Vipassana is so much more present in Theravada tradition, eventhough the Buddha practiced a lot of Samatha? I'm sure there are good reasons.
" And what kind of meditation did the Blessed One praise? Here, brahmin, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhana … With the stilling of applied and sustained thought, he bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhana … With the fading away as well of rapture … he bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the third jhana … With the abandoning of pleasure and pain … he bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana … The Blessed One praised that kind of meditation."
Majjhima Nikaya 108.27

Which teachers? Buddhist teachers?

Hi Bhante, generally speaking yes... both Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachers...  I may be wrong but looks like Samatha is losing space, maybe it is only my perception...

There's an alarm bell that goes off with these sort of  questions prefaced by "it seems like"... this isn't the only one, but it would be nice to have more than just a feeling to base a question on, otherwise it's in danger of being flagged as opinion-based/speculative.

I understand, this question was based on a talk by Ven Dhammavuddho Thero, he said that was happining a lot in malaysia, I related to that...

The problem is, without an example of someone who actually holds the view you vaguely ascribe to "teachers", it's unfair to expect a concrete answer. It's like saying, "It seems like these days mosquitoes are increasingly aggressive. Could someone explain why?" These sort of questions are problematic, I think, because their premises are ostensibly unsupported.

I understand. Anyway, I think Bhante K. gave a great answer, I'm more than happy to close the question! PS: Thanks for resuming Dhammapada videos.

The bigger problem would be if the only possible answers to a question were mere opinion. If an answer can say factually whether and/or why mosquitoes are or are not more aggressive, then the question isn't too bad (because it was able to have a good answer).

In Tibetan Buddhism, Shamatha is greatly emphasized, perhaps more than Vipashyana.

@ChrisW definitely that's a bigger problem, but that doesn't make this unproblematic... a good question for this site, IMO, would be "What is the relative importance of samatha meditation to vipassana meditation according to Buddhism?" The question as given is not asking us to provide an answer to a fact-based question, it is asking us to rebut the OP's argument that is based on unsupported claims of observation. Another example of this problem is this one.

It's not that the intentions are wrong, just that this sort of question is difficult to answer properly, since the actual problem in question isn't researchable.

Friends, I do think questions not based 100% on clear facts are valid generally speaking, such as: Who is the best candidate in this election? However, I do understand things need to be different in a religious debate, that is why Im happy to close if Ven. Yuttadhammo says so. I just want to emphasize that this question was based on a speech by a Monk in Malaysia (and in my country I can only find Vipassana retreats) so maybe this is not your reality, and I do agree Samatha is very important in Tibetan Buddhism. Before turning to Theravada I did retreats with Tibetans and that is true. Thanks

The Pali canon and commentaries do indeed carry considerable encouragement to practice the jhanas. The distinction between samatha and vipassanā aren't really spelled out in the original teachings and it was only much later that the doctrine of the two as separate (and separate-ableon) meditation practices arose. By the time of Buddhaghosa (5th century AD) the distinction was pretty firmly established, though some later teachers dismiss the distinction as unnecessary. Ajahn Chah of the Thai Forest tradition liked to say that samatha and vipassanā are like two ends of a stick - when you pick up the stick, both ends come along See Ajahn Chah's essay on this from his book, "Unshakable Peace".
The emphasis on vipassanā which one finds nowadays came about for very practical and pragmatic reasons, but this topic as a bit much to delve into deeply here. The brief overview is that a method was needed that could be undertaken by a lay meditator on a 30 day retreat and provide the practitioner with a reasonable shot at arriving at the first stage of enlightenment - stream entry. Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw is perhaps the main exponent of this method and it seems to work quite well for many people. In contrast to this, to properly develop "Visuddhimagga-style" jhanas is beyond the reach of most lay people (and most monastics) not least because of the time commitment necessary.
There's more to the story of course, but that's a thumbnail sketch of the situation.

What the Buddha said and encouraged may not be totally clear from reading the texts based on oral traditions that were eventually written down. Perhaps they were all recommended by the Buddha at one time or another and the ones that were most comfortable in a particular Buddhist tradition became emphasized over time.
Why not say Buddha encouraged Zen? Some Zen practitioners say Buddha was the first Zen master from the text of the Flower sermon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon
the Chan tradition may have invented or written down the flower sermon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism#Kasyappa_and_The_Flower_Sermon

The Chan tradition ascribes the origins of Chan in India to the Flower
  Sermon, the earliest source for which comes from the 14th century.[36]
  It is said that Gautama Buddha gathered his disciples one day for a
  Dharma talk. When they gathered together, the Buddha was completely
  silent and some speculated that perhaps the Buddha was tired or ill.
  The Buddha silently held up and twirled a flower and his eyes
  twinkled; several of his disciples tried to interpret what this meant,
  though none of them were correct. One of the Buddha's disciples,
  Mahākāśyapa, silently gazed at the flower and broke into a broad
  smile. The Buddha then acknowledged Mahākāśyapa's insight by saying
  the following:[21]
I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvāṇa, the true
  form of the formless, the subtle Dharma gate that does not rest on
  words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the
  scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.

The diversity of examples seems to be coincidentally an advocacy for the particular tradition that promotes a certain quality or story. It is perhaps no surprise that human consciousness would lend an interpretation that is more appealing and easier to live with. If such are the traditions, perhaps our best hope for liberation is to follow the example of the Buddha and live our lives to the greatest extent possible serving others as best we are suited.