text:
Are arahants infallible?
I've heard it said that Popes are infallible,(whether one believes this or not).
Although the arahant has removed all the defilements, can they still be wrong, make mistakes, or are they all-knowing? I vaguely remember a story of an arahant playing a dirty trick on his less than wise brother?

The "infallibility" is a dogmatic concept in the catholic church, and interestingly (at least for me, need not be for some other buddhists) there is and has been inner-catholic dissens about whether they should claim that "dogmatic infallibility" for the pope at all or not. (contd...)

(...)It was only the late 19 century, when the first pope claimed this for himself! And there were important reasonings why that "dogmatic infallibility" was not given historically earlier (one was: the popedom over generations would constraint itself too much) So "infallibility" is/was not a property of sages, holy men - but just a concept for the dogmatic discipline. (And it may well be that they'll throw it away again later, not all chatholics like this concept)

Yes and no in the case of infallibility.
Infallible - what ever they do their actions do not created new conditioning. The actions are not based on the 3 unwholesome roots.
Fallible - though the actions are not based on unwholesome volition, they may not always be the optimal or best cause of action. Their infallibility is based on the fact they are never wrongly motivated, though the outcome of any action may not always have the desired or optimal results and also some action can be done differently to make a bigger impact.
They know the cause and effect regarding the mind and matter process hence understanding enough about the cause of misery and the elimination of misery.

It depends on what you refer to as "mistake", "wrong" and "all knowing".
For example, the first known schism [1] brought 5 points to discussion, 4 pertaining to arahants:

1: that an arahant can be seduced by another person
2: that an arahant may be ignorant of some matters
3: that an arahant may be in doubt
4: that an arahant may receive (be instructed by) another person

A case can be made against (2) and (3) from the suttas if the matters in question are limited to nirvana and the doctrine -- which is more than reasonable. Omniscience as "knowing everything continuously" can be refuted by the suttas as well -- the Buddha not only said he did not have that power, but he declared it was impossible for a person to have it. From that standpoint, I guess (4) would make little sense to discuss further. But (1) did not reach consensus.
EDIT: For an examination of Buddha's omniscience from the suttas, see analayo's paper on the subject.
[1] A.K. Warder, Indian Buddhism.

In what sense was the Buddha omniscient?

http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/BuddhaOmniscience.pdf

In the "dharma sense", if that makes sense. The way I understand, he is one who has insight into all experiences. And some insight into past and future. But that does not correspond to omniscience as we understand, knowing all facts in the universe, past and future.

That article is well worth reading. Thanks


text:
Unenlightened monks indebtedness to the laity
Was there an incident in the Buddhist scripture where the Buddha said of the indebtedness of the unenlightened monks to the laity that they should at least generate metta?

i can;t quite make sense of this question cos of the grammar, but it seems interesting :)

This is covered in the Cūlaccharāsanghāta Sutta, this was preached to counter the  Aggikkhandhopama Sutta, which was said to frighten many monks back to lay life , or to "disrobe". This is supposedly (link) said in the Manorathapūranī, the commentary by Buddhaghosa on the Aṅguttara-nikāya.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How long to leave a body undisturbed after death?
When someone dies (is pronounced dead, e.g. no heart-beat) then hospital staff will want to move the body to a refrigerated morgue.
If you are next-of-kin, then when (after how long) is it right to give them permission to do that? Is it alright to do that nearly immediately, or, should you ask them to delay doing that, and if so for how long?
This reference says,

Different Buddhist cultures (Western, Tibetan, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Sri Lankan etc. have different lengths of time that they don't move the body and keep vigil and do prayers).

How long is an appropriate length of time to ask for, for example in a Western hospital or hospice?
How much time/delay, if any, does the dying person need?
Should you wait for a certain length of time (number of hours after the recorded time of death)? Or wait for some specific, measurable/observable physical symptom, for example the (internal body and/or external skin) temperature cooling to some specific temperature?
The same page says,

The Clear Light State can last for few minutes (where there is much disease or in accidents) or 3 days (recommended waiting time) or longer in accomplished meditators.

I imagine that leaving the body undisturbed for three days might be unacceptable in a Western hospital.

The conclusion to Buddhism and organ donation suggests that organ donation is compatible with Buddhism. If that's true, how is that compatible/reconciled with the view that the body should not be disturbed/touched after death?

Reverend Kusula addressed Buddhist patient health care in one of his podcasts. He talks about leaving the body undisturbed for a certain period of time so that the spirit can move on. I don't remember all the details but it may be useful. The date of the podcast was 11-2005 (the second one).

Thank you for the reference. He says various things in that podcast; the part of that podcast which describes the body (i.e. which is an answer to this specific question) is his reading from a publication titled "Buddhist Beliefs and Practices Affecting Health Care - Chaplaincy Services" which is published on this page: i.e. "Traditionally, the body is taken to the home and for a period of 3 days or so etc."

A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering links to dozens of articles etc. topics related to death and dying (the Reverend Kusula is or was a UCLA Medical Center chaplain).

Thank you for pointing to an easy-to-reference location.

Thank you Chris for creating a new question to the organ donation question. I found this very useful:)

The site urbandharma.org mentions that the body should be kept for about 3 days.

Immediately following signs of physical death, Buddhists believe that it is best to keep the body in a peaceful state. Traditionally, the body is taken to the home and for a period of 3 days or so, the body is not touched and extensive prayers are said. This facilitates the process of the person’s consciousness letting go of its prior body and life and all of its attachments and more easily moving to the next.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/health.html
The exact number of days may vary from tradition to tradition.

There are many stories where someone wakes up after being declared dead:

7 bizarre tales of people coming back from the dead
10 People Who Woke Up After Being Pronounced Dead
Google search: Woke Up Pronounced Dead

At least in Sri Lanka there is no notion or any specific time before one should be send to the morgue. There always a change when some one is pronounced dead is not actually dead but declared so as an error. Best is to wait a enough to ensure that some one pronounced dead is in fact actually dead.

Re. your last sentence, here are some guidelines about how/when to recognize/pronounce someone's death: Death (Recognition and Certification). According to this, "waiting enough time" means waiting for 5 minutes.

There are some further details on the UK system in this document, which imply that it some other countries (e.g. the USA) they might wait as little as 65 seconds, whereas in other countries (e.g. in Japan) they might wait forever (using artificial life support after brain death).

See also Brainstem Death and Organ Donation by L.D.Walallawita in the Sri Lankan Journal of Anaesthesiology (2009), which describes how to test when the patient dies during "intensive care".

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


text:
Are there Material Differences of Current Theravada Teachings with Pre Sectarian Buddhism?
Are some of the Suttas we have today different from the original Suttas as taught by the Buddha? Are there any surviving pre sectarian Buddhist sources and commentaries? What research has been done on pre sectarian Suttas?

AFAIK, nothing can be definitively sourced back to the Buddha.
With that said you have...

The Ghandaran Buddhist Texts which are the oldest Buddhist writings yet discovered.  This doesn't mean they're the words of the Buddha, but if you go by the assumption that older is more likely to reflect the founder's intent (not necessarily true!), then this is one path.
Various historical studies on Early Buddhism, including this page. These studies can get technical and may not be satisfying to a practitioner. They may also spend a fair amount of time studying the context of Buddhism.  Another source (I don't know if it's early enough) is this book, freely available online.


text:
Are there references to Meditation Techniques Practiced / Taught by Ven. Nanavira?
Ven. Nanavira has written a lot on the Dhamma. I am looking for his material on meditation related topics.

I tried to search a bit for some books by ven. Nanavira. I could only find this one Clearing The Path. Maybe you can use it.

I have the book (Sinhala translation), but not exactly a meditation annual and very large to fully read.

Why is it so difficult to find meditational-related material from Ven. Nanavira? Did he not teach that area of buddhism?

I guess at that time meditation instruction were more given in Aranyas and mainly theoretical Dhamma was written as books.

Oh okay. I understand. I hope you find what you are looking for.


text:
Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree
Buddha meditated for days under the bodhi tree. Does it mean he sat and did not move for days? Or does it mean he did normal things (like drinking water, urinating etc), but in a total meditative state?

There's a line in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta which I think implies he "did normal things" as well as meditating:
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

"In search of what might be skillful, seeking the unexcelled state of
sublime peace, I wandered by stages in the Magadhan country and came
to the military town of Uruvela. There I saw some delightful
countryside, with an inspiring forest grove, a clear-flowing river
with fine, delightful banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides.
The thought occurred to me: 'How delightful is this countryside, with
its inspiring forest grove, clear-flowing river with fine, delightful
banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides. This is just right
for the exertion of a clansman intent on exertion.' So I sat down
right there, thinking, 'This is just right for exertion.'
"Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of
birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I
reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being
subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement,
seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow...
defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless,
sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the
aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from
the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my
release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

So, doesn't that imply meditation, but also alms-going etc.?
The Buddha was human and was by that time practicing the Middle Way: therefore, I think, no asceticism.

But there are other suttas which imply otherwise, for example:
Bodhi Sutta: Awakening

I have heard that on one occasion, the Blessed One was staying at Uruvelā on the bank of the Nerañjarā River at the root of the Bodhi tree — the tree of awakening — newly awakened. And on that occasion he sat at the root of the Bodhi tree for seven days in one session, sensitive to the bliss of release. Then, with the passing of seven days etc.

Bhikkhu Bodhi narrates it as follows:
The Buddha and His Dhamma

Now he was alone, and complete solitude allowed him to pursue his quest undisturbed. One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.
For several weeks the newly awakened Buddha remained in the vicinity of the Bodhi Tree contemplating from different angles the Dhamma, the truth he had discovered. Then he came to a new crossroad in his spiritual career: Was he to teach, to try to share his realization with others, or should he instead remain quietly in the forest, enjoying the bliss of liberation alone?

In the above, the first paragraph describes meditation in which the Buddha resolved not to move at all, and reached enlightenment after one night. After he is enlightened, the next paragraph describes him remaining "in the vicinity of" (which means "near") the Bodhi Tree for several weeks.

Our Bodhisatva / Buddha had very high levels of Samadhi hence he could have stayed many days without moving of doing anything else. Deep Samadhi brings down your metabolism so you can stay for long periods without food, water or air. There might have been times when he would have done it in one sitting and sometimes may had have gone for alms as per @ChrisW answer.


text:
Sudden awaking/realization
I have seen some videos in Youtube (here and here) where it seems that just by standing in front of Papaji, people start laughing without control.
Somehow it is implicitly said that this reaction is related to an awakening/realization experience.
My questions are:

Is this true ?
How is it that just the presence of a teacher is enough for such an experience ?
Can we say that this experiences are real Enlightenment ?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

The references below give a goods indication of stages of insight leading to enlightenment.

... people start laughing without control ... Is this true ?

I am not sure if any one would burst out laughing at any stages of insight. This looks like hysteria to me.

How is it that just the presence of a teacher is enough for such an experience ?

In a Theravada perspective, this is un true. The Dhamma is something you should realize through your efforts and not something someone can give you. Hence a mere presence of a teacher is not enough.

Can we say that this experiences are real Enlightenment ?

Looking at the references below this does not look like enlightenment but some other experience induced by a different kind of practice which is neither Samatha or Vipassana in the Theravada Buddhist sense.

The Map of The Journey
The 7 Stages of Insight and Purification
The Progress of Insight

Some Wikipedia references, in case that's enough to start with.

Subitism is an article describing 'sudden enlightenment' in Buddhism
I thought that Zen 'satori' was supposed to be sudden, but Attaining satori says,

Satori is considered a "first step" or embarkation toward nirvana:

Ch'an expressions refer to enlightenment as "seeing your self-nature". But even this is not enough. After seeing your self-nature, you need to deepen your experience even further and bring it into maturation. You should have enlightenment experience again and again and support them with continuous practice. Even though Ch'an says that at the time of enlightenment, your outlook is the same as of the Buddha, you are not yet a full Buddha.[7]

Even then,

The student's mind must be prepared by rigorous study etc.

Those are nice videos but maybe Papaji is more accurately described as Hindu than Buddhist. The subject of the second video, for example, was about "seeing God."

I recommend Sam Harris's "Waking Up" for a decent discussion of this topic in general, and of Poonja (Papaji) specifically. The relevant part of the book is Chapter 4 "Meditation", specifically starting on page 127 (hardback).
Based on Harris's account, which is both respectful of Poonja but also healthily avoids being overly credulous, I'd say that the answers to your questions are:

Yes, it can be true, but not everyone who appears to be experiencing it actually is. In other words, sometimes laughter is just laughter.
"How" as a mechanism, I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does. But if you read past the Poonja stuff and onto Harris's description (same chapter) of the "pointing out" aspect of Dzogchen, particularly as he experienced it under Tulku Urgyen, you'll get some clues.
Similar to the answer to the first question: I imagine that in some cases a genuine awakening experience is present. However, as Harris explains in the section on Urgyen, even the genuine experiences may be only a first look at what is possible with more extensive and deeper practice of insight

Also, as ChrisW says, Poonja isn't formally Buddhist. I think he'd be more accurately described as an Advaita practitioner, although even that may be more precise than is fair (to Poonja or Advaita).

Laughing uncontrollably is madness if you ask me. Awakening is exactly opposite, it is sobering up from all disturbances of mind rooted in greed, anger and delusion.
From what I understand, there is no way that it is awakening or anything remotely similar. My best guess is that it is prolly unblocking of emotional blockages that release joy, which is perverted into laughter due to existence of greed and delusion. So no, not enlightenment at all, not even qualitatively similar to an awakening.
There are very few authentic sages, be careful in wasting time with the semi-competent ones.

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


text:
Time period between Buddhas
Does anyone know how long did it take for Gotama Buddha to appear in the world, after Buddha Kassapa? The interval between the 2 Buddhas

See:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_019.previous.buddhas.htm
for a table giving various features of the previous 7 Buddhas. The Direct answer to your question is that Kassapa and our Buddha were both born in this kappa, that is, world-cycle, or aeon. The kappa consists of a period of evolution, a period of stasis, a period of devolution and a period of stasis. This current period is the period of devolution (as if anyone had to tell you). It is not clear, but it is likely that Kassapa was born in the period of Evolution.
The kappa is described as: 10,395,902,500 years: 103,959,025 sesame seeds removed from a Magadhan Karika one at a time every hundred years (see Magadha Karika)

From MN 115:

"It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system—there is no such possibility."

And Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Commentary:

"MA: The arising of another Buddha is impossible from the time a bodhisatta takes his final conception in his mother’s womb until his Dispensation has completely disappeared. The problem is discussed at Miln 236–39."

Therefore the time period between Buddhas will vary depending on when the Sasana will completely disappear. I doubt anyone would know the exact date and time, but when the Noble Eightfold Path and its 3 Trainings of morality, concentration, and wisdom are completely neglected then we can be fairly certain that the Sasana is dead..

Do you know where I can find the Miln 236–39?

The Buddhas should do fulfill their Paramita to become Buddha. Also there cannot be 2 Buddhas at the same time. A Buddha comes when there is spiritual interest in the society and there is a balance of suffering and also comfort. So it is complex interaction of:

ideal time and conditions to tech the Dhamma and set up the Sasana
number of Bodhisattva and stages of their Paramita
there is no existing dispensation

Thanks, but do you know if Buddha Gotama has ever mentioned how long was the interval? From Kassapa to him?

See: Practising the Dhamma with a View to Nibbana


text:
Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist
I am wondering what is the buddhist view on Art and especially being an Artist? Meaning someone who creates something with an aesthetic quality that may or may not reflect the reality and express thoughts, feelings ideas etc.
As I try to study the basics of buddhism I am encountering this strange conflict when, for example (in my case filmmaking), you like to create a fictional stories, character and even entire worlds, universes.. and that often leads you away from the actual reality. Of course all the thoughts, concepts, stories, songs, plays, paintings, movies etc. in most cases have some symbolic, deeper meaning that does not changed much from the early times. They are rather variations of the "big" questions, pain, love, suffering, live and such and therefore can have the ability to enrich the viewer, provoke thinking and feeling or any other response.
But the creation process takes a huge amount of energy, and a lot of thinking about. I am not sure if that's such a good thing in the end...

I have never met a monk or nun that disliked art.

I am not sure if that's such a good thing in the end.

There is a sutta which suggests that that's a valid worry: it's the "Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor"
Getting the Message by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to me to soften that message, by suggesting (more specifically) that you should not inspire your audiences to greed, anger, and delusion:

In this case, the Buddha's reticence and tact helped to make his teaching effective. A similar set of events happened when an actor asked the Buddha if there is a special heaven reserved for actors. The Buddha's reticence and tact in informing the actor of a hell for actors who incite their audiences to greed, anger, and delusion inspired the actor to respond in the same way as the soldier.

Some modern examples:

I can also find some examples of monks and nuns singing and playing music: for example here.
That is notwithstanding the fact that Music is apparently contra-indicted by the Vinaya.
Here is a Theravada monk (ordained at age 10) who composes music: including for film scores.

Music and entertainment and so on are against the Eight Precepts:

The Eight Precepts are precepts for Buddhist lay men and women who
  wish to practice Buddhism more strictly than through adherence to the
  usual five precepts. The eight precepts focus both on avoiding morally
  bad behaviour, as do the five precepts, and on leading a more ascetic
  life.
In Theravada Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka and Thailand,
  Buddhist laymen and laywomen will often[citation needed] spend one day
  a week (on the Uposatha days: the new moon, first-quarter moon, full
  moon and last-quarter moon days) living in the monastery, and
  practicing the eight precepts.
The Buddha gave teachings on how the eight precepts are to be
  practiced,[21] and on the right and wrong ways of practicing the eight
  precepts.[22]

According to the Visakhuposatha Sutta, the reason for the Eight Precepts is that Arahants refrain from music etc.:

"[He considers:] 'For all their lives the arahants refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garments, smartening with perfumes and beautifying with cosmetics; so today I refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing ornaments, smartening with perfumes and beautifying with cosmetics. By this practice, following after the arahants, the Uposatha will be entered on by me.'

So I don't know; maybe it's a grey (not black and white) area, i.e. it's something to think about: neither always forbidden nor always recommended.

Buddha suggested that a lay person should not engage in five types of businesses; namely - business in weapons, in human beings, in meat, in intoxicants and in poison. This is Right Livelihood for a lay person (Source: Vanijja Sutta). So, I don't think being an artist violates any of these principles. Vipassana teacher S.N. Goenka said, "If the intention is to play a useful role in society in order to support oneself and to help others, then the work one does is right livelihood." Basically we have to be always mindful of our work. Check out these links:

http://buddhism.about.com/od/theeightfoldpath/a/rightlivelihood.htm
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.079.than.html
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/05/an05-177.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLCM5UXXEAA

ChrisW is absolutely right that the Talaputta sutta is very negative about actors. But one could argue that may have been a product of culture at that time and the relationship between Buddhism and the arts is one worth re-examining in a modern context. As Buddhism moves into different cultures then it changes and the relationship with the arts could be part of that change.
The Buddhist community that I practice with (Triratna) is extremely positive about the arts and sees them as a helpful way into personal growth and Buddhist practice. If you are interested there is a magazine about Buddhism and the Arts and the movements positive attitude towards the arts is one of it's defining characteristics. The Triratna community has had all kinds of criticism over the years but  I don't think that it's relationship with the arts is one of its aspects that has concerned people.

I found this article, Where the Heart Beats: John Cage, Zen Buddhism, and the Inner Life of Artists (and related book) that might help?
But I think there is another side to this. I am a practising artist too and have recently started being drawn towards certain Buddhist teachings, starting with mindfulness meditation etc. As I progress though, I am finding that there are conflicts with being an artist and pursuing such teachings. My problem though is not with being or thinking as an artist (I think of art as a type of philosophy, just as Buddhism is) but rather with being an artist as a 'career path' or 'social position'. I find that there is a certain element of narcissism that artists need to possess in order to succeed as an artist within society. It is not enough that an artist creates. An artist needs to sell, show, promote, market his/her work in order to find an audience and be able to sustain a career as an artist. It is a competitive industry after all. Doesn't this fly in the face of concepts such as detachment and selflessness?
Maybe this narcissistic element is something that is essential towards the start of a career and becomes redundant as time progresses and a career is established, but I am finding it hard of thinking of alternative mindsets at least within Western society. Any thoughts?

The real issue with creating art, I think, is that you can't be mindful while doing it. Writers, especially, have to imagine a lot, create images and basically delude oneself. And also, there is a great deal of attachment. As an artist, one has to be very dedicated to one's work, force things, alter things all the time, be a perfectionist.
So maybe there is no specific text forbidding it, there may even be texts that could be interpreted as art-positive.
But in practice, I really do not see how it can benefit. It's another craving, and strongly linked with the ego. I believe it is more harmful than, say, plumbing. Who'd be attached to plumbing?

I can see that there is a lot of us struggling too much in confusion when pracising mindfulness with regards to buddhism and also to relate our earning in accordance to buddhist practises ,Crab bucket has kindly pointed out 5 type of trades( for the latter) that a buddhist should not involved. As for mindfullness in works, fundamentally, that is to be aware that you are at the "present" while doing works rather than thinking of other family or friends stuff. I understand for artist, there is a lot of creativitiness and imagination during the works, but at least one have to be "aware" that he is in his imagine works at "then". And that is that. In facts...artist or writer at work is at quite a focus mode. They are totally absorbed in their works to prevent error.
Go back to the fundamental, with understanding that you are not a monk that had already give up worldy stuff, and therefore need to go almsround asking for food. Thus we have to make a living base on the five precepts and five don't trade. As long as it does not consists of the 5 trades, as long as it is not done cheating in all form, and there is no ill intention of cheating. All is good for a living being.
Though the ultimate goal is to end suffering and to stop ourselves to rebirth again in samsara, buddha understand that it is not possible for everyone to click a button and thus stopping being rebirth. Thus buddha lay down the 5 precepts for one to follow, to achieve prosperity in life with less suffering. Thus to follow by inner peace and able to practise well. With less suffering and more peace...it is easier to practise rather than having problematic human lives and frustration when one is living thru his karma.
Do a lot of chanting and meditation to let wisdom arise instead of keep reading hungrily into sutra which made one more confuse(if you are). When the heart (mind ) is quiet, wisdom arise naturally. There are many monks in thailand that are illiterate that can't read books and yet they become arahant thru diligent chanting and meditation. Chanting and meditation train one mind muscle to be able to focus easily...when one go deeper...one will understand that we suffer because we are attached to our body and senses. And thru this 5 senses thoughts arises...when thoughts arises....judgement arised...when judgement arised...feeling arised...and the basic feeling are the greed, hatred and lust that is causing us to suffer.

The nature of Mind is infinitely creative. Why would "small mind" (i.e. individual mind) be anything other than creative at its source. Making what human beings call "art" can be one of the most profound ways of observing the difference between what arises from egoic mind and what arises directly from the Source. Everything comes up: all of our egoic fixations, fears, self-cherishing, etc. It's much easier to have a profession that everyone views as "worthwhile service to others". If you choose to make what is called "art" in a way that is deeply meaningful, don't expect recognition, even from other practitioners.

I guess you're saying that, caught within the flow of creativity, within the very moment of creating, one is not concerned with what is being created, not concerned with the outcome, nor concerned with what people will think about the creation in the future. I think the best creations come out of such selfless endeavours. +1

I was having similar thoughts recently, but come to think of it,there are infinite possibilities.Maybe you can create your own mental space in which you can be artistic and still be at peace.We have to look for a balance.


text:
Do we indulge or take pleasure in jealousy or the feeling and sensations associated with jealousy?
An ode to envy highlights some interesting perspective of jealousy. In a Buddhist perspective how can jealousy be viewed and analysed? What is the root cause and do we indulge in jealousy?
More particularly:

Why do we enjoy stories and movies inspired by jealousy?
How can we be motivated by jealousy? Is it by creating an imaginary outcome and indulging in the sensationalising of this story.

The Dhammapada says,

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

If or because that's so, I'm not sure that you can even want to view or analyse jealousy.
The "opposite" of jealousy is Mudita.
Perhaps the four immeasurables should be studied, not jealousy?
I admit that I experience some anger occasionally, and then I have to view/analyse that.
From what I remember of jealous-feeling in the past, I don't see how you could take pleasure in it. I think it's a form of (i.e. it arises from) craving, i.e. a craving to gain what you don't have, and/or a craving to hold on to what you are losing.

I have't watched the "ode to envy" you referenced in the OP.
If you want to find something good/complimentary/encouraging to say about envy, if you want to say how it's constructive, perhaps there's an example of that in Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun,

"'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Very young children are said to go through (i.e. become capable of) different developmental stages as they get older, including:

Parallel play
Simple social play
Cooperative play

I suppose that perhaps envy in adults might be like that too, an early (unskillful) stage of development, for example the following progression from less to more developed/skillful:

I want their toy!
I have my own toy.
Everyone has their own toy.
We share.

+1 for the answer. For people who did not watch the video I added the main take away of the talk.

+1. Furthermore, mudita is based on Wisdom because it is realizing we are literally one i.e. another's happiness is our own just as our own happiness is our own. Jealousy is based on ignorance because it still thinks there is a truly separate ego and self.


text:
Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma
Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as

"the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore,
  the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the
  stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated
  (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the
  auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the
  amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted,
  dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter,
  the asylum, the refuge, the destination."

Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying

"There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water,
  nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the
  base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness,
  nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this
  world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say
  there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and
  no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support.
  Just this is the end of suffering."

The Tao Te Ching chapter 1 says

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be
  named is not the eternal Name."

while chapter 7 says,

"The Tao is
  infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can
  never die."

And chapter 14 says,

"Look, and it can't be seen. Listen,
  and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't
  bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the
  realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an
  image, subtle, beyond all conception.  Approach it and there is no
  beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you
  can be it ..."

The Bhagavad Gita states in chapter 2,

"The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.",  "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging."

And in 12.3,

"... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent.

From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent.
My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?
Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name." the translation is incorrect. 非常道 doesn't translate to "not the eternal Tao". reading translation one's understanding also tainted by the translator. i don't read Sanskrit, so i can't say i understand the Vedas, they are interesting and inspiring, that's all. Chinese Classical Sutras were translated by accomplished Bhikkhus, either from India lived in China, or Chinese studied in india. The modern English translation of any sacred books should be read with serious discern, esp. Pali Suttas.

@Mishu米殊 What is the right translation according to you?

It would be a long discussion to get it through thoroughly. Simply, there are many layers of meaning in Chinese, in just one sentence. 道可道非常道: "If the Dao has a way of it, it is not the ultimate Dao". Obviously, using 道 as the verb "tell" or "speak" was a later date, at the time Book of Dao written, 曰 was the verb "speak", like in Analectic of Confucius, it used 子曰, translates, "Confucius said". And if "the Dao can't be told" was a valid statement the entire book is BS, for the Book of Dao just telling you what is Dao, isn't it @FriedrickNietzsche?

Be careful of those phrases like "non-dual", "two-truth", emptiness, suchness, this-ness or that-ness... selfless-ness... "the ground of ground-less-ness" (engulfed by clear light!!! uhhhuu!)... "phenomena is in your mind only", or Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka interpreted by ancient Indian Buddhist-scholars (held in extreme noble veneration in Tibetan Canon)... especially books written in English by some non-English speaking "monks" - for they are penned ghostly by Western scholars/scientists... that's all I could tip if you want to track the Buddhist path with least detours @FriedrickNietzsche

Good question. Would like to answer in the future. But as of now, as many of you are assuming that 'Hindu' states stop at some minor state like jhana, then you might need to explore Hinduism more. Hinduism also mentions many pseudo-enlightenment states & also many enlightened states. It's just that some Hindu methodologies bypass all minor states. There is Krama & Akrama mukti in Hinduism. Akrama Mukti bypasses all intermediate states & make one arrive at liberation directly...

Would it not be surprising and inexplicable if these were different phenomena? Those who set out to 'Know Thyself' cannot all discover different things.

"But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent"
We can have 2 groups advocating letting go of what is impermanent, and yet, if they disagree on what is impermanent, there will be endless debate with practitioners. Following to its conclusion, the risk of the first group is to hold to something that appears to be permanent but isn't. A question here would be what would be the risk of the other group?
Buddhist doctrine not only refers to the practice of "letting go impermanent things", but quite significant, it does not overlook our inclination to take something that takes a long time to show its impermanence as permanent. This is a risk of being deluded the Buddha has suggested a few times, which asks for a kind of careful evaluation that is perfectly thorough.
[edit:]
For example, the Buddha describes in the Brahmajāla Sutta how a recluse "attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated, [purified, clarified, unblemished, devoid of corruptions] he recollects his numerous past lives[...]" and, while exploring a very long time far back and not seeing a limit for the universe or rebirths, that person concludes that "the self and the world are eternal" -- a premature, careless conclusion, one of many wrong views. The simile of the elephant's footprint (Cūlahatthipadopama Sutta) also illustrates:

The Blessed One said: "Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up and some broken-off branches. And he sees that bull elephant at the foot of the tree or in an open clearing, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. He comes to the conclusion, 'That's the big bull elephant.'

As per the simile above, it is only correct without the slightest chance of mistake and room for doubt, for one to say "What a big bull elephant!" when he actually sees the actual big bull elephant. If, in one hand, this simile denounces the risk of partial evaluations and premature conclusions, in the other, the rest of the discourses insist on thorough investigations (delusion, after all, is not to be diminished, but exterminated).
Back to impermanence, in a related note, the Buddha even acknowledges somewhere else (SN 12.61) that, for an uninstructed person, it makes more sense to regard the body as permanent than the mind, as it is seen to endure for a long time -- and nothing in the mind is seen to stick for more than a moment.
"My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?"
I think it is important not only to see Buddha's attempts of descriptions of nirvana, but the requirements for it. For example, if "Brahmanism" (or Taoism, or ...) requires something equivalent to the 7 enlightenment factors to be developed, and its goal culminates on the permanent destruction of all fetters (sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vyāpādo, kāmacchando,  avijjā, etc) and a full understanding of something equivalent to the Four Noble Truths and conditioned arising, I think that would be a good start before assessing if the goals are the same.
As for going on the right direction, I think buddhists [should] acknowledge any person moving on the "right direction" if she, in whatever religious background, is (inadvertently or not) cultivating insight, skills and states that, ultimately, lead to nirvana -- where "right" means moving towards final liberation. Even if she is not aiming at it, or if she is still in ignorance or clinging to impermanent things here and there (buddhist practitioners are also). From the sutras, this seems pretty much the actual attitude of the Buddha in this matter:

But, bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who understand aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation; who understand birth ... volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading to their cessation: these I consider to be ascetics among ascetics and brahmins among brahmins [...]
-- SN 12.13

and:

[...] and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."
-- Mahaparinibbana Sutta, DN 16

Can you please give some reference for your second paragraph: when you say, "This is a risk of being deluded the Buddha has suggested a few times, which asks for a kind of careful evaluation that is perfectly thorough", I don't know which suggestion[s] of the Buddha that's referring to.

Could you give some examples of "it does not overlook our inclination to take something that takes a long time to show its impermanence as permanent"?

Sure :) edited to included a few.

One more example please, to show that "According to the sutras, this is pretty much the actual attitude of the Buddha in this matter after all." Even a link is sufficient

Though some specific sutta may, by itself, illustrate that attitude -- and I'll see if I find a suitable one -- in that case I was referring to the suttas in general; the discourses depict that attitude. However, perhaps with a poor phrasing...

The Hindus had developed Samadhi (Concentration / Mastery over the Mind / Higher Mind) up to the the 8th Jhana, and also had a strong moral basis, but Buddhism went one step further and introduced Wisdom and Insight to the practice. The fact that many contemporary practitioners are strong in virtue and concentration would be the reason they manage to develop insight very quickly after meeting the Buddha.
So the practices of virtue and developing a higher mind does pay off in progressing on the Buddhist path also and will help when you switch to the developing Insight and Wisdom. But to go all the way to Nirvana you have to practice Wisdom and Insight which is only found in Buddhism, in the right and complete form. This was the discovery of the Buddha.
Also Buddhism has no notion of Soul / Atman or any unchanging core as taught in Hinduism.

The proponent of Brahman might look at Nirvana and say that it is an unchanging core.

Or as i understand, Nirvana is unchanging but it is not a core or base

It is unconditioned hence does not change, as anything conditioned changes. Until we see this it is just speculation though.

So only Buddhist can reach Nirvava? Do you not think this is highly implausible? Is there any evidence? I cannot grasp why anyone would think only one tradition of practice can be successful. It makes a mockery of the idea there is a Perennial philosophy, and it may even undermine the idea we all have Buddha-nature. At any rate, I do not find this parochial idea in the Buddha's teachings.    . . .

From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not.
Nirvana is not the substrate of the source but it is the abiding in that source. The Hindus describe the Brahman as sat-chit-anand, which means truth-consciousness-bliss. The Buddha was the most scientifically accurate in His description of Nirvana because he did not say anything about Nirvana. Nirvana is blowing out, so it's not a positive or negative conceptualization. The way Samyukta Nikaya explains, Nibbana is a state and not an entity. Whereas Hindu Brahman is an entity which they ascribe a nature of having a self.
Brahman is a noun and Nirvana is a verb. You abide in Nirvana and Brahman is 'there'. So basically realizing of Brahman by Brahman itself is Nibbana. Nibbana takes the final leap. You can talk about the Brahman by coming out of the 8th Jhnana.
What the Buddha calls the 'anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi' is Nirvana and Patanjali describes this as, if I am not wrong, Nirbij Samadhi as the highest goal. So in the Vedas when it is declared, 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman) that declaration is Nirvana, the Brahman is not the Nirvana, the realization of it is.
The definition of Nirvana in terms of modern philosophers and scientists can then be given as (universal) 'consciousness conscious of itself'. So, Nirvana becomes a constant experiencing constant abiding. And Hindu Brahman is the Universal Consciousness, as Patanjali describes as Purusha or Ishwara.
And the Tao also means the Brahman itself but when the Taoists say, 'living in the Tao', that means Nirvana.
do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?
The goals of other religion are not the same. Don't know much about Taoism, but I can attest from my own experience of a practicing Hindu for 26 years that although Hinduism makes a lofty statement about the ultimate reality of the nature of Brahman, the GOAL  of Hinduism is not its realization. The GOAL of practicing Hindus remain, 'living in abundance by pleasing the Hindu pantheon'. The Hindu idea is that if you live in accordance with its script in a natural way you will ultimately attain to that.
However, Buddha explicitly made it a GOAL to attain Nibbana. It's extremely different.
And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?
No, practicing Hinduism does not at all lead one in the right direction. Hindus give very little stress on Karma. In fact Hindus believe that if you please gods your Karma can be wiped out, it can even be wiped out by bathing in river Ganges.
Furthermore, to be a Hindu you have to, I repeat you have to have a 'caste or varna'. So in effect, you end up getting a view about yourself even before you set out to realize 'no-self' and that to wrong in itself.
Maybe if you practice Patanjali's yoga sutras you might end up in Nirvana but the practice of Patanjali's 'ashtanga yoga' is not per se a Hindu practice, its something one explicitly undertakes to get there.

As an addition, IMO Jesus Christ also identified Himself with the Tao or Brahman till on the cross where He declared, 'God, Thy Will be Done', that was the act of ultimate surrender and ultimate sacrifice. In that instant of letting-go, Jesus got Enlightened. So in effect, He dissolved the Karma of Himself and of humanity in a way and so what the Bible says is right, in effect Christ did really died for our sins.

OR in another interpretation, Christ was already enlightened and what He called God was really Tao/Brahman and then the 'Kingdom of Heaven' becomes Nirvana. This also makes sense of the Christian Trinity, God the father (Tao), God the Son (Christ/Buddha) and then the Holy Spirit becomes Karma. So it makes sense to say that Holy Spirit or the Karma of Virgin (Pure/Pious) impregenated her with Christ or a son like Christ.

In a similar vien then Allah becomes Brahman or Tao and when the Quoran says Mohammed ascended to heaven (Jannat) on the horses it makes sense, He must have become Enlightened somehow, as the Arabs are fond of Horses than the Indians whose gods send Hawks/Doves to get to the Heaven, they say He got to Heaven on flying Horses. That flying horse is an important link to interpret Islam.

"Thy will be done" happened before the crucifixion, e.g. it's taught in the Lord's Prayer during the Last Supper, and repeated in His prayers in Garden of Gethsemane. The doctrine reminds me slightly of the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta i.e. "one cannot say that 'this is me' and 'this is mine'" -- so the "letting-go" started before the crucifixion. Also it's not clear to me that "Jesus Christ identified Himself" or whether he (like a Prophet) identified God and/or let God speak though him. To have said "I am God" would have been blasphemous (according to Jews). According to Islam Jesus was a prophet.

The doctrine of (i.e. the mystery of) the Trinity was developed -- historically -- a little after Jesus' life. A large majority of (not all) Christians and Christian churches since then accept that doctrine as an article of faith.

I suspect that when and if you have learned some Buddhist view, then you can read e.g. the passage which you quoted from the Tao Te Ching and interpret that from a Buddhist perspective.
For example, it seems to me to be talking about non-self and/or the impermanence of conditioned/compound objects.
Whether it is talking about that, instead of just seeming to be talking about that, is another matter. The "epiphany" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is that the Tao corresponds to the author's conception of Quality (which I think is a.k.a. Virtue). Perhaps that implies that the Tao Te Ching can map to (been seen as a description of) almost any transcendental insight.
That doesn't IMO imply that every transcendental insight is alike, nor that the Tao Te Ching is especially good (skillful, accurate) at teaching such insight.

My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics.

If we "look beyond the semantics", what's left?
You're saying, "If we ignore what it's saying, if we ignore the meaning of the literature, then are they the same?"

And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?

There are some who suggest that these religions are leading in the wrong direction: that they teach, for example, that an eternal self (immortality) is possible.
Then again, Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism have coexisted historically for quite a while, and influenced each other. Who's to say whether Taoist immortality and Buddhist deathlessness are or are not the same?
I think that even only within Buddhism, the schools of Buddhism differ on the subject of "Buddha-nature".

It also might be worth noting that traditions/religions/practices may be 'mixed' within a single person. For example, someone posted a question recently with videos of Papaji: he was "Hindu", and/but it's also easy to find evidence that he studied some Buddhism, for example here he is quoted as saying,

The school history book which contained Buddha’s picture was a simple guide for children. The main biographical facts were there, but the concepts of meditation and enlightenment were not adequately explained. Presumably the author did not think that these very essential points would be of interest to children. So, I remained ignorant of what he was really doing under that tree and why his final accomplishment was so great.

Wrt to semantics - something like Nirvana, may indeed be difficult to describe accurately using words. And Taoists and Hindus would hold the same for Tao and Brahman.

If we "look beyond the semantics", then aren't all teachings the same as an empty sheet of paper? The "semantics" of a text are the actual "meaning" of the text, aren't they?

It's being difficult to describe is a reason why The Buddha is unusual: not many people (perhaps only The Buddha) has been able to discover it for themselves, and explain it both plainly and in detail, not only what it is but how to attain it etc.

Yes. I agree with you that we can't overlook the semantics

Isn't the empty piece of paper, Nirvana? As such, it would be more important than whatever words are written on it.

The essential difference between Atman of Vedanta (Hinduism) and Nibbana of Buddhism appears to be that the former is conditioned (sankatha) by PERCEPTION of worldly phenomena, whilst the latter is not.
The former is the SUBJECT, which knows, perceives, experiences every phenomenon in the mundane world including the Mind itself. In this context the Mind is not the Subject, as referred to by western philosophers in a Subject/Object relationship but the Mind itself is the Object of Atman.  To realise  Atman, one needs to be in a state of conscious PERCEPTION conditioned by mundane phenomena.
Nibbana, on the other hand is unconditioned (asankatha) by PERCEPTION of mundane phenomena. Simply put, mundane consciousness ceases, similar to a blackout (Sunna), referred to as the Çessation of FEELING and PERCEPTION or sanna-vedayita-nirodha in Pali and the yogi graduates intuitively to the state of Nibbana. In this context, intuition implies subliminal consciousness i.e. below Perception.
The ascetic Gautama (The Buddha) is said to have differed from his Vedanta teachers, on the question of Atman being the highest level of the development of consciousness. It is through his quest for Liberation that he discovered a state of mind beyond mundane consciousness i.e.the Supramundane, Unconditioned State of Nibbana. Although there are many similarities, it appears that this is one of the few  distinctions between the two philosophies of Vedanta (Hinduism) and Buddhism.

Brahman/Atman lacks positive descriptions, but becomes absurdist and psychologically nihilist through 'neti, neti': denying a thing every property/description but saying it still exists, keeps the mind guessing on the propertiless thing (which it is, of course, not), and in doubt. It's unlike nibbana because it sides with Fullness and not Emptyness.
Taoism is much more a reification of Emptiness/sunyata than an outright Brahman. It feels to me like a Mahayana, with a sprinkle of steroids/other wrong views.
"You can't know it, but you can be it" is very similar to Buddhism being a practice, not an ideology (and nibbana not being reachable through reason alone):

Banish learning, discard knowledge: People will gain a hundredfold.
  Banish benevolence, discard righteousness: People will return to duty
  and compassion.  Banish skill, discard profit: There will be no more
  thieves.  These three statements are not enough. One more step is
  necessary.  Look at plain silk; hold uncarved wood. The self dwindles;
  desires fade.

Appears more like the path of those Buddhists who disregard scriptures for meditative practice than the path of theists.
But "Form that includes all forms" is certainly more Platonic. It seems to stray into the Tathagatagarbha territory really, but overall is closer than Brahman - because it accurately singles out Emptiness, even if it adds a capital letter and ignores the emptiness of emptiness, so to say.

Attain complete emptiness, Hold fast to stillness.  The ten thousand
  things stir about; I only watch for their going back. Things grow and
  grow, But each goes back to its root.  Going back to the root is
  stillness. This means returning to what is. Returning to what is Means
  going back to the ordinary.  Understanding the ordinary:
  Enlightenment. Not understanding the ordinary: Blindness creates evil.
  Understanding the ordinary: Mind opens. Mind opening leads to
  compassion, Compassion to nobility, Nobility to heavenliness,
  Heavenliness to Tao.  Tao endures. Your body dies. There is no danger.

There is an acknowledgement of unsatisfactoriness with transitory experience (but this is around in all major reificationist religions), and the solution that Lao Tzu offers is almost word for word with the Buddha's, but in fact the presentation of the enduring Tao turns away from dependent origination, and saves the individual from extinguishment in the end, so Taoism does turn away from impermanence at the last moment, but it's almost as if it's one click away from seeing the root of all things as ignorance/craving.
I would think that a Taoist, meeting the Buddha, would agree with him much quicker than a Brahminist, because a lot more common ground would be found between them.

May be the goals of Buddhism, Hinduism , and Taoism are similar or same.
 But as per Gautam Buddha, only vipassana is the only way, which he has followed to reach the ultimate Nirvana( which Buddha discovered in the quest to know the truth). It was not his goal to reach nirvana. Vipassana doesn't speak of setting goals and meditate .
 Buddha has considered any other practices, which is right , will lead to nirvana .

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


text:
What exactly is happiness, moods and states of the mind?
Buddha mentioned that happiness is the greatest wealth. When going through the TED Happiness Topic, The habits of happiness, Depression, the secret we share, The struggle of mental health, All kinds of minds, How does my brain work?, What makes you happy?, etc. this left me wondering what exactly is happiness, moods and metal states in a Buddhists perspective. So what exactly is happiness? How is it the greatest wealth? How can happiness analysed using the Suttas and the Abhidhamma? How can this be extended to analyzing all moods and states of the mind?

I was always under the impression that happiness was our default setting, our buddha nature. If we remove "blow away or extinguish" all the labels, bindings, and habit energies that collect what is left is happiness. True Happiness is the default state we experience when we extinguish the fires that cause suffering. This cessation of suffering can also be described as complete peace.
It is a great wealth because it is the only thing that can bring us true liberation.

Some teachers identify two types of happiness: one associated with immediate comforts such as food, sense pleasures, etc; the second associated with inner peace and contentment. One can observe the first comes primarily from external sources, and is not under our immediate control. Inner peace and contentment is something we can develop.
To answer your question, one can come to know one's mind and gradually tame/transform one's mind through study and practice of the teaching of the Buddha.

Happiness might be any moment we're not analyzing what happiness is in the universal sense, and not analyzing our own personal happiness at any given moment. Happiness could be the state when we're not being self-reflective, especially about happiness.
This idea is similar to "The Game". (Which you just lost)

The Game is one of the simplest distortions of game logic ever invented; by which simply thinking about The Game causes one to lose.

When I think of the word happiness, I often associate it with these zen pencils comics.

80. HENRY DAVID THOREAU: On happiness
69. BUDDHA: Less is more


text:
In a Buddhist perspective how do we recall memories of this life and beyond?
What is the Buddhist perspective on how we store and recall memories of this life and beyond? Since there is not solid core (Atman) as in the Hindu perspective which all such memories are stored and all cognitive phenomena pass away and arise again, how does the transmission, persistence and recollection of memory work. How does this compare with modern perspectives of it?
This question inspired by: The complexity of memory hence would like to see some comparison of some of the ideas in these talks being also discussed in the answer with regard to comparison with the modern perspectives.

Modern perspectives say that memories are stored in the brain: and that therefore we cannot recall memories of beyond this life (because the brain is not preserved/transferred "beyond this life"). And, the way in which the "modern perspective" says that we recall memories of this life (from/using the brain) are probably too complicated to explain easily and are off-topic on a site about Buddhism.

What do mean when you say, "a Buddhist perspective"? Why are you saying that a "Buddhist perspective" is different from (i.e. can be compared with) a "modern perspective"?

I am more inclined towards knowing the Buddhist perspective with some indication where this deviates from modern cognitive psychology. Thus from my perspective it is on topic.

The question implies that "the Buddhist perspective" might be compared/contrasted/opposed to the "modern perspective". That question might theoretically makes more sense now that you added a specific history-related tag i.e. 'theravada'.

From my understanding of Buddhism, there are no memories from beyond. Everything including memories are impermanent. There is no permanent memory-self that remains from moment to moment.

But how do we recall something. E.g. what you did yesterday.

That is a great question, but I feel like the question is better suited for biology.stackexchange or somewhere where people have more knowledge on neurotransmitter and brain functions. I do not think Buddhism really applies here in the same way that it does not apply to "How does a computer save and recall files?". It is valid, just outside the scope of Buddhism.

http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html     Here is what I found on memory recall using google.

May be the AbiDhamma may say something more about it?

Yeah, I am of Zen Buddhism. I have no idea what AbiDhamma is. :)

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

Biology may tell you how we recall memories of this life. But the question says "of this life and beyond" - and this is a question for Buddhism, since it is Buddhism that postulates rebirth.

And according to Buddhism, it IS possible to have memories "from beyond" - the Buddha is said to have remembered his previous lives.

There is a simple difference between the modern perspective of memory and the Buddhist perspective of memory.
So what is it?
In the modern understanding the brain is the storage device of the mind ("Mind" being a neurological phenomenon).
So to science it is a "As long as a being live" story,so their understanding fits the currently accepted version of scientific truth. Because as to them a creature grows it's brain with age,use it while it is alive and the memories die with the death of the creature.
Science will no longer proceed to a new theory because they have cemented their version of truth with this "only biological understanding!"
So what is the less explained Buddhist perspective?
As Buddhists we do not believe in a "Soul",Now this brings a lot of riddles on to the table because in any other religion "Soul" is like a "Log Book" so for them it is end of story!
If you try to find an answer from already existing sources of Buddhism you will see a certain paradox. Which is nothing else but the complete ignoring of the biological side of this story.
The double paradoxes
If you take a look at the Scientific perspective you will see the exact opposite version of this paradox. Which is the complete ignoring of the Mental side of this story.
The conclusion

How some people recall past lives

As Buddhism teaches experiences are collected from the senses and stored in "Vinyana" (We need to translate this as "Memory").
This "Vinyana" seems to be the word used for both MIND and MEMORY,like it is a combination of those two.
We know different parts of the brain work with different senses of the body.and this spark a lot of neurological activities (I belive this are the "Sith or thoughts").so for sceince this is only brain activity but to Buddhism this is the mind being created by events,thought and logic.
The simple thing you must understand is,The scientific theory of mind is based on how brain works,But Buddhism theory of mind is what fuels the brain activity and how to make it controllable.Because normal chaotic brain activity is not Buddhism way of a perfect mind.This are the "Duel Paradoxes".
Memories of a Previous Life:
Brains of Buddhist monks scanned in meditation study
buddhist monk displays unheard of brain activity while meditating
This Vinyana seems to be quite like a computers memory.
Imagine it this way...
If you copy files from your computer to your phone you can still see them working the same way,
just like the memories of a person.
As Buddhism says in the moment of death a beings mind creates a backup copy of itself which will take residence in the next life this creature is about to live.So this is how the information about memories travel.this is not one set of memories traveling it is a copy of the original set of memories from the being.
As for how some are able to recall,it is not explained in Buddhism but if someone do a good karma and wish for it then it will happen,but there is no other way explained in records.
[Please refer "Abhidhamma" for more details]
So how does the memory works?
Memories are not actually real - buddhist view of memories
Memories are collected details reconstructed by the brain.So the senses of a body gather data (vibrations,light) and the vinyanas dedicated to those senses create the image or the sound and etc.,this is then collected by the "Mano vinyana" to create thought and logic.These are then stored as memories.As to new discoveries there is a dedicated neurological highway to each and every memory,So what a memory is nothing but a brain's unique and dedicated neurological path.The so called "Vinyana" is the collection of neurological pulses that occur and disappear each millisecond .In the end Science and Buddhism are two parallel subjects with different viewpoints.
"Quick lesson in Abhidhamma"
If you have any questions regarding my answer please ask in the comments section below.

You are welcome  : ) @SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala

As stated already, this is more of a scientific question than a Buddhism topic. As far as my understanding goes, according to neuroscience, thoughts are just a specific arrangement of neural connections within the brain. Each of the billions of neural connections in the human brain can either be turned 'on' or 'off'. The overall arrangements of the on and off switches of each neuron within the brain can be thought of as a computer code with a list of 1's and 0's (01110010100010101, for example). Each specific thought has a specific neural code (arrangement of 'on' and 'off' neurons). So, by recalling a past memory, you are simply repeating the neural code within your brain that occurred during the present tense of the memory.
That is basically, as far as my understanding goes, how we 'remember things'. It is questionable, however, in my opinion, how reliable memories are. This being because we can never go back to the specific neural code with 100% certainty. We can only try to duplicate this memory code and hope it is the same memory as the actual event that took place. (this may explain why some people have separate memories of the same occasion)

But are memories embedded onto the soul itself?

Very interesting question. One that I don't know the answer to, but I do find it interesting to think about the soul's memory, especially when referring to instances of individuals having memories of past life's.

I was under the impression that there were only the five aggregates (Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formations, and Consciousness) that make up what we call "Me". My understanding was that there is non-self. Thus there is no soul for things to be embedded on. To embed is to make permanent and attach to something permanent.

That was more than a satisfactory answer to my comment.


text:
What is the meaning round beads around the neck of Sha Wujing?
As a kid I enjoyed watching drama Journey to the West (1986),

Wiki : Shā Wùjìng is one of the three disciples of the Buddhist pilgrim Xuanzang. He appears as a character in the novel Journey to the West written by Wu Cheng'en in the Ming dynasty, although versions of his character predate the Ming novel. In the novels, his background is the least developed of the pilgrims and he contributes the least to their efforts. He is called Sand or Sandy and is known as a "water buffalo" for his seemingly less developed intelligence in many English versions of the story.
His Buddhist name "Sha Wujing", given by Bodhisattva Guanyin, means "sand aware of purity". His name is rendered in Korean as Sa Oh Jeong, into Japanese as Sa Gojō, into Sino-Vietnamese as Sa Ngộ Tịnh.
He is also known as 沙僧 "Monk Sha", "Shā Sēng" in Mandarin Chinese, Sa Tăng in Sino-Vietnamese and Sua Cheng in Thai .

I saw actor "Sha Wujing" necklace with huge, weighing up to 5kg.
I want to ask the meaning of this kind of necklace. ?
In Buddhism, Who had that necklace?

The same Wikipedia article says, "Wujing's appearance was rather grisly; he had a red beard and his head was partially bald; a necklace consisting of skulls made him even more terrible. ... There is an interesting story about the necklace of skulls: etc."

Mala beads. In China the abbot was the guy with the largest set of mala beads worn around the neck. Visually, its a way of showing who's the boss.

Today the beads are generally used for counting the breaths, however there is also a use for divination. In the latter each bead is assigned a meaning according to the breakdown of sense experience (vedana) as follows:
The six senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) X pleasant, unpleasant, neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant
Bound up in the worldly = 18 +
Not bound to the worldly = 18 = 36
X Past, Future, Present = 108.
So bead #1 = past pleasant sensation down-bound to the world related to the eye
When asked a question the diviner finds the bead most appropriate to the question and visualizes (from his associations with that sense-experience) and interprets to attain an answer.

could you please explain what you mean by 'not bound to the worldly'...this might be digressing from the original question but could you post links regarding this kind of bead use (I had this misconception that beads are useful just for chanting god names, which is useful for concentration but not helpful in developing wisdom at all)

Not bound to the worldly: There are two modes of sense experience: those which are downbound (tied up with) experience through the senses and those connected with giving up. See Satipatthana Sutta on Vedana. http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_1.htm#p10  I do not have any references for bead use. The use for counting and divination were taught me personally.

Not sure if he's the "least developed" of the pilgrim. In terms of moral disciplines, he's much better than his brother Pigsy. Venerable Thich Thien Sieu wrote a great essay that provides deeper analysis on the role and meaning of each pilgrim. Unfortunately I couldn't find any English's translation to the original article here. About the meaning of those huge beads, not sure if they carry any significant meaning other than to aid sutras reciting (sort of like the rosary beads..). The character Lu Zhishen (Flowery Monk) in the novel "Water Margin" also wears similar things..


text:
Itipiso Chanting
I try to do abit of chanting everyday, and I have tingling feelings in my upper body (spine/arms) the moment I begin chanting starting with Namo Tassa, Itipiso, homage to Dhamma, homage to Sangha, when I chant other suttas like bojjhana sutta I get the tingling feeling too. However when I do reading of the suttas, I do not get the tingling feeling. I'd like to ask if it happens to everyone who does chanting, and what is the cause for this tingling feeling.

It sounds like hyperventilation. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/hyperventilation/page3_em.htm

It's not hyperventilation. It's piti (exciting) and sukkha (happiness).

This is normal. There are a lot of sensations (one of the 5 aggregates) which arise and pass in our body which we are not sensitive to.
When we are thinking, listening, tasting, seeing, doing different things, we experience different sensations. No exception when you are chanting or reading. Only thing is that you are not sensitive enough to see the sensations when you read. When you chant the chanting itself causes larger vibrations which you can easily sense. Especially Pirith and Mantras which generally create much vibrations than normal chattering.

The tingling sensations may be the arising of Rapture (Pali : Piti).  This is a positive mental factor. When it arise, simply know it as it is, that it is impermanent and not self.

Hi pilgrim and Welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some useful information to help you get started here. :)

Hello Pilgrim. I would also like to say welcome to Buddhism SE. Regarding your answer, could you provide a bit more text/description and preferebly some references to the texts? Have a nice day.

I had similar feelings. It helped not to attach that (Buddhist teaching, heh?;) Just focus to chanting and continue. Maybe problem arise due wrong breathing or unfasting of some inner tension...

When you are chanting you are breathing differently then when you are not. When you are chanting your body is vibrating differently then when you are not. It makes reasonable sense that the differences in breathing and vibrating could cause "tingling feelings" in your body that would not be there when breathing normally. This is a very normal event.

They are piti (exciting) and sukkha (happiness). They are the opposite of stress.
They are very important for the concentration meditation. You should remember that feeling and meditate them on daily life, such as reading Sutta with that feeling, or do the Anapanassati meditation with that feeling, or watching politic news with that feeling.


text:
Refuge in the modern vipassanā movement (the concept/practice, not the ceremony/commitment)
How much discussion of refuge is there in the modern vipassanā movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_movement)? If there is significant emphasis, what is its character?
I am particularly interested in Western vipassanā circles such as IMS and Spirit Rock, but also their Eastern progenitors.
I am not speaking here of the formal ceremony or commitment of taking refuge as much as the concept and ongoing practice of refuge.

By taking refuge you are aspiring to build the qualities of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha in your self than any ceremonial right or ritual.
There are virtues can also be further used as a form of recollection meditation to gain inspiration from the qualities and develop them within oneself:

Buddhanusssathi
Dhammanussathi
Sanghanussathi

Thanks. However, I am looking for information on how refuge is treated in the vipassanā movement, not on refuge per se. I have clarified the question to this effect.

It depends on the linage. Above is more in consistent with the Ledi linages, i.e., U Ba Khin, S. N. Goenka, etc. Other linages will perhaps interpret it slightly differently.

Check out temples within the Mahasi lineage of Vipassana, or from Sri Lanka or Burma (where Vipassana has a stronger presence). Ven. Sayadaw U Pandita (Mahasi lineage)  was among the main teachers of those who founded IMS.
There you will find Vipassana practiced with traditional refuge in the triple gem, monastics, meditation taught along with moral virtue, etc. Whenever on retreat in these traditions, we take refuge, pay respect, give Dana, etc. I can't speak for the retreats at IMS though, but they do have monastic teachers there sometimes.

Those are those who even charge their studends, right householder?

Checking the IMS & Barre Center for Buddhist Studies (closely affiliated) websites, it states "Each week, teachers lead yogis in a renewed commitment to the refuges and precepts."

In regards to charges for retreats, from the IMS website they have different tiers of charges, including one that supports the yogi who would need financial assistance to attend, as well as scholarships to attend for free. Monastic led retreats seem to be Dana-based. Most retreats there are led by lay teachers. Currently most retreats on offer seem to be Insight Meditation (Vipassana), but at other times not.
I personally have only attended Vipassana retreats at proper Buddhist temples, monasteries, or meditation centers.

Householder David Lewis, interested,
be clear that you ask that here in a community that has spring from such movement here, void of those who follow the Buddha straight in all aspects.
The modern Vipassanā Movement has actually less to do with the Buddhas heritage as it has actually mostly no refuge in what is headed toward Nibbana as object but merely how to avoid suffering while still desire wandering on in the world.
Modern Vipassanā Movement came up with the decay of traditions and got inspirations for "positive" Marxist tendencies arriving at the same time those western or European modern ideal had destructed all traditional countries at their substance, leading them toward socialism, communism and democracy of which both are based on denying superiors and higher but seek refuge in cutting things down to the lowest equal.
Modern Vipassanā Movement lack not only respect as one of the main bases, but also generosity and so is at large just a huge Dhamma-industry with less success in leading people on the Buddhas Path but simply back in their homes.
As third basic lack it misses the need of virtue in patient since it is something traded similar as booking holidays or give into quick treatment.
All of that is a sign of the main basic quality of which is confidence which of cause is also a matter of lacking of touch. After the big wars on this earth some thought that they are compassionate by turning away for the Buddhas religion and started to give into alternative movements, but those movements have no, out of reason, real blessing by the founder of the original movement which is designed to escape world and suffering.
To understand the different between accessing the Noble Domain or just another household and alternative trade, the essay Respect, Confidence and Patient and Better to Give than to Consume might be of help for those with lasting Upanissaya toward the Noble Domain.
It's very very seldom that even after many years and retreats people of this movement actually turn to refuge, perceiving the Tripple Gems right and hardly ever would someone having found refuge turn toward such outwardly movements.
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

I'm not sure this describes the view of Vipassana movement. Usually if a question asks "What is the view of school X on topic Y?", then on his site a reply like "School X is wrong" (or "... is not Buddhist") is not on-topic and deleted.

How should we handle the different traditions of Buddhism in our answers?

If someone asks in Hindu-mode and another answers in ways of Buddha, Dhamma Sangha, ChrisW would think a minute on such, right? It's not target as Secular-Buddhism, isn't it? Vipassana is part of the original path, requiring leaving house, home and follow right livelihood. This is a total new age movement, nothing not even near other "Buddhist" sects. A refuge-less movement.


text:
Ambition and Expectation
I'm very interested in the polarity between ambition and expectation. On one hand to be ambitious is to be confident, to be strong, to have faith. With that comes a sense of hope, expectation that good fortune persevere.
Dennis Prager is quoted with saying:

The more expectations you have, the less gratitude you will have.

Can you be ambitious and not have expectations? Is being ambitious a bad thing? Are expectations the root of unhappiness? Alternatively, is it how we handle failure or disappointment when things don't go according to plan that is what creates unhappiness?

Are expectations the root of unhappiness?
I think the "root" of unhappiness is (according to the second noble truth) meant to be various types of "craving" e.g. as described here.
Slightly more broadly, the three poisons are said to be at the "root" of the wheel of life.
Is being ambitious a bad thing?
I think the Buddhist concept called "Right Intention" could be described as a form of ambition ... and so can "Right Livelihood".
Also, there might be some important differences between Buddhist monks and Buddhist laity (see for example this answer): and part of the reason for that might be a difference in their view of ambition.
Can you be ambitious and not have expectations?
Buddhism is meant to be useful to different people who are at different stages of enlightenment: which is I think what is meant when it's described as, "good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end".
Also, I think we're supposed to remember that there is a Middle Way -- by which I mean that whenever someone asks the question "is it all or nothing?" then I think that a Buddhist answer is often, "it's neither" (or "it's both", or sometimes "that's the wrong question"). For example instead of "ambition: yes or no?" there are other questions to ask -- like "what should we be ambitious for?" and "what happens to us if ambition is thwarted?"
Alternatively, is it how we handle failure or disappointment when things don't go according to plan that is what creates unhappiness?
Yes, that too.
For me personally, the way I interpret it (which isn't how other people must interpret it) is that, if I have an expectation and if that expectation doesn't work out as planned, then my understanding of Buddhism suggests that I 'should' (and 'will') let go of (i.e. change) my expectation, instead of being attached to my previous and now-obviously-unskillful expectation.

FYI there's this piece of 'Zen' advice titled No Attachment to Dust which includes the line,

Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe.

Ambition with not attachment to out come or expectation is fine. The real issue is the attachment element. Due to the 3 characteristics in all human endeavours and the universe, things will not go as planed. Hence the possibility to get disappointed. If you understand disappointed and how to overcome it, then there is not issue with ambition.
The 3 fold training give you the understanding of the 4 Noble Truths which help you grasp the psychological which creates disappointment.

Being ambitious, in and of itself, is not wrong, it’s what we esteem or honor that can be a problem - to have a bigger car, a better paycheck, the nicest house...


text:
Vipassana texts and books references request
I just read Allan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind" book. He cites vipashyana (or vipassana, vipassanā, vipaśyanā, lha-thong) but he doesn't deepen much on it.
Can you refer to some texts and books regarding this meditation?

The best is that you do a course on meditation. There are many meditation centres as per different linages. If you are interested in meditation as taught by S.N.Goenka please visit: https://www.dhamma.org/ and register for a course. There are centres in many countries. The main thing about insight meditation is the practice  aspect which you cannot easily grasp from a book.

Buddhanet contain a lot of meditation related ebooks on the topic which you can read. A good introductory book would be:

Essentials of Insight Meditation Practice
MINDFULNESS IN PLAIN ENGLISH
Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path

Also following questions on the site might be of interest also:

Introductory books to Buddhism
Beginner academic text recommendation
Learning materials for Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda) in Theravada Buddhism
English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon

Mindfulness in Plain English is great, and is freely available online: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/personal-development-workshops/mindfworkshop_resources/Mindfulness_in_plain_english

Thanks for the site. Following page gives more links if someone is interested: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/personal-development-workshops/mindfworkshop_resources

Possible duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9045/important-readings-in-vipassana/9046#9046. Should the questions be merged?

Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" is a superb reference for this. It also explains the differences between different forms of practice, which is useful for deciding when and if to do what. See this answer for more details. And the book itself is freely available from Daniel's site.

I have written an answer here which provides free books on the practice of Vipassana medition.
All the books are written by the late Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw. You will find information about the practice of insight meditation, the fundamentals, the technique, development of insight etc. This might be of some help.
Lanka