text:
Did anyone ask the Buddha what their rebirth will be?
Did anyone ask the Buddha what their rebirth will be?
I'm just asking 'cos that's what I would ask, if I knew of any 'Buddha'.

or in zen, either

Ven. Ananda had the habit of asking Buddha the future destinations of people who passed away. So Buddha gave him the mirror of Dhamma so now you can decide this yourself.

The Mirror of the Dhamma

"But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
"And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself?

"In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, [18] inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration — the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.'
"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind.

"This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
And also in Nadika, in the Brick House, the Blessed One often gave counsel to the bhikkhus thus: "Such and such is virtue; such and such is concentration; and such and such is wisdom. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by virtuous conduct; great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration; utterly freed from the taints of lust, becoming, and ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom."
When the Blessed One had stayed in Nadika as long as he pleased, he spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "Come, Ananda, let us go to Vesali."

"So be it, O Lord." And the Blessed One took up his abode in Vesali together with a large community of bhikkhus, and stayed in Ambapali's grove.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Buddha in the Patika Sutta tells about the rebirth of naked ascetic Korakkhattiya to Sunakhatta.

"I do not begrudge others their Arahantship, you foolish man! It is only in you that this evil view has arisen. Cast it aside lest it should be to your harms and sorrow for a long time! This naked ascetic Korakkhattiya, whom you regard as a true Arahant, will die in seven days from indigestion, and when he is dead he will reappear among the Kalakanja asuras, who are the very lowest grade of asuras. And when he is dead he will be cast aside on a heap of Birana-grass in the charnel ground. If you want to,
  Sunakkhatta, you can go to him and ask him if he knows his fate. And it may be that he will tell you: ‘Friend Sunakkhatta, I know my fate. I have been reborn among the Kalakanja asuras, the very lowest grade of asuras.’"

Then Sunakhatta goes to that naked ascetic Korakhattiya and tells all the things told by Buddha:

‘Then Sunakkhatta went to Korakkhattiya and told him what I had prophesied, adding: "Therefore, friend Korakkhattiya, be very careful what you eat and drink, so that the ascetic Gotama’s words may be proved wrong!" And Sunakkhatta was so sure that the Tathágata’s words would be proved wrong that he counted up the seven days one by one. But on the seventh day Korakkhattiya died of indigestion, and when he was dead he reappeared among the Kalakanja asuras, and his body was cast aside on a heap of Birana-grass in the charnel ground. ‘And Sunakkhatta heard of this, so he went to the heap of birana-grass in the charnel ground where Korakkhattiya was lying, struck the body three times with his hand, and said: "Friend Korakkhattiya, do you know your fate?" And Korakkhattiya sat up and rubbed his back with his hand, and said: "Friend Sunakkhatta, I know my fate. I have been reborn among the Kalakanja asuras, the very lowest grade of asuras." And with that he fell back again.

This is one of my favorites - Kukkuravatika Sutta: The Dog-duty Ascetic (MN 57)
The good part -

"Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard
  to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty
  has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his
  destination? What will be his future course?"
"Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog
  mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and
  unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as
  this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall
  become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his
  case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say:
  hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it
  will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him
  to hell."

though bothers me the saying  : " Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb."
Most people in this world have wrong view  - also even many buddhist have wrong view and i guess there are levels of wrong view as well that even practicing buddhists who keep the precepts have some degree of wrong view /////////  also an example of an atheist who spends his life giving to others  -  will he be reburn as an animal or hell ?

Spending your life giving to others is hardly similar to spending your life acting like a dog.

yes i know  - still that sentence says that about wrong view as if in general and not about this specific case


text:
Nothing i seem to have flipped the switch by getting rid of everything
I feel pulled to the belief i was a monk before. My first life. And other things are happening to me. Is there anyone who will listen rather than attack? Try to understand rather than condemn?

In other words, could such view make sense (or be accepted) in the Buddhist context?

Is it your belief that you were a monk, or your knowledge? Do you have verifiable data? Like remembering some event and a year, which after looking it up in the history books seems to have happened, but you didn't knew this from any other source than your self. How do you know it was your first life? You don't know what you don't know. Maybe there was a life before. There probably is someone who will listen, rather than attack, it is just chance in my opinion. The same with someone who will try to understand instead of condemn. But maybe you should try a forum as this question does fit here.

This is structured as, this is meant to be, a question-and-answer site. People shouldn't attack you if they try to answer your question. What's normal though is for you to ask some question (about Buddhism), and people will try to answer it. At the moment though it isn't clear what your question is, what you're asking.

Yes, you were a monk, but not in one previous life, but in very many previous lives. Through good deeds you did in those and other your previous lives, now you have a good fortune and met Buddha's Teachings.
Now you can practise those teachings and find the true will of your heart this moment. Finding true will of your heart this moment is the highest realization, on which you have worked during many lifetimes, but still you have not mastered it completely in your previous lives. However, there are good chances that you could do that in this present life.
Also, your first life was not as a monk. Before becoming a monk, you lived many lives, doing many deeds, both good and evil. However, when you became a monk, you changed, and an immense amount of your previous bad karma was destroyed through your practice.
Every life you changed, and every moment you continue to change. Don't bother with previous lives: they passed and exist no more. Think of this moment: what is the wish of your heart now?
There was a time I dedicated my life to that cleaning: like a nugget of gold, covered with dirt, was my mind and my behavior. Every moment I tried to be in accordance with the original longing of my heart, keeping efforts to act as gold, not as dirt. With the help of other beings, including you in your previous lives, I was able to realize what the heart wants, and I try to not lose that realization since.
When I remain in that presence of the will of the heart, it gives rise to feelings of easiness and freedom, kindness and purpose.
I wish you the same!

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

In other words, could such view make sense (or be accepted) in the Buddhist context?

In early Buddhism, which taught all things are not-self (anatta), this view is unacceptablea, as explained in SN 22.79, which states it is wrong view to regard memories of the past as "I", "mine" & "myself", as follows:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  formations in the past,’ it is just formations that one recollects.
  When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in the past,’ it is just
  consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether
  past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle,
  inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as
  it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am
  not, this is not my self.’
This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
  not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.

However, in later Buddhism, contrary ridiculous ideas were entered in the scriptures, as follows:

Now, monks, the thought may occur to you that the chariot maker on that occasion was someone else, but it shouldn't be seen in that way.
  I myself was the chariot maker on that occasion. I was skilled in
  dealing with the crookedness, the faults, the flaws of wood. Now I am
  a worthy one, rightly self-awakened, skilled in dealing with the
  crookedness, faults & flaws of bodily action; skilled in dealing with
  the crookedness, faults & flaws of verbal action; skilled in dealing
  with the crookedness, faults, & flaws of mental action.
AN 3.15

I guess that the purpose of that passage in AN 3.15 is as a message which uses the benefit of conceit, the possibility (as explained in AN 4.159) of using conceit as an instrument on the path (conceit being abandoned only at the final stage of Arahant): e.g. the conceit that "the Buddha was the chariot-maker, and made a wheel which doesn't wobble and fall down ... if I now practice as the Buddha did, I too can make a wheel such as that".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is Buddhist reality?
If the Buddha said that ultimate reality is really non-self (anatman), or empty of inherent existence (sunya), then why did he bother to talk about human beings and other “provisional” things?

In the Buddhist context non self has a special meaning which is not worthy of identifying as self because it is not always pleasant, there is not permanent core, there is not internal or external (God) controller.
Also there is conventional and realities. As social conventions you will refer to someone as an entity. This is for the sake of communication.

A seeker came to Buddha and started to talk about his studies. He tried to seem knowledgeable, worthy a discussion with Buddha. He wanted to get appreciation. He wanted his attainments to be acknowledged.
Buddha listened to him, gently smiling.
Eventually the seeker had finished talking. He thought Buddha would answer then, but Buddha kept silence.
What would you do in place of that seeker?
Thoughts jammed in his head. He didn't know what else to say, every attempt to continue the talk he could imagine seemed stupid.
What happened next?
After some time the seeker respectfully bowed and silently left. What did he understand?
Did he understand what Buddha meant by his silence? Maybe he just pretended to have understood, to avoid looking stupid?
To answer this, we need to be able to see beyond words, beyond formal ideas.
That ability to see beyond words was the aim of Buddha's teaching about the ultimate reality.
It was not just to change the vocabulary.
Would that be important, whether that seeker talked about shunya or about human beings?
Do you understand?
Talking about shunya and about human beings for Buddha was not different.
His words were always relative truths. The ultimate truth was never in the words, and never could be.
That's why Buddha spoke about human beings.
Subsequently, many Buddhists misunderstood what is absolute truth and what is conditional truth. Nagarjuna explained that, but even today many practitioners, even many Buddhist teachers have distorted views on that. Be very careful. It's so easy to get incorrect understanding and cling to it thinking that you "know".

Your question mean nothing in present, in the past, and in the future.
But buddha mean present thing is nothing in the past, and present thing is nothing in the future.
Ultimate realities of human being are causes and effects.
Nibbana ultimate reality is perfect finished of causes and effects.
Anatta is uncontrollable to being or nothing. There are just causes arising to make effects. And effects vanishing because of causes vanishing. No self, no atta.
Ultimate realities all is anatta. Ultimate realities of human being is present, past (present of it's past) and future (present of it's future). They are present because of their causes arising. They are past because of their causes vanishing. They are future because of their causes still possible to arise.
Nibbana ultimate reality is no time because it has not any cause, so no any effect, too.

The Buddha's reality is relational - non-Self is the inferred (observational evidence at enlightenment MN27) understanding that if 'things' are only ever observed as impermanent, they cannot be said to be observed to have a permanent core (or shell, or any other observed aspect). Things are not provisional, simply subject to conditions.
'You' and 'I' are not provisional in the Buddha's words, rather the concepts are subject to a mother and father for the conditions of birth, food and water for the conditions of life, and some other conditions for death (say a spear in the eye, or lack of food). This is not saying anything more than we already see - things are not observed to exist independently in and of themselves, independent of others.
This is not a nihilistic existence, but experience and values are derived from relations, not things in and of themselves.. all experience being observed as impermanent and lacking any and all notions of Self, universal values (Dhamma) are therefore rationally derivable (subject to the continued validity of the observation of impermanence).
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics for modern evidence as to the effectiveness of the world view).. from a relational QM point of view, properties arise only with observation and interaction (not without observation as that would be unverifiable - both unscientific and un-Buddhist), with individual quanta empty of independent properties. In other words - empty jenga blocks don't build concrete, well delineated Selves - 'I' is a useful everyday notion, but no thing certain or permanently delineated within the structure of experience. The notion of Self is frame dependent - dependent on observation, subjective.
The objective truths of the world are those of impermanence, non-Self and unsatisfactoriness with such a 'build' for psychological systems (the last point being the first step to building the Buddha's world view - 'limited resources, unlimited wants', but with evidence beforehand)

One reason given in the suttas is that he did it by request, and out of compassion.
Ayacana Sutta (SN 6.1),

As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.
Then Brahma Sahampati [etc...]
Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One.

The Buddha's not viewing the world as 'self' wouldn't stop him from having compassion.
Compassion is one of the four recommended attitudes to have towards others.

Also, views such as,

There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.

... are defined as "wrong view"; I guess that would be some kind of "nihilism".

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


text:
Problem with the logic of karma
Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me:
As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed.
Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma.
This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana.
Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?

Karma originally means "work" - intended actions.
Let's imagine we travel outdoors and find a good fruit. We eat it, it's tasty, then we go on. With regard to that experience, we can do different things, for example:

We can develop clinging and desire to find more such fruits. So we put a lot of our energy in searching.
We can let it go and just travel further, not bothering about more fruits. Realizing that we can find them, we remain attentive, but we do not invest our energy in searching. We continue to enjoy the travel as a whole, not losing the sight of the sky and everything else.

Then if we find more fruits, the result would depend on the attitude we developed:
If we have developed desire and clinging, we might feel fear that someone else might come here too, and take a part of "our" fruits. We develop greed and eventually regret that we don't see even more fruits.
Since that, finding fruits, we will feel vexation: excitement with a bit of fear, greed, jealousy and regret.
And when not finding enough fruits, we feel regret and anger (and greed, and jealousy to those who also found some).
But if we didn't develop desire and clinging, we didn't invest our emotional energy into the search, then we will remain calm and easy. New fruits wouldn't lead to vexations, and when we meet others, instead of jealousy and fear, instead of wishing to hide our fruits from them, we would like to share, to give them the fruits we found.
That's how karma works.

Ignorance (Avidyā) - encloses our limited perception. It creates limited models -
Mental creations (Saṃskāras) - such as "it's good to find such fruits", leading to -
Consciousness (Vijñāna) - limited view of the world, such as becoming busy with chasing fruits, and neglecting other things in our travel -

and so on (see Twelve Nidānas).
Briefly speaking, intentional work, accompanied with limited consciousness, develops desire, and then both good and bad events would cause vexations.
That is the power of karma: we put our energy in something limited, it's like putting there a part of ourselves. Then that energy works separated from us. Thus we have lost our wholeness.
We feel that "external forces" influence us, pushing us to feel vexations, and pushing us to do this or that.
This is called karmic impulses.
In fact what really hooks us is not external forces, but our own energy which we invested earlier, separated from our wholeness.
Imagine this as particles of various colors, which we have thrown in some mental space. They got kinetic energy, so they remain flying in the space. That is called karmic seeds.
When we meet again with such particles, that kinetic energy pushes us to act and to perceive the world according to their direction, speed, color, etc. It is called manifestation of our karma.
So in order to remove our karma we have to withdraw our energy from the desires we developed.
It's just like habits: bad karma is bad habits, good karma is good habits - such as sharing with others, being friendly, kind and attentive, etc.
The point is to change our habits, just in Buddhism we analyze them really deeply, so we are able to find their weak spots and change them very efficiently.
PS. With this explanation you can understand why with bad karma we meet enemies where with good karma we meet friends.

So, basically, (just to make sure i get you right) everyone is solely responsible for their own karma, and there is no direct connection between Person A and Person B?

@sam4ritan, divisions are illusory, see my answer to a related question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21631/what-is-wrong-with-my-vision-of-karma/21639#21639 Intended actions turn some "energy" into "matter", creating "moving objects". The sum of these "moving objects" is our "karmic body". It works when we act, defining what to do. But not only (1) karmic body, other energies also are in play: (2) of clear mind, (3) energies "from others". So we influence each other, including with our karma. So there's no strong separation, but no mechanical rule of exchange either.

Person A has unwholesome kamma, so unwholesome kamma make him get immorality resultant. Person A's kamma never force person B  to do unwholesome kamma to person A.
person A can get immorality resultant from anyway such as back pain himself, no one pain him. So although if person B pain person A: there is just person A's kamma give immorality resultant to person A, not to person B. And there is just person B's kamma give immorality resultant to person B, not to person A.
Kamma give immorality/morality resultant to it's person. Kamma will not give immorality/morality resultant to the others.
There are the other causes by person A (except kamm-cause) that let's person B do kamma to person A. But person B get those other causes because of person B's kamma. There is still not person A' kamma give resultant to person B to let him meet person A and get those other causes work.
See kamma-paccaya and vipākapaccaya in paṭṭhāna. Learn abhidhamma to get the easiest way to understand tipitaka.

"Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed."
That's not Buddhist doctrine of Karma. According to buddhist texts, bad and good karma fruits from past deeds come to be when conditions for them arise. The way out of experiencing karma fruits is Nirvana. While in samsara, karma fruits are experienced differently according to the development of the person.

"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
[...]
"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
[...]
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
-- An 3.99

Also, the person who suffers bad deed from someone else does not have their own karma "removed". There's the possibility, however, of the suffering experienced to create conditions to develop good karma.
"Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma"
Reaching Nirvanas requires the cessation of the fetters, the abandonment of karma (through "karma to end all karma").

Yes, something is wrong with your logic. In Buddhism we don't talk about Person A harming Person B harming Person C etc. We talk about karma applying on oneself and whether Person B is harming oneself. Also in Buddhism Person B is a projection of oneself. Person B is harming oneself is the bad Karma of oneself projecting Person B harming oneself. We don't actually know for sure if the real Person B is harming oneself. In fact  Person B can just be doing something normal - doing his own day to day work. However, because of our bad karma we see Person B harming oneself. This explains why oneself can be the last person to reach nirvana. - with Person B, Person C Person D etc having all reached Nirvana first.

Let's see . What if you substitute the word Dharma in your logical analysis in the place of Karma. What could you conclude then?

OH, I just remembered , on one occasion, Kalu Rinpoche was teaching Dharma to a group of people in San Francisco, Some people asked a question about Karma, and he spoke for a while. During that time he mentioned that when a world system is created our karma goes ahead of us and conditions the creation, so that we are experiencing the result of our previous Karma in this life. So for us lay people we could think Karma doesn't always come after us, sometimes it comes before us.

The Buddha's teaching was a teaching of Awakening. We must awaken to understand This Teaching.

"Answering a question with a question" can be a valid form of teaching ... but not on this site. On this site people are expected to answer with an answer -- see Are the kinds of question, and what kinds of answers are good, considered on Buddhism.SE?

The question itself is irrelevant to Buddhism and Buddhist practice.  See The Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN 63) e.g.

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
  poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
  him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
  removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
  warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
  have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
  man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
  short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or
  golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city...
  until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow
  or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was
  wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I
  know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or
  cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with
  which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a
  peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which
  I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a
  langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed
  until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
  common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
  arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
  to him.
"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life
  under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The
  cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists
  nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still
  remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

In summation, there's just some shit that no one is ever going to know; there's no point worrying about it.

I am aware that there are thing outside of human understanding. Just like a cat may never entirely grasp the concept of television beyond its aspects of bright lights and sounds, such restrictions logically will also apply to humans.

...However, just stopping to ask questions altogether isn't helpful, since we'd never find out anything about anything. Imagine a caveman never wondering what fire was. For me, the trick is to try and find out where this final stop to human understanding lies

I think it's perfectly reasonable to make an attempt at understanding, but to use the intellect in that attempt is an exercise in futility.

I think a basic premise or setup is that, via bad karma people are reborn in a lower state (e.g. as an animal, as a hungry ghost, or in hell); and via good karma (which you didn't mention) they may be reborn in a higher state (e.g. as a semi-divinity or in some kind of heaven).
Whereas nirvana is neither of the above, e.g. it's "deathless", "immediate", "experienced in the here and how", and not associated with rebirth (quite the opposite: being liberated from samsara).
Also I'm not sure about your premise that Person A's karma is removed by Person B's deed, and transferred to person B. I think that we (e.g. if we are "Person A") are supposed to think of ourselves as being responsbible for our own karma.

I am not a scholar nor enlightened so my answer needs to be understood in that context. Based on my studies, however, I have learned that the issue of Karma (Kamma) is so complex that only the Buddha and other Enlightened Ones truly understood/understand how it works. So not fully understanding it would not be unusual.
For me, to simplify to something I can understand, I have come to think of our Karma as ‘energy balance’, either positive or negative, attached to our non-selves, individually. By ‘balance’ I am speaking in the concept similar to a bank account balance in which our current Karma is the sum total of our deposits (gaining positive Karma) and withdrawals (gaining negative Karma).
Our current state of Karma is attained in us one of two ways. 1) the inherited Karma we get in our current life from our previous existences (this can either be positive or negative). 2) the Karma we have created ourselves by the intentional actions we have committed in our present life.
It is my understanding that others cannot ‘give’ us Karma - with the exception of that which we inherit coming into our current existence. We are solely responsible for the Karma we carry/create after that initial instant of beginning our current lives.
I believe that what the Buddha taught is that we must understand this individual responsibility. If we come into this life with negative Karma because of past existences, we must strive to create positive Karma to offset this. Even if we inherit a positive Karmic balance, we must strive to create more positive Karma to assist us in our quest for Enlightenment. If we do not achieve it in this life, the net positive Karma we pass on with the end of our life will assist the existence which inherits it in the future - making it easier for it to attain Enlightenment.
The net of it is that: 1) No - others cannot give or take Karma from us; though others’ actions can cause us to react in a way that has us adding or subtracting from our Karmic balance ourselves. 2) Striving for Karmic ‘neutrality’ is misunderstanding of the concept that the Enlightened Person has moved beyond the effects of Karma. Instead, we should continually strive to always do intentional actions which build more positive Karma to assist us (or our inheritors) in finding this Enlightenment.
I would appreciate those who are further in their understandings of the Buddha’s teachings to correct me in any misunderstandings I have presented here.
Regards

Another living being is not necessary for your Karma to come into fruition. A coconut can fall from a tree and kill you as a result of your past Karma. You see because of Vipaaka(result of Karma), you hear because of Vipaaka, you smell, taste, feel because of Vipaaka. You are born ugly, pretty, disabled, dumb, smart because of Vipaaka. You get sick because of Vipaaka and so on.
Bad Karma cannot make others think to harm you. Bad Karma can place you in a convenient position for another who may have the intention to harm you or it can simply put you in harm's way.
Also there are infinite number of beings in the universe. So your logic does not come into play.


text:
What is wrong with my vision of karma?
We are consciousness housed inside a physical form. We started off as the nothingness of the universe ... all potential. Then we were bound to this form just as someone capturing air in a bag. Although we are normally formless and all one big lump of consciousness instead of a bunch of individuals -
 this circumstance changes that. We are now identified as that bag.
That bag, our body, interacts with the universe and sets wheels and gears in motion every which way. Those movements ripple repercussions both onward and back as cause/effect. There is no "time lag" so a consciousness is just immediately changed and as long as that change deviates it from the whole then it is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral.
This make sense to me without being bound in mysticism. Where is it incorrect? Or is it? I really think I have something here.

Where is it incorrect? The moment you move from this how I understand/this is my thinking, to this is reality/this is the truth. Knowing reality cannot be know from thinking and pondering upon views (diṭṭhi'nijjhānakkhantiyā).

From a Theravada Buddhist perspective, this theory suffers from the error of an enduring self.  It is dependent on their being a persistent consciousness or, at minimum, some sort of enduring higher self.  From a Mahayana perspective, this theory establishes an erroneous dichotomy between form and emptiness.  There is ultimately no distinction between the bag (i.e. the body), consciousness, and the universe.

thank you so much. I appreciate you pointing these issues out! This is exactly the type of response I seek so I can track down the problems and the logic. Your answer is very helpful.

No matter what metaphor you come up with, ultimately it's going to be just that - words pointing to the thing and not the thing itself.  Frankly, I think these exercises can be fun, but it doesn't make a whole lotta sense to devote too much time to them.  You're better off sitting on the cushion.  ;-)

I dont see it that way. So far everything I have found in Buddhism was theoretically and often physically possible and not just a matter of faith. I want to know where these ideas come from as I try to duplicate their thinking.

Start by not thinking!  ;-)  Seriously, though there are certainly things that one can know namely anything to do with the path leading to enlightenment, the fruits of spiritual practice, the efficacy of morality, etc.  Those are not just theories but things that must be counterbalanced by personal experience.  Questions regarding the nature of reality are unanswerable; even the Buddha cautioned against pursuing them.

@KauvaAatma Buddhism is faith. You just have to build the faith yourself, not blindly have faith in Buddha. It is Buddha's faith, and you cannot steal it via following him blindly. There is no such a thing like just believing whatever Buddha said, because in that way you will never truly understand what Buddha is talking. Thinking and mediating is the two methods Buddha use to develop Buddhism. On the other side, some topics are not related to the relief so Buddha does not discuss about it. Those topics may belong to philosophy, not Buddhism, e.g. starting off as nothingness is irrelevant.

Causality in Hindi/Buddhism is not understood as in the Western cause-and-effect -  as if - 'I hit something and it gets kinetic energy'.
It is co-arising: a seed and a moist soil may give rise to a sprout.
Karma is an effect of co-arising causality, not of I/O of cause and effect, and it is an extremely complex phenomena;
To be in the "web of illusions" is essentially entangling the mind in these co-arising factors and being suffocated or attached to them, to be liberated from Samsara is ultimately to be unbound from these illusions, thus performing techniques that are extensively used to cut through the chain of delusions, attachment, ignorance, envy etc.
"It is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral." - I agree with your view (not from a "Buddhist" perspective, but personal) - 'nothing is lost in nature' - it is not easy to "disappear" once born into a pre-existent set of relations.
Yet, that is neither misfortune, not a trap, most Buddhists cherished the body as a "treasure to acquire" in the chain of being - on Earth.

The matter raised by XXXX is discussed in the following Sutta.
-------------------
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel268.html

Great answer. In addition, impermanent or permanent is just a concept. One can never know if something is permanent, if it will endure forever. Permanency isn't known in objective reality, only in subjective experience. It is a mental construct. It really points out that it is not 'yours'.

Adding to xxxx's answer:
The division between the body and the universe is illusory: consciousness doesn't end where flesh ends.
The net of causes works regardless "inside body" or "outside".
Causes acting "inside body" and those acting "outside body" aren't marked as having different owners.
Like a multitude of ants can gather on a spot, creating a crowd of certain form, and then can leave the spot, likewise causes can create body and its activities, not being and not becoming one thing even for a moment.
Thus, body as one thing is illusory.
Likewise, consciousness as one thing is illusory.
Multitude of causes can form in space thicker spots and thinner spots, being interpreted as working of consciousness, but that does not divide more crowded places from less crowded, just like a crowd of people on a holiday usually doesn't have definite border.
Likewise, there is no definite border between "causes creating me"  (or "acting as me") and "causes which are not me".
Feelings can be seen as caused by conditions, thoughts can be seen as caused by conditions, actions can be seen as caused by conditions. Where is "me"?
Tracking causes which create "my" feelings, thoughts, actions, we can see endless chains or bundles of causality. Where in those chains could be borders set between "already me" and "not me yet"?
Conditions, "created by different people", intertwine, fusing and creating new conditions. So can makings by different people be physically separated? As causes intertwine, can karma of different people be truly separated?
How karma works, in accumulation and cessation, see:
Problem with the logic of karma
PS:

it is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral.

There is nothing to release and nothing to balance, because everything is already balanced every moment, and everything is already released.

"body as one thing is illusory" Consider a sudden extreme rise in temperature, or falling away of all air pressure. Where would the body be without proper temperature and air pressure.

Maybe my English is incorrect. Please tell me how to say better. I meant that the body as one whole entity does not exist, just as a crowd of ants is not a single thing. Maybe, I should say "body as one single thing is illusory"? Indeed, if you put it in vacuum, what happens? Particles which were pressed together get their freedom. :)


text:
What is 'letting go' and 'detachment' actually?
My experience of letting go and detaching
I know that meditating on letting go and detachment is a fruitful activity. I experience physical discharge when I see I am holding on to something, that isn't true, and I let it go. In other words, I detach from it.
As a variant to this meditation practice I also attach again. That is, I try to get myself back into that feeling that I had when I was attached. The moment that I notice the slightest mental activity of getting carried away again, I reevaluate that it isn't true and keep my focus there until I feel I am detaching again. I do this a couple of times until I know longer feel any interest arise anymore when I focus on attaching, and thus, the attachment doesn't happen anymore. To me it is like getting bored with the subject. There is nothing in it for me anymore that I want to grasp. It seems that all energy that caused any attachment dissipated.
Stop creating mental constructs instead of letting go of them
Now on the the purpose of this question. Today I realized that what I attach to is always a mental construct. And that mental construct is always created by myself. Then I came to think about the words 'letting go' and 'detaching'. These words seem to imply there is something there, that exist on their own, of which you 'need' to 'let go' and 'detach'. There is something, but not there in objective reality, but here in subjective mental constructs. What if, the moment I observe a mental construct, I realize I don't want to create that mental construct in the first place. Then there is nothing to let go, there is nothing to detach from, as it simply doesn't exist anymore. It isn't being created in the first place. That puts me in the chair of being the 'creator' of all my experience. So then I do not practice the 'letting go' and 'detachment' from anything anymore, I practice the 'stop creating' of unfruitful mental constructs, which leaves energy for creating mental activity that is fruitful.
Questions:

Then I came to wonder, did Buddha really ment 'letting go' and 'detach'?
What are the actual sanskrit and pali terms for 'letting go' and 'detach'?
And do they really mean the same, or is it more like 'Dukkha' which is best translated to 'suffering', while it is not exactly the same. But suffering is the closest matching description.

I appreciate telling your experience of letting go, for me attachment is like a mental pressure and I can know  I let go because that pressure dissapears thats how I feel it.

What are the actual sanskrit and pali terms for 'letting go' and 'detach'?
Quoting from "Re: What is the last thing to let go?":

In the Suttas paṭinissagga and its synonym vossagga are the words that usually get translated ‘relinquishment’, ‘letting go’ and suchlike. What is relinquished is appropriation (ādāna) which is a term for taṇhā and upādāna.

And:

Paṭinissagga (letting go) is the broad term and then nekkhamma (letting go) is a more specialised one. Nekkhamma is paṭinissagga with respect to desire for sense-pleasures.

Anything comes naturally and goes naturally.
(1) Awareness remains uncaught, not starting to cling to a pleasant feeling.
As when we focus on it, singling it out - and losing the wholeness of the unlimited space. I think, singling out and losing the whole is the mechanism of attachment.
And that's how it leads to ignorance. Enclosing a feeling, we create limited view. Is it creating a mental construction around that sensory pleasure?
(2) Awareness remains uncaught, not trailing a deluded thought with more deluded thoughts.
(3) Awareness remains uncaught, not creating unnecessary constructions.
(Which would enchain the mind, making it busy, rigid and limited).
A Tibetan Teacher described different levels of mastery in letting go of thoughts as snow falling on earth, water and fire. Snowflakes falling on earth lie for some time, creating a layer of snow, even if it gradually melts. Snowflakes falling in water melt instantly. Snowflakes falling over fire melt even before they touch anything.
With mastery we can notice unnecessary thoughts when they only start to condense. It can be likened to a tablecloth and wrinkles. We don't need to deal with each wrinkle, as if it was real separate object. We can just pull a bit the cloth, and it's flat again. Perhaps it's a way to observe emptiness of mental creations.
Not creation of constructions, not re-creation of trains of thoughts and vexations... It can be called letting go - of the circular processes of samsaric thinking. In the sense: we don't keep these processes.
About letting go in Zen practice:
http://www.chancenter.org/chanctr/ddp/channews/09-1982.html

There are different words here, such as:
'Nekkhamma', which generally refers to 'renunciation' of sensual pleasures (eg. 2nd path factor).
'Pahānā' (SN 45.8 right effort) & 'pahāya' (MN 38 hindrances) & 'pajahati' (AN 3.40; SN 35.101), which generally refers to abandoning hindrances & unwholesome qualities.
'Anupādā': not taking as one’s own, not holding on to.
'Vossagga', which means 'giving up', 'relaxation', 'handing over' or 'surrender', and is generally found in meditation instruction about the (preliminary) development of the path, such as in SN 48.10 & end of MN 118; & found in DN 31 in respect to a husband giving (surrendering) authority to the wife in the home or an employer giving employees a share in profits .

a monk, a noble disciple, making letting go (vossagga) the meditation object, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.... SN 48.10

'Paṭinissaggā', which means means 'relinquishment' or 'giving back', possibly 'returning back', and is generally found in the fruition of the path, such as in 3rd noble truth (below), last (16th) stage of Anapanasati or in definitions of Nibbana (below).

the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it.
dukkhanirodhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ — yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo muttimutti anālayo.

sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ
Calming of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna

Ultimately, 'letting go' means to not take something as 'being onself' or 'belonging to oneself', as summed up in SN 35.101:

Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches, & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the
  thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning,
  or doing with as he likes'?
No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they pertain to our self.
In the same way, monks, the eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The
  ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not
  yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term
  happiness & benefit... Whatever arises in dependence on
  intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours (na tumhākaṃ): let go of it (taṃ pajahatha). Your
  letting go (pahīnaṃ) of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.
SN 35.101

Great post!! -)


text:
The proper meaning of Bhagava
What is the real meaning of Bhagava? Or are there any multiple meanings?
Sutta references are appreciated.
-Metta

Comments from the following link:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
Bhagava: also rendered "the Auspicious One" or "the Exalted One"; the most frequent appellation of the Buddha, though not restricted to Buddhist usage.
The word "Bhagava," can be translated as "the Blessed One"

Bhagava comes from bhagga + rāga. That is one how has destroyed lust.

bhagga -rāga, ˚dosa etc. (in def. of Bhagavā) at Mnd.142 = Cnd.466

Source: bhagga

This is an interesting theory although when searching around there seem to be more sources suggesting that the root of the word is the sanskrit "bhaj" meaning something adored

It is many meaning for the buddhanussati practitioner.
See: Recollection of the Enlightened One (buddhanussati) in Visuddhimagga.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

The Blessed One (Bhagava)
The Buddha is endowed with the six things:
 (1) Lordship [Issariya],
 (2) Doctrine [Dhamma],
 (3) Fame [Yasa],
 (4) Glory [Siri],
 (5) Wish [Kama], and
 (6) Endeavor [Payatta],
 thus He is called the Blessed One.
1). He has the supreme lordship over His own mind as follows:
 i. Anima – power to make the body minute (e.g. making the size of an atom),
 ii. Laghima – power to make the body light (e.g. walking on air),
 iii. Mahima – power to make the body huge,
 iv. Patti – power to arrive where He wants to go,
 v. Pakamma – power to produce what He wants by resolving, etc.,
 vi. Isita – power to make anyone or anything follow His wishes,
 vii. Vasita – power to create at will water, fire, etc., and
 viii. Yatthakamavasayita – power to attain the perfection in all ways in Him who wants to go through the air or do anything else of the sort.
 2). He has the supramundane Dhamma.
 3). He has the greatly pure fame, spread through the three worlds, attained through the quality of veracity.
 4). He has the glory of all limbs, perfect in every appearance, which is capable of comforting the eyes of people eager to see His material body.
 5). He has the wish i.e., accomplishment of whatever is wanted by Him whether it be for His own benefit or for another’s (others’).
6). And He has the endeavor, the right effort, which is the reason why the whole world reveres Him.
http://www.tbsa.org/articles/BuddhaQualities.html


text:
Pronounce the word "Buddh" - phonetics
What is the phonetic of the word "Buddh" spoken in time 21:47 to 21:48 minutes of this video. I am a novice in phonetics.
The phonetic of the word Buddha is wriiten as
[bud̪ːʱə] in this wikipedia article
However, to my taste, the english prononciation of the B and U in the word Buddh does not matches exactly with that of the video.
Let me know how to phonetically write the word "Buddh" spoken in time 21:47 to 21:48 minutes of the video.

Which language are you asking about: Pali?

I think that i wrongly tagged pali language. I meant phonetics in english. I need the phonetics in english  of the word pronounced in hindi.

@changzhao I think mathstudent means using the latin alphabet as it is pronounced in English to represent the sound of the Hindi word

The question is tagged with "Pali language". Pronunciation in Wikipedia is written probably for Sanskrit. The movie is in Hindi. And English is another language. Pronunciation in different languages is different. For example, in Russian we pronounce Bood-dah.
When we study phonetics, we need to understand, phonetics of which language or dialect we study.

PS:
I meant phonetics in english. I need the phonetics in english of the word pronounced in hindi.
@MathStudent, the phonetics in English is of English words. The word pronounced in Hindi is Hindi word. Do you want phonetics of English word "Buddha" or of Hindi word "Buddha"?
Anyway, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Buddha

Pronunciation:

(UK) enPR: bo͝odə, IPA(key): /bʊdə/
(US) enPR: bo͞odə, IPA(key): /buːdə/
IPA(key): /bʊdːʰə/ (only in technical contexts) – approximation of Hindustani [ˈbʊdːʱə], which features a geminate ‘d’ and breathy voice on the second ‘d’, neither of which is idiomatic to English

That reference gives three different English pronounciations: one English; one American; and a "technical" one that's meant to sound a bit like Hindustani.

I meant phonetics in english. I need the phonetics in english  of the word pronounced in hindi.

B-month&month&stronger touch+soft breathe out+voice louder.
U-put,push,fruit.
D-teeth&tongue tip&stronger touch+soft breathe out+voice louder.
DH-teeth&tongue tip&stronger touch+soft breathe out+voice louder.
A-cut,watt,shut,but.
See:padarupasiddhi for more information.


text:
What does Buddhism teach or say about Tolerance and accepting differences in general?
I was wondering what Buddhism teaches or says about the concept of Tolerance and the acceptance of differences more generally speaking.

Buddhism teaches nature creates differences or diversity. For example:

Again, the Tathagata (Buddha) understands as it actually is the world with its many & different elements. That too is a Tathagata's
  power...
Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's
  power...
Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too
  is a Tathagata's power...
MN 12

Therefore, Buddhism accepts there are differences or diversity in nature and, as a result, extends tolerance, non-hatred & non-violence towards diversity. For example:

Whatever living beings there may be;
      Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
  The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
      The seen and the unseen,
  Those living near and far away,
      Those born and to-be-born —
  May all beings be at ease!
Let none deceive another,
      Or despise any being in any state.
  Let none through anger or ill-will
      Wish harm upon another.
  Even as a mother protects with her life
      Her child, her only child,
  So with a boundless heart
      Should one cherish all living beings;
Karaniya Metta Sutta

However, just because Buddhism extends tolerance, non-hatred & non-violence towards difference & diversity, this does not mean Buddhism endorses, promotes or recommends all things because Buddhism only endorses, promotes or recommends a moral or non-harming way of life.
For example, Buddhism tolerates murder, theft, rape, sexual promiscuity, dishonesty, drug addiction, usury, gambling, businesses that trade in weapons, slavery, prostitution, intoxicants, etc, however Buddhism does not endorse, promote or recommend these things.
This distinction is shown in the following text about 'tolerating', 'avoiding' & 'destroying' and in Buddhist teachings about 'right' & 'wrong':

[4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He
  tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies,
  mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words &
  bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
  piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life.
[5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild
  elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a
  bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting
  appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats,
  wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with
  the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in
  the holy life suspect him of evil conduct.
And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, dispels it & wipes it out of existence....Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence.
MN 2

In one of right view, wrong view is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong view as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right view as their condition go to the culmination of their development. In one of right resolve, wrong resolve is abolished... In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished... In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished... In one of right release, wrong release is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong release as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right release as their condition go to the culmination of their development. Thus, monks, there are twenty factors siding with skillfulness, and twenty with unskillfulness.
MN 117

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
Dhammapada


text:
What does Buddhism teach about anger?
I would like to know what Buddhism says about both our own anger and other people's anger. Especially how to cope with other people's anger, how to handle it, how to avoid suffering from it? Also what are the origins and consequences of anger?

Anger
Anger is a manifestation of one of the five hindrances, the hindrance of aversion/ill-will (byāpāda). According to the Buddha, the path to happiness and Nirvana is the path of understanding and abandoning these hindrances.

“Bhikkhus, if one were to say of anything ‘a heap of the unwholesome,’ it is about the five hindrances that one could rightly say this. For this is a complete heap of the unwholesome, that is, the five hindrances." (SN 47.5)
"This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five hindrances, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”  (SN 45.177)
"I say, bhikkhus, that ignorance has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said: the five hindrances." (AN 10.61)
“Bhikkhus, these five hindrances are makers of blindness, causing lack of vision, causing lack of knowledge, detrimental to wisdom, tending to vexation, leading away from Nibbāna."  (SN 46.40)

Anger, like any hindrance, obstructs the development of the other limbs of the Eightfold Path. One example is the concentration (samadhi) limb, where it's not possible to enter the first jhana, a deeper state of meditation, without being secluded from the five hindrances:

"Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, he enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion."

When meditation is obstructed, wisdom is obstructed and so on... like a house of cards falling apart.
Nutriment for Anger
Anger manifests itself when we give careless attention to that which bugs us.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen ill will? There is, bhikkhus, the sign of the repulsive (paṭigha): frequently giving careless attention to it is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen ill will."
-- SN 46.2

Mitigating One's Own Anger
Part of the training to dispel anger is the practice of the virtue group of the Noble Eightfold Path, in particular, Right Speech and Right Action. These are restraints on bodily and verbal action. Thus, one abandons the act of killing living beings. Also, one abandon harsh words, words that are "rough, hard, hurtful to others, offensive to others, bordering on anger, unconducive to concentration" (AN 10.211).
Furthermore, one also must restrain mental actions, which are the forerunners of verbal and bodily actions.

"There is the case where a monk does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence."
-- AN 5.140

This threefold teaching related to anger is nicely put together in the following dhammapada verses:

Let a man guard himself against irritability in bodily action; let him be controlled in deed. Abandoning bodily misconduct, let him practice good conduct in deed.
Let a man guard himself against irritability in speech; let him be controlled in speech. Abandoning verbal misconduct, let him practice good conduct in speech.
Let a man guard himself against irritability in thought; let him be controlled in mind. Abandoning mental misconduct, let him practice good conduct in thought.

Restraining anger in the mind can be very challenging. A progressive teaching on how to restrain unwholesome thoughts was given by the Buddha in the Vitakkasanthana sutta (MN 20):

"When a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with hate are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated [...]"
"If, while he is giving attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should examine the danger in those thoughts thus: ‘These thoughts are unwholesome, they are reprehensible, they result in suffering.’ [...]
"If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them [...]"
“If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside [...]"
“If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind."

The Buddha also narrated how he trained to dispel his own unwholesome thoughts in the Dvedhavitakka sutta (MN 19):

"As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of ill will arose in me ... a thought of cruelty arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of cruelty has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.‘ When I considered thus it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of cruelty arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it."

Finally, two mental factors, when fully developed, make it impossible for anger and cruelty to take over one's mind:  loving kindness (mettā) and compassion (karunā):

"It’s impossible and inconceivable, friend, that one might develop and cultivate the liberation of mind by loving-kindness, make it one's vehicle and basis, carry it out, consolidate it, and properly undertake it, yet ill will could still obsess one's mind."
[...]
"It’s impossible and inconceivable, friend, that one might develop and cultivate the liberation of mind by compassion, make it one's vehicle and basis, carry it out, consolidate it, and properly undertake it, yet the thought of harming could still obsess one's mind."
-- AN 6.13

The deeper practices of loving kindness and compassion are described in suttas such as the Atthakanagara Sutta.
Dealing with People's Anger
In one episode, the Buddha instructed Phagguna to train as follows when he is facing dispraise and violence (MN 21):

‘Neither will my mind become perverted, nor will I utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will I dwell with a mind of friendliness and void of hatred.’

The Buddha taught his disciples to endure the anger from others:

“And how is a monk an endurer? There is the case where a monk is resilient to cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life."
--AN 5.14

He taught his disciples to be tolerant towards angry people:

“And which is intolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual, when insulted, returns the insult; when abused, returns the abuse; when bickered with, bickers in return. This is called intolerant practice.
“And which is tolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual, when insulted, doesn’t return the insult; when abused, doesn’t return the abuse; when bickered with, doesn’t bicker in return. This is called tolerant practice.
-- AN 4.164

He also emphasized the development of equanimity when dealing with angry people, and instructed the monks to remain in healthy distance so as to not obstruct their own practice:

“And what kind of person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served? Here, some person is prone to anger  and easily exasperated. Even if he is criticized slightly he loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays irritation, hatred, and bitterness. [...] Such a person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served. For what reason? With the thought: ‘He might insult me, revile me, and do me harm.’ Therefore such a person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served.
-- AN 3.27

The Buddha pointed out that harmlessness is a protection we give not only to others, but to ourselves:

“And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, lovingkindness, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
-- SN 47.19

He taught the disciples consistently in this path even if the Dhamma, Sangha and the Buddha are insulted:

"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves.
-- DN 1

Finally, he also vividly illustrated how anger has no part in his teachings:

Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching."  (MN 21)

Ayonisomanasikara (in appropriate attention) is the cause of anger.
Practicing Brahama vihara is the antidote for anger.
Contemplation on the Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta relate to anger is the way to avoid suffering from anger.


text:
Buddha dealing with pain
If enlightened beings aren't bothered by pain, why did occasions happen where Buddha was unable to give a lecture because the pain was so severe or when he had to meditate to lessen the pain he was feeling.
Surely if the pain truly didn't bother him, he could have just continued as normal without needing to do anything special.
Thanks.

Enlightened beings are not bothered by pain. But if you try to sit through severe back pain, it could lead to further complications. The body requires lying down to recover from back problems. So it's the sensible thing to do. When the Buddha is resting, he usually resides in the Jhanas. Even when the Buddha is not resting, it is said that he enters the Jhanas between every sentence he speaks.

You may not bother raining.
But you are still wet walking in a rain.
All people can see is you are wet,
but they cannot conclude that you are bothered by rain
solely from the fact that you are wet.
And Buddhism is a way to let you not bother raining,
not a magic to let you walking in a rain and keeping yourself dry.

That doesn't quite answer the question, about why he wouldn't teach because his back was hurting.

@ChrisW He does not feel worried, anxious, or upset about (bother_1) his hurting back, but he does feel physical pain about (bother_2) his hurting back. The physical pain prevent him from teaching as normal. Enlightened beings are not bothered_1 by pain, but they are bothered_2 by pain. I take raining as an example because it is not difficult for people to learn how to not be bothered_1 by rain. And it is difficult to not be bothered_1 by pain, so some people turn to Buddhism for help.

Because focusing on dismissing the physical pain would distract him from providing his best lesson.


text:
Is Venerable Mahakashyapa still Alive?
Is the disciple of Lord-Buddha Mahakashyap still Alive?
"The Venerable Mahakashyapa is still present in the world. When he left home under the Buddha, he was already one hundred sixty years old. At the time Shakyamuni Buddha had spoken Dharma for forty-nine years in over three hundred Dharma assemblies, Kashyapa was already over two hundred years old. After Shakyamuni Buddha entered Nirvana, Kashyapa went to Southwestern China, to Chicken Foot Mountain in Yunnan Province. It has been over three thousand years since the Buddha's nirvana, but Mahakashyapa is still sitting in samadhi in Chicken Foot Mountain waiting for Maitreya Buddha to appear in the world. At that time he will give Maitreya the bowl which the Four Heavenly Kings gave Shakyamuni Buddha and which Shakyamuni Buddha gave him, and his work in the world will be finished.

Is that all true that he still's exists?

Ven. Mahakashyapa is Chan school rather than Theravada. We don't have a chan tag, so I re-tagged this question with as [tag:mahayana].

@ChrisW : But Thervada is the original one which buddha taught

I think that what you quoted is from the Amitabha Sutra, which is a Mahayana sutra. On this site, a question about a Mahayana sutra would normally have a 'mahayana' tag and should be answered/interpreted from the perspective of a Mahayana school.

I'm surprised that you rolled back my edits: I thought that my edits made the question clearer.

@DeepakAhirwar, Theravada is not "the original one which Buddha taught". Theravada is one of the Buddhist schools developed from Sthaviravada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthavira_nikāya which separated from other Buddhists since the Second Buddhist council. There are several versions of canon, and it's arguable that Theravada canon is the most authentic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Buddhist_council I think the main reason why Theravada is considered "original" is that Mahayana schools developed more in theories and practice.

I have no definite answer, but maybe this info will be useful:
According to Mahayana views, the material world we ordinarily perceive is only a part of reality. Another part of reality can be viewed as some kind of "spiritual realm", Sambhogakāya.
In a sense, both that spiritual realm and this material world are projections from true reality. It's not like there are other dimensions somewhere out there; rather, limits of our ordinary perception let us see only a part of what is here.
On some levels of advanced practice, we are able to perceive Buddhas and Bodhisattvas from Sambhogakaya realm,

may gain access to the Sambhogakaya and receive direct transmission of doctrine.

(All the quotations are from the link above).

In the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, Chan Master Huineng describes the Samboghakaya as a state in which the practitioner continually and naturally produces good thoughts:

Think not of the past but of the future. Constantly maintain the future thoughts to be good. This is what we call the Sambhogakāya.
Just one single evil thought could destroy the good karma that has continued for one thousand years; and just one single good thought in turn could destroy the evil karma that has lived for one thousand years.
If the future thoughts are always good, you may call this the Sambhogakāya. The discriminative thinking arising from the Dharmakāya (法身↔fashen "Truth body") is called the Nirmanakāya (化身↔huashen "transformation body"). The successive thoughts that forever involve good are thus the Sambhogakāya.

In that light, it seems quite possible that Venerable Mahakashyapa abides in Sambhogakaya to these days, and it's not impossible to meet him and receive teachings.

Where is the location Venerable Mahakashyapa took samadhi?

Thank you, @DeepakAhirwar. I don't know much about various places in the history of Buddhism. If it's important for you, maybe ask a separate Question. Happy practice for the benefit of all sentient beings! :)


text:
Sending metta to fictional charcters ?
Is there a point sending metta to fictional characters like in a movie or a computer game ?

Buddhism, practicing the dharma, or even only thinking about it (seriously), is not a game of putting together words. "A game" is what comes up in my mind when I only read your sentence. (-1) Any serious approach to get familiar to that what was the concern of the Buddha would easily have detected that the concern of the Buddha was the living people.

It could actually be unskillful as you are strengthening your ignorance to think that such characters are real.

Metta is practitioner's consciousness that thinking to make happy consciousness arise in the other lives. (sukhī attānaṃ pariharantu)
Fictional charcters never have happy consciousness arising.

If anger arises while you watching a movie or playing a computer game, it is a good idea that you are aware of your mental state.


text:
When will Maitreya Buddha come according to the Manimekalai?
According to Buddhism, Maitreya Buddha is a Buddha who will come some time in the future.  Some sources say he will come hundreds of thousands of years from now, but the Manimekalai, a 6th century Buddhist epic poem written in the language Tamil, seems to suggest an earlier timeframe.  Here is what chapter 12 of the Manimekalai says:

That dharma, people in this world do not know.  But within the circuit of this universe, the devas understand it and at their request the Deva will come down again to this world from the Tushita Heaven in the year 1616. Then everyone in this world will feel impelled to practice the doctrine or mercy.

My question is, what is this year "1616" that the Manimekalai identifies as the year when Maitreya Buddha will come?  What calendar is it using?  It's clearly not the Gregorian calendar, since that wasn't in vogue in 6th century India.

I'm inclined to see this as an offtopic. It looks like a question about Tamil calendar, not about Buddhism.

Let's bear in mind that according to the sources referenced in the Wikipedia page Manimekalai, this book was written either before the 5th century CE, in the 6th century CE or latest 950 CE according to different experts.
Anne E. Monius is a Professor of South Asian Religions at Harvard University and "a historian of religion specializing in the religious traditions of India. Her research interests lie in examining the practices and products of literary culture to reconstruct the history of religions in South Asia." She wrote the book "Imagining a Place for Buddhism: Literary Culture and Religious Community in Tamil-Speaking South India".
She talks about the book Manimekalai and 1616 prediction in this book, for which you can find the excerpt here. Please pay attention to the last paragraph on page 94, and the next two pages.
Her best guess is that since the Buddhist calendar usually starts counting from the final passing (parinirvana) of the Buddha (also see this answer), this refers to the year 1616 on that calendar. She is not sure about how this number was derived.
From the Wikipedia page on the Buddha, the date of the passing away of the Buddha is given as either 483 BCE or 400 BCE. That puts 1616 at 1133 CE or 1216 CE. This is definitely centuries after the authorship of the Manimekalai. So, that's quite sensible. Prof. Monius stated that this is more specific and substantially earlier than the estimates given in the Pali sources, for the coming of the next Buddha.
According to accesstoinsight.org's page on the Chronology of Theravada Buddhism:

Year 1 of the Buddhist Era calendar is the year of the Buddha's
  Parinibbana (death and final release), which occurred in the Buddha's
  eightieth year (480 BCE according to the "historical" timeline; 544
  BCE by tradition).

If we use 544 BCE as the year of the Buddha's parinirvana, then 1616 would be 1072 CE, which is still centuries after the authorship of the Manimekalai (if we assume that it was authored in the 6th century CE).
Also interesting is this excerpt from the book by Monius (on pages 95 - 96):

In fact, if one looks beyond, or more appropriately before, the Pali
  literature that obviously concerns itself with the future Buddha,
  scattered bits of evidence can be found to suggest that the
  Manimekalai was not alone in the sixth century in imagining the
  arrival of a living Buddha within centuries rather than billions of
  years. In the various renditions of the life of Buddhaghosa, for
  example, it is reported that the monks of the Mahavihara greeted the
  composition of the Visuddhimagga by crying out to its author, "Without
  doubt he is Metteyya!" (nissamsayam sa metteyo). Although such a
  statement might easily be interpreted, on the one hand, as hyperbolic
  praise, likening only rhetorically the genius of Buddhaghosa to
  the wisdom of the future Buddha, on the other hand, such an
  identification might well depend on the expectation, like that of the
  ascetics confused by the miraculous events accompanying Aputtiran's
  rebirth in the Manimekalai (xv.23-35), that Metteyya's arrival on earth
  can happen at any moment. Such scattered phrases are certainly
  difficult to evaluate. Much more interesting and potentially useful
  for the consideration of the Manimekalai's vision of the future, given
  the central place of the wondrous almsbowl, Amutacurapi, in the text,
  is a story told by the fifth-century Chinese pilgrim to India and Sri
  Lanka, Faxian (Fa-hsien), concerning the begging bowl of the Buddha
  and the coming of Metteyya/Maitreya to earth.

You can read on in the same section, the story of Faxian, and how he obtained the story of the Buddha's almsbowl from an Indian monk.
Monius writes further on pages 96 - 97:

Faxian's story of the Buddha's almsbowl and its intimate connection to
  the  coming of Maitreya provides a potentially enlightening parallel
  to the narrative of the bowl and the coming of the Buddha found in the
  Manimekalai. Such a parallel, especially given the relative proximity
  to the time and place of the Manimekalai's composition, of Faxian and
  the Indian monk who tells the story at the Sri Lankan Mahavihara, may
  help to illumine the Tamil text's vision of the future and the
  community to form around the coming Buddha.

Based on this, I would guess that the Manimekalai is a literary work of fiction, based on Faxian's story that came not long before the authorship of the Manimekalai. While it is unknown how Manimekalai's author derived the number "1616", we can speculate that he intended his readers to look forward to the coming of the future Buddha within a few centuries, perhaps to motivate the Tamil-speaking Buddhist community at the time, and also to kindle the interest of the non-Buddhist Tamil-speaking people, in Buddhism.

Thanks for your answer.  Assuming no other answer comes in the next two days, I'll give you the bounty.  By the way, concerning your statement "I would guess that the Manimekalai is a literary work of fiction", the Manimekalai is definitely a work of fiction.  The quote given in my question is from a speech given by one of the characters, a Buddhist monk.

It is said that Manimekalai was written between A.D. 890 and 950 and is known to have praised the Buddha's Teaching, the Dharma, as the most perfect religion. But what it must say about Maithree Buddha is just heresay. It must be just based on information received from other people at that time, that one cannot adequately substantiate. I say this because Maithree Buddha’s name is mentioned ONLY ONCE in the ENTIRE TIPITAKA. It is ONLY mentioned in the Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta (DN 26; The Lion's Roar on the Turning of the Wheel). This is what Supreme Buddha had to say on this:

“Long before this day is going to pass and in that time of the people with an eighty-thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed One, an Arahant fully enlightened Buddha named Metteyya /Maithree, endowed with wisdom and conduct, a Well-farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed, just as I am now.”

Just compare the year 1616 of the Manimekalai with that of the 80,000 year life span of a person at the time of the next Buddha. Does it make any sense for a 80,000 year old person to be living in the year 1616? I know well that this answer will be deleted with the reasoning that this does not answer the OP’s specific question. It seems like satisfying the OP is more important that Stream Entry (the state of Sotapanna) for this site, and that’s the very reason that people like Yuttadhammo Thero stay away.
Well in getting back to the subject of 80,000 years, you may now wonder whether there would be enough food for all if people are to live for 80,000 years. But it will not be so, as even in the past Kalpas (Aeons) people have lived for that long as per Buddha.  Buddha once said,

“Dear devotee, I am looking at 92 Kalpas (a long time) to the past right now. In all that time, no one had to face any destruction of their families as a result of offering their food.”

Currently average age of mankind (life expectancy) is about 65years. Gradually this life expectancy will go down till 10 years then again life expectancy will increase again. Maitreya (Metteyya), a bodhisatta currently residing in the Tusita heavens is the next Buddha due to appear. Some time in the far distant future, once the teachings of the current Buddha have long been forgotten, he will be reborn as a human being, rediscover the Four Noble Truths, and teach the Noble Eightfold Path once again.

I'm not trying to find out if the Manimekalai's information about Maitreya Buddha is correct.  I'm trying to find out when exactly the Manimekalai is claiming Maitreya Buddha will come back.  It says "the year 1616", and I want to know what that means.  It clear doesn't mean 1616 AD, since the Gregorian calendar wasn't in place in ancient India, so I want to know what that year actually means.

IMOH… it looks like finding out about the year 1616 is more important to you than becoming a Sotapanna.  Buddha asked about ‘Appamada” thus…  “Dear Bhikkhu, what should you do if your robe or your head catch fire?”
“Lord Buddha, if the robe or the head caught fire, one should try hard, has a great effort, and a full commitment to put out that fire. One should also have a great awareness and wisdom to prevent its growth.”

Well, I'm not interested in becoming a Sotapanna at all.  I'm not a Buddhist, I'm a Hindu.  I'm just asking this question out of intellectual curiosity.

IMHO, you will never get to know about 1616, but what about getting to know that the present day Hindism is what has become of what Kassapa Buddha, the sixth of the Seven Buddhas of Antiquity preached? It is the same thing that has happened to what the present day Gauthama Buddha once preached. Pattanjali’s pupil, Buddhagosha, wrongly interpreted some key words and what we have got as the present day “Buddhism” is not much different to Hinduism. What we do as 'Anapanasati' is really a 'Pranayama' meditation of the Hindus. The same can be said for all other "so-called-Buddhist" meditations.

Well, we're not going to agree on this.  As a Hindu, I don't believe in the notion of seven Buddhas.  Instead I believe that Gautama Buddha is an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)


text:
Help! I'm in love with enlightened man
Pardon my English .I was lucky enough to meet this man . This man is living Buddha . He is not a monk. Lives simple life. He is such a mystery.  I'm in love with enlightened man.
It's not recent ... it's been years and years... He never claimed that but it's absolutely obvious to me.  He is extremely handsome intelligent and more , so much more. I can feel when he enters the room, there is so much heat or fire. He is shining and he makes everyone around him smile. He has big beautiful eyes they are so sharp it's like he can see through appearances . He is absolutely perfect.  I think about him day and night all the time I cannot forget him. It's my attachment to pleasure or is this real love??? When i think of him i just melt. On the other hand i know he is not interested in me as a woman and will never be. And it drives me nuts. I feel stupid. What to do?
I was planning to tell him that, but am so scared that i'll feel stupid. I suppose it's obvious on my face anyway. But it's been so long and the feeling gets stronger. I should move on i know it, but he is such a perfection... I have no word to describe this man . Just ''ahh''.  How to let go?? or should i keep?

Just speak with him, you nothing to lose because you had nothing from him to begin with. You own it to yourself to find out. Approach him! Rejection is better than regret!

It;s funny , that when i finally felt '' i 'll tell him that'', he dissapeared. But You are rigt. I should talk to him.

can enlightened people be romantically loved by others? i'm not saying i read anything claiming they can't, but did e.g. the buddha have people trying to seduce him?

@sorta_buddhist Famously, Mara's daughters. See also the Bhikkhuni sutta and so on, though Ananda wasn't an Arhat at that time.

same to you lol @ChrisW

If he is really enlightened, he will not be interested in you (romantically). If he is interested in you (romantically), he is not enlightened. The Pali suttas state:

It is impossible for... whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse.
Sutava Sutta

However, he could show friendship (metta) towards you. True spiritual friends (kalyanamitta) are difficult to find in the world.

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

Dukha - not getting we want, getting what we don't want, getting what we want then losing it.
The fact is you don't really know this man is enlightened and it doesn't even really matter whether he is or not. Sounds to me more like he exudes confidence and charisma which is always attractive. Confident people attract people like flies to shit.
You have two choices -
1)forget it and get on with your life.
2)try to hook up with him.    Number two obviously involves some risk, risk of rejection, risk of falling in love then being heart broken etc but you never know unless you try.

I think that real love is more like unity, like being the same.
Attachment is more like artificial excitement, desire.
In that sense, love and attachment are different things. Love is like calm warm extending, open and limitless. In that, you discover limitless unity with all beings, all universe. That is immersing deeper in true reality.
Attachment is stimulating your feelings, which is like taking stimulants - it will pass, bringing hangover.
Love does not create problems, attachment does. Love makes wiser, attachment makes vexed and blind.
If a person you love is indeed excellent in wisdom and compassion, ask his advice just like you wrote here. It might be not necessary to say that you ask his advice for yourself. Just ask what would he think and advise people in such situations.

I agree with you, real love doesn't have a name. However I live in duality created by my mind, that sees things as separate. I can see how much attached i am to this ''projection'' of him. Thank to you guys, i really feel I should tell him that

There's no "living Buddha". The Buddha existed more than 2500 years ago.
Looks like you are overcome by lust/passion. Usually Patikulamanasikara meditation is recommended to such individuals

To me Buddha is not an individual, but a state of mind. I believe there are many people , especially in monasteries, that are in that state of mind. I'd call them Buddhas or enlightened beings. Thank you for recomendation, i ve never heard about this kind of meditation.

@judith If you are referring to the state of mind of an enlightened being, you should use the word 'Arahant'. You cannot use the word 'Buddha' as it means much more than just enlightenment. The last Buddha was the Gautama Buddha and the next Buddha will be the Maitreya Buddha.

does it really matter?

@judith using proper terms matters

First of all it's just concepts. Second The term Buddha means “Awakened”. So I'm using it correctly in my understanding.

@judith if you use a concept in a wrong way it's still wrong. You can call the president of a country as a politician. But you cannot call every politician a president. Buddha doesn't just mean 'Awakened'. It means the one who discovered enlightenment without a teacher.

@judith http://www.beyondthenet.net/buddha/qualities.html

It does matter as an issue of respect. But of course that is a social order rule borne from ego. damyata.

@KauvaAatma It has nothing to do with ego. It's a matter of accuracy.

@Sankha Kulathantille  what accuracy when we talk about infinity???what words when we talk about something beyond that?

Here is a famous koan. Does a Dog Have Buddha-nature?

@judith Accuracy in using words. Just like you used the word 'infinity' there. If you you change the word 'infinity' to 'dog', will it give the same meaning  as you  intended? :)

This is quite normal.Be aware of your feelings and use your commonsense.
There is a story where a woman (female monk) had fallen love with Ven Ananda and a beautiful woman was proposed to Buddha.
Here is another story.
------------
Just as they were leaving the city the Venerable Maha Kaccana was standing at the city gate, putting on his outer robe before entering to walk on alms round. When the youth Soreyya beheld the golden-hued body of the elder, he thought to himself: "Oh, that this elder might become my wife! Or may the hue of my wife's body become like the hue of his body!"
At the very moment this thought passed through his mind, Soreyya was instantly transformed from a man into a woman. Startled by this inexplicable change of sex, he jumped out of the carriage and fled before the others could notice what had occurred. Gradually he made his way to the city of Takkasila. His companions searched for him in vain and reported his strange disappearance to his parents. When all attempts to trace him proved futile, his parents concluded that he had died and they had the funeral rites performed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel405.html

What is the relevance of these stories: how do they help answer the question?

This story explains the drawback of lust. Here is the link to Magandiya story.  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.09.than.html

Try to sit and close your eyes and imagine these:
What if he only has 1 eye
What if he doesn't have any nose
What if he's deaf
Cut every part of his body and organs and try to look into it.
And ask to yourself whether if you still like him if he doesn't have any of those beautiful part.
Hopefully this works for you.

he has a big  heart.I guess i would still enjoy his presence. He has such a good sense of humour  , i like listening to him. I gues i would like him as a friend.I have to say we are not close, I see him ocassionally, and the rest of the time just fantasise about him. Feel a bit miserable. but it will pass.

and sorry for my english

Do you realize that there's too much "I" in you.
Becareful, mental proliferation will lead you to suffering.

This is the daftest question I have ever read. Yes, zen masters occasionally have wives; there were great Korean / Japanese debates about whether this sacrifice of 'celibacy' was a distortion of the meaning of Buddhism. Trust me, an actual Buddha isn't interested in having sex with you, they have other things on their mind -- tantra aside. Are you in love with someone and they not you?

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