text:
Supposed Buddhist Scripture Predicting that only through Jesus can Nirvana be reached
http://bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm
Hi, I have been examining the similarities between what Jesus and Buddha taught and I came across this site of the above link in which the author claims that they obtained Buddhist scriptures from Wat Phra Sing in ChaingMai province that predict the coming of Jesus and show that it is nearly impossible to gain enough merit to enter heaven or Nirvana. I suspect that this is completely faked but I always try to approach these sorts of things with the possibility that my assumptions could be wrong.If someone has any information on this it would be greatly appreciated.

Every few minutes someone confounds their religion's savior's scheduled arrival with Maitreya's.

Whoever wrote the linked document seems to have no idea of the core of the Buddhist teachings. Trying to find the truth in propaganda material will not help anyone.

Since the Buddha didn't even said that one could reach Nirvana through Him, how could it be possible to reach Nirvana through anyone else? The only people who can help one attain the goal is him/herself:
"I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir." ~AN5.57~ ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html )

I found it being discussed or described on (at least) three sites as follows:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1121
http://dhammaprotector.blogspot.fr/2010/02/christian-lie-sutrapridot.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.fr/2009/09/buddha-prophesized-jesus.html

In summary, we can surely all agree it's "fake".
I assume that it is relatively modern, not from the time of the historical Buddha.
There are many ways in which it contradicts the teachings of the historical Buddha, which are found in the Pali canon.

Not disputing the validity of the possible fakeness of the sites mentioned, but I would like to introduce the possibility that Jesus and Buddhism are somehow linked. His short history has big gaps where he could have caravaned to India or communicated with Buddhists somewhere along the route.
The reason I think this is worth bringing up is because of the Gospel of Thomas. It could be mistaken for a book of Zen koans and in some places Buddhist text. It may not be a way for those firstly in Buddhism, but for transplants from Christianity, the Gospel of Thomas makes some crossovers to Buddhism and suggests some alternative history of Jesus who came 500 years after Buddha.
http://lifeintegrity.com/Gospel-of-Thomas-Scholars-Version.pdf
Of course studying any other religion could open the mind and instill compassion for the obstacles they face and for the contribution that religion makes to the advancement of human consciousness.

The catholic church did accidentally make the Buddha a saint. The Amitahba, arguably, is a Zoroasterian look-alike that showed up about the time Sun Gods were in fashion.

Buddhist remains have been found in Alexandria, and there was trade between Alexandria and Egypt.  Jesus would not have had to travel far to come across Indian or Buddhist ideas.


text:
Anesthesia, being knocked out, unconsciousness...what does the Buddha have to say about it?
This is something that I have trouble coming to grips with. If the mind can be aware without a body or brain then how is it possible that one can experience things like the Bardo when we know that without certain conditions the mind becomes unaware? Anesthesiologists can purposely put people into this state. One second you are going under for surgery and the next second you are laying in a hospital bed without any awareness of the lapse of time. If one were to extinguish ever becoming or going doesn't that mean an unconscious state? Does Buddha ever explain this phenomenon?

The mind is always reacting to sensation on the body what every any state you are in, including but not limited to anesthetized, knocked out, unconsciousness, etc. Only time you do not sense any sensation is when you are in Pala Samapathi. So you are always have some level of awareness of the body through sensations at the deepest level of the mind or subconscious mind. At the surface level (conscious mind) you might not be aware of it.
Also see: From the Deepest Coma, New Brain Activity Found

Lack of memory doesn't necessarily imply lack of consciousness.  For
instance, some people are fond of drinking to the point of 'blacking
out'.  One minute they are drinking something they probably shouldn't,
and the next minute it is the next day, another place, and they are
regretting it.
Yet it would be odd to suggest that the person was "unconscious"
between those two moments, since they probably e.g. responded
"intelligently" to stimuli (more intelligently than, say, a rock,
anyway).
As Suminda Sirinath Salpitiko may have hinted in his answer, the same
applies to normal sleep: not remembering your dreams is not the same
as not dreaming (or at least this is not the usual understanding).
Some people report so-called out-of-body experiences when under
anesthesia.  Can we assume that those that don't report them don't
experience them?

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: ΑΝΝΑ ΖΑΦΕΙΡΙΟΥ

sort: votes


text:
Thoughtforms in Buddhism
I've recently discovered the concept of Tulpa or "thoughtforms", and I have some questions.
Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms?
Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism?
From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous?
For those with personal experience with thoughtforms:
Are your thoughtforms permanent?
Knowing that they are illusions, how "real" do they feel? Are their voices different to that of your mind's voice? Do all of your interactions with the thoughform take place in the mind, or have you experienced them in a physical way?
Have you ever felt attached to a thoughtform, and has being a host for one ever cause you emotional strain?
Does your thoughtform take on a physical shape or image, and if so, was this a conscious decision by you, or did the Tulpa decide it's own form?

This book whose title is,
BUDDHISM
Critical Concepts in Religious Studies
Edited by Paul Williams
Volume III
The Origins and Nature of Mahayana Buddhism;
Some Mahayana Religious Topics

says on page 365,

That an adept can employ an advanced meditation technique to create a body made by his or her own mind is an opinion found in ancient Buddhist scripture and elaborated in later treatises. This is a pan-Buddhist notion. The power to transform ones own body into another form and the power to create bodies "made of mind" are two among the ṛddhi, or supernormal powers, explained in the Visuddhimagga.
Few can achieve vikurvana-rddhi; it is a difficult attainment. But Buddhas,
  Pratyeka-Buddhas and chief disciples are said to attain it automatically when
  they become Arhats, that is, when they attain liberation from the cycle of
  rebirth.

You can use the hyperlink above to read more from those pages of that book, or here is a copy as a PDF.
So, to answer your questions:

Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms?
Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism?
No, apparently not: it's a "difficult attainment".
From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous?
They're not something you create in order to have an imaginary friend, which you can talk with and which acts a gateway to your own subconscious. Instead they're something which a Bodhisatva might create as a tool to help liberate someone else:

The Bodhisattva cultivates
  rddhi-Abhijñā in order to advance a great many beings toward liberation;
  without it, relatively few beings can be matured. For this purpose, a Bodhisattva
  can make for him- or herself the body of a cakravartin, a Sakra, a Buddha, or
  whatever is required to effect someone's liberation. Such transformations
  (nirmita) are true and not false, for no dharma has a fixed characteristic

They're created consciously, not subconsciously:

Having
  entered dhyiina, using one or another meditation-object, one should arise from
  the meditation and contemplate oneself having the form of-for example-a
  boy. Having done this one should re-enter dhyiina and resolve, "May I be such
  and such a boy." With resolve, one becomes so. Similarly, in order to exercise
  manomayii-rddhi, the power of creating a body by mental powers, arising from
  dhyiina and contemplating the body one should resolve "Let the body be a
  hollow." The body becomes a hollow, one contemplates another body within
  one's own, resolves again and there is another body within oneself. One
  removes it, as a reed from its sheath, and the two are distinct but one is the
  duplicate of the other. Thus, one uses a progressive visualization exercise, in
  either case, and the end result is said to be the production of a new body, visible
  to others.

Beware that I'm reading this from a book: I don't know Tibetan Buddhism (and Wikipedia's article on Tibetan Buddhism suggests that it requires a teacher, an "authentic lineage of transmission" from "a lama who is fully qualified to give it"). The footnotes (on page 379) reference the Visuddhimagga.

@Kirby Furthermore Lamas themselves are described as Tulkus i.e. aspects of Buddha. The Dalai Lama describes that here: http://www.dalailama.com/messages/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation

If you look at this through the Zen aspect of Buddhism and other aspects as well, creating a thoughtform if this is even possible would be a failure to follow instructions.
In meditation following the breath and counting is a way to stop running after thought forms. Thought forms are as imperfect as imagination allows.
Take someone on psychotropic drugs that sees things they do not see in regular life. Where does that come from is not important to the Buddhist as how to get back to the breath and the beginner's mind.
Milarepa is an example of someone who could use black magic to kill people.http://www.thranguhk.org/buddhism/en_milarepa.html
You can read about his black magic, but here is a more relevant detail, the outcome of his karma, remorse.

Seeking the Dharma
Milarepa was filled with remorse for the evil he had done by magic and
  by hailstorms. While he remained in the lama's service, he asked
  himself unceasingly and passionately by what means he might practice
  the true teaching.
The lama replied, "All composite things are impermanent. I have done
  harm to many beings by evil spells, magic, and hailstorms. You also
  have accumulated crimes of magic and hailstorms. These crimes will be
  on my head. Since you are young and have a great faith. You must
  practice the Dharma yourself and help us all achieve the higher realms
  and liberation. I will support you with all the provisions you need."

So all of Milarepa's black magic only leads him into a karmic mess that must unwind. So what is the benefit of creating Tulpas or thoughtforms or black magic when it only brings us deeper into the karmic mud?
If you can imagine an enlightened master and he helps you to awaken, then perhaps there is some value in this practice, but be careful because what claims to be a master might only be someone to enslave you in passion. Be very careful. Some sites on the internet actually talked about creating women and men to be lovers with Tulpas. This is as foolish as following the desires in the body. It only leads to suffering.
Ask yourself deeply what is your intention in this pursuit if you must pursue it. If it is only to satisfy desires, then you only sink deeper in the mud.

The question is about "Tibetan Buddhism": it is tagged [tag:tibetan-buddhism].

I was of the belief that Milarepa is a beloved figure in Tibetan Buddhism.

I'm afraid it might be impolite to classify Tulpas as "black magic", if they are what were created by Gautama Buddha as mentioned in the Wikipedia article: Commentarial texts such as the Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga state that this mind-made body is how Gautama Buddha and arhats are able to travel into heavenly realms using the continuum of the mindstream (bodhi) and it is also used to explain the multiplication miracle of the Buddha as illustrated in the Divyavadana, in which the Buddha multiplied his emanation body ("nirmita") into countless other bodies which filled the sky.

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


text:
Is it not recommended to change the object of meditation during a short session?
Sometimes I tend to switch my attention from the nostrils to the "up and down" of the chest/stomach
It depends on how well I'm breathing (I have serious problem with the nostrils, it can only be 100% fixed in a surgery)
I do prefer the nostrils, however this change is commom everytime it becomes impossible to keep breathing throught them (so I swith to the mounth and focus on the chest)
Is this switch not recommended for any reason, for instance, is this a problem to reach right concentration?

The simple answer is it is not. Don't change it.

If you concentrate on breathing for a while you mind will play tricks
like, Now the it is time to change the session but it is not. Buddha
has taught not to fall for that kind of feelings.
Even if you try to master elements it the same. don't fall for that
feelings. Possibly if you do it for some time it is likely that you
will get fame, but it is temporary that is a test for you. If you
simply stop everything fades away sometimes you will fall than you
were before.
Read VipasanaBavana from Balangoda Anananda Mithree thero for more info

Use the Columella or Philtrum. This is as taught by Webu Sayadaw, U Ba Khin and Goenkaji. This is very effective.
Also p37 of With Each & Every Breath: A Guide to Meditation and Method 2 in Keeping the Breath in Mind gives additional places.
If you change your position your Samadhi. To make your Samadhi stronger you must choose:

A small area
Continuously bring the mind to this chosen area
Sustain the mind in the chosen area as long as possible

In the Buddhist path Samadhi is important. You cannot bake a cake without all or without the ingredients in appropriate quantities. Without Samadhi your wisdom shall be shallow.

What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?
See the section on Ānāpānapabbaṃ in:

Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness - VRI translation

The Essential Practice Part II and The Essential Practice Part I by Webu Sayadaw


text:
What are the common buddhist practices to eliminate sleepiness?
I sleep the hours which are said to be needed, but I still feel sleepy. I've been drinking coffee recently to eliminate grogginess, and it does work for me. However, I was wondering if there are other methods of eliminating grogginess?

It may be health issue for some people. I have low blood pressure. So I used to feel sleepy. Drinking a cup of coffee helps me.

Buddha gave his disciple Moggallana a sequence of advice on how to overcome drowsiness during meditation. Moggallana was however continuously meditating for 7 days without sleep when he received this advice.

Well then, Moggallana, whatever perception you have in mind when drowsiness descends on you, don't attend to that perception, don't pursue it. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness
But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then recall to your awareness the Dhamma as you have heard & memorized it, re-examine it & ponder it over in your mind. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness.
[..] then repeat aloud in detail the Dhamma as you have heard & memorized it. [..]
[..] then pull both your earlobes and rub your limbs with your hands. [..]
[..] then get up from your seat and, after washing your eyes out with water, look around in all directions and upward to the major stars & constellations. [..]
[..] then attend to the perception of light, resolve on the perception of daytime, [dwelling] by night as by day, and by day as by night. By means of an awareness thus open & unhampered, develop a brightened mind. [..]
[..]  then — percipient of what lies in front & behind — set a distance to meditate walking back & forth, your senses inwardly immersed, your mind not straying outwards. [..]

But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then — reclining on your right side — take up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with your mind set on getting up. As soon as you wake up, get up quickly, with the thought, 'I won't stay indulging in the pleasure of lying down, the pleasure of reclining, the pleasure of drowsiness.' That is how you should train yourself.
AN 7.58

I wanted to know how you know he had been meditating for 7 days? I checked the sutta out (not too deeply) and didn't find it. Thanks.

@David I've heard it many times in dhamma talks by monks.  This document says  that according to the Anguttara Commentary,
he had been walking up and down vigorously in meditation for seven days, so when he sat down for his
meditation, drowsiness overcame him."

Actually Buddha called that the Lazyness. It is a one major factor that prevent us from getting in to the path of Nirvana.

Don't eat too much, if you eat until you get the feeling it is full that's wrong.
In order to stay alert drink more water, actually a major factor of being APHOO
Keep a good hi-gene that will make you good
Also maintain a posture, so the body knows what mood are you in.
 ex: If you study in bed body thinks that posture is  for sleep so it will release those enzymes
Wake up in the morning for India that time is 3 - 6 because it is called the Brahma moorthi that will energize you.
There are many things like what to eat and what not to do. It is all mentioned in Vinayapitaka.(a study of behaviors)

These are the major facts please read the above pitaka for more information

Great tips by the Buddha. To supplemement this I offer a esoteric Buddhist technique taught by Master Huai-Chin Nan:
focus at your navel point and imagine a fine bright red point as bright as you can. Imagine this growing brighter and brighter, finer and finer. If this doesn't wake you up, gradually move this point up!
Move this point down, if you have TOO much energy.
This technique works best after having done the Buddhist contemplations in an above answer.
Sleep is a subject I have studied for over 15 years very deeply. There is much to be said about it including: affirmations, lucid dreaming as cultivation, self-hypnosis to sleep BETTER or sleep faster, dream interpretation, circadian rhythm timings, REM timings... so many deep deep topics for you to learn more about!
Nonetheless, basic guidelines about rest are important. We should get ample rest before meditating.
Master Nan said he would sleep for DAYS at a time and then when he's had enough, he would do a non-stop retreat without sleep for the next week.
Strange I think, but I'm just reporting it for reporting sake.
Another thing you should know is that the more we stress about the world and the more worldly things we do (things that involve lust, greed, ignorance) I notice the more sleep-need is generated.
Also, I have experimented with many different polyphasic sleep styles, I think it is better to learn how to rest every hour through five minute closed eyes and stretching breaks.
As much as possible you should design your life to feel good always especially your diet.
This is a lifelong journey and for nutritional self-analysis read Mark Hyman's book "The Ultramind Solution." It definitely added to my nutritional understandings.
Also learn about fasting, read "Rational Fasting."
If there's anything you take away from this: the best way to overcome torpor is to figure a lifestyle out where you don't have it in the first place (and are still getting your life objectives accomplished).

You can try focusing primarily on your in-breath during your meditation.  Inhalation activates your sympathetic nervous system (which is also activated when you're in flight or fight mode).  Every time you inhale, there is a subtle increase in energy.  Your body is oxygenated and your heart beats a bit faster.  At the same time, your mind also becomes more alert and energetic on the in-breath.  So if you meditate with an emphasis on your in-breath , you will find yourself becoming more energised.
Just try it for yourself and see what happens.

Try using control breathing technique by sitting down in the quiet place, focus on breathing in and out at the tip of the nose while closing your eyes (visualize the air going in and out). This may help you with focusing your mind to stay alert while clearing your senses on the surrounding, which can be distracting.
If your diet is already well controlled and you have enough sleep, you may have sleep apnea condition.

Coffee will temporarily give you a mind and energy boost but it also has the negative effect of giving you a crash (hence the reason for more coffee). I used to own a cafe and I would drink up to 5-6 short blacks a day as I would always feel tired and drowsy. A good friend of mine challenged me to give up coffee for a month and I could not believe how much energy I had after about 2-3 days. For about 2 days I did have headaches which was the caffeine leaving my system but after that I was fine. I still drink coffee only one a day and I also meditate daily (Anapana meditation or mindfulness meditation) and this has also given me a lot more energy. Of course you will always have days where nothing can eliminate drowsiness but for the most part all good.
Metta

Isn't green tea much more commonly used by monks and for mediation?


text:
Celibacy and contradiction with modern medical science
Buddhism stress on Celibacy at the same time insists on revoking everything that could not be proved by scientific method or rational thought. I am a graduate student of physics and I found that modern medical science or the proponents of medicine recommends controlled masturbation as a healthy way to relieve sexual desire or tension. I find it contradictory that what the medical practitioners found by scientific methods is completely against the view of masturbation in Buddhism and still Buddhism as far as I know advocates the scientific method be more fruitful than the intuitive way of reasoning. Is it contradictory?

A side note: a medical recommendation may or may not be based on studies, and these may or may not have been well conducted. A study may or may not have follow ups, and these may contradict or further support previous correlations. Correlations do not imply causality. Finally, even with actual data supporting that sexual desire or tension is relieved with controlled masturbation (btw, I see no reason to challenge this), such data, by no means, should imply that this is the "best" or "most appropriate" way of relieving sexual desire or tension, particularly, in the context of buddhism practice.

At the same time Buddhism, unlike science for the masses, relies on developing the power of your will to abnormal levels. Thus, findings that apply to most people may benefit your strategic thinking, but should not be viewed as a clear aprioric limitation, much less as an excuse (this topic is heavily loaded with such connotations, after all).

Even if it were true that "medicine recommends" it, is that a strong recommendation? My (Canadian) doctors have given me many recommendations (and/or asked me many questions) over the years: about diet, exercise, alcohol, smoking, sleep, drugs (illegal and/or prescription), blood-tests, heart, breathing, bones, muscles, guts, urine, skin, teeth, infections, vaccines, social life, job, family, mental health, stress, etc. ... but not masturbation. So if masturbation is "healthy" (or not unhealthy), maybe the same is also true of not masturbating, i.e. it too is "healthy" or not unhealthy.

"at the same time insists on revoking everything that could not be proved by scientific method" - false assertion

@SankhaKulathantille Could you specify why the statement is false? Kalama Sutta would render a support to the above statement

@ThejusMahajan People have tried to explain the Kalama Sutta in other topics, e.g. this one.

To clarify your question, would you add a reference (e.g. a hyperlink and quote) to a specific claim or recommendation which medical science makes about masturbation, so we can understand what you're talking about? And a reference (again, a citation and a quote) to specific "Buddhist view" on the subject, so we can understand why you say there's a contradiction between medical science and Buddhism?

As more and more scientific research and studies are done on meditation, they start to recognize that practicing meditation is a much more superior way of relieving stress, subdueing unwholesome emotions, and many many other benefits. (ref: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-it/201309/20-scientific-reasons-start-meditating-today)

I  will quote/extract a few sentences from Wikipedia's article on that subject, below (you can read the whole article and its references for further details):

An article from Beliefnet and Brian Schell, a writer for DailyBuddhism.com, both suggest that masturbation is essentially harmless for a layperson, at least outside the realm of karma[3][4] The accomplished Theravadin monk Bhante Shravasti Dhammika cites the Vinaya Pitaka in his online Guide to Buddhism A to Z, stating the following

Some people during the Buddha’s time believed that masturbation could have a therapeutic effect on the mind and the body (Vin. III, 109), although the Buddha disagreed with this. According to the Vinaya, it is an offence of some seriousness for monks or nuns to masturbate (Vin. III, 111) although the Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people. However, Buddhism could agree with contemporary medical opinion that masturbation is a normal expression of the sexual drive and is physically and psychologically harmless, as long as it does not become a preoccupation or a substitute for ordinary sexual relations. Guilt and self-disgust about masturbating is certainly more harmful than masturbation itself.

The emphasis on chastity in Buddhism is much more so for bhikkus and bhikkunis (monks and nuns, respectively), who are expected to follow the Vinaya (traditional code of ethics for Buddhist monks and nuns). Not only are monastics celibate, but they also must strive to conquer their desires much more so than a layperson.
Thus, in Buddhism, masturbation and its permissiveness is most often viewed as situational, depending on one's level of precepts and monastic standing.

The "Buddhist stress on celibacy" which you refer to is (arguably) 'stressed' for monks and nuns; and it is not stressed in exactly the same way for laypeople.
Some of the other Vinaya rules too (e.g. not eating after noon), which are only applicable to monks and nuns, might or might not not be perfectly in line with every recommendation of "modern medical science", but apparently they are good enough for their purpose, which I think is to 'allow the holy life to be lived'.
Also, science and Buddhism don't contradict each other on this subject, they say different things about it:

Science suggests that masturbation might have some effect on the incidence of some types of physical illness.

Perhaps Buddhism doesn't say much on that subject (see "Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people" above), but if anything IMO it suggests that masturbation might have some other effects (e.g. on discipline, views about desire, profitable use of time, etc.).

Because you added hyperlinks to specific references as I requested let me try to analyze them.
I wish you'd quoted specific sentences from those references, but let's try to summarize the whole documents.

Enlightenment through Celibacy or Celibacy through Enlightenment? doesn't mention masturbation at all, except in the Vinaya which are the rules for nuns:

In the bhikkhuni Vinaya there seem to be several rules to safeguard against sexual practices such as masturbation, homosexuality etc. The restrictions in the Vinaya againstsharing the same bed, couch, sharing the same blanket, from rubbing each others bodies, applying oils etc on another could be multi purpose including to safeguard against possible sexual activity.

The later sentence which says, "The above clearly shows that abstinence from sexual activity is not the essence of the practice towards Enlightenment even in the case of a monk or a nun" means I think that it's not the activity that's wrong, it's the self-indulging in a desire for a (conditioned) sense-object.
Are you asking about the Vinaya rules for monks, or asking about the "five precepts" rules for laypeople?
Its conclusion includes,

Having examined the lives of disciples above it is difficult to conclude that celibacy is a pre-condition for Enlightenment. ... . With progress on the Path, realizing the true nature of sensual pleasures and the mind and body one progresses through to a celibate life naturally. Some reach such a state of mind earlier than others . In any event at the latest, with the attainment of third fruit of the Path, Anagami-phala one switches over to complete celibacy. Ajahn Brahmavamso writes; ⋯ since sensual desire has been totally transcended, there is no spark left to ignite the passion for sex. All Arahants are ‘potently impotent’.

Note that Anagami-phala isn't being free of sexuality in particular: it's being free of "sensual desire" or Kāma-rāga in general.
Most of this document describes rules about bhikkhus. These Vinaya rules don't apply to laypeople (whereas in contrast these are some suggestions for laypeople).

You quoted Wikipedia's Buddhism and science article in your opening sentence which claims that "Buddhism ... insists on revoking everything that could not be proved by scientific method or rational thought".
Wikipedia's article says several things, none of which justify your assertion that "Buddhism insists on revoking everything etc."
This is discussed in many other topics on this site, which you can find by searching for words like "faith", "belief", and "kalama".

You reference
Masturbation: Questions and Answers for your claim that "masturbation is a healthy way to relieve sexual desire or tension".
I read its "Health Benefits" section as saying:

It lets you practice or become more skillful at sex
It lets you practice sex without a partner

I don't suppose that Buddhism contradicts those statements, and maybe there's therefore no "contradiction with modern medical science."
What Buddhism might disagree with is whether "practising sex" and "becoming more skillful as sex" are desirable: whether that's Buddha's message about the four noble truths.

In summary, if there's a conflict between Buddhism and masturbation, I think that's because Buddhism:

Teaches that learning freedom from sensual craving is "better" than pursuing sensual craving
Teaches that there are other ways (other than sexual activity) to "alleviate stress"
Does NOT believe that (unlike eating, for example) sex is necessary, that sex does not lead to the creation of new feelings, and is therefore a component of the Middle Way


text:
Are some of the supernormal powers a direct contradiction to old age, sickness, and death being unavoidable?
If a supremely enlightened being can become many, walk through walls and dive into the ground as if it were water doesn't this mean that he is not dependent on his body and can actually make the body into anything he wants? If he can become many couldn't he just manifest a new body? I have yet to come across even one case of any of the supernormal powers that has been scientifically confirmed. Usually after doing some research on claims of these powers I find an explanation that completely debunks them as frauds. I don't want to know if these exist in order to gain them but because I want to be aware of any discrepancies with in Buddhist texts in order to better fully understand the Dharma. For me truth is the highest goal so separating fact from fiction is a must.

Then the real question is whether we humans are capable of seeing all the facts there are in the world? Carl Sagan put it best with his flatlander simile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 . Now say there's some being who possesses supernormal powers living in a cave on those extremely remote mountains, s/he'd probably has no interest to come down to our civilized world to prove anything. So in scientific term, it's a matter of the sample size. And in the words of another great scientist, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, don't dismiss the "whale" just yet: http://moniquill.tumblr.com/post/92432571651/claiming-there-is-no-other-life-in-the-universe-is
About the contradiction to old age, sickness,...well, there's no contradiction. According to the suttas and commentaries, the meditator has to meditate on a particular element kasina in order to be able to manipulate that element (ie. meditate on the water kasina to walk on water, on the earth kasina to go thru earth, etc.), in other words, s/he can only temporarily perform such feats under certain levels of concentration. They themselves are subjected to impermanence..

Even supernormal powers have its function. E.g. divine eye helps see things which cannot be seen by the normal eye. This does not mean that your eye will not be impermanent. Nor can any of these powers make anything impermanent permanent or exert absolute control over your corporeal body to repair decay due to old are. There may be some therapeutic benefits through but limited in effectiveness and application like any other treatment.
So supernormal powers cannot be used to overcome old age, sickness and death in absolute terms though there may be some therapeutic benefits in having high levels of Samadhi.

I'm not aware of any supernatural powers that can be attained through meditation.
An interesting scientific phenomenon comes to mind though. Birds are keenly aware of the Earth's magnetic field when migrating. They know which direction to go even without Google maps. Personally, I believe humans are capable of this as well but parts of our mind drown out these instincts. Dogs know when a tornado is approaching even without the Weather Channel. In a way, that seems unbelievable. It comes down to what you believe is supernatural. 1000 years ago a horseless carriage or penicillin may have been considered supernatural.
One time I did an experiment if I could tell where I was going by banging two keys together. I distinctly remember walking up to the wall and feeling the sound waves reverberate back without knowing the wall was there by sight or touch. Turns out this is called echo location and some blind children can navigate a playground by making a clicking sound with their mouth.
Initially, I would have thought echo location to be supernatural, but a scientific reason exists. Another example I can give is with aging. Most people would find it hard to believe that anything can reverse aging. However, meditating activates the parasympathetic nervous system. It is responsible for accelerating the process of digestion ("rest-and-digest") It's like Wolverine's natural healing factor in a way. If a person is in a steady state of rest for years, won't he or she be younger than those who haven't? You can notice what going two nights without rest feels like, and sleep deprivation is a cause of many fatal traffic accidents.
Another example, when I feel pain in my eyes from too much typing, I lie down and actually feel the pain. Initially, the pain sensation will intensify but then it subsides and then disappears altogether. I've heard Kusala Bhikshu say, "When you become one with the pain, there's no one to feel the pain." It certainly sounds supernatural, but there's a scientific explanation, and that's what Buddhism is, a scientific examination into suffering.


text:
Is there a Tantrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) training related to "burning" past bad karma?
I heard (only heard) a couple of times somewhere that there is a training in Tantrayana that can purify you, by deleting or burning your own past bad karma.
Unfortunately, I don't know the name of this training -- but I lived in Indonesia and sometimes a Tantrayana monk came and offered something like this (again, if I remember correctly)
Is there some kind of training like this?

Never heard of anything like this in Tibetan Buddhism, are you sure you have not misunderstood? There is burning of negative energy which is a metaphor for forcing oneself through pathological emotional habits, but that's not deleting of past karma.

@AndreiVolkov Thanks. I will try to find more information about this

In Tibetan Buddhism, there are many Karma Purification practices, such as the 100-syllable Vajrasattva Practice, the 35-Buddha Purification practice, etc. Mostly, I think, these are like lighting a match in a completely dark building. A little light can do a lot! Give you some space to work perhaps and "illuminate your situation". Any practice that helps you still your mental noise is a good one.

The use of 'burning' in the title made me wonder if you meant the practice of tummo? In Theravada, the jhanas are sometimes said to 'burn up defilements', e.g., cf.: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch1.2

In the Theravada pali cannon:
In this Devadaha Sutta , the Buddha refutes the theories of the Jains — here called the Niganthas — and heaps ridicule on the idea of trying to burn kamma by asceticism. First he notes that none of the Niganthas have ever come to the end of pain by trying to burn it away in this way;

"Going to Niganthas who teach in this way, I have asked them, 'Is it true, friend Niganthas, that you teach in this way, that you have this view: "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted"?'
"Having been asked this by me, the Niganthas admitted it, 'Yes.'
"So I said to them, 'But friends, do you know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist?' (*basically, have you seen your own past lives?)
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted?'
"'No, friend.'
"'But do you know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now?'
"'No, friend.'
"'So, friends, it seems that you don't know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist... you don't know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now. That being the case, it is not proper for you to assert that, "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted."

This answer does not accord with the title and the tags, since the Sutra that you quoted is not 'of definite meaning' (according to Tibetan traditions) and you have not explained it by way of an authoritative Tantrayana teacher. Moreover, you spoke of 'burning karma by way of this or that' and did not give a general answer.

This is the theravada Belief and it is how we believe it. As the OP who posted does not believe Samadhi has given reasons to support his belief and there's nothing wrong with that.  @TenzinDorje

@Theravada I'm not commenting the content of the answer, but I think it does not answer the question, since it is not a answer from the Tantrayana perspective. But maybe I misunderstand what tags (and titles) are for.

I agree with Tenzin Dorje. The question is asking from a Tibetan perspective so it is wrong to cite texts from another tradition and just say they're wrong.

In my opinion, you cannot change the past. We are now is the result of the past actions whether mentally or physically.
There are some people who are ill and need to replace their failure organ with someone else's. However, not all organ replacement works well with the 'new' body.
But we can take care of the present moment and do good deeds as much as we can. This will add more 'water' so that the 'saltiness' of a glass of water can be reduced.

Hello B1100 and welcome to Buddhism.SE! We've put together some information to help you get started here.

Short and sweet!  :-)

Purification of karma is the same as purifying the mind. The mind holds all of the negative karma. When one attains nirvana, one has exhausted their negative karma. They become immune to the material reaction. So mantra, meditation, tantra, all of these have that aim. To purify the mind. It happens at many levels, conscious and unconscious. You can think of all the practices of meditation and yoga "burning karma." It sounds magical because of the burning word, but really it just is referring to ways you can rapidly purify and still the mind. This can be a very difficult process if it is made to be done expediently. For example, if you have done some black magic on someone in a past life you may have to experience some of the reaction. The purification process usually relies on the energy of a deity or a guru to assist in this process, to make it as manageable as possible. But one cannot think of this as any ordinary thing, one may have millions of years of karma to deal with. Most Buddhist practices are designed to deal with the negative karma. Ending bad thoughts, habits, through the puja, mantra, meditation...don't think of it as something extra special. Ending all your negative karma, ending all karma, is the goal.

"Ending all your negative [and positive!!] karma, ending all karma, is the goal.", yes Mr. Marcus Quinn Rodriguez Tenes, but till then, there is never such as "burning vipaka (results) of kamma" done. Till then it ripes, what ever one likes to do. Its just that with advanced practice, one can easily bear its fruition. Such may have caused the strange idea of having a way to burn kamma under the Buddha Dhamma label.

The misunderstanding is that the "burning karma" means you do not experience the karmic reaction. Purification, burning the karma, they are not free. You don't just recite the mantra and poof it is gone. You may experience some very difficult things physically or emotionally as part of the process. It is simply an empowered process by the deity or guru that more systematically directs spiritual energy at creating a pure mind. If done with sincerity, it usually results in an accelerated process of experiencing the karma in a safer way.

This is a process like weeding the garden. Normally without these practices, the negative thoughts remain in your garden free to grow and mature into fruit bearing trees. However through these sort of "karma burning" practices, one can uproot these seedlings or burn the seed so you escape the fruit being bore from them. But that doesn't mean the uprooting or the burning does not cause any karma, that is the karma. That in itself can be painful. The deity simply empowers the process of the weeding, as opposed to letting your mind just sit and letting it grow. Meditation also "burns karma".


text:
How to calculate the number of years in a kalpa?
Wikipedia's Kalpa(aeon) in Buddhism article says,

In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years[1]), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years.

I just went through the Visuddhimagga, and could not find where or how that time in years is calculated.
I was wondering how to calculate it.
Please explain how it's calculated, with reference to scripture where Lord Buddha mentioned it, and/or where the calculation or the result of the calculation is described, perhaps in the Thripitaka or Visuddhimagga?

[1] Wikipedia's reference is to a book:

Epstein, Ronald B.(2002). Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z p. 204. Buddhist Text Translation Society. ISBN 0-88139-353-3, ISBN 978-0-88139-353-8.

Perhaps that book may have a reference to where they found it, but I still haven't find that book.

Wikipedia says, "The definition of a kalpa equaling 4.32 billion years is found in the Puranas (specifically Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana)." So doesn't this seem to be a question about Sanskrit, and not a question about Buddhism? Also that Wikipedia article says that, within Buddhism, the word is given various definitions in the Visuddhimagga: therefore not the Tripitaka.

Aeon(kalpa) is also mentioned in Hindhu Religon. That's why they mentioned about Puranas.I'm not asking about it. Under the topic Buddhism , article says "A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years[1]), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years." and at the start mentions about Visuddhimagga... I just go through the Visuddhimagga and could not find time in Years.

The article has taken the time periods from a book named "Buddhism A to Z" by Epstein, Ronald... I think the book may have a reference about where they found it. I still couldn't find the book.

As far as I know, the words used in Buddhist Kalpa in a lot of cases,
for example: Existence, life reduced (when life human destiny decreased from 84,000 years to 10 years),increased lifetime (as opposed to lifetime reduction),
Sub-Kalpa (approximately 16 million years),
Mid-Kalpa (20 sub-life),
Big-Kalpa (4 centered life = 1.3 billion years),
and countless Kalpa ..etc

It is not possible for anyone to have any idea of what an aeon (world cycle / kappa) is. It is equivalent to eternity. Only by a simile you will get an idea of it. The Buddha offers two vivid similes to suggest the eon's duration.
A maha kappa or aeon is generally taken to mean a world cycle. How long is a world cycle? In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddha used the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison:
Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana (eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high and every hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece of silk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended sooner than would an aeon.
Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, one yojana in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seeds to the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundred
years a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would be emptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

A paragraph in the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta states:

The Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
  brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if
  he so desired, remain throughout a world-period (kappa) or until the end of
  it.  The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata
  could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the
  end of it."

Commentary:

Kappam va tittheyya kappavasesam va. Comy. takes kappa not as "world-period" or "aeon," but as ayu-kappa, "life span," and explains
  avasesa (usually "remainder") by "in excess."

Therefore, a 'kappam' or 'kalpa' is not always calculated in the same way. Sometimes a 'kalpa' ('period of time') is very short.

As per Lord Buddha " Kalpa" cant be counted in Numbers but he replied for a Monks question " could you give and example of the time of a Kalpa.
Lord Buddha answered "yes I can give you and example"
Imagine a Square wall with the height, width and length of 16 Km. Fill it with Mustard seeds and imagine for every 100 years one mustard seed will be removed. After a unimaginable time the Square wall will have no more seeds but yet a " Kalpa" is not yet over.

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


text:
How old was Buddhism/Shinto before Shinto began to adopt aspects of Buddhism
Before Shinto began to adopt aspects of Buddhism i am wondering how old the 2 were as to which of the 2 was the older. by age i am referring to from when they started to become a following and not from when their creation myths occurred.

600 AD Buddhism arrives. It was the religions of the aristocracy. Peasants made no distinction between Buddhist and Shinto stories or personages. Just before WW2 as a part of nationalistic policy, the government forcibly split Buddhism into Shinto and Buddhism in an attempt to purify Shinto of foreign elements. Before that it never existed as a formal, institutional religion. AFAIK, not even before 600AD

Buddhism originates with the historical Buddha:

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][10] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][11][note 4] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.

The historical Buddha lived in or near what is now northern India, i.e. far from Japan.
Re. the Origins of Shinto, recorded history dates to circa 700 CE (i.e. about 1000 years later than Buddhism) but archaeology shows a "pre-history" that "significantly" earlier than that:

Shinto has very ancient roots in the Japanese islands. The recorded history dates to the Kojiki (712) and Nihon Shoki (720), but archeological records date back significantly further. Both are compilations of prior oral traditions.

The BBC's short History of Shinto says,

Periods of Shinto history
One of the standard classifications of Shinto history reduces it to
four major periods:

Before the arrival of Buddhism in Japan

Shinto and Buddhism together in Japan

And,

Shinto and Buddhism together
From the 6th century CE the beliefs that are now known as Shinto were
greatly altered by the addition of other ingredients.
Shintoisms were the only religions in Japan until the arrival of
Buddhism in the 6th century CE. From then on Shinto faiths and
traditions took on Buddhist elements, and later, Confucian ones. Some
Shinto shrines became Buddhist temples, etc.

And,

Before the arrival of Buddhism
During this period there was no formal Shinto religion, but many local
cults that are nowadays grouped under the name Shinto.
Like many prehistoric people, the first inhabitants of Japan were
probably animists; devoted to the spirits of nature. In their case
these were the Kami that were found in plants and animals, mountains
and seas, storms and earthquakes, sand and all significant natural
phenomena.
The early Japanese developed rituals and stories which enabled them to
make sense of their universe, by creating a spiritual and cultural
world that gave them historical roots, and a way of seeming to take
control of their lives, in what would otherwise have been a fearful
and puzzling landscape.
Other cults that are grouped together into Shinto probably arrived in
Japan from Korea with the Korean tribes which invaded Japan in late
prehistoric times.
These religions were highly localised, and not organised into a single
faith. Nor were they seen as a single religion; the realms of Earth
and the supernatural were so closely integrated in the world-view of
the early Japanese that the things that modern people regard as a
faith were seen in those times as just another part of the natural
world, albeit a part of enormous power.

So "prehistoric Shinto" was (as well as being pre-historic) not necessarily a single religion. As such I suspect it may be impossible to define exactly when it began.
If you want to know more about what archaeology says about the origins of pre-historic Shinto, that seems like an appropriate question to ask on the 'History.SE' site.

I belong to a one of the Guardian races
(Sinhalese) of Theravada Buddhism.My country (Srilanka) was visited by Lord Buddha few times and we became Buddhists in the era of king Ashoka of India.
As we (Indian and Srilankan Monks and Buddhist societies in both countries) have now calculated and accepted Buddhism is about 2600+ years old.
Theravada is the oldest tradition of them all and this is our calculation as the Theravada Buddhists.


text:
If Buddha is able to predict the future of other sentient beings how can freewill be possible as its very nature is that of unpredictability?
It seems to me that prophecy could only be used to predict the most likely outcomes based on the mental states of the beings whose future is being predicted at the time of the prophecy. For instance, there is a scripture I just read in which the Buddha allowed Devadatta to become a monk because if he wasn't allowed to that he would be sent to a rebirth of torment after torment for Aeons but if he entered the Sangha he could considerably cut down on this negative Karma and would eventually become a Buddha whose name the Buddha even predicted. I know freewill is limited based on past karma and the number of choices one has available at any given moment but does the power of prophecy somehow still allow for freewill or is it just a sign of pre-determined fate?

Can you predict what your friends and family will do?

The Buddhist view is beyond the extremes of either absolute free will or absolute determinism. Our future depends on our acts and our choices now. However, our acts and choices, and indeed even our thoughts are constrained by the circumstances as well as our own habits, both of which are fruits of our own karma.
Now, regarding the prophecy, you can think of most sentient beings as rolling in a wide track (a wide furrow, like a river bed) -- unless they encounter some external force that will push them out, or make an extraordinary effort themselves, all their movements despite their freedom to choose will stay within the bounds of the track.
So in case with Devadatta, Buddha has seen that his cousin did not have enough force of his own to get off track. This is how he was able to make the prediction.


text:
What is Buddhist debate and how do I get started?
It appears in ancient India there was a style of debate that became associated with Buddhism and is still a part of at least Gulugpa Tibetan Buddhism.
What is it and how would I get started?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gelugpa+debate including for example Overview of the Gelug Monastic Education System suggests that the "Gelug" style of debate happens as part of the education, perhaps of adolescents, in monasteries. I don't understand what information/answer/benefit you were hoping for, by posting that question here.

JFGI answers aren't really helpful. You can down vote it if you don't like it.

I'm not sure I understand the question, because I'm sure you could Google it and more, and you presumably already have. Having just Googled it briefly myself, I find a wealth of information. Did you want someone like me to summarize some in an answer? If I found such information, was that even concerning the style of debate which you were asking about?

And what about "how would I get started": if it is the kind of debate that involves people shouting during their study-day, presumably you need to be somewhere in person where that's being conducted, which would be country-specific. Mike Olds' answer does seem like a summary of the style of dialog found in suttas, but maybe that's not what you're asking about since you mentioned "Gulugpa".

In the suttas a debate usually takes the form:
I hold such and such to be the case.
the response:
I hold such and such a different case to be the case.
There is no confrontation. No dealing with the other persons argument. You accept or do not accept. You are held to be capable of understanding both arguments and hold the wrong one only because you have not heard the correct one before. Argument concerning cases is held to be 'thinking out loud' and is not done. Again, you are held to be capable of reasoning through all the arguments yourself. The original statement can be made up to three times with the same response being made up to three times. Then a deadlock is declared and the issue is submitted to an authority both can trust.
Here is one example:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/05_fives/an05.166.hare.pts.htm
A later form of debate, not found in the suttas, but found in the controversies that arose around the second Council, involved directly dealing with the substance of the opponant's argument.
You say such and such, but here it is understood that this is the case. Do you agree that here it is understood that this is the case?
If so you must agree that your argument is defeated.
I agree that such and such is understood to be the case, but it does not apply in the case I bring up for such and such reasons.
More or less the way a reasonable dialogue would be conducted today, but at an essentially lower level than the earlier form.
There is never any reference to the individual involved, only the issues are discussed.


text:
Can the noble eightfold path be followed in its entirety by a lay follower?
Does the noble eightfold path fits a lay life perfectly? Or is there any part of it that cannot be followed/accomplished by a lay buddhist?
If that's the case, what part(s) doesn't have fit with lay life?

At a higher level the 8 fold path consists of 3 fold training:

Development of morality
Development of control or mastery over the mined
Development of knowledge of the reality pertaining to one's mind and cognitive process

There is nothing in the above which a lay person cannot develop or not reap benefits by developing.
Being a monk you have less responsibilities hence more time to practice. The key is to practice regardless of whether you are lay or a monk.

I started to read a book, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity written by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula.
This book says:

The Buddha recognizes and admires happiness
The Buddha wants laypeople (lay society) to be happy, prosperous, ethical
The Buddha says that worldly happiness (sensory satisfaction) and the happiness of renunciation (giving up sensory satisfaction) both exist, though he said ("especially in the presence of bikkhus") and that the monks' happiness of renunciation is better.

The Pali canon was written and organized (sorted) by monks. The advice to laypeople is scattered (not organized) within the canon and therefore difficult to find.
Although scattered in the canon there is there lots of advice for laypeople: about behaving ethically, choosing a good/compatible wife/husband, having a good relationship, making decisions which aren't corrupted by anger or greed, etc.
This book does not mention the eight-fold path by name, nor does it make any mention of some of the elements of the eight-fold path. For example it mentions right effort, right knowledge, but does not mention concentration.
There is hardly any mention of meditation in the book, except that it's practised by the Buddha and by monks.
The book doesn't mention the four noble truths; although in my opinion, some applications of those truths might be present, for example the advice to laypeople includes cessation of old ways of thinking (stop clinging to the notion of "caste" for example), and living in the present with impermanence (which IMO might be examples of how to apply the third noble truth to secular life).

"Because renunciation grants a more stable form of happiness, this "happiness in detachment" or vimutti sukha is said to be "better". This is the happiness experienced by the Buddha himself and by his ordained disciples. With fewer duties, those who renounce worldly life find fewer hindrances to inner peace. Happiness in lay life, on the other hand, fluctuates constantly because of the numerous conflicts and burdens inherent in that life. But other than this since comparison, which does indeed raise spiritual happiness above worldly happiness, no evidence suggests that the Buddha found fault with secular life or the happiness associated with it."

The purpose of the (ordained) Sangha is to be a highly dedicated and qualified community to take the Buddha's message to society:

Impermanence, dissatisfaction with worldly pleasure, and detachment from secular life served predominantly to train and maintain this community.

And,

There is no evidence in the Nikayas, the most authenticated collections of the Buddha's teachins, that he appealed to his lay followers to meditate on impermanence or dissatisfaction.

It even says,

Further, almost every translator of suttas rendered the recurrent keyword dukkha as "suffering," and had readers believing that the Buddha regarded worldly life as miserable. However, dukkha indicates the insatiable nature of the human mind, not merely so-called suffering. The Buddha employed this word for the purpose of directing the bikkhus toward nibbana -- and not for the instruction of his lay disciples.

The book says a lot more than this; the above is a summary.

The last chapter of the book recommends the following as a path to lasting happiness:

Avoid mind-created reactions to everyday experiences
The Madhupindika Sutta explains that we attach meaning to sensory experience, allowing such thoughts to attack oneself.

Let go of greed and malice

Pursue a goal and enjoy achieving it
This type of happiness is called atthi sukha: especially, achieving a worthwhile goal.

Look at others' unpleasant actions with compassion

Work for others' benefit

Live a principled life

Accept the inevitability of change as natural law.

Wkipedia's Householder (Buddhism) article says,

In southeast Asian communities, lay disciples also give alms to monks on their daily rounds and observe weekly uposatha days. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of ethical conduct and dāna or "almsgiving" will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower heavens is likely even if there is no further Buddhist practice. This level of attainment is viewed as a proper aim for laypersons.

IMO "cultivating ethical conduct" is good but it's not like full-time meditation.
If laypeople aim for rebirth in one of the lower heavens then maybe, I suppose, they aren't hoping to become enlightened in this life.
It also says,

In some traditional Buddhist societies, such as in Burma and Thailand, people transition between householder and monk and back to householder with regularity and celebration as in the practice of shinbyu among the Bamar.[3] One of the evolving features of Buddhism in the West is the increasing dissolution of the traditional distinction between monastics and laity.

And,

In the Pali canon, the pursuit of Nibbana (Skt: Nirvana) within this lifetime usually starts with giving up the householder life. This is due to the householder life's intrinsic attachments to a home, a spouse, children and the associated wealth necessary for maintaining the household.

That whole Wikipedia article is worth reading carefully.

Great answer, I will add this book to my 'to read' list.

Is this available for download?

This is an excellent book; very useful for understanding the place of lay people in Buddhism. I found it very helpful.

All of this is derived from the book that you have mentioned, but you haven't attached any reference to the pali canon.

@Samma-Sati You're right, for example where I wrote "The last chapter etc." and summarize seven sub-section titles, the book includes up to three references (to suttas) for each section. It's difficult to summarize a chapter in an answer as short as this one. Please let me know which specific sentences in this answer you'd like references for, and I would try to add them.

@ChrisW. Thanks for the reference to the book "The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity". Just ordered it from Amazon.

A simple question.
A simple answer:
Of course it can!
It's as simple as this:

Right view: see the 3 characteristics and 6 realms
Right intention: take the 4 vows of universal salvation as a Buddha
Right action: ahimsa, non-stealing, no sexual misconduct, no intoxication
Right speech: avoid idle, harmful, unskillful speech
Right livelihood: have a good livelihood that doesn't involve harming others
Right effort: do more good, do less bad, continue good, continue avoiding bad
Right samadhi: attain the 8 dhyana
Right prajna: insight meditation

Each and every petal deserves a book of explanation but here I have simplified the structure.
The Eightfold path is beneficial and good to follow for anyone! Be it ghost, layman, scientist, murderer, etc.
The only thing that is exclusive about lifestyle choices is Right Action and Right Livelihood.
Depending on what school one is devoted to, it can be more strict or loose.
The basic idea is that you do actions and take on a livelihood that does no harm to yourself or others! Simple enough to try, no?
Without those two exclusive choices, everything about the Buddhist path, the Eightfold path, is a path of golden behavior based on scientific principles including karma and reincarnation which are definitely "real" things.
Hope this helped.

What do you mean by fit lay life perfectly? If you are asking if it is doable, yes it is. I have never read anywhere that you need to be a monk to be able to follow the noble eightfold path. The difference is that as a monk you are less prone to deviate from the path, I think.

By "fit" I meant "perfectly doable". So, are things like marriage/children a blocker to right concentration for instance? Just an example

Now I understand. Well, as far as I know things like these wouldn't be blockers, they would just possibly make it more difficult to not deviate from the path. Even monks are human beings and make mistakes sometimes, so I think lay practitioners are able to follow the noble eightfold path but with different difficulties from monks.
Maybe this link can be useful, it explains a little of the history of lay practitioners:
http://www.buddhachan.org/en/en-learn/origin

That (Mahayana) link ends with saying that, "lay practitioners could also practice and preach Buddhist dharma and attain enlightenment", but it doesn't actually mention the eightfold path, nor mention any difference at all between ordained and lay practitioners.

Maybe that link was not very helpful, but my intention was to show that if a lay practitioner can attain enlightenment, he can do it following the noble eightfold path. Do you think it's a good idea to remove it?

Judging by the early texts and some of later teachers (e.g. Ajaan Lee), celibacy is a key factor, so it depends on what you take lay life to be. I imagine your question is not just philosophical, but, if put in practical terms would be: "What do I have to change in order to be practicing rightly as a lay follower?"
The problem, I believe, is that this depends a lot on your own individual personality and tendencies. The best thing to do would be to consult a teacher you trust. Feeding off the hive mind, even in its Buddhist sections, is probably not the best solution here. There's a known expression you might wish to consider every now and then about stuff like this: "a blind man leading a group of blind men." You want to make sure you're led by someone who can see.

Ajaan Mahā Boowa replied that in order to teach others, one must
  first clearly know the Dhamma for oneself. For the most part, he considered that those who had yet to see the true nature of Dhamma were
  unqualified to speak about it in front of other people.

Speaking of Ajaan Maha Boowa, you should have a look at the book Ācariya Mahā Boowa in London available in several formats, for free, here. It's a translated transcription of several talks and Q&A sessions he gave to lay followers in London back in 1974.

No. As long as one clings to home and house (even Monks may make their status and monastery, lineage... their home) one is incapable even to reach the path, not to speak about the highest attaining.
If one is not able to leaves home, house, outwardly, how could he/she ever let go of the senses inwardly? How could he/she ever hear, read the Dhamma having reached a borderland of the Noble Domain?
So possible good to leave home and get familar of Where and what to practice?, leaving householder, outer lands domain, here and look after a far destiny where it could be found.
Wise if investigate whether ones informations are given by householder or those having gone forth, for how much faith and knowlegde could a to-house-returner have into Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha? Something many should think about, if capable and for their own benefit, if really desiring freedom from suffering.
[Note: This gift is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or Buddh-ism binding one to the house, home, but for leaving it beyond]


text:
Are Amitabha and Sakyamuni the same?
Buddha is the name for the Supreme Being, right? So are Amitabha Buddha and Sakyamuni Buddha both Supreme Beings but of different galaxies or something? I assume there are more buddhas than just these two. If so, how can there be many Supreme Beings?
I guess I am confused by what it means to say Sakyamuni is the buddha of our saha world while Amitabha presides over Sukhavati.

This is a Mahayana question and I'll answer it as such.
The cosmology of the Amitabha Buddha is described as something akin to an infinite number of parallel universes (or galaxies, the cosmology isn't or wasn't trying to be accurate in the astrophysics), each with a Buddha. The Buddha of each universe arise and disappear to be replaced by a new one, the next one in our universes is Maitreya.
The respect in which Sakyamuni Buddha is Supreme is that he was the most recent Buddha in our world. He was preceded by seven Buddhas.
Via reincarnation you can appear in a universe with a different Buddha, which is the whole point of the Pure Land Sutras. The gist is that progress towards enlightenment in this world is difficult, but easy in the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha.
In the cosmology there is the idea that there can only be one Buddha in the world at time. Personally I haven't come across a convincing explanation for why. My personal opinion is that this is related to the Precept on making false claims of enlightenment. If you are running a sangha and six monks all claim to have become enlightened and all think they are now the rightful leaders of the sangha, that could be a problem.
The Buddhas of other Lands appear to have intercessory powers in our world, for example the Medicine Buddha (Bhaisajyaguru) vows to provide a number of this-worldly benefits to those who say his name.
On the other hand, there is no limit on the number of Bodhisattvas-- Kwan Yin/Avalokitesvara, Kstigarbha, etc. all can exist in the same universe.
Now if this question is really about finding monotheism in Buddhism, you can find that, too. The Adibuddha and Vairocana have been suggested to be the Buddhas from which all other Buddhas emanate, and syncretic Buddhism from time to time has explicitly or accidentally reincorporated a Hindu style Brahma-- a universal, shared soul that is also the monotheistic god or supreme being.
The evidence for all this is from sutras, and presumably the meditative inspirations and visions of the authors. If that doesn't do anything for you, that's fine, too, it reads fine as a myth-- a fictional story to illustrate the Dharma.

'Personally I haven't come across a convincing explanation for why.' Could it be because the people who subsequently gain enlightenment are called Arhats?

Hmm, read some more. The limitation is on samyaksaṃbuddhas-- those who essentially independently reinvent Buddhism without any knowledge of Buddhism as we know it (and teach, unlike the pratekyabuddha). Still doesn't make any sense (outside of a desire to keep too many people from claiming status in the sangha based on Enlightenment)

I thought the sense was just, "thank goodness there has been a samyaksaṃbuddha occasionally when the world needed one".

Could be-- it seems a lot of ancient Indian rhetorical devices became literal doctrine.

As far as I know, being a Buddha is not about being a Supreme Being, it is about being enlightened. It is a state of knowledge and detachment achievable by anyone (in theory). Also remember that each school of Buddhism has it's own interpretation of the enlightenment, how to achieve it and of how many Buddhas there are.

Interesting! I guess I am confused by what it means to say Amitabha is the Buddha of Sukhavati while Sakyamuni is the Buddha of our world. Also apparently by what buddha means.

To make it even more "confusing", there is a Buddha, with a capital "B", and a Buddha, with a little "b". One, to my understanding, at least, is a "Universal Buddha", and the other is simply one who has attained enlightenment, for the sake of all sentient beings. Mahayana thought allows for one Buddha, and says He's still doing his thing and will forever. It also says all of us can "become" buddhas (and eventually Buddhas). (Buddha nature, etc.) Some buddhas indeed may live in our world now.

Amitabha is a Mahayana concept which needs to rely on another Mahayana framework called Trikaya. With this framework, the historical Sakyamuni Buddha is considered to be the "Nirmanakaya" (created body) while Amitabha Buddha is considered to be the "Sambhogakaya" (reward-body) of the Trikaya.

Interesting! So does mahayana buddhism have a considerably different view of the nature of the buddha than theravada (which most SE Buddhists appear to follow)?

It's not the case that Mahayana has a considerably different view from Theravada. Most ideas are traceable back to the original teaching. If you look at a tree, over time it's obvious that it'd grow new branches. While the new branches can't be said to be exactly the same as one another but they all share the same root and trunk.

Interesting! So does mahayana buddhism have a considerably different view of the nature of the buddha than theravada (which most SE Buddhists appear to follow)?

From my understanding Gautama Buddha and Amida Buddha are two different Buddha.  When Amida made his vows it was immeasurable kalpas ago and He just became Buddha 10 kalpas ago.  In the Infinite Life Sutra Sakyamuni Buddha hints that his reason for being born and become Buddha in this life was to announce Amida's great vows so all sentient beings can benefit.  Also all Buddhas in the 10 direction also praise Amida Buddha and teaches the Amitabha Sutras.  Eventually all beings from 10 direction would be vow to be born to Amida Buddha's Pureland where condition is perfect for cultivating wisdom and merit that you'll fast track to Enlightenment within 3-5 kalpas instead of immeasurable kalpas.  Sakyamuni Buddha said that the Infinite Life Sutra is very difficult for sentient being to believe, but I hope everyone would read it, develop a Bodhi Mind, gain faith in Sakyamuni's teaching and Amitabha's vows, take vow to be born to Amitabha's Pureland, recite His name until their last breath.
Namo Amitabha!

Are Amitabha and Sakyamuni the same? Since this question is not very specific, there are a few ways to answer.
(1) Sakyamuni and Amitabha took different paths to become a Buddha. Sakyamuni was Siddhartha Gautama before he was enlightened. Amitabha was Dharmakara before he became enlightened. So from this perspective they are different.
(2) Some say that Sakyamuni was an emanation of Amitabha. I am not sure how this works, perhaps Amitabha was the source of Siddhartha's enlightenment? Sakyamuni was called the light of the world. But, this would mean that they are the same.
(3) At the level of suchness, all Buddhas are one and the same. Same reason that our tathagatagarba is identical with Amitabha. So, Sakyamuni is also the same as Amitabha.
No, the Buddhas do not reside over galaxies, but over pure lands. Amitabha resides over Sukhavati, while Sakyamuni has his pure land on Vulture Peak. Vaipulya sutras (Lotus, Golden Light, etc.) explain that while the ordinary person sees different buddhas, there is actually just one. This goes back to the Buddhist concept of anatman and the realization that we are our thoughts only. Also, because of the concept of interdependent origination, we could say that these pure lands are all interpenetrating, or that there is only one pure land.

As for Theravada, Our Gautama Buddha had never mentioned about Amitabha. At the time being, he became a buddha under bodhi tree, he looked up the whold universe finding who he should pay homage or who is better than himself in terms of sila, samadhi and prajna, but unfortunately he couldn't have found one. It means he's the only enlightened one and no one in the whole universe is in higher rank than him. And there are 3 buddhas before him in this world. There will be another in future. So in total, There are 5 buddhas in this world. There was a life time, he vowed for the buddhahood in front of one buddha. And from that world till this current world, there're only 28 buddhas before him. If asked for the exact world, that would be a lot like there are 140 zeros behind 4 + 100000. That was the world he passed thru to fill up PARAMI to become buddha in our world's 4th budhha.

As mentioned before, there are different levels of meaning. The confusion comes from assuming that they are contradictory or exclusive instead of complementary and inclusive. That is, the reality of Amitabha (Đức Phật A Di Đà) and that all appearances are mind only are not opposing views.
In fact, they perfectly support each other. For those who naturally incline for viewing Amitabha as a real entity, they are gradually introduced to the teaching of emptiness, if they are open for it in this life. For those who prefer everything as empty, they definitely have to understand that there is no emptiness besides dependent origination, and the Pure Land path is real and effective exactly because reality is mind made.
An important difference is that while relying solely on buddha-remembrance leads to birth in the Pure Land, failing to see that there is no emptiness besides appearances leads only to some higher heavens at best, or to lower realms if one also denies the functioning of karma.
Source: Astus

It seems you're linking to your own website? If so, you must explicitly state so: please have a look at How not to be a spammer.

Amitabh and Buddha are not the same. Amitabh is the infinite light of revelations , source of innumerable miracles.
Buddha discourages display of any miracles.

There are 2 truths in Buddhism. Conventional truth which is the truth happening everyday around us and keep on changing every moment.  Absolute truth which is the truth that goes beyond space and time and always be true.
Sakyamuni Buddha and Amitabha Buddha are the same in Absolute truth but different in conventional truth. And neither the same or difference in Absolute truth. Both answer are correct and incorrect depend on which truth are you looking at. Both Buddhas are interbeing means they're coexist.  I'll explain why.
Buddha has 4 references:
1) Sakyamuni Buddha, prince Siddhartha who has achieved enlightenment and taught the four noble truth.
2) All being who has achieved enlightenment (unlimited buddha).
3) Buddha nature, an awareness of our infinite potential (unlimited buddha)
4) Emptiness, collective consciousness, reality as it is of the universe. (unlimited buddha).
A Buddha would be all 3. Amitabha Buddha means Infinite light reality. Lights gave life to the earth. Earth gave birth to human. Queen Maya gave birth to Siddhartha prince and he became buddha. Without light there is no Sakya Buddha. Sakya Buddha is also the light, is also Amitabha.
Sakyamuni Buddha is the light of wisdom, the earth, the sky, the rain, and all conditions,  everything in the universe that made up of who he is (this concept is Karma). This is Interbeing. So everything is Buddha. Unlimited Infinite Buddha in all directions. Sakyamuni Buddha taught us the Dharma so that we can be awaken, transform our suffering into happiness and realize the reality to become "ONE" with all Buddha in the past, present, and future in all directions in the cosmos. Anyone could come up with countless stories about any Buddha in the Cosmos, but non is matter because the Buddha is within each of us that is waiting to be discover. No one can walk the path but ourselves. Once we have truely found ourselves, we'll be connected to all and made possible in this lifetime.  Nirvana. Some says "The Kingdom of God" . Spending a lifetime looking for the Buddha outside and not recognizing the Buddha inside is meaningless.

In my view Amitabha Buddha is nothing but an addition by later monks to support the veda, mantras and brahmanic philosophy to spoil the core, logical and reasonable teachings of Gautam Buddha. If someone thinks I am wrong please give the reference where does Gautam Buddha talks about Amitabha Buddha, it will be great help to me in search of truth.

You are right that God is not the supreme being in Buddhism. That belongs to the Buddhas, and your original nature.
There is no self, no substance, and no beginning to ignorance.

As to Theravada there can be only one Buddha,Because Buddha is the name for the one who alone without any help or learning understand all of Buddhism and then go on to teach it to others.The question here is not between two Buddhas
but between two versions of Buddhism.in Theravada there is no mentioning about a buddha called amithbha,as to Theravada there is Sakyamuni Buddha who is the teacher of the current buddhism and there were many before him in this "Kalpa (Era)"


text:
What is the difference between Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya?
Within the Trikāya doctrine (the bodies of the Buddha) I've never felt very clear about the differences between the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya. I believe that the  Nirmanakaya is the physicality of the Buddha (happy to be corrected on this) but I'm vague about what Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya are and how they relate to each other.
I'd appreciate if anyone can summarise the differences and the relations between them. I'm interested in answers from all traditions - I'm unsure if there are variations in interpretations of the doctrines across Buddhist schools and traditions to be honest.

Chogyam Trungpa explained dharmakaya as the experience of the ultimate, nirmanakaya as coming at peace with the relative, and sambhogakaya as an ability of practitioner-turning-teacher to skilfully join together the ultimate and the relative, to keep a foot in both worlds and facilitate communication between the two:
1. Dharmakaya

"Dharmakaya has no categories; dharmakaya is simply being awake. It is the first achievement of a buddha; the first glimpse of vajra-like samadhi. Vajra-like samadhi means cutting through everything, completely and thoroughly. You cut through psychological and spiritual materialism and you cut through the notion of perfectionism as well."
"[At this stage] there maybe uncertainty as to how perceive things, and you don't know how to make a particular situation graspable. Our reaction to the world is uncertain and bewildered, and strategies and planning have not yet formed."
"The dharmakaya aspect is basic openness or ambiguity. We could say that a buddha actually sees the world from a nonreference point of view. They see that the world can exist without a reference point, that reference points are no longer applicable. When you possess such an enlightened view, you attain dharmakaya, the body of nonreference point. Dharma means "the highest norm of the universe", which is nonreference point. Kaya refers to the achievement of that particular experience."
"With no praise and no blame, we accept and realize our thought process as it is -- but with a touch of nonfixation and without holding on to thoughts."

2. Nirmanakaya

"In the niramanakaya aspect, the second stage of this process, there is clarity. You develop a clear idea of the situation and how to organize things. According to my tradition, that is the realistic way of looking at things. Even if you are a great teacher or a buddha, you still have a body and that body behaves more or less the same as other people's bodies. The necessities of eating, shitting, wearing clothes, and combing your hair are basically the same as anybody else's."
"It is in that acceptance of the universe, within that particular frame of reference, that the nirmanakaya buddha functions."

3. Sambhogakaya

"Third, you begin to make a relationship between the two. In order to make a link between the openness and clarity, we have the third aspect, or sambhogakaya. The sambhogakaya bridges the gap between the basic openness or ambiguity of dharmakaya and the very specific organized clarity of nirmanakaya. So the three kayas are the subtle world, the direct world, and that which goes back and forth between the subtle and direct worlds in order to survive on earth."
"Sambhogakaya means 'complete joy', it is beyond any kind of inhibition. Having gone through constant struggle and discipline of practicing the bodhisattva's work of compassion, whatever you feel can be communicated or taught. There is a need for articulation... You have to do something, you have to proclaim."
"[However, ] you can't just say, 'Come and look at me'. You have to be very skillful, particularly if you proclaim yourself as an enlightened person, for then you have a heavier burden. So the sambhogakaya involves a sense of relationship (as in, being able to relate -- AV). You know the place, you know what kind of crowd you're going to get, and you know what you are going to say."
"This communication between your non-manifested and manifested levels ... includes all forms of communication, such as physical gestures, facial expressions, and how you present yourself in all kinds of ways."

4. Svabhavikakaya

"The fourth kaya, svabhavikakaya, is the whole thing, the total panoramic experience. When we realize the link between the three kayas, that totality is known as svabhavikakaya. The svabhavikakaya is a state of mind that is known as transcending birth, cessation, and dwelling."
"Since you have no fear, you seem to know everything in the very highest sense. You know how to handle things."

I will say this is a very good explanation that may go beyond what your question is, but here is a very good summary from the Tantric tradition
The Three Kayas: The Bodies of the Buddha

THE FRUITION OF BUDDHIST PRACTICE is the realization of the three kayas--Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya. These are the three bodies of Buddha's being or enlightenment. Dharmakaya corresponds with one's mind, Sambhogakaya with one's speech, and Nirmanakaya with one's body. Dharmakaya is the formless body. It is an undifferentiated state of being which we cannot talk about in terms of either confusion or enlightenment.
The Dharmakaya is something that is always present; it is rediscovered rather than created anew. Because it is atemporal and ahistorical, we cannot attribute change or transformation to it. Because it is passive and indeterminate in nature, Dharmakaya cannot manifest as a medium for one to work for the benefit of others, but it does give rise to the deterministic aspects of Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya.

The similarities between Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya are represented here.

Like the Dharmakaya, the Sambhogakaya is always present. It has to do
with mental powers, with the ability of one's mind to manifest in
relation to the five wisdoms.

They are similar yet different

Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya do not refer to entities so much as
existential states of being, and only the Nirmanakaya body is created
anew in physical form. Actually the three kayas are two bodies--the
formless body and the body of form. Both the Sambhogakaya and
Nirmanakaya are normally called the form bodies of the Buddha, while
Dharmakaya is formless.

Here is closest to an answer to the question on differences.

The Nirmanakaya and the Sambhogakaya basically manifest out of
Dharmakaya; in other words, both of the form aspects of the Buddha's
being are dependent on the formless body. The Dharmakaya is the origin
or field on which the other two are grounded.

and it takes this explanation further

When we call the Sambhogakaya a "form body," we do not mean physical
form but instead form in the sense of manifesting and being
determinate, as opposed to Dharmakaya, which is formless because it is
not determinate. The Sambhogakaya is determinate because, although it
is not physical, it does manifest in varieties of ways. If
Sambhogakaya is fully realized, then one can receive different
teachings and meanings from many natural sources, such as sound,
sight, and so on.
Sambhogakaya in turn gives rise to Nirmanakaya, which is realized
through the physical body, and embodies both the Sambhogakaya and the
Dharmakaya aspects. Nirmanakaya is physical in its essence and is
historically situated, so that when we talk about Buddha Shakyamuni
attaining enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, giving teachings in Varanasi,
and eventually attaining paranirvana in Kushinagar, we are describing
his Nirmanakaya aspect.

Given by Ven. Traleg Rinpoche
This is a very lengthy article and worthy of further study.

I think the previous answers are good but there's more to it..
The dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya, together called the trikaya are the key summary of Buddhism and in fact Taoism and the whole spiritual shebang.
It encompasses all virtues, all powers, and all the things that you could possibly want.
One can work on each body and still not gain the others.
They are interpenetrating but they are also worked on individually.
This means that you can be Enlightened but not have any powers (effects of sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya).
I like to describe the Trikaya through the powers that one gains from perfecting them.
Body of Essence: Dharmakaya: being free from birth-and-death, no ego, disillusionment
Body of Virtue: Sambhogakaya: all the paramitas completed, all virtues completed
Body of Manifestation: Nirmanakaya: self-duplication (think Naruto), thought emanations, thought manifestation
The Zen masters all had the dharmakaya but usually did not complete the sambhogakaya or nirmanakaya. They were just like "Ah, I got everything. Worldly people and their affairs don't matter to me. Everything is emptiness. I am not real and neither are they. All that matters is my true self, which is indescribable. Off I go." But there was more to the Buddhist project than that!
Some Mahayanist masters on the other hand had the dharmakaya and the sambhogakaya, they exemplified stellar character yet also had deep realizations of the soul that the Zen masters had. They had achieved dharmakaya and sambhogakaya.
Lastly, some Taoist masters have the nirmanakaya but not the previous. They could perform miracles, thought manifestation, etc. Many could even live for thousands of years at a time. Nonetheless, they held too strongly to their notion of a self and did not see their true nature, their true self which exists beyond the body and mind.
But they could live forever, so that's something isn't it?
Wrong.
The Buddha said that these people are living the wrong path and he could see deep into their future lives and said they would suffer repercussions in the future lifetimes for it. (Of course you and I don't any of these three so we'll suffer even worse repercussions I think! So don't be looking down on these immortals with this piece of knowledge you have just attained.)
Many seers and people that can do things with their chi energies?
They are all just playing with the nirmanakay body.
Ever mantra and feel like the Buddha is helping you? That's a nirmanakaya manifestation. A whole bunch of them.
Big secret:
A Buddha actually completed the cultivation of Trikaya and stays in a separate dimension and sends out his nirmanakaya manifestation to people based on causes-and-conditions.
Big secret #2:
We all actually have ALL three bodies, too. They are a range and you can see in your experience how much of each body you have achieved.
Each can be summarized respectively in the following qualities: true awareness, true virtue, true power.
As you climb the spiritual ladder, you will develop these qualities but with the Trikaya model and the other models in Buddhism, you can turn it into a much more fun project and work on what you're missing... in a very long-term sense since usually nobody accomplishes all three Trikaya in one lifetime.
For more on this subject of Buddhism with this kind of thinking read "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization" by Bill Bodri.
Definitely, know that the Trikaya are NOT just some psychological thing. They involve things like spiritual immortality, immortality of character, and immortality of the flesh-body (respectively).
They umbrella the entire scope of development of everything with of course importance placed on the development of Buddhist emptiness for spiritual immortality and virtue and Taoism for cultivation of the power of multiple body emanation (yang shen).

Glad it helped you. I spent lots of young adult years restlessly reading and many Taoist and Buddhist texts till i figured that answer out..

This is basically how I understand it, the Dharmakaya - the Dharma Body, is basically the Dharma, the Law, the Truth, The Teachings of all of existence and non existence, containing both side of the Four Noble Truths - of Suffering and the End of Suffering. The sentient beings in the Dharma as reflected by the physical body of the Buddha as well all of us, are the manifestation of this Dharma - the Nirmanakaya - the Manifestation Body. But since they contain both suffering and end of suffering, ignorance and enlightenment, where then is the Enlightened mind of the Buddha. This is conceptualized as Sambhogakaya, the Reward Body, the mind of enlightenment as distinct from the totality.
Of course at the end everything is still all part of One Truth, the Dharma.

I am concerned that Mahayana has been sold short; Zen even holds certain aspects of mantrayana/tantrayana as well. There appears to be a remnant  of secularism ringing in my ears.
If I recall correctly, Buddhism was established in far east Asia before Songtsen called for its establishment in Tibet. Recent archaeological findings along the Silk Road confirm that Tibet was well aware of this, yet sent to India for teachers, teachings, and texts leaving a perfectly able, completely qualified, and fully willing, swarthy, furry Buddha Dharma to stare at a wall for nine years).
The Inconceivable with the Eight
Are a fish with a bicycle
Brown M&M's, Blue M&M's
Chikpa, chik khyang
Taste like Dharma
Smell like Dharma
Sound like Dharma
Look like Dharma
Sit and Walk like Dharma
Dream and Wake like Dharma
It is probably Dharma
Probably perfectly good Dharma
Buddha Dharma in any culture
Is Gone, Gone Far Beyond
Unlike the internet
Suchness is unbreakable

This doesn't answer the question which was, "What is the difference between Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya?"

It does as addressing an aspect of a previous response under consideration that may contribute to conflation - which has a nature of weighing down,  like the pull of gravity. What it does not do is state the expected. It is not what you expect. Please reread and if you still find it wanting,  indicate specifically where you take issue, so that I might respond tp your intelligent argumentation. Thank you.

The White Lion in red yellow white, and tricolor; Black Lion in saffron hues | Made of their bodies homes many fleas, into the Shakyan Temple they enter | Roar their damn'ma distorting The Supreme taught, pawing at the golden chalice of Sweet Nectar | Such fleas inflicted lions prophesied the Tathagata. He rested heading northern Cina Sthana in Nirvana, said Agama | Meanwhile these lions treated by surgery in the VIP Western Ward, proud they are | Thank goodness, unscathed the Dharma Holder in golden color.

On this site, please answer the original question, instead of "addressing" someone else's answer.

ChrisW - are you an administrator of the site?

@KivaLuck Yes I am a moderator on this site (and, I am a user). Would you like help with something, do you want to ask a question?