text:
Why Buddha didn't want him to be called 'friend' by the monks?
Referring these lines from 'The Discourse to Prince Bodhi':

As I approached, Prince, the group-of-five monks were unable to
  continue with their own agreement, and after coming out to meet me,
  some took my bowl and robe, some prepared the seat, some placed the
  water for washing the feet.
Then they addressed me by name and with the word ‘friend’.
When this was said, Prince, I said this to the group-of-five monks:
  “Do not address the Gracious One, monks, by name and by the word
  ‘friend’, the Realised One, monks, is a Worthy One, a Perfect
  Sambuddha. Lend an ear, monks,........"

Is it wise to get respect by compulsion?
Is it wise to claim "I am The Greatest/Perfect One" even if you're The Greatest/Perfect One ?
If that's OK, then why did he call his  teachers Ālāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta as 'friend' even before he started learning from them? How can this be justified?

Wait, are you questioning whether Buddha was wise? ;)

@AndreiVolkov No, I want to know if that act is wise. Or should I conclude that whatever Buddha would have done is wise and close this question without getting a reason why? :)

I think that a good answer requires some comment on the Pali source of that quote. It's usually hard to find exactly synonymous word in another language, so the word that was translated as "friend" may have slightly different connotations.

When they first saw him they thought, "He is inferior to us (because he is given to luxury, forsaking the striving, etc.)."
When he approached them they no longer thought that, but still they called him "friend": which I understand to mean "my comrade, my equal".
The Buddha corrected them because he wanted them to learn the Dhamma from him, and it was important that they respect him as a teacher (because if they didn't respect him and didn't accept him as a teacher and listen to his teaching then that would be to their harm).
They were telling him that, as far as they knew, he had no attainment and no knowledge worth teaching:

For a third time, Prince, the group-of-five monks said this to me: “But you, friend Gotama, by that ascetic lifestyle, that practice, that difficult way of living, did not attain states beyond ordinary human beings, a distinction of what is truly noble knowledge and insight.
So how can you now, given to luxury, forsaking the striving, gone back to luxury, attain states beyond ordinary human beings, a distinction of what is truly noble knowledge and insight?”

He contradicted them:

When this was said, Prince, I said this to the group-of-five monks: “Are you aware, monks, of my having spoken to you like this before?”
“Certainly not, reverend Sir.”
“The Realised One, monks, is a Worthy One, a Perfect Sambuddha. Lend an ear, monks, I will instruct you about the attainment of the Deathless, I will teach the Dhamma, and following the path as it has been preached, after no long time in regard to that good for which young men of good family rightly go forth from the home to the homeless life, that unsurpassed conclusion to the spiritual life, you will dwell having known, experienced, and attained it yourselves in this very life,” and I was able, Prince, to persuade the group-of-five monks.

This version of the story includes the following explanation:

ON seeing their old teacher approach, the five bhikkus agreed among themselves not to salute him, nor to address him as a master, but by his name only. "For," so they said, "he has broken his vow and has abandoned holiness. He is no bhikkhu, but Gotama, and Gotama has become a man who lives in abundance and indulges in the pleasures of worldliness." But when the Blessed One approached in a dignified manner, they involuntarily rose from their seats and greeted him in spite of their resolution. Still they called him by his name and addressed him as "friend Gotama."
When they had thus received the Blessed One, he said: "Do not call the Tathagata by his name nor address him as 'friend,' for he is the Buddha, the Holy One. The Buddha looks with a kind heart equally on all living beings, and they therefore call him 'Father.' To disrespect a father is wrong; to despise him, is wicked. The Tathagata, the Buddha continued, does not seek salvation in austerities, but neither does he for that reason indulge in worldly pleasures, nor live in abundance. The Tathagata has found the middle path.

This is from an 1894 version titled The Gospel of Buddha by Paul Carus -- I don't know which original text this is a translation of (or whether it's even translation instead of invention).
One place where the story appears is the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN 26) which matches the story in the OP. This one is addressed to monks rather than to "Prince Bodhi" so I suppose there are several versions of this story.

"because if they didn't respect him and didn't accept him as a teacher and listen to his teaching then that would be to their harm" If that's so, then why Buddha called his early-teachers Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta as 'friend' even before he started learning from them? How can this be justified? :)

Another consideration is, what's the correct way to identify the Buddha? For example it's also wrong to identify him as "Gautama": he would only refer to himself as "the Tathāgata".

That didn't answer my question (in first comment). My question is, why Buddha called his teachers 'friend', but he didn't allow his monks to call him 'friend' ? How can this be justified? Thanks for your reply BTW :)

I added one more reference to my answer. Apart from that I can't answer your question.

@GokulNC I think the Buddha didn't really call them "friend" to their face. He was calling them "friend" in retrospect, thinking in light of how much his teachers helped him towards Enlightenment. Also, we can assume that the Buddha and his teachers were closer to Complete Enlightenment and thus friends and brothers in that respect.

Respect of the Buddha and the Dharma -- both of which are tied together -- must pre-exist for the successful study of the Buddha's Dharma and to attain the fruits.
As much as we cherish the Buddha's words, he is not our friend.
Normally, to be a friend implies that he/she will be there to hear your complaining, watch you fail/succeed, and join you in your house, entertainment, and other frivolous pursuit. Friend is a spoiled and vague word and to label one as such invites competition and abuse for the teacher and student alike. If the Buddha allowed himself to be considered a friend, his students would actually be able to grow beyond their cravings less and would remain reliant on his consultation.
Until one attains Arhatship or Buddhahood, the Buddha is not and should not be considered a friend but a Teacher.  He has attained the universal status of an Enlightened One, a "Realised One", a "Worthy One" and many other special names fit for this Ultimate accomplishment.


text:
Was there a period when "Consensus Buddhism"/"Buddhist Romanticism" dominated Buddhism in the West?
Consensus Buddhism is a term invented by David Chapman. To me it seems to be another name for what Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls Buddhist Romanticism. Here are some characteristics of the supposed consensus, according to Chapman:

consensus Western Buddhism is—supposedly—egalitarian, democratic, anti-hierarchy, ecumenical, accepts all religious traditions (except of course Bad forms of Buddhism), respects and sometimes incorporates psychotherapy, is ecologically aware, talks about social justice, promotes internal and external peace, etc.

Moreover:

Western Buddhism kept some traditional Buddhist mythology (in the same way liberal Christianity keeps some traditional mythology), but you aren’t expected to believe in it. It’s a bunch of “teaching stories,” not Truth.
Consensus Buddhists mostly don’t believe in Buddhas, either. The important thing is not enlightenment, but a morality of good intentions, harmonious behavior, and inoffensiveness.

And:

The main practice of Consensus Buddhism is vipassana. This method is meant to shatter the self and break connections. Western Buddhists mostly want and expect the opposite results.

When describing "Consensus Buddhism", Chapman writes a lot about "hegemony", "monopoly" that "Consensus Buddhists" want to achieve, as well as "suppressing other alternatives". And he writes that such an approach dominated Buddhism in the West for a long time and only recently that "consensus" is "starting to break down".
Despite having contact with various Buddhist groups in the last years, I hardly came across anyone who fits with the description of Consensus Buddhism, so I have the following questions:

In your experience, does/did mainstream Buddhism in the West really match the definition of Consensus Buddhism?
In your experience, what was the period when it dominated the mainstream Western Buddhism (in terms of printed media, number of followers, etc.)?
In your experience, does/did it really try to supress its alternatives?
If the answer to the first question is "yes", was the phenomenon of "Consensus Buddhism" restricted to any particular country or part of the world? (I have a feeling that there may be big differences in this regard between, say, North America, Europe and Oceania.)
What are the names of the "Consensus Buddhist" groups you know about?

I'd be glad to hear why the question gets downvoted, so that I could improve it.

I actually just voted up because of it's content and subject, but I'd suggest avoid formulating questions as "in your experience"; Try pressing for getting facts instead of personal impressions.

You may want to discuss that with @AndreiVolkov, I added "in your experience" at his request.

@ThiagoSilva: what do you mean facts about "Consensus" Buddhism that are not personal experiences? Can you give some examples?

For a second it just sounded to me as "in your opinion...". But i might just be nitpicking to ask these parts removed and just have the questions blunt (ie. "Is it?" Instead of "in your experience, is it?")

That's how it started, as a blunt "is it?" - but that looked awfully ungrounded to me - who on earth could know for a fact whether "Buddhism in the West really match the definition of Consensus Buddhism"? etc.

@ThiagoSilva Good Subjective, Bad Subjective suggests that opinion/answer based on personal experience might be more worthwhile than an answer that's based on nothing at all.

Chapman has drawn a circle around his own practice of Aro g'Ter, which he describes as "neither traditional nor modern" but as "terma." Everything outside that circle is "Consensus Buddhism" or infected by it. He also likes Shambhala, which he practised before the Aro sect. I live in Halifax, which is the International headquarters of Shambhala. The dominant form here is Vajra-Tantra; it totally dominates Buddhism in Atlantic Canada in numbers, wealth, teaching and practice. But I don't call it a "consensus"; I don't practice it and it has no affect on what I choose to practice.
Chapman's thesis on Consensus Buddhism approaches conspiracy theory. He purports that there is this loosely coalesced conspiracy, led by the Dalai Lama, Jack Kornfield, and other published teachers, to make us all practice the same thing ("One Dharma"), which deliberately excludes tantric practice from that consensus, thus suppressing the practice of tantra. He offers no evidence to explain how this Consensus Buddhism dominates US practice, or that it deliberately suppresses tantric practice--not even anecdotal evidence. It's a conspiracy theory which he proffers as a way to defend his own views.

Chapman, and anyone who wants to talk about Buddhism in the west, has a challenge in that there are way more Buddhist sympathizers and dabblers and serious dabblers than people who are members of an organized group with an official orthodoxy or othopraxy.  So some options are either to dismiss western Buddhists altogether, since they never ordained nor got the three refuges from a monk or send in a membership dues check every year. Or we can invent an abstraction to discuss this heterogenous mass of people.
From my own experiences organizing a Buddhist book club, I get a really heterogeneous set of attendees, maybe 75% "new age" enthusiasts and 25% fall into some category of Buddhist using Jan Nattiers taxonomy (import Buddhism, export Buddhism, "baggage" Buddhism, etc).
In Jan Nattier's taxonomy, Chapman is talking about the import Buddhists, i.e. those who read about Buddhism at a library, got excited, went to Japan, brought back the elements that spoke to them. As a result you get a sort of  DT Suzuki Buddhism heavily influenced by lines of thought going on in the west.
When Chapman describes the decline of Consensus Buddhism & "suppression of alternatives", I can only guess what he's getting at, but I'll take a stab.  In my personal experience, I started with Zen and Meditation. I've since read a lot about Buddhism and moved on- I'm now more focused on Huayen and Mahayana. I've come to peace with the Bodhisattvas and am enthusiastic about the idea of the Bodhisattva path-- I would not have been enthusiastic about these ideas when I started. When I started, I liked Buddhism because it wasn't a devotional, Christian-God centric religion & the Bodhisattvas sounded like a rehash of the man in the sky with a beard. Instead, I see them as vividly imagined role models.  AFAIK, nothing in the age of enlightenment thinking has anything good to say about vividly imagined role models, so if I didn't expand my mind to allow for an alien thought like Bodhisattvas, then I would have been missing out on a big part of Mahayana.  The enlightenment in the west was all about fighting the Christian Church and it's repression on intellectual thought, so, uh, God help the Pure Land preachers in the US, because they are going to be closed minded about the part that sounds just like Christianity.
AFAIK, there are no organized western Buddhist groups that have all features of Consensus Buddhism. Insight Meditation, Shambhala, SGI, Triratna, Thích Nhất Hạnh's organization each have elements of consensus Buddhism, but each has elements of traditional Buddhism, too. Just by my intuition, I'd say that Chapman is not including in Consensus Buddhism the organizations in Asia, which are fully traditional becoming more western, as opposed to the unorganized group of Buddhists and Buddhist sympathizers that are slowing incorporating more of what we used to call traditional Buddhism, albeit on our own terms. An example would be me incorporating some parts of Tibetan teachings, Shambahala especially, but I'm never going to be sold on the idea of guru veneration and I'm not going to ritually eat beef, at least not on the basis of someones say so. (Just an example, not an invitation to prove me wrong on that point :)

I agree with the previous poster, and would like to add the following:
Keep in mind too that Chapman has his own agenda - the advancement of something he calls "Modern Tantra", which does not really exist but is more of an ideal or goal he would like "Western Buddhism" (which is a problematic concept) to move toward. I'm not sure if Chapman ever clearly defines what Modern Tantra is (in part this is because he seems to be continually refining his idea of it), but he does seem to strongly define it as standing against certain understandings of Buddhism. One of these is what he calls Traditional Buddhism (and which I think Chapman caricatures and unfairly dismisses as irrelevant to American practitioners).
In light of this consideration, I would say that "Consensus Buddhism" represents those aspects of contemporary American Buddhist organizations that stand in the way of the development of Modern Tantra. It's an abstraction of a set of influences that one can see, in varying degrees, in actually existing Buddhist institutions and groups within the US.
Also, it seems that Chapman either lives or has lived in the San Francisco Bay Area region of California. Having lived there myself at one point, I can say that many of the Buddhist groups and institutions you find in this part of the world displays signs of the "Consensus Buddhism" he is talking about. So I think it is also a regional issue, to some degree. If you've never belonged to a Buddhist group in Berkeley, CA, you may not have encountered Consensus Buddhism before. It seems like most of the Buddhist institutions you encountered are more along the lines of what Chapman calls "Traditional Buddhism".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Understanding anatta via "there are no computer programs" analogy
I tried to find an analogy that would help me to understand anatta: Just as we can say "there is no self" (there are just mental aggregates interacting with each other and eventually causing some bodily reactions), we can also say "there are no computer programs" (there are only electrons arranged in different patterns, and they eventually cause some changes in the output devices).
Buddhism claims that anatta is the ultimate truth, and that it is beneficial to know that truth. I wonder if it applies to my analogy, too: can we regard "no computer programs" as the ultimate truth?
I don't see how it could be beneficial for a computer user or a programmer to realise that "there are no computer programs". If we assume that the analogy is correct, there should be no benefit in realising that "there is no self".
I see two points where the above reasoning could be flawed:

It is actually beneficial to realise that "there are no computer programs".
It is not beneficial to realise the above, but there is no analogy between "there are no computer programs" and "there is no self".

Which point is true and why? Or is it something else that is the problem here?
EDIT: There are already quite a few general questions about anatta. Here I hope to get answers that would comment on whether the analogy I presented is relevant to understanding this concept, and relate to the specific questions I asked.

I'm kinda wondering whether you are asking for an analogy for or an explanation of anatta or if you are asking why realizing anatta is beneficial.

I don't think your analogy is exactly correct. It's not so much that there are no computer programs, but that all programs are actually part of a whole. Which, to me, seems like the idea behind open-source libraries, and therefore has been beneficial for many programmers, and programming as a whole.

I would agree that looking at programs as inseparable parts of a whole integrated computer system is by far my preferred way-of-thinking.  In that sense it is true, there are no programs (except when we arbitrarily instantiate one for abstraction as part of our use).  Self could certainly be viewed the same way.

If you don't have a notion of an "atman" in yourself (and who in the modern world has such a notion at all?) - how can this be a problem when the Buddha has just denied such a "splitter of the Brahman" in each living individual? Isn't then such a pondering completely meaningless? (Just asking)

I find it helps to try to relate things back to the core teachings: suffering, the cause of suffering, the extinction of suffering and the way to achieve that.  So the relevant teaching here as I understand it is not "there is no self" but rather "clinging to a false sense of self causes suffering."
On its face, "there is no self" is patently false, much like the claim that there is no computer program.  There's room here to quibble about language, allowing you to see it one way or the other, but that distracts from the real matter at hand.  Suffering is a visceral thing and getting to its root requires delving into the nitty-gritty viscera of this self-delusion.  Otherwise "there is no self" is just a word game.

It's because the understanding you are describing is intellectual.  Enlightened understanding of anatta isn't factual, philosophical, or based in analogy.   It is a realization.  When the veil is lifted, we see it directly.  It's like realizing for the first time that you have use of your legs.  It puts you in a complete different world.

This still doesn't explain it. I know that bhāvanā maya paññā is more profound than cintā maya paññā, but both types of wisdom are still regarded as beneficial in Buddhism.

Not for soteriological purposes.

If a computer program were to realize the truth about itself then:

It wouldn't be surprised to find bugs (i.e. unwanted behaviour)
It wouldn't be surprised to find subroutines (encapsulated behaviour)
It wouldn't be surprised to find side-effects (interactions between this and that)
It wouldn't be surprised to find that its interactions with other software/programs/systems sometimes work as desired or "designed", and sometimes don't
It wouldn't resist being upgraded with newer/better versions
It wouldn't have an inflated view of itself as being more capable than it actually is
And (possibly) it wouldn't suffer from dukkha

But how the realisation that "there are no computer programs" would lead to realisation of all the truths you mentioned?

Because "a computer program" is an ideal, you have an idea of how it's going to behave and how you're going to use it and enjoy it and keep it etc. Without an "ideal" that's not the same as the "real" there's less scope for expectation/surprise/disappointment/dissonance.

Neko already explained it pretty well.
The realization of Anatta on an intellectual level, simply cannot happen.
The doctrine of Anatta is too profound. One must realize it through the practice of insight meditation and the gaining of experiental knowledge.
Imagine an onion. An onion has many layers. Intellectual knowledge can only penetrate the top layers. Experiental knowledge can penetrate all the layers, right into the core of the onion. Its the last type of knowledge that one needs to realize the marks of existence and eventually Nibbana.

This doesn't explain it. I know that bhāvanā maya paññā is more profound than cintā maya paññā, but both types of wisdom are still regarded as beneficial in Buddhism.

Well that is the teaching given to us by the Buddha. I cannot provide a better answer than that. These doctrines cannot be understood intellectually, but only through direct seeing of reality, i.e. experiental knowledge, gained through the practice of insight meditation.

In Buddhism the concept is there is nothing worthy of identifying as self since you do not exercise absolute control over whatever you identify. Put it another way if there is something which is everlasting and unchanging and within your control you can rightfully call it self but there is no such thing as as everything (5 aggregates) that creates a being is changing.
Ultimate truth is what you realise through meditation which transcends the spear of Perception and Views. Basically what pertains to:

phenomenon of consciousness (citta)
associated mentality (cetasika)
materiality or physical phenomena (rūpa)
nirvana

A normal person will Perceive oneself as such, but in reality you cannot be exactly what you perceive and also you do not become exactly what you perceive of want to be. (Say a person is 80 but wants the body of a 20 year old.) Hence when you transcend Perception (Sanna) you will realise there is no everlasting controllable part which is worthy to be called or identified as self.
Buddhist concept of non self stems from the contemporary belief system which gave definition and doctrines of the Soul. Since there is not part which is unchanging or immortal or which is completely in your control the Buddha rejected the contemporary definition of Atta hence becoming the doctrine of Anatta. This is what has been translated as non self or no soul to English.
Also see:

What is the best translation of Anatta into English?
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8669/295
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2454/295
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abhidharma/
http://www.abhidhamma.com/

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


text:
Change and decay of one's own body. How fast is it?
We all know that we get sick and get old but i have heard that "Abhidhamma" talks about a faster version of decay and change.As i have heard there is a change that is happening every fraction of a second but we are unable to recognize it with our senses.
Does anyone have knowledge to share about this?
And how can we use this to our personal practice?

With vipassanā-ñāṇa you can recognise this change perhaps not to the clarity as in the Abhidhamma.
In p 39 of Process of Conciousness and Matter by (Aggamahāpaṇḍita) Bhaddanta Dr. Rewata Dhamma (Writen as a supplement to Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma), gives an idea at what rate phenomena arises and passes away.
For personal practice if will be sufficient recognise:

Arising
Passing
Change, i.e., what has arisen is what has not arisen before

Also see my other answer on similar subject matter: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12392/295
Following two articles by Piya Tan might be of interest:

Dhamma and Abhidhamma
The Radiant Mind


text:
Did the Buddha visit modern day Assam?
During his time, did the Buddha visit the northeast state of India known today as Assam? If so, did he give any discourses there?
Thanks

The furthest east that the Buddha traveled was to Kajaṅgalā (noted in AN 10:28). This area is known today as Kankjol, and is located near the border of India and Bangladesh. So there's no record of any visit to Northeast India, but anything is possible!


text:
Metta for dead father
During a meditation I have practiced Metta, as I have learned it, I sent Metta to;

myself
a good friend
a "neutral" person
a difficult person
all four of the above equally
and then gradually the entire universe

with the thoughts;

May I be free from enmity/danger
May I be free from mental suffering
May I be free from physical suffering
May I take care of myself happily

Sometime during the meditation I have also sent my Metta to my deceased father. I had a good feeling about it, but wonder whether a Suta this refers?
I want to know whether this form is OK, and how to deal with it.

Generally you should not do Metta to:

Lingavisabhāga (opposite sex - generally directed at a specific person)
Kālakatapuggala (a dead person)

See page 81 Seeing and Knowing revised edition by Pa Auk Sayadaw (Pa Auk Lineage)

To develop the sublime abiding of loving-kindness (mettà), you need first of all be aware that it should not be developed towards a person of the opposite sex , or a dead person.

Also page 66 Loving Kindness Meditation Ven. Sujiva (Mahaisi Lineage) and page 16 Matta: The Practice of Loving-Kindness As the Foundation for Insight Meditation Practice by Sayadaw U Indaka (Mahasi Sayadaw) also makes the same observation.
In addition Metta: The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love by Acharya Buddharakkhita (general Theravada) makes the following observation:

Note that only a living person is to be visualized, not a dead one. The reason for this is that the dead person, having changed form, will be out of the focus of metta-projection. The object of metta always is a living being, and the thought-force will become ineffective if the object is not alive.

Otherwise the what you mention is fine to practice Metta.
Buddhism has the concept of transferring merit to the departed (if they are in a conducive birth to receive it.) This might be something, quite similar, which you can do instead. See: Tiro,kutta Sutta. Also offering to the liberation of ancestors especially your father is highly recommended (one of the "the five uses of wealth" / pañca bhogānam ādiyā) in Patta Kamma Sutta, Ādiya Sutta, Sigāl’ovāda Sutta.
Having said this, this using a deceased person as the subject diminishes the result reaped through Metta meditation. If you find any other physiological benefits by remembering your father, then all means do it, though you will not be getting the benefits expected out of Metta meditation. To get the benefits of Metta meditation focus on all living beings.

Really foolish ideas, Upasaka. Those "teaches" are good heavy to be blamed! Every child in tradition countries would be taught to start exact there and 90% of goodwill would be learned of doing such toward ancestors, since that is the key toward real precepts and harmlessness toward all beings. Might be modern under people without gratitude toward parents...

@SamanaJohann "Not towards a person of the opposite sex, or a dead person" is a direct quote from the start of Chapter IX of the Visuddhimagga -- or at least, it says, "not at first". The paragraph says, "For loving-kindness should not be developed at first towards the following four kinds of person: an antipathetic person, a very dearly loved friend, a neutral person, and a hostile person. Also it should not be developed specifically (see §49) towards the opposite sex, or towards a dead person".

That throw this part with good conscious away. That simple. Not even 100's of generations of follower took that serious since sheer nonsens. Metta can only start by oneself, and what is dear and near, as well as what is disliked. The rest is practice of Jains or Nihilists.

According to my teacher, it is important to reconcile and forgive major issues we had had with our (now deceased) parents. There is a tremendous amount of emotional energy locked in grudges and negative memories. He advised that we imagine our parents standing in front of us, talk to them about our past issues, hug them, say I Understand Why You Did What You Did, Thank You and I Love You - and then imagine them ascending out of sight.
Because I have special connection with dream yoga, I reconciled with my deceased father in a dream. This works even better, because in dream you can recreate a more complete image and go deeper with your emotions.

Thank you for your answer and the connection to the dream yoga.

In this regard householder Andrei has a very good friend as teacher and good to trust her, till knowing the release and oening of possibility to walk on.

I have heard multiple teachers say it is okay to use a deceased person as the "benefactor" or "as the person you like or respect".  If the purpose of Metta is to develop jhana and then profound feelings of loving kindness for all beings, then any benefactor living or deceased that helps you achieve this state should be acceptable.  I'm not aware of any teachings of the Buddha that would forbid this type of practice.
In addition, do not look at the forbidding of the opposite sex as an absolute prohibition.  For example, many practitioners us their children as objects of metta.
While Pa Auk Sayadaws instructions are insightful and generally helpful, many of them are directed towards eastern monks, who usually hold a narrow interpretation of a specific tradition.

It's totally proper and in no way wrong to send metta toward one's ancestors. When developing metta it's even good to use such reminder if having difficulty to send metta to all, near and dear, far and unpleasing, for you would not know where former beloved dwell for now. Good also to remind if difficulties with metta toward non-humans, the chicken you like to eat or animals you dislike.

A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. ... mother

To be reminded that "all" around had been near and possible dear relatives before or later, is surely the most effective way to learn having metta and act harmless.
It's totally nonsense to tell people not to send metta toward ancestors, actually the opposite would be practiced.
Here also a generous share by Mahinda Wijesinghe in the gift "Gratitude in the Buddha's Teaching", different form the usual teachings of the Niganthas using "Buddha" this days:

...In Buddhism, traditionally, there are three principal objects of gratitude: In the first place are our parents, next are our teachers, and in the third place our spiritual friends.
First of all, let us take our parents. In the modern era, there have been quite a few reported cases of ill-feeling between parents and their offspring. Of course, if one is on bad terms with one’s parents then something is quite seriously wrong. Perhaps it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that if one is on really bad terms with one’s parents then one’s whole emotional life, indirectly at least, is affected, perhaps quite seriously. This is where the practice of mettā bhāvana (meditation on friendliness) helps in re-establishing positive relation with the parents.
One has to learn to develop mettā, though some may have suffered at the hands of their parents, but even so, it is necessary in the interests of their own emotional, psychological and spiritual development to get over whatever feelings of bitterness or resentment that they were harbouring towards their parents.
It suggests that negative attitudes towards parents are still fairly widespread in our society. And the Buddha Himself has quite a lot to say about our positive relation to our parents in the Sigalovada Sutta in the Dīgha Nikāya, the collection of long discourses in Pāḷi. The Buddha is represented there as saying there are five ways in which a son should minister to his mother and father (you notice in Pāḷi it’s always mother and father, never father and mother and that isn’t without significance) as the eastern direction: he should think “Having been supported by them, I will support them, I will perform their duties for them, I will keep up the family tradition, I will be worthy of my heritage, after my parents’ deaths I will distribute gifts on their behalf.” ...

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

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


text:
What are the differences between vipassana and mindfulness meditation?
I have been reading about vipassana and mindfulness meditation but so far I haven’t fully understood the differences. Is mindfulness meditation an aspect or a variation of vipassana meditation?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

Related question: What are the main differences between Buddhism and Ellen Langer's 'scientific mindfulness'?

For buddhists, mindfulness meditation and vipassana are pretty much the same. The pali word for mindfulness is sati and the main sutta that describes vipassana practice is the sati patthana sutta ("The four foundations of mindfulness" for one translation).
However, the medical community (many non-buddhists) have stripped down this buddhist meditation into something lighter and called it "mindfulness meditation".
They are the same to the extent that both are practices of observation of rise and fall. But while a buddhist would recognize the insight developed in a meditator, the non-buddhist (who does not operate in the framework of buddhism, of dukkha) would likely describe a therapeutic effect -- eg. improved skills and maturity in working with anger within.
In other words, while a "vipassana meditator" and a "mindfulness meditator" would be contemplating, say, the rise and fall of sensations, the buddhist meditator is committed to liberation and is consciously observing experience to deeper his insight into reality, particularly, into the three marks of existence (dukkha, anicca, anatta). The mindfulness meditator, however, might not have such goal or commitment, nor might be aware or accept these three marks to be fundamental truths of existence.

Very concise answer. Thank a lot.

Good answer that takes both perspectives into account.

To say that most people might not accept the Three Marks of Existence is an understatement! I find that many will argue strenuously for a permanent separate self, and cannot conceive of life or hope without it. This is true even among people intelligent and informed enough to do some kind of self-inquiry together. I would say it is the hardest thing at all to get people to consider, let alone accept. Most people probably will never accept it.

When Buddha taught meditation he did not explicitly separate it in different types. If you read Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta, Kimattha Sutta, Cula-suññata Sutta, and any number of suttas mentioning the Jhanas, you will see that the overall progression is to first learn to pacify the mind at will, then learn to gladden the mind at will, then develop deep quiet satisfaction, then deep non-judgmental awareness, then turn the mind to seeing the implications of how things work (impermanence, corelessness, dukkha etc.), and then turn the mind to liberation.
The earlier stages of this process are referred to as Samatha and the later stages -- as Vipassana (or Shamatha and Vipashyana in Sanskrit).

Because the goal of samatha is to "tame" the mind, samatha is designed to be rather invasive. One target object is picked (a certain physical or a visualized object - depending on the nature of disturbances dominating the practitioner's mind) - and then a one-pointed concentration on that one object is cultivated. This requires mindfulness aka non-distraction: the ability to hold the object of concentration firmly without forgetting what you're supposed to be doing.
Once the mind gets minimally pliable and you can hold attention on one object for several minutes, you can switch to anapana-sati (mindfulness of breathing) meditation. This is when you use your breathing as a feedback to gauge the state of your mind and calm the mind. This type is what's usually called "mindfulness meditation" in the West. As you cultivate this, you develop a type of concentration that gives you direct access to the overall state of your mind, what used to be largely subconscious. Some people call this vipassana, but in my opinion this is somewhere in the middle between samatha and vipassana.
Once you learn to calm the mind using the breath as an indicator, you switch to gladdening the mind using specially constructed narratives. Basically, instead of telling yourself a sad story in which "how it is" and "how it supposed to be" mismatch, you tell yourself a joyful story in which "how it is" and "how it supposed to be" match gloriously. As you cultivate this, you learn the functioning of dukkha/sukha in context of Second and Third Noble Truths. These are already first elements of vipassana. At this point the object of your meditation is not as much breathing, as the thoughts in and off themselves - as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta.
Once you learn to gladden the mind using the narratives, you switch to generating joy/pride directly by consolidating the mind around experience of surety and rightness. At this point the object of your meditation is not as much thoughts, as the mind in-and-of itself - as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta.
The next level is to get over the generation of joy and cultivate the quiet state of satisfaction, grounded in the experience of inherent purity and harmony. There is still a little bit of samatha in this.
The next level after cultivation of satisfaction is cultivation of pure awareness. Just sit and watch whatever happens inside and outside without making any qualitative assessments of the experiences. Don't go with thoughts, don't go against the thoughts. We could call this 100% mindfulness meditation and 100% vipassana. This is the level at which the Heart of Prajnaparamita Sutra should be studied.
The next level is pondering the real-life implications of the core Buddhist principles: impermanence, corelessness, dukkha etc. while keeping the level of calmness and concentration achieved on the previous levels. In my opinion, this is no longer mindfulness meditation, but is still 100% vipassana. This is the level at which the Realization happens.
The next level is what's known as meditation of non-meditation, or cultivation of non-cultivation: experiencing uncontrived natural mind. This is no longer vipassana nor mindfulness. You go beyond abiding in any station and enter what's known as the Diamond Samadhi.

So, as you can see it is hard to say what is mindfulness and what is vipassana. Most of the time things are not so cut and dry:
Some Tibetan schools prefer to emphasize samatha meditation, and require their students to master a complete one-pointed samadhi-with-seed before proceeding straight to the pondering meditation - something I personally found very frustrating... In this case the watching / tuning one's mind phase is implicitly included in samatha.
The Theravada schools seem to teach very strict vipassana as a watertight attention radically focused on microscopic level of phenomenological experiences. IMHO this is very prone to having some practitioners miss the forest behind the trees...
Some Zen schools have their students practice all of the above all at once, without separating it into any levels or giving any hints about the method or the goal. The idea is that a capable student will figure out the path by intuition. Not everyone does. You could call this kind of undifferentiated watch-and-figure-out meditation as "mindfulness meditation"...
Other Zen schools (like Thich Nhat Hanh's) actually teach the whole progression step-by-step: calming, gladdening and all -- and call that "mindfulness meditation"...
This whole Buddhism thing is a mess. People call things however they want. If you understand what is actually going on, like the levels above, you will not be fooled by names anymore and your practice can proceed without confusion.

This is very useful explanation. Expecially the "People call things however they want" part.

Vipassana and Mindfulness Meditation is one and the same or two words for the same thing hence there is not different.
In the case you mean Samatha and Vipassana in the Suttas there is not big distinction as two different systems of meditation. A  simile Ven. Achan Cha uses is that of a stick. If you lift the stick one end will be higher, lower or and the same level as the other. Similarly if you find Concentration / focus increasing or insight increasing to start with it does not matter and ultimately result in insight. The essay Samatha and Vipassanā, might be of interest.

Mindfulness
Mindfulness is not just awareness it is a state of mind in which the person is paying full attention to what he or she is witnessing at that moment.This is different from any other normal person's awareness because they are lost in their thoughts and they have the minimum amount of attention to any thing other than what they are thinking now.
This meditation can unlock more effective memorizing capabilities for the one who practice it.It literally change the shape of the brain allowing him to reach higher meditational goals.This is only a stepping stone for a someone who practice meditation.
What is Mindfulness - click to read
Vipassana
Vipassana is a advanced step which is with more freedom to the practitioner to be creative. Vipassana challenge the normal understanding of the world and looks into a different kind of understanding.

Everything goes through these stages.

Birth / Start
Change
Decay
Death / End
Anything  can be put in this equation and literally it is a meditation,Vipassana means seeing things as they really are,
Here are some example teachings.
 A bag with an opening at both ends (Meditation of foulness)
Slaughtered cow (Meditation on elements)
Verily my own body, too (Meditation on nine cemetery contemplations)


text:
What is the real "Human Realm"
What is the real human realm,
Is it Earth or are there many other places / Planets with humans?
What are the words of Lord Buddha on this topic?
I am looking for the Theravada perspective.

The original home of human beings according to the Pali Canon is the Abhassara realm, lit. "from whose bodies are emitted rays like lightning." This is the top realm of three, next above the Brahma world, in the Form world of the devas (lit. "shining beings"), corresponding to the second jhana of meditative attainment. As a result of their increasing infatuation with sensuous pleasure, at least some of the residents of this realm "fell" into rebirth in the earthly realm, the manusyaloka. Since this degeneration was gradual, it implies that there are many "vibratory" or energetic levels of human beings in our universe, ranging from animal-like human beings with short life spans (the texts mention a minimum of 10 years) to glorious deva-like beings with long life spans and great wisdom and power (the texts say 80,000 or 84,000 years, which probably symbolize an unknown but large number; 84 is a Buddhist symbolic number representing totality). The latter correspond to extra-terrestrial civilizations and perhaps trans-dimensional beings as well. The shortest-lived non-human primate has a lifespan of 8 years (including the greater dwarf lemur, purple faced leaf monkey, bare faced tamarin, and western tarsier). This implies that primates are the degenerated remnants of human beings, rather than the reverse. Since this appears to contradict the evidence for evolution, one might speculate that human evolution was triggered by some sort of intervention, but this is going beyond my knowledge of the Pali Canon. The longest-lived human beings are genderless and do not have physical bodies, but appear rather as luminous beings who fly through the air including, presumably, interstellar space. Such "luminous bisexual spheres" are also mentioned by Plato. The comparison with UFOs, the physical existence of which cannot be denied (see Dr. Jacques Vallee, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dr. John Mack, Dr. Karla Turner, John Keel, and others), is unavoidable.

There is a view that there are multiple planes with humanoid like being which constitute the human realm.
Kosala Sutta: The Kosalan

"As far as the sun & moon revolve, illumining the directions with their light, there extends the thousand-fold cosmos. In that thousand-fold cosmos there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sunerus — kings of mountains; a thousand Rose-apple continents, a thousand Deathless Ox-cart [continents], a thousand northern Kuru [continents], a thousand eastern Videha [continents]; four thousand great oceans, four thousand Great Kings, a thousand [heavens of the] Four Great Kings, a thousand [heavens of the] Thirty-three, a thousand [heavens of the] Yamas, a thousand [heavens of the] Tusitas, a thousand heavens of the Nimmanaratis, a thousand heavens of the Paranimmitavasavattis, and a thousand Brahma worlds. And in that thousand-fold cosmos, the Great Brahma is reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Great Brahma there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.
"There comes a time when this cosmos devolves. When the cosmos is devolving, most beings head to the [heaven of] the Radiant. There they remain for a long, long time — mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-radiant, faring through the sky, abiding in splendor. When the cosmos is devolving, the Radiant Devas are reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Radiant Devas, there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.

Thanks suminda! i've never heard this before, i will take my time with this one


text:
Does Buddhism teach about "Parallel worlds"
I have heard something called "Mangala Sakwala"  (The special universe or galaxy where lord Buddhas are born)
This is a real puzzle for me because does it mean that there are many other worlds like this where the words of lord Buddha will never reach?
If such places exist what causes a being to be born there instead of here?
For example if i die now and get a birth as a human what would cause me to be born here (This galaxy/universe) or there (the unknown galaxy/universe)?
The exact word ( "parallel universes" ) hasn't being used in Buddhism but if you search you will find stories about Human like or Humanoid creatures who are just like us (Beings in the human realm) but not with the chance to reach Dhamma because Lord Buddhas never born there. I am referring to some Theravada teachings i heard many  years ago.
Hope someone can help!

Coming together of 31 planes of existance forms an universe. (At least when it is not collapsed.) Likewise there infinite universes1. Also there is view that each universe contains multiple humanoid planets which is called the human plane2.
Out of these universes there is only one universe a Buddha can appear. This is called the Mangala Sakwala  (The special universe or galaxy where lord Buddhas are born). This can be viewed in terms of the number line where there is infinite numbers but there is only one zero. Likewise in the infinite universe there is only one universe conducive for a Buddha to appear.

1Abhidhammattha Pradeepika By Amaradasa Rathnapala, Volume 1, page 27, paragraph starting at line 6.
2 Perhaps based on: Kosala Sutta: The Kosalan

"As far as the sun & moon revolve, illumining the directions with their light, there extends the thousand-fold cosmos. In that thousand-fold cosmos there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sunerus — kings of mountains; a thousand Rose-apple continents, a thousand Deathless Ox-cart [continents], a thousand northern Kuru [continents], a thousand eastern Videha [continents]; four thousand great oceans, four thousand Great Kings, a thousand [heavens of the] Four Great Kings, a thousand [heavens of the] Thirty-three, a thousand [heavens of the] Yamas, a thousand [heavens of the] Tusitas, a thousand heavens of the Nimmanaratis, a thousand heavens of the Paranimmitavasavattis,  and a thousand Brahma worlds. And in that thousand-fold cosmos, the Great Brahma is reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Great Brahma there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.
"There comes a time when this cosmos devolves. When the cosmos is devolving, most beings head to the [heaven of] the Radiant. There they remain for a long, long time — mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-radiant, faring through the sky, abiding in splendor. When the cosmos is devolving, the Radiant Devas are reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Radiant Devas, there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.

Like always a great answer

I have not heard of such a “Parallel world”.
But to know the definition of a "World" according to the lord Buddha; please study Rohitassa Sutta.

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

  Rohitassa sutta -AN 4.45

The exact word ( "parallel universes" ) hasn't being used in Buddhism but if you search you will find stories about Human like or Humanoid creatures who are just like us (Beings in the human realm) but not with the chance to reach dhamma because Lord Buddhas never born there. I am referring to some Theravada teachings i heard many  years ago.Hope someone can help @sajeewa

I never heard that Buddhism teach about parallel universes. Buddhism teaches only one Human world, which is exists here on earth.
There are other worlds (loka dhathu) for gods (dewa) and others. And there are some worlds which are even thousand Buddhas tries at once, can't be reach. 'Aroopa thaala Brahmana' worlds are such worlds.
Can not answer your second part as it assumes first part is true and it is not true as per my answer.

The exact word ( "parallel universes" ) hasn't being used in Buddhism but if you search you will find stories about Human like or Humanoid creatures who are just like us (Beings in the human realm) but not with the chance to reach dhamma because Lord Buddhas never born there. I am referring to some Theravada teachings i heard many  years ago.Hope someone can help  @John Fonseka

well, I never heard something like that. And I think as some principles of how Karma works, it's enough to have one human world. Concept of parallel universes complicate some understanding. However I am not a full known person about this subject.

One school of Buddhism is the Huayan, also known as the Flower Garland school. They teach that the flower garland, which represents all of reality, is made up of infinite universes which all reflect one another. Others have likened this to a net, a string of pearls in dimensions. This infinitely large net has a jewel at each vertex, which each reflects on another.


text:
Differently able people and their "Vinyana"
Say i am a Differently able person and i cant move my arms so how does my Vinyana work?
Is that part of my "Kaya Vinyana" (The vinyana that works with the body) deactivated or lost contact with the arms?
What is the connection between the Vinyana and a uncontrollable body part like arms or legs?
I am not reffering this question about Blind,Deaf or Mute people only about the people who are not able to use existing and functioning body parts

In my opinion, Vinyana is always present, but it is the function and sharpness of the faculty that distinguish the different experiences or what is felt through the faculty. In the context of mediation your faculties should be sharp for your the experience the reality as it is, so a person with diminished faculties generally will not be able to progress in Vipassana.
E.g. if your arm is lost then your limps then you have are not without or diminished Kaya Vinyanaya but due to the fact that a part of the faculty is missing there is not chance that to make contact of even if there is contact I does not register in the case of a blind person.
The ability to move is Power or Ability (Irdi) in which our body reacts to our intentions. The function of Vinyanaya is to register any contact which comes through the sense doors.

Thank you for the answer Suminda please continue explaining furthermore.Some examples might help us.

There is no Vinyanaya that "takes care of body". Kaya Vinyanaya arises as soon as body contacts with something (Kayan patichcha pottabbecha uppajjathi kayavinyanan - Madupindika Sutta). So if one can feel the body, kaya vinyana arises. Irrespective of its mobility.

Thank you for the answer sajeewa please continue explaining furthermore.Some examples might help us.

Vinaya is consciousness. If you keep Buddhist doctrine aside then it is simple to describe consciousness. Kaya Vinaya is a description of that part of consciousness which is in touch with body. Consciousness can be thought of very fine grained body which becomes grosser and takes shape of various subtle bodies some of which are described by terms as Pranic, Astral etc. Consciousness in its subtlest forms governs life and death. If you are alive then it means Vinaya is there. But if you do not have control over a limb it means Vinaya has lost touch due to malfunction of grosser bodies inside. Kaya Vinaya is that part of consciousness which is in direct contact with body. Since Buddha did not want people to experiment with grosser bodies he never spoke about them. I am sure anybody who meditates and adopts a right lifestyle will start witnessing subtle bodies inside.


text:
What is vedanā?
Vedanā is usually translated as "feeling" or "sensation". In S.N. Goenka's tradition, vedanā is understood as a physical sensation on the body, such as touch, heat, pain, etc. As far as I understand, vedanā does not include other senses, such as taste, smell, sound or sight (even though vedanā may arise as a result of perception of something through these senses). Nor are mental feelings such as anger, hatred or joy classified as vedanā.
Do I understand it correctly? How is vedanā defined in other traditions? Are there any significant differences?

See http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9983/questions-on-the-five-skandhas

Out of the many many classifications Goenka's techniques uses the 5 fold classification (physical pleasant, physical painful, mental pleasant, mental painful, equanimous) Bodily Sensation is considered Vedana excluding Metal Sensation (Somanasa / Domanasa) as it is more a form of Kaya and Vedana Passana to start with though later if develops to Citta and Dhammanupassana. Any mental content also gives a sensation which can be felt in the body as well.
In a broader context Vedana includes any feeling born of contact through any of the 6 sense doors.

The same applies to unpleasant (dukkha vedanā) sensation, such as pain; and neutral sensation (adukkhamasukha vedanā), which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant. The words sukha and dukkha refer to bodily feelings. For pleasant or unpleasant mental feelings, the Buddha used somanassa and domanassa. Sukha and dukkha vedanā therefore refer to sensation on the body. Body by itself cannot feel them, and they are felt by a part of the mind; nevertheless the body is the base.

Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka

As I understand it, 'vedana' is used to denote the pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral aspect of some experience. The term most closely tracks with the English terms 'valence' or 'hedonic tone', rather than normal uses of the term 'feeling.'


text:
Is there a link between Isolation and wisdom?
In history many people that lived a life of isolation turned out to write the laws of the universe,great inventors that advanced society forever with ideas and inventions. Others started a spiritual movement for mankind that millions follow I will name just a few are linked to isolation.
First look at Albert Einsteins quote on Buddhism- http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-religion-of-the-future-will-be-a-cosmic-religion-the-religion-which-based-on-experience-albert-einstein-61-69-74.jpg
Buddha-http://sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=1428
Jesus Christ-https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/isaac-newton-the-last-lone-genius/
Albert Einstein-http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2007/05/albert-einstein-on-gifted-isolation.html
Nikola Tesla-http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-nikola-tesla
More-http://zenhabits.net/creative-habit/

When you ask about "isolation" what do you exactly mean? Maybe you could give a definition of it. Isolation is a broad word with many aspects. Are you thinking of isolation as in a solitary retreat? There are monks who do solitary retreats for months, even years in a row.

Yes solitary retreat by choice. For years at a time with very little contact with society.Not by a disorder or lack of social skills or old age.But in the prime of ones life, to sacrifice this special time to humble the mind and learn to know who we are.Alone in the world.

@Mr. Cruz. It would be a good idea to add that information to your question.

Maybe if you just mention if there is a link between isolation and wisdom then it will be sufficient sans the back ground in the body of the question which might be confusing every one. In Theravada Buddhism there are at least 2 links that I know of.

@ Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala - I've experienced the phenomena and noticed intuition and other changes after a just a few  months, 3 years later I started to search for a relation to what i found and some very important people also choose isolation for some strange reason.

Some of the people you mention are not Buddhists. It will be good if you can put this purely in a Buddhist perspective how this can help spiritual perspective. This will also narrow down the scope to the Buddhist perspective.

@Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala- We can all become like Buddha and that is what he wants Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala.Showing proof that Buddha was a real man and his life was as true as the other men I mentioned will only bring more to Buddhism. These men didnt want to be followed or worshiped and neither did Buddha.Im not comparing them to Buddha but proving that Buddhas life style made him very special and unique and forever known

Even if the question were, "Is there a link between isolation and the Buddha's enlightenment?" or "Does the Buddha recommend isolation as a practice?" that would still be quite a broad (perhaps too broad) question, which I think has a "yes and no" answer, isn't that so? And, are you hoping to read people's answering using references (e.g. answers from scripture), or, answers based on their personal experience[s]?

The links to these people and isolation are all proven. Should I post a link to all there lives as a mean of proof? because I can do that if thats whats needed.

@Mr.Cruz. As I have mentioned earlier, you should add the information to your question, in order to make it easier understandable and to increase clarity.

@ChrisW This will not be too broad as there is at least one Sutta which deals with just this but down it leads to Spiritual development and final enlightenment.

This is called Viveka nissita in Pali of "Dependent on Solitude" forumula "Liberation Depedent on Solitude" in English. This one quote on it "Formula of attaining the goal: The viveka,nissita (The Dependent-on-Solitude Formula) pericope is one of the most important formulas commonly found in the sutta ... dependent on solitude ... ". Maybe edit the question if needed but this topics so far has not been brought up on this site and in Theravada perspective (among who gives importance to the Suttas) is pretty important.

is OP seeking to get information with this question, and if yes, what kind of information is he expecting to get? Or is this more like a statement that declares OP's insight/position and he is looking for confirmation of that?


text:
Heart Sūtra root in Pali Canon?
It's hard not to think of the Heart Sūtra when reading the Kassaka Sutta (Saŋyutta Nikāya 4:19), part of which runs as below (Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation, emphasis added).
Is there any scholarship or commentary on a connection between these two texts, one from the Pali Canon and the other a major Mahayana scripture?
Googling -- kassaka heart sutra -- turns up two references -- here and here -- but I'd say those are more contemporary popular literature than scholarship or traditional commentary.

Then Mara the Evil One, taking on the form of a farmer with a large
  plowshare over his shoulder, carrying a long goad stick — his hair
  disheveled, his clothes made of coarse hemp, his feet splattered with
  mud — went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, said, "Hey,
  contemplative. Have you seen my oxen?"
"And what are your oxen, Evil One?"
"Mine alone is the eye, contemplative. Mine are forms, mine is the
  sphere of consciousness and contact at the eye. Where can you go to
  escape me? Mine alone is the ear... the nose... the tongue... the
  body... Mine alone is the intellect, contemplative. Mine are ideas,
  mine is the sphere of consciousness and contact at the intellect.
  Where can you go to escape me?"
"Yours alone is the eye, Evil One. Yours are forms, yours is the
  sphere of consciousness of contact at the eye. Where no eye exists, no
  forms exist, no sphere of consciousness and contact at the eye exists:
  there, Evil One, you cannot go. Yours alone is the ear... the nose...
  the tongue... the body... Yours alone is the intellect, Evil One.
  Yours are ideas, yours is the sphere of consciousness and contact at
  the intellect. Where no intellect exists, no ideas exist, no sphere of
  consciousness of contact at the intellect exists: there, Evil One, you
  cannot go."

Here is a lovely chanting of the relevant section of the Heart Sūtra by Allen Ginsburg, in his own translation.

hmm... beautiful... I've never heard of this connection with Kassaka Sutta.

Yes. I agree that this is the same topic. And once one knows what to look for, one sees this kind of thing everywhere.
See also the Cūlasuññata Sutta (MN 121).

Not quite on the topic of Kassaka Sutta, but regarding Heart Sutra roots in Pali Canon, one line of thinking traditionally connects the prajna-paramita genesis with Shrenika the Wanderer, also known as Vacchagotta of Pali Canon. Here I will post a couple of relevant quotes:
(from Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra)

...
  Also, not of body, nor feelings, nor thoughts, nor volitions,
  Nor of consciousness, position even a little do not bother him.
  Thus, to all dharmas not getting stuck, not getting caught into traps of abstractions (aniketacari)
  Not clinging, he attains awakening of the Lucky Ones.
As venerable Shrenika the wandering beggar,
  Realization acquired, without precisely grasping the skandhas,
  Just so bodhisattva, intuits real nature of things (dharmas).
  And does not seek cessation (nirvritti) but abides in wisdom.

(from Conze's notes on Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra)

Shrenika Vatsagotra was a “Wanderer,” i.e. a non-Buddhist ascetic, whose conversations with the Buddha form one section of the Samyuktägama of the Sarvastivadins. On one occasion (SA 105, MN 72, SN 44.8) Shrenika raised the question of the “true self,” which he identified with the Tathagata. The Buddha told him that the Tathagata could not be found in the skandhas, outside the skandhas, or in the absence of the skandhas. In a supreme act of faith Shrenika was willing to accept the Tathagata in spite of the fact that he could not be related to any of the skandhas.

(from MN 72)

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
  "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception… such are mental fabrications… such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
  ...
  "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form [Any feeling... Any perception... Any fabrication... Any consciousness] by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form [feeling, perception, fabrication, consciousness], Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.

Some thoughts and bibliography on Shrenika can be found in THE BRAHMACĀRIN ŚREṆIKA: EARLY SŪTRA SOURCES OF THE PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ work by M.B. Orsborn (釋慧峰) here (I hope the link works).
Another work connecting this topic (of skahdhas/conceit/I-making/anatta/non-abiding) with the roots of Prajna-Paramita and Shunyata in early texts, is "The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature" by Medawachchiye Dhammajothi Thero. You can download it here (scroll down for the Download button). Here is what it says in conclusion:

It has been shown that "Anatta" as used in early Suttas, did not merely mean the absence of an individual soul, but meant also the absence of any entity in both compounded (Samkhata/Samskrta) elements as well as in uncompounded (Asamskhata, Asamskrta) elements, that is Nibbana. Thus, it has been clearly shown that Anatta means "emptiness" of everything, including Nibbana (Nirnvana).
  ...
  A chapter was denoted to the study of various meditational practices recommended in early Buddhism, that lead to the realization of Sunna. Special focus was laid on two suttas namely Cula-Sunnata and Maha-Sunnata, both of the Majjhimanikaya. These while showing that the Buddha emphasized internalization of the understanding of the voidness of everything describes also how this could be done. This chapter will be of interest to those who wish to understand how meditative practice could be utilized to personally experience the voidness of all phenomena.

(from Cula-Sunnata Sutta)

"Further, Ananda, the monk — not attending to the perception of the dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — attends to the singleness based on the theme-less concentration of awareness.

(from SA 926, which explains Shrenika's meditation)

He meditates not leaning on Earth, Water, Fire, Air, the place of
  Infinity of Space, the place of the Infinity of Consciousness, the
  place of Nothingness, the place of Neither-Perception-nor-non-Perception;
  he meditates not leaning on this world, the world hereafter, the sun or moon, on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, obtained, sought after, followed
  after by mind, without leaning on them he meditates, because he has un-done the notion of Earth, Water... etc. -- he meditates not leaning on anything at all (na sarvam sarvam iti nisritya dhyayati).

(from Cula-Sunnata Sutta)

"He discerns that '[Even] This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

(from Maha-nidana Sutta)

This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.
  ...
  Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released.

Wonderful -- thank you for the research on this question (the reformulated title).

Excellent. These gatherings compliment the Heart Sutra nicely!

I'll add a snippet of my own (obviously non-traditional) simple commentary, using Allen Ginsberg's powerful, poetic rendering as recited in Gelek Rimpoche's transcript, "Sem, the Nature of Mind":

Every Bodhisattva depends on Highest Perfect Wisdom because mind meets no obstacle.
Because of no obstacle, no fear's born.
Gone beyond all topsy turvey absolutes attain Nirvna.
Past, present and future every Buddha depends on Highest Perfect Wisdom therefore attain supreme, perfect enlightnment.

Mara is obstacle and fear. The Buddha, the Bodhisattva depends on Highest Perfect Wisdom, the realm "Where no eye exists, no forms exist, no sphere of consciousness and contact at the eye exists", etc. to defeat Mara because "there, Evil One, you cannot go", that is, there is no evil there, in fact, no duality of good and evil, which arises out of and depends on fear and obstacle.
Make sense?


text:
What is Buddhism's view on curse?
I have read various mythological and histories about curse where it has destroyed kingdoms and kings. Does curse have that power? If so, how it can be explained in relation to karma? What is Buddhism's view on curse?

Can you provide specific examples?

troy, moses vs pharoah, kurushetra

Did these curses involve Buddhists?

No. It is about human frailty and suffering. This is extreme emotion displayed in distress and I want to know whether it has power to  affect people not associated with it and how does Buddhism deal with curse and events that follow because of it.

I'm afraid there is no Buddhist view on curse, just like there is no Buddhist view on sin, for example. They are simply concepts from different religions/mythologies, and they are not applicable to Buddhism.

I have seen a meme labeled "The Buddhist Curse" "May you have everything you have always wanted" Seems legit...

The Buddha quite clearly implies that an "act of hate" (i.e, a curse) can destroy forests. It is of course a matter of opinion whether the Buddha "really" believed this, or was simply using it as a didactic device - but that is what the text says. See the Upali Sutta (MN 56).

This is clearly not an answer

Actually, the Upali Sutta talks about the opposite.  A sage's defiled mind turned some land into forests, not destroyed them.  :)  https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/Upali_Sutta

Curse is utterance of hatred to inflict harm or punishment on someone or something. I think the mind is like a double-edged sword. Besides mind precedes everything. The powerful mind could be used for both good and the bad.
So contrary to popular belief I found the following instance in Vimanavattu.

Ujjaṅgalaṃ tattamivaṃ kapālaṃ,
  Anāyasaṃ paralokena tulyaṃ;
  Luddānamāvāsamidaṃ purāṇaṃ,
  Bhūmippadeso abhisattarūpo.

KN Vv -10 Serīsakavimānavatthu

I could not find an "official" English translation online but based of Buddha Jayanthi Edition, translation goes like this;

There is only dust and scorching sand. This rough soil is like a scorched iron pot. It is like hell, without any happiness. This place has been haunted by ghosts for a long time. It seems that this land is under a curse of rishis.


text:
Meditation techniques used in different branches/traditions of Buddhism
What are some meditation techniques used in different branches/traditions/vehicles of Buddhism?
Please provide the name of the technique, names of branches/traditions/vehicles that apply this technique, and recommended references that can allow to read more about the technique.
In case you want to provide information about what is the point or the most distinguishing feature of the technique, please do it in a few sentences and avoid extended discussion.

This is a massive topic.  Each vehicle has it own sub schools which in turn have their own sub sub schools that have their own meditation techniques.  For instance, you have Mahayana, then you have Zen, then you have shikantaza and koan meditation.  There's even variations within those.  And don't even get me started on Tibetan Buddhism!  A couple of books that might help - Mahayana Buddhist Meditation (Kiyota) and Theravada Mediation (King).  I could go on for pages on books on Tibetan techniques.

@Michay. As Neko has already mentioned, this topic is extremely big and very broad. It would be great if you could narrow it down, so its easier to answer.

Would it work if I asked about a list of names of all meditation techniques used by different branches of Buddhism, with information in which branches each of them used? It would be analogous to this question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10412/could-someone-provide-a-list-of-all-buddhist-schools/10415#10415 It could be a community wiki.

@Lanka If any answer to this question would be too long to post here, would it work to ask for recommended references to places where this question is answered elsewhere (e.g. online, and/or in specific books like the ones mention by neko)?

@ChrisW. I think that sounds like a good idea. Then the references will contain the detailed answers to meditation techniques. As Michau proposed, we can turn this into a community wiki.

@Michau. How does this sound. Would that be okay, to ask for recommended references instead?

I edited the question, what do you think? I think some comments may be needed, as for example, different traditions may have different techniques with the same name. But I made it clear that such comments should be brief, and that an open-ended comparison of the techniques should be avoided.

Question is now reopened.

I answered here in relation to meditations techniques Tibetans emphasize. Some of them belong to both perfection vehicle and secret mantra vehicle : http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11936/text-request-tibetan-buddhism/11946#11946


text:
What are The Four Great Elements?
Can someone provide a comprehensive explanation, on what the four great elements are and how they work and exist?
I also have a special interest about the "mobility-element", in the four great elements.
I am interested in Theravada teachings.

The 4 elements are:

pruṭhavī-dhātu - solidity or attraction. This holds something together. You feel this as tightness, pressure in the body.
āpa-dhātu - liquidity or relative motion. See below.
teja-dhātu - heat or energy. Body temperature, vibrations in the body you feel in meditation. Difference of temperature in and out meditation.
vāyu-dhātu - expansion or repulsive forces. You feel this as pulsation or expansion and contraction in the body or flow of respiration, rumbling gasses in the belly and passing of wind.

Mobility element is liquidity like liquidly nature in the nose, saliva, urine, sweat. You can look at the flowing nature of these elements in mediation. Though solidity, heat, air element can be experienced through the body liquidity can be experienced or constructed through the mind only.
More particularly, the experience of the 3 elements (earth, heat, air) are happen through Body - Conciousness accompanied by either Pain, Pleasure, or Neutral Sensation and liquidity (motion) through the mind.
Some translators translate Air Element (vāyu-dhātu) as motion element.
Also see: Matter and Moments, Matter & moments and feeling 1, Rupa (Form), Lectures on Rupa 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d by Piya Tan for more academic analysis of the Elements. Wikipedia entry on Mahābhūta.

Here is a section that occurs both in MN 62 and 140:

“What, bhikkhu, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element.
“What, bhikkhu, is the water element? The water element may be either internal or external. What is the internal water element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to, that is, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spittle, snot, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to: this is called the internal water element. Now both the internal water element and the external water element are simply water element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the water element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the water element.
“What, bhikkhu, is the fire element? The fire element may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, and clung-to, that is, that by which one is warmed, ages, and is consumed, and that by which what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets completely digested, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, and clung-to: this is called the internal fire element. Now both the internal fire element and the external fire element are simply fire element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the fire element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the fire element.
“What, bhikkhu, is the air element? The air element may be either internal or external. What is the internal air element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is air, airy, and clung-to, that is, up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the belly, winds in the bowels, winds that course through the limbs, in-breath and out-breath, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is air, airy, and clung-to: this is called the internal air element. Now both the internal air element and the external air element are simply air element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the air element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the air element.

Source: majjhima nikāya 140 -- The Exposition of the Elements
Furthermore, if you read the Satipatthana sutra (MN 10), in the contemplation of body section, he has a very concise version of this elements section:

Moreover, monks, a monk, in regard to this very body, however placed, however disposed, reflects by way of the elements:
“There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the wind element.”
Just as though, monks, a clever butcher, or a butcher’s apprentice,
  after slaughtering a cow, were sitting down at a crossroads after
  dividing it into portions; even so, monks, a monk in regard to this
  very body, however placed, however disposed, reflects by way of the
  elements:
“There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the wind element.”

And immediately preceding it is the contemplation of the parts of the body:

Moreover, monks, a monk in regard to this very body—from the sole of the feet upwards, from the hair of the head down, bounded by the skin, ; and full of manifold impurities—reflects (thus):
“There are in this body: hairs of the head, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, excrement, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spit, mucus, synovial fluid, urine.”
Just as though, monks, there were a bag open at both ends, full of various kinds of grain, such as: hill rice, white rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, chickpeas; and a man with good vision having opened it were to reflect (thus): “This is hill rice, this is white rice, these are mung beans, these are sesame seeds, these are chickpeas”; even so, monks, a monk in regard to this very body—from the sole of the feet upwards, from the hair of the head down, bounded by the skin, ; and full of manifold impurities—reflects (thus):
“There are in this body, hairs of the head, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, excrement, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spit, mucus, synovial fluid, urine.”

Source: DN 22
You can also hear Bhikkhu Bhodi give an explanation on the elements at about the 30 minute mark in this lecture he gave.

Wikipedia's article is called Mahābhūta, which also says how they're used, and which references a dozen suttas in which they're "described in detail".
In the first three of these suttas on Access to Insight, the (translated/English) term used in the sutta is "elements", "properties", and/or "primaries".
There are four "primary" elements in the suttas. The Abhidhamma (which is later Theravada) further analyses rūpa into secondary or derived (upādā) matter.
I think you're supposed to understand these elements (this analysis) as something you perceive -- for example you may perceive the "hardness" of an object -- it's in that sense that you might say that for example an object "is hard" or perhaps "is composed of hardness".
It's often used in a context where the "object" being considered is your own body. I was wondering why they don't seem to relate to eye-consciousness but perhaps the explanation for that is that you don't typically see your own guts, for example, but you feel them.
(Here Wikipedia says, "In general, rūpa is the Buddhist concept of material form, including both the body and external matter" -- however here it says, ""Form" (material) are the constituents of the body (made of solids, liquids, gasses...)"
I think that purpose of the analysis is that suffering results from craving which results from perception which results from form ... so by understanding (and thus, I suppose, becoming disenchanted with) form we can hope to stop pursuing that chain whose result is suffering.

The 4 great elements(properties) exists in everything that exists in the universe.
They aren't really elements more like attributes or properties. They can only be recognized when in unison, if they are separated they cannot be identified.
Patavi or Solidity
This property means the roughness and smoothness you feel on objects. The weight they have. The hardness and softness. These are the characteristics to identify whether that element has the Patavi property.
Eg: "Water" has a weight. That's how tsunami's cause so much destruction. Water also can be felt as smooth if touched. But a water-jet cutter can cut through steel even, so now it's rough.*
Apo or Combination and Seperation
This property means the seperation (break down) and combination ability of anything.
Eg: A brick can be smashed and broken until there is nothing left to seperate. The same goes for water which can also be broken down, Take for example a small droplet of water on a glass rubbed which is rubbed by your finger. The water droplet seperates into very tiny drops of water.
As water is easily separated and combined it is said to have a high Apo property.
Thejo or Heat and Cold
Thejo is basically temperature. "Cold" is low thejo and "Heat" is high thejo.
Vayo or Wind
Vayo property is the ability of anything to be pierced through or compressed.
For example: Take a grain of rice and put it in water, you'll see that the grain of rice expanded by absorbing the water into it. This is possible due to the vayo property.
Even a wall which is having less vayo property can still be pierced by a nail, so a wall relative to other everyday objects is said to have low vayo property.

I hope you can clearly understand this as these properties are being misinterpreted widely. It cannot be a Mahabuta if it only exists in some objects. So it's universal.
Take a flame for example. It has a patavi property as you can feel it touching if you have touched a flame. It also has apo property as it can be seperated and combined. It quite obviously has a high thejo property. Finally a flame can be 'pierced' quite easily.

All these can be experienced daily, at any given time. Suppose you are sitting on a chair, you can feel the rough or smooth sensation of the chair. You can also feel the hardness or softness of the chair. The chair can also be broken down into many pieces. The chair also is in room temperature. The chair can also be 'pierced' by many objects. This is contemplation on the mahabuta, an insight meditation mentioned in the Sathipattana Sutta.


text:
How many dimensions are there according to Buddhism?
Humans or most of the organisms in this world can perceive three dimensions. Does buddhism explain about dimensions? If so how many are there?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

The Sigalovada Sutta mention "the six directions":

At that time a young householder named Sigalaka arose early and set out from Rajagaha with freshly washed clothes and hair.[3] With palms together held up in reverence,[4] he was paying respect towards the six directions:[5] that is east, south, west, north, lower and upper.

I take that to imply three dimensions.
It's not explicitly about dimensions but it casually implies in passing that there are three dimensions (perhaps as if it's the kind of thing that everyone knows and doesn't need explaining).
Modern maths (since the late 18th century) has described "time" as a kind of dimension. Buddhist texts imply that time, too, can be perceived.

Thank you for the answer! :) AFAIK these directions are not related to cosmology, They were said by lord buddha to give a meaning to the worshiping of directions. In it parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down).

@Dinal24 Yes that is the subject of the sutta. I am referencing it out of context, but I thought it helped answer the question.

Space (Akasa Pannattis) and time (Kala Pannattis) are a conceptual or perception based construct (Pannattis).
Many of the population can perceive in 3D: Stereopsis. There are some who cannot perceive in 3D: Stereoblindness. So the dimensionality differs from person to person or how you perceive it. Buddhism looks at the world through the experience of a being than a generalised truth independent of a observer and his experience of it.
See: Time and space: The Abhidhamma perspective, Professor K. N. Jayatilleke Memorial Lecture 2003 by Y. Karunadasa.. Also The Dhamma Theory by Y. Karunadasa which discusses Pannattis.

Or doesn't the buddhism looks at the reality rather than what people perceive? :/

Both. It it is Paramartha Dharma it is independent of the observer if it is Pannattis it is as a person perceives it or metals constructs.


text:
What is the modern understanding about Four Great Elements and Reality?
The 4 elements are:
pruṭhavī-dhātu - solidity or attraction. This holds something together. You feel this as tightness, pressure in the body.
āpa-dhātu - liquidity or relative motion.
teja-dhātu - heat or energy. Body temperature, vibrations in the body you feel in meditation. Difference of temperature in and out meditation.
vāyu-dhātu - expansion or repulsive forces. You feel this as pulsation or expansion and contraction in the body or flow of respiration, rumbling gasses in the belly and passing of wind.

So can we expand our knowledge about "Four great elements" in Buddhism using the knowledge that we have already understood by other means?

Modern Understating
There are infinite number of Buddhas in the past (though only few are recorded), and they preached the same Dhamma. With respect to Science this is always in constant evolution in terms of the understanding and body of knowledge. Though Science generally may not refute Buddhism drawing parallels may not be useful.
Understanding the 4 Elements
Understanding of the 4 elements should be at the experiential level or at the level that is felt. Conceptual understanding falls into the sphere of Perception, through this is also essential, but as stepping stone to the next item which is putting into practice with a view to experience it for one self.

You are correct. This is an explanation of 4 elements using  Quantum physics only. Thank you for the answer  : )

Prologue
As we all are aware Lord Buddha used a certain method when teaching Dhamma to the common man,and that was breaking things down in a way that particular person will understand.
So the teachings were very dynamic bit stayed true to the core.Lord Buddha used this style of teaching because people had different levels of intelligence and potential when it comes to understanding complex teachings.
When Lord Buddha found people with very low intelligence much simpler methods were used to teach dhamma.But with people who had great potential much complex teachings were used according to their character and potential.

This is an effort to deliver more in depth understanding to our audience with far more sophisticated understanding about the world compared to the innocent people in Lord Buddha's time....
I would also like to add that these are results of years of experiments by many groups and a commonly shared perspective among huge groups who try to draw better understanding of complex teachings of Buddhism through science.
But none of below statements include any conclusions from Suttas,Teachings from monks or any other source.These are purely facts based on scientific experiments and logical reasoning.

Any comments are welcome as this is truly a new chapter of our understanding, And i advice readers to use their reasoning to conclude their own views of this.....

The shocker....
As we all know Lord Buddha's ingredients of everything is quite different from what we learn in science.Science talk about how chemical elements make everything and Lord Buddha talk about four elements creating everything.This is quite puzzling.
So i did my research on this topic to find why this difference exist.And i was quite interested to know about the paradox that these "Four elements" make.
I mean,
i am solid,i have fluidity in me,i have air in me and i have emptiness in me.
But this is what my body has,as i have learned it is made of cells and if i devide cells i end up with chemical elements that make my body.
So my intention was to learn why lord Buddha said that everything including my body is made of "Four great elements".
And i found some amazing proof to back up Buddhism in a totally different field. In Quantum physics
I recommend watching these two videos for better and easier understanding.(Each video is 10 minutes so you will have to spend 20 minutes.I guarantee you it is worth it and you will have never before understanding about everything.)
Where Science and Buddhism Meet - part 1 (video)
Where Science and Buddhism Meet - part 2 (video)
Turns out reality is not truly what it feels like.As too quantum physics there is no such thing called a solid object,But there is the "State of solidness"
Let me explain....
Sometime before science thought everything is real but one day everything changed by a single experiment giving birth to a new kind of Physics! It was called the Double Slit Experiment.
Double Slit Experiment
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia
What science found was that reality does not actually exist but it comes to existence only when we observe it.
Experiment suggests that reality doesn't exist until it is observed
Reality doesn't exist until we measure it
So as to Quantum physics reality is not just an illusion of mind it is also acting in a way that is impossible to measure.As it turns out when we are not observing reality is acting in its own way but when we try to measure it or observe it reality start to function the way we know it.
(read the links above for better understanding [Reality doesn't exist until we measure it])
As Quantum physics has discovered not only reality is only the way we observe it,reality is also a deeper illusion.For example when you touch something (Sparsha- as mentioned in Buddhism) what happens is two field repelling each other like two magnets would and your mind (Kaaya vinyana) picking it up as a touch. In fact as to Quantum physics no one has ever really touched anything,even the chair you are sitting on is not touching you you are actually hovering above it in a atomic level.(watch the videos above to learn better)
So the dark horse of science "Quantum physics" has finally proved Lord Buddha's sayings

There is only Emptiness
There is no soul or a person
Everything is made of "Four Great Elements"

I request you all to take your time and read this answer fully with all the links given,and i guarantee you when you stand up from that chair after reading this you will be a different man forever.
May triple gems bless you all!
Namo Buddhaya!

This over emphasizes Emptiness which does not sound right through some Theravade teachers also do it.

I mean about the Videos

The videos describe emptiness in this way, Matter only exist in the form you know only when observed or measured.Any time else everything in the cosmos including your self is a one set of energy @SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala