text:
Did the Buddha prescribe other meditations besides breath meditation? (for concentration, jhana)
After reading Ajahn Brahm, Leigh Brasington, and Ayya Khema's books on meditation, I have not been able to reach the jhanas through breath meditation.
If I stay with the breath long enough to reach "access concentration", or at least, if the breath does become fine and imperceptable, I do not experience any bliss or pleasant feelings, and my mind asks, "Now what? Nothing is happening."
Are there stories of the Buddha recommending different styles of meditation (for concentration leading to jhana) depending on the individual disposition of the listener?
I've struggled with aversion and craving not to be. So would the Buddha, for example, prescribe metta meditation here? Please give references. Thank you.

Did not see the question, sorry. I am looking more for confirmation in the suttas that the Buddha did indeed prescribe different meditation methods (for concentration leading to jhana) to listeners of different dispositions. But seeing your answer, that may be enough. Thank you.

Found this question on kasinas but nothing said on the disposition of the meditator.

You might want to ask a different question, about "joy" or "piti", but there are existing topics about about that too -- piti and joy.


text:
Did the Buddha know God?
I recall reading or hearing, I don't know how long ago, that the Buddha knew the God that many religions believe is the creator. The story is that this powerful, long lived God was around when the universe came into existence and believed he was responsible for the creation. But I've not been able to recall or find the the source. Is there such a story in any of the Buddhist writings or commentaries?

The Buddha knew himself. Who else is there to know?

The God you speak of, is known as the Great Brahma or Mahabrahma, the first being to appear in the Mahabrahma plane, when the world expands again. Also, take a look at the 31 planes of existence.
The story you're looking for is in DN1:

"There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is
  contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara
  Brahma-world. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture,
  self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they
  continue thus for a long, long period of time.
"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While
  the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a
  certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the
  exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made,
  feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in
  glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns):
  'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment,
  due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their
  merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.
"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is
  the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings
  might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these
  beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be
  Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the
  reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here
  after him.'
"Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who
  re-arose there after him.
"Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come
  to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has
  gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and
  right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration
  that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately
  preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were
  created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the
  Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the
  Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the
  Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable,
  eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like
  eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to
  this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'

Footnote on Ābhassara Brahma-world (by Bhikkhu Bodhi):

The "world of streaming radiance," the sixth of the fifteen planes in
  the fine-material world (rūpaloka), the lowest order to be exempt from
  the onset of world destruction. The Brahma-world mentioned later is
  destroyed by the conflagration but reappears at an early stage.

The same being is also referenced in DN11:

"When this was said, the gods of the retinue of Brahma said to the
  monk, 'We also don't know where the four great elements... cease
  without remainder. But there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the
  Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the
  Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father
  of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is higher and more sublime than
  we. He should know where the four great elements... cease without
  remainder.'
"'But where, friends, is the Great Brahma now?'
"'Monk, we also don't know where Brahma is or in what way Brahma is.
  But when signs appear, light shines forth, and a radiance appears,
  Brahma will appear. For these are the portents of Brahma's appearance:
  light shines forth and a radiance appears.'
"Then it was not long before Brahma appeared.
"So the monk approached the Great Brahma and, on arrival, said,
  'Friend, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the
  liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease
  without remainder?'
"When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am
  Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the
  All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator,
  Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall
  Be.'
A second time, the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't
  ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the
  Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the
  Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have
  Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements — the
  earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind
  property — cease without remainder.'
"A second time, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am
  Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the
  All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator,
  Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall
  Be.'
"A third time, the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't
  ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the
  Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the
  Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have
  Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements — the
  earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind
  property — cease without remainder.'
"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off
  to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma
  believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There
  is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of
  which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great
  Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence
  that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without
  remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing
  the Blessed One (the Buddha) in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go
  right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question.
  However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'

I'm sorry but this association is misconstrued. The concept of a creator deity is utterly irrelevant to Buddhism. The concept of gods in Buddhism is derived from Hinduism and deities are conceived to be subject to Samsara (karmic rebirth) just like humans. The Tittha Sutra says: " When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, ... one cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative." The Digha Nikaya states: "none of the brahmās are world-creators".

@Codosaur The question was answered perfectly. The question was not if there is or is not a creator, but rather, is there a god that believes he is or claims to be the creator. This was an answer to a question I asked maybe 10 or 15 years ago and I've not been able to find the reference since.

A permanent thing such as God or soul even in a quantity as small as a piece of cow dung does not exist as stated by Thathagatha Arhat Buddha. Thathagatha Arhat Buddha also states that if there were even such a small quantity of permanent thing, we would not be able to escape from paticca samupppada.

Pali Canon
  http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/g/gomaya_s.htm

Thathagatha - Him that known everything that should be known and sees everything that should be seen.
Arhat - Him who has no craving, anger or delusion.

See Brahma-nimantanika Sutta: The Brahma Invitation, Brahma Baka (Barakah).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
28 Yaksha Generals
I've noticed reference to the 28 Yaksha Generals in several texts. To my current knowledge, the Mahāmāyūrīvidyārājñī Sūtra and the 卍新纂續藏經 Vol. 02, No. 183 (二十八夜叉大軍王名號) are the only text that explicitly lists them.
Are there any other extant material that lists the names of these generals? Many thanks.

To my knowledge, there are12 Yaksha Generals and 28 Legions Serving Avalokiteshvara, but they refer to different beings.
In Japanese Buddhism, the latter are called 二十八部衆, Nijūhachi Bushū. The link contains a list of all 28 names in Japanese.

Those are both different sets of deities than what I'm referring to. To my knowledge, they are known as the 二十八夜叉大軍王 in Chinese.

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


text:
At what stage is it wrong to consider oneself wise?
Is it always wrong to consider oneself wise?
I don't mean consider oneself an important Buddhist, or one who has attained such and such a level of absorption or success along the path to enlightenment, but something more mundane, being wise and able to tell e.g. what is a fake way of behaving, or the difference between right and wrong.

Is it always wrong to consider oneself wise?

To refer to yourself as wise could develop an over-inflated sense of self. I think it's best to just remain silent in mind and speech about the concepts you may want to use to describe yourself.
In the Diamond Sutra, Chapter 10 points this out thus:

“A disciple should develop a mind which is in no way dependent upon sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensory sensations or any mental conceptions. A disciple should develop a mind which does not rely on anything.”
“Therefore, Subhuti, the minds of all disciples should be purified of
  all thoughts that relate to seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling,
  touching, and discriminating. They should use their minds
  spontaneously and naturally, without being constrained by preconceived
  notions arising from the senses.”

If there really is wisdom, it tends not to make a fuss of itself.

"If there really is wisdom, it tends not to make a fuss of itself." I appreciate the perspective on this and am going to be thinking more on it. Thank you!

Tough question.
I wonder if it is a matter of relativity. Compared to some folk I'm completely sure I'm wise, compared to others I'm completely sure I'm not.
To be wise in something like an absolute sense would require a comprehensive understanding of reality. If one has this then it seems fine to consider oneself wise. After all, the masters all speak of cultivating wisdom and we should be able to know when we have cultivated it.
You say 'something more mundane, being wise and able to tell e.g. what is a fake way of behaving, or the difference between right and wrong.'
These are not mundane instances of wisdom. A deep understanding of the causes of behaviour and of the relationship between right and wrong would require a profound understanding of reality.
Whether it would be wise to consider ourselves wise would depend on whether we are wise, and if we are we'll know the answer. Yet there is a certain wisdom in the question so perhaps we would have to be at least a little wise to ask it.
Then again, to call the ability to tell right from wrong 'wisdom' may not be quite accurate. Lao Tsu tells us 'Because right and wrong appeared the Way was injured'. Perhaps wisdom is seeing the vacuity of the words 'right' and 'wrong' as absolute terms.
If for a moment I thought myself wise I would expect my wings to melt, but I'm happy to think I'm more nearly wise than I used to be. I see no harm in thinking yourself wiser than some or even than many, but if you attempt to explain exactly what you mean it may prove difficult.
You could ask someone at the Chicago Center for Practical Wisdom. A few more decades and they'll have defined the words.
Just thinking out loud. I'd say a wise person is one who knows whether it is wise to think themselves wise.

"Center for Practical Wisdom"... Studying wisdom - that makes me smile but from a thoughtless place of quietude within.

@Suchness  It's a fascinating project. I read the occasional abstract of papers and yes, they sure make one smile. I would question whether it was wise to create a center for practical wisdom.

You are actually asking how to behave wisely and that is a very wise question.
Before answering that, please note that for wisdom at all stages, consider the ten qualities of an adept (DN33):

right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right immersion, right knowledge, and right freedom.

Let us also agree that considering oneself anything at all is just perpetuating identity view (MN44).
And with regard to the "accomplishment of wisdom", we should also mention:

never be content with skillful qualities

To come back to your question on wise behavior, consider the three practices grouping (ethics, wisdom, immersion) of the noble eight-fold path DN44:

Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: these things are included in the category of ethics
Right view and right thought: these things are included in the category of wisdom
Right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion: these things are included in the category of immersion

Right knowledge arises out of immersion (i.e., continue your practice). The arising of right knowledge takes time. Therefore, to guide your actions in the absence of right knowledge, simply observe the ethical precepts you have chosen. This is how the three practices support each other endlessly.

Seeing danger in the slightest flaw, keep the rules you’ve undertaken. MN6

And let mindfulness be the single guard of your heart. (DN33)

To consider oneself wise is to possibly delude oneself as to the reality of a situation. Keep doubt, and your Personal Protection Equipment, handy at all times.


text:
Is it a sin to organize liqour & meat on cutomer request as a prt of my job?
I'm interested in Event planning & if I take up that job I'll have to make necessary arrangements for liqour & meat to be served at events upon client request.
I'd like to know if that is considered as a sin according to Buddhism?
Thank you,
May the nobel triple gem bless you!

For Buddhism there is no sin, only ignorance. The issues would be karma, self-respect and the maintenance of the precepts. I'm not sure it would be possible to give a straight answer because so much depends on personal circumstances. it may not be exactly 'right livelihood' but these are hard to find nowadays.

Karma is a state of mind. If you intentionally order animals to be slaughtered, it breaks the first precept. If you order meat(dead animal bodies), it does not break the first precept. Serving liquor to clients does not break the fifth precept.
But both serving liquor and selling meat can come under Micca Ajiva(wrong livelihood)as you are doing it to make a living.

Thanks for the answer. That's the exact point I wanted to clarify.

You're welcome!


text:
What is meant by ‘threefold bliss’ in the “verses of sharing and aspiration”
What is meant by the “threefold bliss” in the verses of sharing and aspiration:

Through the goodness that arises from my practice,
  May my spiritual teachers and guides of great virtue,
  My mother, my father and my relatives,
  The Sun and the Moon,
  and all virtuous leaders of the world –
  May the highest gods and evil forces;
  Celestial beings,
  guardian spirits of the Earth and the Lord of Death;
  May those who are friendly, indifferent or hostile;
  May all beings receive the blessings of my life.
May they soon attain the threefold bliss and realise the Deathless.
  Through the goodness that arises from my practice,
  And through this act of sharing,
  May all desires and attachments quickly cease
  And all harmful states of mind.
  Until I realise Nibbana,
  In every kind of birth,
  may I have an upright mind
  With mindfulness and wisdom,
  austerity and vigour.
  May the forces of delusion not take hold nor weaken my resolve.
  The Buddha is my excellent refuge,
  Unsurpassed is the protection of the Dhamma,
  The Solitary Buddha is my noble Lord,
  The Sangha is my supreme support.
  Through the supreme power of all these,
  May darkness and delusion be dispelled.

via http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/monastic/imina.htm

This page ...

2007-11-16 The Threefold Bliss 55:28
The talk explores worldly or human happiness, celestial or heavenly happiness and transcendent happiness or Nibbana

... says that it means:

worldly or human happiness
celestial or heavenly happiness
transcendent happiness or Nibbana

I haven't found a more canonical source for the quote i.e. I don't know where that chant comes from.
The page Reflections on sharing blessings includes the Pali if that's helpful:

Puññāni pakatāni me
  May they soon attain
Sukhañca tividhaṃ dentu
  The threefold bliss
Khippaṃ pāpetha vomataṃ
  And realize the Deathless.

The word translated as "bliss" is sukha, defined here (Wikipedia) and here (PTS dictionary).
The PTS dictionary definition includes:

Two kinds, viz kāyika & cetasika; at Pts.i.188; several other pairs at AN.i.80; three (praise, wealth, heaven) Iti.67; another three (manussa˚, dibba˚, nibbāna˚) Dhp-a.iii.51; four (possessing, making good use of possessions, having no debts, living a blameless life) AN.ii.69

Those three ("manussa˚, dibba˚, nibbāna˚") correspond to the three identified above (i.e. "of man, of gods, and nibbana") -- though I don't understand the reference, i.e. what "Dhp-a.iii.51" means.


text:
Safe vs Risky Path
What, if anything, did the Buddha teach about following the most secure path vs venturing out on an unknown but possibly more fullfilling path?
To start off, I am very new to Buddhism but am putting great weight into its teachings. This means I am unfamiliar with many teachings.
This question is meant to be general but the context in which I began meditating on it was this:

I work at a company which has been stable and provided decent livelihood for my family
I have been all but offerred a job at a new employer in the same field

It is possible that it will provide me with more opportunities for my family in the long term
It is also possible that it will not degrade but not improve our situation

The internal debate I am having is over the right course of action in these situations. I tend to favor safe bets/routine against taking chances. This is where I would like some guidance if it can be provided.

I'm finding it difficult to approach this question. It seems your looking for advice for a lifestyle decision. Perhaps read here and here

Do a careful contemplation on the pros and cons of Safe (stability but no growth) vs. Risky (unknown but potential for growth). Ultimately, it might be as simple as asking if you have a fallback plan in case the new opportunity doesn't pan out? Taking risk is good as long as it's a well thought out educated risk.

Making good decisions is hard. Let's take a look at a Buddhist perspective.
Good decisions are unprejudiced  (AN4.18):

Making decisions unprejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice

Good decisions are ethical, so mind your chosen precepts (e.g., working in a slaughterhouse doesn't satisfy "do not kill"). Follow the Noble Eight-Fold Path:

right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

Your post implies that you have already considered the above and are asking perhaps for deeper advice.
Personally, I have found that if you can look at all choice outcomes with equanimity, then life unfolds well. This means that one accepts the consequences of failure.
Sariputta hints at this in saying that there are these three choices ( SN12.51, DN33):

good choices, bad choices, and imperturbable choices

You have already researched the risk and benefit of your choice. If you now sit and meditate, settling into non-grasping equanimity, you will most likely arise from meditation with a spontaneous answer arising from wisdom and equanimity.
Best wishes with your choice!

Note: from a non-Buddhist perspective, consult peers in your field. They will have direct personal experience with your particular job market and future prospects. Consider their advice as you meditate.

Thank you for your answer. I very much appreciate the resources you have provided which was the intent of my question (I will have to read the last one later). Obviously I must make my own decisions but seeking more knowledge first seemed the right action. Thank you again!

Thank you. I've edited the answer to offer SN12.51 for more information on  choices. You will find that one can go beyond imperturbable choices! DN33 is a massive summary of most of the teachings and would be less helpful for this particular question.

A lot of the teaching was for monks not laypeople, though e.g. a book like this one summarises what he did teach to laypeople -- e.g. about working for a living, cooperating and so on.
Rather than "venturing out on an unknown path" perhaps you could investigate more thoroughly -- this answer for example summarises advice (from the book I referenced above) on choosing a marriage partner.
I think that the Sigalovada Sutta suggests being dutiful ... maybe prudent or sensible, sober, too ... and being careful about the effect on you of friends.


text:
What are the languages associated with each Buddhist school?
Suppose I am really serious about following the path of Vajrayana Buddhism o the point of studying texts in their original and I speak only English. I assume that the best language to learn would be Tibetan. Is this correct? What other languages would be relevant for this?
For example, if you would like to study the various forms and schools of Christian thought, I would recommend learning mostly Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but also some Aramaic, Russian and German, in their ancient versions.
If, instead of Vajrayana, I wanted to follow the path of Mahayana, I would assume some kind of ancient Mandarin was the way to go. I assume that this is analogous for Theravada and Pali.
For each school of Buddhism, what would be the best languages to learn in order to be able to study the bulk of the canon associated to that school in its original and why?

The reason I chose those languages for christianity are the fact that most of christian thought was developed in latin in medieval europe, but later (after reforms) in german. But also to understand the history, learn hebrew and aramaic. There is also a long and venerable history of russian orthodox christian philosophy and practice. I guess I forgot one of the most important: Greek!

Question: For each school of buddhism, what would be the best languages to learn in order to be able to study the bulk of the canon associated to that school in its original and why?

Learning Buddhism is like learning Judo. While it might help to know the meaning of some Japanese terms like Ne-waza, Tachi-waza, Nage-waza, etc. In no way it's a mandatory prerequisite for one to become a Judo master. One'll do just fine to know how to practice Ground techniques, Standing techniques, and Throws techniques. If language was the prerequisite then only Japanese fighters could win Judo tournaments (actually, a lot of them do, but not because they're Japanese, but because they really train their butts off). Similarly for Buddhism, it might help with some Sanskrit or Pali, but ultimately what really separates the noble disciple from the run-of-the-mill simply comes down to the level of dedication of one's time and effort into the cultivation of the Path. No shortcut, no secret obscure language, just pure sweat and tears (maybe no tears... :-) )

+1 - A scholar needs the language skills but a practitioner can do without.

What you describe is very much the path I traveled myself. I studied Literary Chinese and Japanese to be able to read the original Ch'an and Zen texts and I haven't ever regretted the journey. There are so many concepts that are very hard to translate, and often the words chosen for translation are loaded with cultural and religious connotations that blur the message or need to choose one translation from several possible (underlying) meanings. And besides being able to understand the original texts, you also gain a deeper appreciation for the culture from which it stems or where it blossomed.
While it is true that the largest Vajrayana lineages are Tibetan, it is not your only option. Vajrayana also spread to China during the Tang Dynasty and to Japan in the Shingon school. The Taisho Tripitaka is the largest surviving volume of texts for these lineages.
For Mahayana, Literary Chinese would be my first recommendation for the sheer volume of traditions, texts, and commentaries.
Is it absolutely necessary? No. Is it rewarding? Oh my, yes.
Good fortune on your journey!

Language learning is hard, what you should do depends on you.
The effort it takes to learn a language is colossal. If a language seizes you, then learn that language. Life is short, you are unlikely to gain competence in more than a handful of ancient languages. On one hand they are easier because in a domain constrained set of texts like Buddhism total vocabulary is small, on the other hand they are harder because humans learn best when they can immerse themselves in a living speaking community, which exists for Pali and Tibetan. Chinese is an interesting case in that literacy in modern Chinese will let you nearly read ancient Chinese without the same effort it would take an English speaker to read Old English.
Professional work.
Professionals, like Jan Nattier and the like, are learning ancient Chinese, Sanskrit, Pali and Tibetan, because the sutras often are preserved differently in each and must be compared to recover the original.
If you are not a professional philologists, the English translations are increasingly good enough, there are plenty of concepts I'd have no chance of, nor time for understanding if it were not for modern English commentaries.
There is the special topic of chanting sutras and mantras. In some specific schools, the power of a text depends on it being recited in the archaic language and pronunciation. For English speakers, this creates interesting challenges, because, say in the case of Shingon, the mantras are Japanized pronunciations of Chinese pronunciations of Sanskrit. In Lotus Sutra traditions, there is similar situation where US adherents chant an English accented, Japanized version of the Chinese.

If wishing to abound suffering it's only necessary to learn, think and speak and act Dhamma (in simple terms) of which can not be learned in schools or without dependency but only in seeking refuge and associated with those living the heritage. Don't waste your time. Those who wasted their time in first learning, first gain, lost all their accumulated for another time. Once speaking and living Dhamma, if then given, one might use given. Others, by delusion, by following peoples with views, just become this or that kind of "culture-thieves", "dhamma-traders" and on it's cause just long bond slaves, get or stay caught in "marxist-circles".
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]


text:
Benefits of five precepts
I believe in karma and rebirth but I don’t understand one thing. How does five precepts give you merits? Isn’t it only preventing bad karma? If you don’t kill any living beings or don’t steal anything then how do you get merits when you are not doing anything. You are only preventing bad karma.

how Is this related to the question?

I'm sorry. It's my wrong reading. I deleted it already.

Actually abstaining from breaking the precepts does a lot more than just passive non-doing. By asbstaining from killing, one's given a great gift to many others: the freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction:

"“Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness." ~~ AN 8.39 ~~

Karma is a state of the mind. Keeping to  a precept involves many wholesome states of the mind.
Ex: When a mosquito bites you, aversion to pain and in turn hate towards the mosquito might arise in the mind. But if
you are keeping to the first precept, the view that killing is wrong will arise in the mind. That is the right view(Samma-ditthi) which is good Karma. Then you will decide not to harm the mosquito. That is the right action(Samma-kammantha) which is good Karma. Or you might see it just as pain and don't react at all. That is the right mindfulness(Samma-sati) and right effort(Samma-vayama) which are good Karma. Or you might do Metta(loving kindness) towards the mosquito to prevent yourself from giving into aversion. That's the right intention(Samma-sankappa) and the right effort which are good Karma. Also when you do Silanussati(reflecting on your virtues), it's again the right mindfulness and the right effort which are good Karma.
Similar wholesome mind states are involved with other precepts as well.

I still don’t understand how is not doing anything an action? Did the Buddha said any action that does not cause harm to self or others is good? Is there a neither skillful nor unskillful action? I have this view that generosity is the only way to make merits and that the five precepts are there to prevent bad karma.

When greed, hatred and ignorance arise in the mind, any mind state that arise to counter those unwholesome states is a wholesome mind state. Such mind states are meritorious. I'm guessing you don't practice Satipatthana meditation. This maybe why it's difficult for you to understand.

So any actions that doesn’t cause harm to self or others is skillful? Sometimes, I practice Mahāsi meditation.

This is how I understand. When you are about to lie but you didn’t lie then that is right action. When you make a decision to abstain from killing that is right action. When you abandon unskillful actions then that is right action.

Any action that is driven by wholesome metal qualities is meritorious except in the case of Arahaths

Making a decision not to do evil is driven by a wholesome mental quality.

The objective of Buddhism is not about keeping a score of bad karma and good karma. Rather, it is about becoming free from suffering and this is related to one's state of mind.
A key benefit of the observance of the five precepts is that it leads to stream entry, which is the first stage of enlightenment. Upon reaching stream entry, one would no longer be reborn in lower realms, and would reach full enlightenment in no more than seven lifetimes.
The Vera Sutta below lists out the criteria for stream entry:

Five forms of fear and animosity are stilled through the observance of the five precepts
Four factors of stream entry
Rightly seen and rightly ferreted out the noble method (dependent origination)

The four factors of stream entry are verified confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as well as, being endowed with the virtues appealing to the noble ones.
Interestingly, the sutta does not say that the five precepts lead to stream entry. Rather, it says that reaching a certain state of mind i.e. the stilling of the five forms of fear and animosity (which correspond to the five precepts) would lead to stream entry.
If you lie or steal, you would be afraid of being caught. Animosity is with those who could catch you. Observance of the five precepts results in a state of mind free from such fear and animosity. Additionally, virtues also result in a state of mind free of remorse, which is discussed in the Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1).
From the Vera Sutta (AN 10.92):

Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on
  arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "When, for a disciple
  of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he
  is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through
  discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble
  method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended;
  animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended;
  states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a
  stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
  headed for self-awakening!'
"Now, which five forms of fear & animosity are stilled?
"When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
  condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
  fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
  pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
  produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
  animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
  of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
  animosity is thus stilled.
"When a person steals... engages in illicit sex... tells lies...
"When a person drinks distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, then with the drinking of distilled & fermented drinks
  that cause heedlessness as a requisite condition, he produces fear &
  animosity in the here & now, produces fear & animosity in future
  lives, experiences mental concomitants of pain & despair; but when he
  refrains from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, he neither produces fear & animosity in the here & now
  nor does he produce fear & animosity in future lives, nor does he
  experience mental concomitants of pain & despair: for one who refrains
  from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness,
  that fear & animosity is thus stilled.
"These are the five forms of fear & animosity that are stilled.

So a stream winner is free of nervousness before an assembly?

@TheDBSGuy If you lie or steal, you would be afraid of being caught. This is the kind of fear that is stilled. Animosity is with those who could catch you. Observance of the five precepts results in a state of mind free from both such fear and animosity. Additionally, virtues also results in a mind free of remorse, which is discussed in the Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1).

@TheDBSGuy Furthermore, a stream winner is freed of self-view. I don't think it's possible to feel nervous if one no longer clings to a self.

@bot1131357 Actually, a stream winner can still experience conceit. Please see this question.

@ruben2020 That makes sense. Thank you for correcting me. Would it make sense to say that conceit is a conditioned habit, whereas self-view fuels the the conditioning of this habit?


text:
How did Maitreya become so large and rich?
The title is not meant to be disrespectful, but only to highlight the incongruity of the representation with what I understand of Buddhism.
Images of Maitreya in English Wikipedia are modest and comtemplative, but the Chinese page shows one familliar image with a large, well-fed body, surrounded by riches, and a big happy grin. Where I live these representations of Maitreya are everywhere.
It is understandable that as buddhism spread to different cultures certain superficial aspects might be altered to convey ideas in different ways. Here I'm just asking about history of the change.
When and where were depictions of the Maitreya buddha first changed so dramatically?
edit: The question Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya? suggests to me that this is not actually a representation of Maitreya at all, which conflicts with what I remember and what a google translation of the Chinese Wikipedia page at least seems to say.
 Source

In Buddhism, the Buddhist statues are essentially the artful and symbolic expressions of the Buddha teachings, with the objective to educate us the meanings and teachings of Buddhism. Therefore, we should see the statues of Buddhism as teaching aids and the cultivation of virtues we aspired to achieve. They are not meant to be statues of gods for worshiping. As we come to realize the inherent meaning of Buddhist symbolism, we will truly appreciate the sophistication and completeness of its educational values.
Maitreya Buddha, or the Laughing Buddha, or the Bu Dai monk (the historical monk figure better known in China), has widely been seen to be portrayed with immense happiness, and its statue is sculpted big in front entrance of a Buddhist temple, and is also sculpted as fat and happy with a big smile and a big belly.
The educational and metaphorical values of the happy and fat imagery of this sculpture is created with profound significance:

The Laughing Buddha is often found at front entrance of a Buddhist temple. This shows that Buddhism greets visitors with a hearty smile, welcoming anyone to come on in.
Buddhism teaches us how to get rid of sorrows and afflictions and attain happiness in our lives. The laughing statue shows visitors coming in to learn Buddhism and follow the Buddha path will attain a happy life. We should also learn to be cheerful and be courteous to all.
Buddhism teaches us to be tolerant and treating everyone fairly and equally. The big belly represents the attitude of inclusiveness, that we take in and be tolerant of anything good and bad we experience and anyone we encounter in our lives.
Some statues portrayed with riches are the artistic representations of our true inner nature of perfect, complete, and infinite treasures (metaphysically) that we all beings by Buddha-nature possess.

We can see that the above profound significance of the sculpture are actually in sync with what Buddha Sakyamuni has been teaching all of us some 2,500 years ago when he reached enlightened in this world and educated us what he is the path to enlightenment.

Thank you for your answer, this simple and direct answer to the question is very helpful.

I think the image on the Chinese Wikipedia page is captioned "laughing Buddha" which (e.g. according to the English Wikipedia) is a nickname for Budai/Hotei:

He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the "Laughing Buddha" (Chinese: 笑佛; pinyin: Xiào Fó).

I think I read somewhere/sometime that people would give him pennies (small coins) which he'd then give to children.
I guess he's shown surrounded by treasure because he gives it.
Anyway I think this is a duplicate of Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya?
I think that the Chinese Wikipedia page you referenced even explains the connection with Matreya, see also 布袋和尚 -- i.e. that the monk left a verse which said something like ...

"Matreya has thousands of billions of incarnations, always shows himself to people, sometimes people don't know [him when they see him]"

... which gave rise to the belief that this monk was an incarnation of Matreya.
The English Wikipedia article (referenced above) also says something about how he was imported into the Japanese Zen pantheon in the 12th century:

The Chan Masters, Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) and Hongzhi Zhengjue (dates[clarification needed]), were both leaders in the initial merging of local legend and Buddhist tradition.[3] They hoped the induction of likeable and odd figures would attract all types of people to the Chan tradition, no matter their gender, social background, or complete understanding of the dharma and patriarchal lineage.[3]

The Chinese Wikipedia page says something like,

The famous couplet:

"The big belly can tolerate the world's difficult things, and the mouth will smile and laugh at the ridiculous people in the world"

then the Bodhisattva's broad mind and optimism are portrayed vividly and vividly.

So I guess the big belly is meant to portray robustness, not subject to misfortune, or something like that.

Thank you for your speedy answer. I'm new to this site so I can't vote to close nor see the votes, but I would certainly go along with closing as duplicate as it seems the answer to my question lies in the incorrect premise that this, and similar, are representations of Maitreya.

I'm not sure how things work with accepting answers. Normally I'd hold off a day or two (or three) to see which other answers might show up. If it is put on hold, can I still accept, or do I need to do that asap?

I chose to answer it, and having answered it I won't vote to close. I agree about generally waiting before accepting, unless you don't want further answers. I think you could accept even if it were put on hold (but not if it's put on hold and its answers merged/moved into the other question), but don't worry about that.

"The big belly can tolerate the world's difficult things, and the mouth will smile and laugh at the ridiculous people in the world" - Spot on explanation I'd say.

The sarcasm seems unnecessary, monks are often not allowed to handle money, even if a lot of sutras describe opulent buddhas.
All the statues I've seen first hand of Buddhas are just relics, and of ascetics: so maybe you could look into the history of Buddhology etc., as well as looking into different cultures.

Thank you for your answer. I really didn't mean any sarcasm and I don't see any there at all, but I've added a line at the top to address your concern. I can understand why you might believe there is an opportunity for it, but really I'm just curious. I see you are new to Stack Exchange, and so you might be used to other sites where people can frequently be insensitive and impolite. Once you spend more time here you may discover that many or most of the SE sites (there are nearly 200 now) are friendly and very well moderated. Welcome!


text:
Does the effect make its cause?
Does a cause depend on its effect? If so then it seems especially difficult to think about nothingness being made or created.
This is almost the exact opposite of a question I have asked recently (I'm locked out and looking into that), but not quite.
It's usually said that the cause does depend on the cause, in some way

Nāgārjuna argues that cause and effect cannot be substantially
  distinct. This is because the effect depends existentially on the
  cause (if the cause did not exist the effect would not exist) and
  cause depends at least notionally on the effect (if there was no
  effect the cause would not be called “cause”). The kind of
  independence demanded by substantial existence, by existence by
  svabhāva, is simply not available for things which are cause and
  effect.

But what this notional dependence means I'm not totally sure.
I'm not asking about nothingness, and am not saying that sunyata is nothingness! That could only be the case if the absolute truth is that nothing exists.

This ("confused") account is "unregistered", meaning that stack exchange sent an email to your email address but you haven't yet replied to that email (if you don't register the account then access is based on a cookie which doesn't work if you use multiple devices). The "confused" account and the "user3293056" account are associated with two different email addresses (i.e. you used a different email address and/or different type of login for the "user3293056" account).

The cause is not dependant on the effect. The effect is dependant on the cause. The concept of Śūnyatā does not mean nothingness. It just means being empty of a self and being empty of satisfaction and being empty of permanence or stability.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent like father and son. If there is no son there is no father, and if no father then no son.
In this way Nagarjuna proves the non-existence of these things except as appearance/emptiness.
He explains that the cause cannot exist prior to the effect, the effect cannot exist prior to the cause and they cannot come into existence simultaneously. Ergo, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Only some effects cause it cause, such as sahajāta-cause, aññamañña-cause, nissaya-cause, etc., but some can not, such as pakatūpanissaya-cause, anantara-cause, etc.
See saṅghaha chapter 8.

When there is ignorance-touch (avijjā-phassa) the effect becomes cause and wandering-on get's on. When there is no avijjā-phassa the effect ends right there, here and now.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]


text:
Why wasn't the Buddha a solipsist?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking because I consider myself a great person etc., Chakravartin, but why didn't the Buddha take solipsism seriously, perhaps before his complete enlightenment? If he's so great then how can it be that we, everyone else, are so little?
Was it, perhaps, because he was born a prince, or there was no history of solipsism in India at the time, or what, really?
I think it could just beyond the powers of imagination to get inside a mahasattva's head, so to speak.

Related: Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?, What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?

Solipsism is an extreme opposite of Buddhism. It posits that only the self is truly real. That all that exists is the self. It places the self on a throne.
The Buddha was not a solipsist because he saw and knew the truth: that the self is not real, but rather like an illusion with not one iota of real or inherent existence. Seeing the truth, how could he possibly believe solipsism?

It seems obvious that solipsism need not be wedded to any definition, perhaps even any possible definition or what makes up the person. In that sense it is the extreme opposite of Buddhism in the sense that it could limit compassion. And perhaps compassion is what generates out belief that there are others.

Doesn’t have to be wedded, but it does have to be defined so that we can communicate. A perfectly adequate def. seems to be that solipsism is the belief that, “only I exist and all else is illusion.” This belief is wrong not because it is uncompassionate... it is wrong because it simply is not true. It is incorrect. It is not in conformance with reality. The Buddha, knowing clearly and correctly that it is wrong... that it is not in concordance with reality... how could he possibly believe it?

@YesheTenley Do you think that solipsism might be compatible with Descartes' saying, "I think therefore I am"? Not that I really agree with Descartes, but I mention it because apparently other people thought that that observation that was clever enough to make it famous -- maybe the premise (that some kind of experience of and by the self is all that we can know for sure) isn't obviously wrong to everyone.

Yeah, it is compatible but not the same thing. Solipsism says the self is the only real thing. Descartes said the self is a real thing.


text:
Possibility of nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?
Is nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara possible? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

I think that nibbana is defined as the end of suffering -- which occurs with the end of craving (as defined by the noble truths).
The end of craving happens (permanently) when the various causes of craving up uprooted -- the causes of craving include e.g. anusaya and asava and so on.
This uprooting can be permanent in the same way that when a palm tree is cut then it won't grow again.
Conversely, Samsara is a cycle of existence -- the pratītyasamutpāda doctrine (i.e. the doctrine of the 12 nidanas) says that cycle (including further birth) is conditioned by craving -- and so does this description:

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

Sorry if this doesn't understand the question -- I'm not sure I understood what the question was.

Interesting question.
You assume a fundamental division but we are told (for instance by Rumi) 'the two worlds are one'. My guess or conceptualisation would be that Samsara and Nirvana are co-dependent and reduce to Unity. This would suggest that Samsara and Nirvana are dual-aspects thus inseperable.
Just pondering out loud. This is beyond my pay-grade. I'm not even sure this language is appropriate.
EDIT: No wait. This is not beyond my pay grade. Samsara and Nirvana are said to have a dependent-existence and to not really exist. Nagarjuna proves it. The truth would be beyond intellection or conceptualisation and to entail the dissolution of all conceptual opposites including Samsara and Nirvana.
So the short answer would be 'no'.

It's not so much: is it possible to have Nibbana without Samsara? That is just how it is. Positive is accompanied by negative, yin and yang, pain/trouble and peace/bliss. The goal is to be more towards Nibbana, and step out of the way of, or avoid being in Samsara. Beings learn by falling into Samsara, and deciding not to go back there!

Buddhism doesn't define the extremes; Samsara's beginning and end is not apparent. So, if it's not apparent you question is, according to Buddhism, wrong question.

Sure, that's what the path of the Noble One is all about.
While the question "is sustainability possible (and how)?" is of no need. It's the very nature of Unbond that it does not require any sustainability, entertainment, is free of "under holding", holding on, requirement of support. For one who as fulfilled the task.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

This kind of questions comes simply because, you have mixed your understanding about Buddhism with Science. Science made by humans to solve day to day problems, but Buddhism isn't. Believe or not dharma is the explanation for everything. So don't let your mind to ask such questions about the Nibbana, see this thread also to get some brief idea about Nibbana.

thanks. there's also the 40+ part reading/talk/expansion/Q&A on "The Island" by Ajahn Amaro https://www.amaravati.org/speakers/ajahn-amaro/?fpmtp_series=the-island


text:
What is a "thought?" (Particularly in reference to thoughts that arise during meditation)
I've been reading/studying E F Shumacher's A Guide for the Perplexed, a philosophical book about the nature of knowledge and our capacity for understanding the world, especially in relation to "higher" and "lower" processes of humanity, (IE, prayer or meditation vs hunger or fear) and I'm hoping a Buddhist perspective can help me to understand one aspect of it better. In it, he refers to self-awareness as the level of human existence that is activated or discovered by mindfulness-meditation, by dismissing the thoughts that come from the level of consciousness. He says that self-awareness produces insights rather than thoughts. Shumacher was a Catholic at the time of writing this, but I understand that he studied and was influenced heavily by Buddhism, and I believe that is where his ideas about thought come from. I am not a Buddhist, though I have tried meditation. An idea that I have struggled with in all of this is the definition of thought. I have always considered the processes by which one would analyze or dismiss a thought to also be thinking. I would consider an insight to be a type of thought, not something higher than a thought. I am now struggling to understand whether I simply have too broad of a definition for thought, or am simply so philosophically-challenged that I have never experienced this process-above-thought discussed by Shumacher and Buddhism. Can you help me understand what the Buddhist definition of a "thought" is? Do you have a different word for the process by which one would dismiss a thought or analyze a thought while meditating? Everything beyond this point is my own speculation on the subject, for clarity or analysis. If you already understand my problem or misunderstanding, feel free to skip it.
I have wondered if Freud's ego and super-ego may shed light on this. I would say that "thought" is the word used to describe the processes of both the ego and super-ego, but I wonder if Shumacher and Buddhism would consider "thought" to be what the ego does, and perhaps have a different word for the processes of the super-ego.
I have also imagined, as Shumacher does in his book, the human being as a programmer and computer. (The programmer being the self and the computer being the human brain) The human computer carries out all the day-to-day activities we do without higher thought, while the human programmer directs the computer and programs it so that it behaves as desired. In this analogy, I would consider all communication between the "computer" and "programmer" to be thought, but I wonder if Shumacher and Buddhism considers thought to be information passed from the computer to the programmer, while directions passed from the programmer to the computer is something else.
I have included the translation tag, as I suspect my answer may largely pivot on the translation of the word "thought" from Buddhist texts into English, and whether there is a more thorough translation of it that could explain this.

You probably need to differentiate thinking and thought.
Intent is kamma. One executes intent through thinking, speaking and doing (physical action).
Thought is vinnana, which is defined as "to especially know".
A thought will not arise without matter & state's of matter (rupa), sensations (vedana), recognitions (sanna), intents (sankara, kamma).
Another thing to note is manasikara, which means "to direct attention".
Thoughts are generally considered external similar to visions, sounds, odours, tastes, physical sensations.
Thinking is considered  internal, generally.
Generally - I use the word generally here because in dhamma, having a view of a self that is permanent (soul) is a delusion, hence both thinking and thought does not belong to a permanent self (soul), thus not well defined as internal or external. In fact, a person without proper view is known to delude one self in 20 ways: that rupa, vedana, sanna, sankara, vinna x is me, I'm made of them, they are inside me, I'm inside them. By all 20 such combinations, one arrives at a false view of a self. This, you can now match with Freuds ego and super ego. I can provide references from pali canon if you need.
Don't take my word for it though, research on the italicised words above, which are pali.

Thanks a lot - this is a very clear answer and you did a great job of explaining the terminology. No need for references to canon. I have always considered "thinking" to be the act of having "thoughts." Seeing the two as distinct is useful.  Is there a Buddhist term for "thinking" as you've defined it above? (as a means of executing intent/kamma) If you could help me with how this relates to "citta" and "cetasikas" as discussed in SarathW's answer and comments, that would be great!

Maybe you could refer to my answer here. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20153/362 . As for the common language term for thinking, I don't have a ready answer, I'm sorry.

Thanks - that's perfect. I believe SarathW sees the thoughts that are to be dismissed during meditation as vitakka and vicara. Would you disagree and say that they are Citta, and vitakka and vicara, as cetasikas, are part of the process by which we observe and dismiss those Citta?

It is difficult to understand Abhidhamma by using English terminology as it has a limited application.

Regarding Vitakka Vicara, I'm not experienced enough to answer. Interestingly, I happen to read this Sinhalese book by a priest who talks about various forms of ego just after your question. It contains answered based on Sutta etc but doesn't quote them.

According to Buddhism thought to arise from the consciousness. Which are called Vitakka and Vicara. There are many types of wholesome and unwholesome thoughts. A person should have a good grasp of Abhidhamma to understand the differences completely.
Abhidhamma in practice:
http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf

Thank you for your answer - I will study those concepts and get back to you when I have a grasp on them.

I think I have a rough grasp on this. It's difficult for me because there are so many unfamiliar terms, but here's my best shot: I believe that my definition of thought has always included every mental factor, (cetasikas) while Shumacher's includes only vitakka and vicara, which I believe are also the mental factors that mindfulness meditation is concerned with dismissing. I believe the recognition and dismissal of a thought would be a "higher" state of mind (citta) involving a different set of mental factors. (cetasikas) Do you think I have understood this correctly?

I am still trying to understand the Abhidhamma. The way I understand Citta (Bhava) is the dormant or original consciousness. Cetasica is arising with Citta to form different type of thoughts. Generally, I agree with you.

Your answer and link were very helpful - I wish I could mark 2 answers. I ultimately selected Ravindranath's as the answer only because it was easier for me to understand with my background, and I think it is more likely to help those who search for this question. Without more study, I am unsure which of you I agree with, but both answers make it clear that Buddhism does in fact divide what I have considered "thought" into multiple categories, and Shumacher may very well be referring to only one or some of those categories.

I would like to second SaranthW's suggestion with a link to an extensive Āryavasubandho Abhidharmakośakārikā commentary:
https://abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/kosa-karika-study.pdf

Thanks - I'll check into that, too. I've been reading through SarathW's link, and I think I'm starting to get the general idea, but I want to read more before I try to confirm my understanding.

Sorry, but this link relies too much on a pre-understanding of the terminology for me. I can't make sense of it without a stronger background in Buddhism.

where does thought come from?  depends on the definition of thought.  i tend to think of a thought as idea.  the recognition of that idea gives way to verbalization - both by speech and internal.  internal speech may only be somewhere on a spectrum of thinking. that i won't develop here since I am not too familiar.
the buddha says in A 6.63 Nibbedhika Sutta Penetrative:

"And what is the result of perception? Perception has communication by
speech as its result, I tell you. However a person perceives
something, that is how he expresses it: 'I have this sort of
perception.' This is called the result of perception.

self-awareness is also definition. Questioning the existence of self leading to insight, or some knowledge of the truth.
It's possible to dismiss the thought, but that depends on how much value,attachment you give to that particular thought, idea.

I find it useful here to distinguish between a thought and an attitude. An attitude is like a mental posture towards the world: a way of orienting oneself within the flow and context of what surrounds us. A thought, by contrast, is an action: a way of wrestling with, addressing, correcting, or adjusting (etc) something. If we think about a sailing ship and its crew, a ship lies a certain way with respect to the wind and the water (its attitude), and then the captain issues an order (a thought) which starts a process that may ultimately changes the attitude of the ship.
In this sense, an insight is a change in attitude, something which alters the deportment of the self holistically, while a thought is a momentary arising meant to deal with some practical issue.
Now, most people in the world have fragmented and inconsistent attitudes, a general sense of being 'off balance' or 'out of kilter'. They do well enough by using the power of thought to keep things in line, constantly controlling or adjusting the world around them to keep themselves in their comfort zone while occasionally getting the rug pulled out from under them and having to spasmodically pick themselves up again. That's the dance of karma... But Buddhism (and every spiritual tradition, for that matter) tries to get people to integrate their attitude — to have one attitude that works for everything — so that the need to adjust and control the world dissipates. If you want to use the programmer/program metaphor (which I generally dislike) then the goal is to craft a program that the programmer doesn't constantly have to tweak and fix. We want a program that runs without crashing, freezing, hiccups, or weird outputs, no matter what inputs it faces, so that we can free our mind from the constant struggle and worry of maintaining it.


text:
Chinese Dharmaguptaka jurisprudence with regards to homosexual seminarians
Has there been a recent monastic ruling amongst Dharmaguptaka monks in China & Hong Kong with regards to a policy of denying ordination to laymen who have lived homosexual lifestyles prior to cultivating the aspiration to go forth?

Let us not debate over whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "wrong" or whether or not this was a skillful jurisprudence. If we simply pool our resources to generate information, that will be enough.


text:
Four Analytical Knowledges
Is it still possible to attain the four analytical knowledge? Bare insight seems to be the lowest attainment among arahants.

I research it and found it here: https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Dhammatthavinicchaya/30-Analytical-Knowledges.htm

I need some help for correct below writing's grammar.
I don't understand the question, can you rewrite the question by the below pāli word? Why you think "direct knowledge of the four analytical knowledge"? Because if it means "Abhiññā of Paṭisambhidā", it looks weird according to below title sequence.
The sequence concept of Theravāda Buddhism
The sequence concept of Theravāda Buddhism, start from sīla to paṭisambhidā, summarized from paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, abhidhamma, atthhakathā, and all sāriputta's canons:
Paññā = understand the fact: causes&effects.
Paṭivedha = Paññā.
Ñāṇa = Expert Paññā.
Dassana = View, Understood, Diṭṭhi, Cakkhu.
SammāDiṭṭhi =SammāDassaṇa.
Ñātapariññā = Base of sammādassaṇa.
Tīraṇapariññā = Beginning sammādassaṇa practice.
Pahānapariññā = Advance sammādassaṇa practice.
Visuddhi = The base level which cleared from the extended enemy of the next level's enemy, so it is able to go to the next level.
Sīla = Arising physical & verbal behavior.
SīlaAdhiSikkhā = Physical & verbal behavior's training that supporting CittaVisuddhi.
SīlaVisuddhi = The CittaVisuddhi's base level which cleared from AvītikkamaKilesa, extending from CittaVisuddhi's enemy (PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, CittaVisuddhi.
AvītikkamaKilesa = Present life's arising physical & verbal unwholesome, extending from PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa.
PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa = Present life's arising mental unwholesome, extending from AnusayaKilesa.
AnusayaKilesa = Unwholesome behavior which ready to arise in the name "PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa". It arises as the name "PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa", but it stands as the name "AnusayaKilesa". It is similar to behavior because you can't find your behavior in any organ when you are not doing it, but you know your behavior still available to arise. The arising unwhole behavior is AvītikkamaKilesa/PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa.
Citta = Arising mind's behavior, Arising consciousness's behavior, arising Thought's behavior.
CittaAdhiSikkhā = Thought behavior's training that supporting DiṭṭhiVisuddhi.
CittaVisuddhi = The DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's base level which cleared from PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa, extending from DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's enemy (AttaAnuDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, DiṭṭhiVisuddhi.
SammāDassana = Right understood of conditioner and conditioned (four noble truth, dependent origination);  diṭṭhivisuddhi + kaṇkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi; nāmarūpaparicchedañāṇa+paccayapariggahañāṇa; Ñātapariññā; Vipassanā Paññā; YathābūtaÑāṇaDassana.
four noble truth, dependent origination = conditioner aggregates and conditioned aggregates.
DiṭṭhiVisuddhi = The DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's base level which cleared from AttaAnuDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa, extending from KaṇkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi's enemy (VisamahetukaDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, KaṇkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi.
Attā (of the wrong view) = The misunderstood concept of conditioner aggregates and conditioned aggregates. This misunderstood concept make ordinary people think "there are some controllable aggregates left to be nihilistic or eternal". But the truth is "there are no any controllable aggregates to be nihilistic or eternal. There are only uncontrollable conditioner aggregates and uncontrollable conditioned aggregates".
AttaAnuDiṭṭhi = The misunderstood behavior about aggregates whether "some/whole aggregates are Attā".
KaṅkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi = The MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi's base level which cleared from VisamahetukaDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa, extending from MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi's enemy (VipassanāUpakKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi.
Vipassanā = SammāDassaṇa; VipassanāPaññā; Vipassanā; Ñātapariññā; Pajānāti.
Anupassnā = ÑāṇaDassaṇa; VipassanāÑāṇa; Vipassanā Bhāvanā; Vipassanā Meditation; Tīraṇapariññā + Pahānapariññā; Anupassati.
MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = SammāDassaṇa at cleared ñāṇa level from the extending enemy (the ignorant about the right or wrong practice [maggāmagga;paṭipadā]) of the next level's enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth), so it is able to go to the next level, to practice watching three characteristics without confusing of the right or wrong practice; BapavaUdayabbayañāṇa.
PaṭipadāÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = above ÑāṇaDassana at cleared ñāṇa level  from the extending enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth) of the next level enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth), so it is able to go to the next level, to stop the ignorant about the four noble truth forever by the complete&perfect watching three characteristics; From Bhaṅgañāṇa to Anulomañāṇa.
ÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = above ÑāṇaDassana at cleared ñāṇa level(enlightenment) from the extending enemy (fetters; saṇyojana) of the next level enemy (rebirth; becoming; bhava; paṭisandhiviññāṇa), so it is able to go to the next level, to stop the rebirth as many as the level of the enlightenment.
Paṭisambhidā = ÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi according to Abhi. Vibhaṅgo ñāṇavatthuvibhaṅga, Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo mahāvaggo ñāṇakathā mātikā, Paṭisambhidāmaggo's atthakathā, Visuddhimagga Khandhaniddeso. All ariya must enlighten Paṭisambhidā of own meditation. They can analysis everything about own meditation (super mundane jhāna), but they maybe don't know about mundane jhāna, Abhiññā, and the other practitioners' meditation. They enlightened Paṭisambhidā of own meditation only, they may be not the Paṭisambhidappatto.
Tevijjo = Ariya who is an expert, vasī, of jhāna. That expertise increases the power of ÑāṇaDassana to be greater, to be able to recall many past lives and to be able to recall many deaths&rebirths more than the practitioner who is no an expert of jhāna. Normally, the only vipassanā practitioner can recall about 1-2 past lives, but the expert of jhāna can recall more than that. The expert of jhāna spend the lesser time to recall the past lives at the same number of life.
Abhiññā = Special practice of an expert, vasī, of jhāna. Two Abhiññā, Pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa and Cutūpapatañāṇa, have the similar practice as ÑāṇaDassaṇa, so the expert of jhāna can enlighten as a Tevijjo easier.
Chaḷabhiñño = Ariya who is an expert, vasī, of every Abhiññā.
Paṭisambhidappatto = Chaḷabhiñño who is an expert of own and the others' Paṭisambhidā.
For the example question:

if I become a stream-enterer I will automatically have four analytical knowledge right? Will I also have three clear knowledge and six higher knowledge?

if you become a stream-enterer without being an expert of jhāna&abhiñña&paṭisambhidā, you are a stream-enterer who automatically have only four analytical knowledge right of your meditation. You are only a Sukkhavipassako, but you are not Paṭisambhidappatto, Chaḷabhiñño, Tevijjo.
For the conclusion:

Buddhism's Existing Period Counting
The contexts about Buddhism's Existing Period Counting appear as 3 tenses in Aṭṭakathā:
1. The existing enlightenment of the current Buddha's follower (45BBE - about 5,000 BE):
Buddhism's existing period counting of current Buddha  according to Vinaya.A. (samanta.3) Bhikkhunikkhandhakavaṇṇanā, An.A. (manoratha.1) Dutiyapamadadivaggavannana:
1st 1000 years after Gotama, Current Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2nd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

3rd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Anāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

4th 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Sakadāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Sotāpanna with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna via Insight-only still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

2. The previous KassapaBuddha (uncountable millions of years ago):
KassapaSamBuddha's, previous Buddha's, Buddhism existing period counting appear in Di.A. (sumangala.3) Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā; It using the past tense verbs). And Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2) Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā, which connects to that Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā:
1st 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2rd 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

3th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

4th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years  after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Pāṭimokkha memorizer still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

3. The current Buddha's living time (45 - 0 BBE):
The sequence of existing enlightenment of the Buddha's followers just in current alive buddha's time, not died, appear in Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2)  Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā.It's explaining the Buddha's answer to KassapaThera's question in Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Saddhammappaṭirūpakasutta:

"What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

At alive GotamaSamBuddha's time after he has enlightened, at the beginning Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta via Insight-only still occur. As time went by Anāgāmī still occur. As time went by Sakadāgāmi still occur. As time went by Sotāpanna still occur. As time went by Sīpavanta still occur.

A short term of all above Buddha's periods are up and down depending on the situation, but it tends to go down in long-term of every period. It's something like this:

Cr. wikipedia

So can we attain anagami with four analytical knowledge?

We must attain ariya-magga with four analytical knowledge, but it doesn't means we will be paṭisambhidappatto after enlightened. Paṭisambhidappatto requires more qualification than normal Paṭisambhidā, such as being the expert of jāna, Abhiñña, and  Paṭisambhidā.

Are there any method to attain Ariya-magga with four analytical knowledge?

Paṭisambhidāmagga means the method to attain Ariya-magga with four analytical knowledge. You can use path of purification instead. Again, every Ariya has four analytical knowledge, but only the Qualify ariya can be paṭisambhidappatto. I recommend Pa-Auk, if you want to enlighten with  four analytical knowledge. https://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/

so I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Can we stay attain arahantship with four analytical knowledge or can we attain anagami with four analytical knowledge but will we lose the four analytical knowledge after becoming arahant?

I am sorry, I have forgotten the point. According to aṭṭhakathā, nowadays we can attain anāgāmi with four analytical knowledge at most. Ariya never loses the four analytical knowledge. Every ariya has four analytical knowledge.

So all ariya automatically get four analytical knowledge after their attainment?

All ariya practiced four analytical knowledge, so they all get the four analytical knowledge automatically after their attainment. They graduated what they have practiced.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I've read a book (in Chinese) by Ven. Mahinda (a Buddhist monk from Pa-Auk Myanmar Forest Tradition) and here is a rough translation (by me) with regards to the 5000 years of Dhamma.
His source is from commentary on Digha Nikaya (D.A.3.161)
1st 1000 years    Arahant with Four Analytical Knowledges
2nd 1000 years    Arahant with Six Higher Knowledges
3rd 1000 years    Arahant with Three Clear Knowledges
4th 1000 years    Arahant via Insight-only
Final 1000 years  1st Three Paths and Fruits (i.e. impossible to attain Arahant-hood)

The table above shows the highest attainment possible for each of the 1000 years. If we were to solely based on this commentary, the Four Analytical Knowledges and Six Higher Knowledges cannot be attained any more.

So does that mean that arahant via jhana are not possible anymore? So we can only become arahant by practicing vipassana. Can we still have the six higher knowledge is the three clear knowledge?

Hi, the historical Buddha passed away for about 25xx years ago. Thus, we are at the "3rd 1000 years" now. Therefore Six Higher Knowledges is also impossible. Three Clear Knowledges is the highest anyone can achieve now.

Hi, for your other question regarding jhana and vipassana, I'm not very sure. But you can take a look at the note number 2 in this Sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.163.than.html)

Buddhaghosa said that in our current time only arahant via bare insight is possible? I don’t know which is true.

@BurningJade Please read my answer in the title "Buddhism's Exist Period Counting". Give the whole answer to Pa-auk teacher and tell him "the answer from one who knows kalāpa is SamūhaUpādāPaññatti". Tell him that this answer can stop all confusing of "Buddhism's Exist Period Counting".


text:
Can Buddhism be fundamentalist?
Is it fundamentalism if Buddhists believe Buddha's path is the only path, and that all other spiritual traditions or sects are false? And if so, does it exist much in Buddhism?
By fundamentalism, I mean a person believing that their path is the only path, for them and others who believe like them.
I.e. can a Buddhist see another spiritual tradition as valid, even if it is not Buddhism? Such as an agnostic or a mystic from that tradition?

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

I expect you can find both extremes, and maybe everything in between, for example:

There are probably some Buddhists who say that even other Buddhists are following a wrong path
Conversely something like, Where does the Dalai Lama say '... be a better whatever you already are'? suggests that being a good (or a better) follower of another path is good (or better).

can a Buddhist see another spiritual tradition as valid, even if it is not Buddhism?
I think that's a more difficult question -- maybe it's easier to say that another person isn't bad, but harder to say that another path is valid.
One of the characteristics of the Buddhist Dhamma is that it's something that you're meant to "know for yourself" -- perhaps it is impossible to personally know another spiritual tradition in the same way that you'd know the Buddhist tradition, so maybe you'll always be saying "they're not the same path, they don't lead to the same destination/result" and so on.
On the other hand I think that Buddhism has some definitions of what "good" is -- for example kindness, harmlessness, equanimity, faith, selflessness, strength, non-suffering, liberation, and so on and so on. So I think that to some extent any person with these qualities and any path which promotes these qualities might be seen as admirable or at least beneficial.
That's maybe unlike the stereotypical extreme "fundamentalism" of another religion, which might say something like, "God defined rules X and Y in book Z and anyone who questions or disobeys is therefore wrong".
all other spiritual traditions or sects are false?
If you look into the Buddhist scriptures for justification I think you can easily find passages which support both arguments (i.e. arguments for and against other traditions being "false"):

Passages which praise the Buddha as being right, and the Buddhist Dhamma as unexcelled, and so on (which might be taken to imply that, to whatever extent other paths aren't Buddhism, they're less good)
Passages which warn against conceit, against sectarianism, even against attaching to specific views

Let's put it this way - a Buddhist is a person who has taken refuge to the three jewels, follows and walks the path taught by the Buddha. Those who do not, are obviously not Buddhists already, rendering your question un-applicable.
Having said that, Buddhist respect other traditions as long as they do not violate the five precepts, and acknowledges that if other paths do not end "true-suffering", then they are not to be pursued.

I don't think my question is un-applicable, fundamentalism exists in all religions, philosophies and worldviews including Buddhism. It's just a stage a person is at in their development.

As outlined by psychotherapists Dr. Carl G. Jung and Dr. Scott M. Peck. There are 4 stages of spiritual development, as they noticed in their many years of work with patients - 1st: chaotic criminal; 2nd: the fundamentalist, who can only identify with their own group and think they know it all; 3rd: Sceptic Scientist (agnostic/atheist) who questions everything; 4th: the mystic who sees the big picture, is deeply compassionate and sees paradox and the inter-connectedness of everything.

Addressing your first comment: Un-applicable in a sense that, if someone chose other paths that do not achievement enlightenment, how could that be a Buddhist? You can be a Buddhist today but not tomorrow, depending on what you believe and do, vice versa. Being a Buddhist is not about an identity, if you know what I mean.

Addressing your 2nd comment: The sipiritual development stage is but a modern  concept for generalization. I'd recommend you hv a look at the 4 four stages of enlightenment, the Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi, and Arahant. They are very interesting and specific at the same time.

Yes -- the Dhamma-Vinaya, the Buddha's religion, is fundamentalism (in its real meaning).
And Buddists can be very fundamentalist outside of this religion (like all other -ists in their occupied -isms).
"Fundamental" (i.e. a having firm "foundation" as base) is not only the very attribute of every religion (re-binding), but in case of the Dhamma also the most reasonable. What should be wrong (aside if having the wrong) with fundamental? Yes, it goes against defilements.
However, they, those who know, would have much understanding and empathy if others don't recognise that the Eightfold Path is the only path for going beyond old-age, sickness and death. It's all a matter of strong foundation (upanissaya), fundamentalism, right or wrong.
(The Buddha is in no way responsible of what people do and think under the label of "Buddhism" -- and yes, he has no problem, it is no problem, if the eightfold path is included and taught within another label: so no label-truth , but skilful action fundamentalism.)

No matter what label you give this, the Buddha made it clear that holding wrong views will not lead to a permanent end of suffering.
Hence, if any religion preaches what the Buddha considered to be wrong views, such a religion will not lead to a permanent end of suffering. It may lead to a temporary stay in heavenly realms, but it will not lead to a permanent end of suffering.
You can find a number of wrong views listed in DN 1.
From MN 126:

For any brahmans or contemplatives endowed with wrong view, wrong
  resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort,
  wrong mindfulness, & wrong concentration: If they follow the holy life
  even when having made a wish [for results], they are incapable of
  obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made
  no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the
  holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish,
  they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life
  even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are
  incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an
  inappropriate way of obtaining results.
"Suppose a man in need of fire, looking for fire, wandering in search
  of fire, would take a fire stick and rub it into a wet, sappy piece of
  wood. If he were to take a fire stick and rub it into a wet, sappy
  piece of wood even when having made a wish [for results]... having
  made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish...
  neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be
  incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an
  inappropriate way of obtaining results.
"In the same way, any brahmans or contemplatives endowed with wrong
  view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood,
  wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, & wrong concentration: If they follow
  the holy life even when having made a wish [for results]... having
  made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish...
  neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are incapable
  of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way
  of obtaining results.

Can you explain what you mean by labelling in this context?

@BrendanDarrer You defined "fundamentalism" as "believing that their path is the only path." So, this is the label that I meant. I think this is a non-standard definition of the term. The Oxford dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "a form of a religion, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture" or "strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline." We could also ask if there are forms or schools of Buddhism that is fundamentalist according to the Oxford definition. That would be another question.

This question is addressed in two Sutta's
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html
The Buddha then shows how wrong views can arise from only partial understanding of truth. One can see the stages of this: (1) a mystic "sees" in vision an evil-doer suffering in hell, (2) this confirms what he had heard about moral causality, (3) so he says, "evil-doers always go to hell," and (4) dogma hardens and becomes rigid when he says (with the dogmatists of all ages and places), "Only this is true; anything else is wrong." The stages of this process are repeated for each of the four "persons," after which the Buddha proceeds to analyze these views grounded in partial experience and points out which portions are true (because verifiable by trial and experience) and which are dogmatic superstructure which is unjustified. Finally, the Buddha explains his Great Exposition of Kamma in which he shows that notions of invariability like "the evildoer goes to hell" are much too simple. The minds of people are complex and they make many different kinds of kamma even in one lifetime, some of which may influence the last moment when kamma is made before death, which in turn is the basis for the next life.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

I sense that we can learn a lot from other traditions, e.g. Taoism, Sufism, Kabbalah, Humanism and Self-inquiry. Buddhism is a path, for obtaining the ultimate goal of freedom from suffering. However, like all traditions members of them, can be small minded at times and think that they know it all. No one knows it all! So they should try and correct this. There are many different paths, and we must choose the one that suites us best, but also respect different truths (paradox), and be open to change our view when it becomes outmoded. Ultimately the goal is non-suffering and freedom. For example Buddhism is very different from Sufism, but similar in ways to Taoism. But union with the source or pure freedom is achievable by either. I prefer to be open to new knowledge, and be prepared to change when my map of reality becomes out dated or inaccurate. I am certainly not enlightened and have some way to go yet, like most of us.