text:
Does perspective to someone else break first precept?
Recently I meet a monk, I noticed that he has perspective to politicians that what they doing wrong, they are wrong, but I seem he speak a lot about politics, OK. But he also being little rude even when he was telling an incident he used some 'rude' about politician. So when I tell this to my uncle he said 'When he's monk he should not be rude to someone or harm even by "Kaya (Body/Physically)", "Vacha (Talking)", "Man" (Mind/Thinking)'. So does it break first precept? If you caught me doing wrong(Killing, Stealing, Inhumanity) and if you make specific perspective to me for lifetime does it break first precept? Thinking wrong about someone else for what it is (Thief, Terrorist, Murderer).

It certainly doesn't break the Vinaya rule against killing (which says it doesn't count as "killing" unless somebody dies, plus other conditions).
I expect your uncle is right to say that he should avoid being rude; and even talking about politics at all could be considered questionable behaviour.
I haven't seen any hint, though, that the first precept isn't meant to be taken iterally; for example:

pāṇātipātā veramaṇī：'abstaining from the killing of living beings'，is the first of the 5 moral rules binding upon all Buddhists
(Buddhist Dictionary by Nyanatiloka Mahathera)

If the behaviour is wrong I don't think it's because it breaks the first precept -- instead I think it would be because it's not Right Speech, or something like that (e.g. not friendly).

He was saying hurting not only mean physically but other ways like speech and as I questioned above.

I think different people have different (more and less strict) interpretations of the precepts. For example, some take the 3rd precept to mean "avoid sexual misconduct", strictly sex with a specific list of protected types of people; and others say that it means, much more generally, "sensual misconduct". I haven't previously heard of the first precept meaning (generally) no hostility instead of (specifically) no killing, though "no hostility" is probably a beneficial virtue even if it isn't listed as a precept.

So we can consider it as hatred toward someone. And if about precept when it said killing wouldn't be unless intention of killing. But he speak killing or even hurting someone with speech and mind/thinking making wrong perspective to see them. So it'd be fall  speech and hatred.

Does perspective to someone else break first precept?
(for example in a way of words or signs: "It would be good if he is death", "Better they would not exist"...)
Just because nobody seems to answer use- and helpful, and only in short: Yes, if certain factors are fullfiled. As for a monk doing such and certain factors are fullfilled, it a Pārājika, meaning he is no more afflicted with the community and has lost his possibilities to live and practice within the community. (Think on certain monks spreading hate speech and certain people act on that, or others, telling "its no problem to kill an embryo", people act on it... just to give samples to think.)
In reagard of kamma, thoughts are plenty enough to have effects. So take care in all, body, speech (incl. signs, gestures, writen words, drawings... and all other kinds of communication, even mental if one is able to) and you thoughts.
One might know where to ask if serious more interested.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains.)

You're right. When I answered "no", that was in reply to a question about "being little rude" about a politician. I didn't consider the example of recommending someone's death, which as you said would be a grave fault.

Your uncle is right 'When he's monk he should not be rude to someone or harm anyone by "Kaya (Body/Physically)", "Vachi (Talking)", "Mano" (Mind/Thinking)'.  That monk does not follow Nobel Eight Fold path to "Nibbana"(Enlightenment). Does he break first precept? No.  But he breaks the Nobel Eight Fold Path to "Nibbana".  Theravada monks are promised to  "Sabbadukkha,Nissarana,Nibbana,Sacchiaranatthaya" (For the realization of Nibbana, the deliverance from all sorrow) in the ordination procedure which is directly related to follow Nobel Eight Fold path.

Yes we must not hurt anyone must be kind to all human being.


text:
Can one's karma be affected by the karma of another?
Can one person's karma be affected by the karma of another person or other persons?

I think this answer suggests "yes": there's parents' karma, and so on.

Are you asking the result of past Karma or your Karma  i.e."Olivia Glad's volition"? if the latter then the answer is unequivocally "NO!!"

The short answer is “Yes”… Olivia Glad,… because the others provide the grounds, the right conditions for a kamma to bear fruit. How this comes to pass needs some explanation.
The laws of kamma are not just based on causes and effects, they depend on conditions. This is what prevents laws of kamma being deterministic. Understanding this would make it clear that one’s future is not determined by one’s past actions or kamma alone. Thus past kamma do not necessarily lead to kamma vipāka.
What first gets created is a kammā beeja, or a kammā seed. For that kamma beeja to bring about its result (kamma vipāka), suitable conditions must exist.
We can avoid many possible bad kamma vipāka by being mindful and not providing conditions for them to appear.  We can also make conditions for good kamma vipāka to bring about good results. If one goes into a bad neighborhood at night, that is providing conditions for any suitable bad kamma seeds waiting to bring about their bad vipāka.
Once a bad vipāka materializes, we can certainly manage it to minimize its effects, and in some cases even get rid of it by working to making conditions for a good kamma seed to overcome it. Kamma will not bring about any kamma vipāka, if and  when one attains the Sotapanna / Stream Entrant stage.  One can then erase all kamma vipāka that would lead to the four lower world realms.

very clear answer, thank you!

One person's karma can have effects to another person. It is like living in/near war zone where a lot of killing (people are doing bad karma) are happening. The chances are very high to get killed/injuries. On the other hand, if someone don't have enough bad karma to get killed, he/she will escape no matter what. It just needs the right condition to be affected by (present and past) karma .

Is there any references to your claim about escaping death in a horrible situation if you don't have bad karma?

One of the examples will be the Venerable Bākula. He escaped death. I understand that he/she who will become an Arahant can never be killed until he/she attained enlightenment.

Kamma does not operate on it's own. It operates within other five Niyamas.
(Bija, Dhamma, kamma,Citta and Uthu)
Perhaps other kamma may come under Bija (as Chris W suggest) and Dhamma Niyamas.

No, not really (either in regard of kamma, action, nor in regard of vipaka, results of ones action, as they are sure to ripe according to ones actions). One could just provide with offering certain circumstances, that ones past or present kamma could ripe or not. Of which one has certain free choice to do or not as well. While some one could give, offer something, it's at least up to the other individual if taking, able to take, see..., or not.
"Beings are heirs of their actions..." disciple of the Buddha would recitate every day, following his teachings.
Doing what ever, if you like to be angry or stubborn, it is just you how is able to change that. No one else could make you happy. Nobody can make decision for someone else.
While suffering or happiness is ultimatly a matter of touch (of either knowing or not-knowing) it's nevertheless importand to develop gratitude toward giver of liberating things, since inclination and nurishing association with good people would increase the chance to be offered the path to the highest liberation, a "a luck" seldom to meet, a Sublime Buddha and rest of his heritage, carried and offered by his good disciples.
Whether this answer might touch you physical, might touch you at proper time, when proper attention is up, that lies within your sphere and is ground to rejoice with your merits if having been able to take, wishing to get touched by such again and again.
And if looking for certain offerings by answeres, it's because of Upanissaya that one tends to associate which the wrong again and again. No one could change their inclination to act.
[Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stackes, Buddh-ism or other wordly gains, but simply a matter of compassion for those having Nissaya]

Upasaka @Bon might explain that in classical Abhidhamma words and may give an answer here.

@Bonn (Puñña), Upasaka Vorapol.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
What are benefits of being bald?
Monks are bald because as I read somewhere that when person is bald he looks unattractive and so no one else attract towards it. So what are other benefits to being bald either for monks or layman?

It helps to identify you socially as a monk (as does the uniform clothing), so that people know when they see you, "that person can be identified as a monk".
At the same time it helps to alter, remove or hide your personal identity, e.g. as a person with an individual appearance such as hair color and hair style.
I suppose another practical benefit is that it's also clean and cool (an opposite extreme, for some non-Buddhist sramanas, was to not touch or cut their hair at all, so that it became long and matted).
So far as I know the practice pre-dates Buddhism: MN 26 says,

So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.

-For monks, having to be bald helps weed out those who are too committed to sensual desire and are not ready to be a monastic.
-Having no hair is one less thing to cling to.
-Being bald means less parasites and less potential harm to the parasites.
-No hair is easier to handle and clean.
-Being bald can help one identity with Buddhism and other Buddhists or truth seekers.

It's hilariously ironic your profile picture. :D

@Ahmed You ever hear of peladophobia?

That's pretty much it right there. How hair is styled, its fullness, color, length, and anything else about it, can cause vanity, envy, and attachment. It's the reason that the haircare industry is estimated to exceed 85 billion this year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/254608/global-hair-care-market-size/
From a personal note, it's also very easy to take care of. Just make sure you put sunscreen up there if you spend any time outdoors. ;)

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


text:
Samatha Only Wisdom
Can we gain wisdom(panna or prajna) with only one pointed concentration on a concept? I've heard it said that it takes mindfulness on "what actually is" instead of a concept that doesn't exist.
Samatha, at least temporarily,  lessons the defilements so why wouldn't concentration meditation be able to show one panna? Can one gain panna without seeing the three characteristics? Can one see the three characteristics with Samatha by itself?
Can we reach Nirvana with just Samatha?

Can one gain panna without seeing the three characteristics?

No, as far as Buddhist teaching concern.
Here Panna means the wisdom of complete liberation.
The wisdom you get from Samath is only a partial liberation.

Samatha just results in the suppression of 5 Hindrances using a conceptual object as the focus. Vipassana Bhavana is the focus on the ultimate realities free from concepts, which are rupa, citta, cetasika and nirvana and the universal characteristics of them to free your mind from the corruptions of insight so you can understand causality. E.g. contemplation of the body is to understand the nature of rupa and also eliminate the corruption of insight of beauty. Understanding causality helps understand the arising of defilements. You can choose the object of concentration be tied with ultimate realities which a proxy is the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness (body - rupa, rest relates to citta & cetasika). More on this see: Samatha and Vipassanā: Concentration and insight meditation by Ashin Dr. Nandamālābhivaṃsa
For wisdom you need to abandon ignorance of the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination, i.e., understand causality. For this would should 1st you should free your mind of corruption of insight by knowing the 3 marks of existence, which is, wise attention or seeing thing as they are. This with equanimity help you understand causality at the experiential level.
Samatha can help by removing the hindrances which mean you have more clarity but this alone will not help.

There is not even a single reference in the Tipitaka, where the Buddha has said that “samatha bhavana” alone can lead to Panna/wisdom. But when one comprehends Dhamma, one’s mind get calm and through that samatha state, and one can get to magga phala.
After attaining the Sotapanna / Stream Entrant stage, one can get to Ariya jhanas by focusing on that “state of cooling down”. One really needs  insight meditation (vipassana) to attain higher magga phala.
The suppression of all five hindrances is what is commonly called “samatha“. One does not need to do a special “samatha bhavana” (like the breath meditation) to calm the mind. If one pays enough attention and gets absorbed in the subject matter while listening to or reading Dhamma, one could suppress all five hindrances / come to “samatha“.
In hearing the true message of the Buddha of anicca, dukkha, anatta, one can experience “Niramisa sukha“ as one starts seeing a glimpse of the “true nature of this world”.
In “Samatha bhavana” one forces the mind to one thought object, and the five hindrances are kept at bay. When developing this, one feels the serenity of a mind unpolluted by the hindrances. This is called samatha meditation.
There a four ways to come to ‘Panna’.  if you read AN 4.170 Yuganaddha Sutta, there are four types. Calmness (samatha) & insight (vipassana) are developed simultaneously is the third of the four types, called ‘Yuganaddha’. The first of the four is 'samatha purvangama vipassana' where one develops tranquility preceded by insight. In ' vipassana purvangama samatha ' one develops insight first and it is preceded by tranquility. How it gets developed depends on the personality type.

Nope.  No matter how deep your samatha practice, the mind still has to be brought back to the world of form.  I think we've all heard the quote from Einstein - "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."  Buddhism more or less follows the same approach.  You change your place of thinking/perceiving by quieting the mind and suppressing the hindrances.  You are still, however, charged with the task of solving the problem at hand.  For that, you need an object of mindfulness.  That can be a koan, one of the many mindfulness practice available in the elder tradition, hearing a sutra, or even hearing the sound of a rock hitting bamboo.

Can we gain wisdom(panna or prajna) with only one pointed concentration on a concept?

Concept??? One-pointedness of mind (citta ekaggata) is not related to a concept or concepts.

I've heard it said that it takes mindfulness on "what actually is" instead of a concept that doesn't exist.

Mindfulness does not mean "to see" or "to observe". "Mindfulness" means "to remember" or "keep in mind".

Samatha, at least temporarily, lessons the defilements

Yes.

so why wouldn't concentration meditation be able to show one panna?

Yes. It can. The wisdom (panna) that can arise directly from concentration & samatha is that it is peaceful to be without defilements; that defilements are unwholesome & suffering.

Can one gain panna without seeing the three characteristics?

Yes. But this panna (wisdom) will not be complete & will not 'uproot' the defilements.

Can one see the three characteristics with Samatha by itself?

No. However, one can experience 'selflessness' (a mind without self) but this is not the same as seeing the not-self (anatta) characteristic of each of the five aggregates.

Can we reach Nirvana with just Samatha?

No. But we can have a 'taste' of Nirvana, i.e., develop the conviction that complete Nirvana exists.

I like your answer except the object is a concept in Samatha right?

I thought that, one pointed concentration has to be on a concept because a real object would be imperminant and impossible to keep concentration one-pointed.

I  would like to understand your understanding of "concepts". I think your answers are often very solid and sober.  So, I want to believe that maybe you know something that I don't.  What do you think of Papañca,  sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca?

The mind can be one-pointed in jhana or one-pointed on truth. Both of these are not "concepts". In jhana, a mental images arises, which is not a thought concept. Similarly, truth, such as the impermanence & not-self characteristic of things, is not a thought concept. Similarly, samatha can be developed with one-pointedness on breathing, Breathing is not a concept. However, I suppose if a person is practising mantra meditaiton, such as "OM" or "Buddho", this is a concept but it won't bring wisdom. It will only bring calm. Wisdom is developed from "seeing" rather than from "concepts".

The mind can have an intellectual or partial realisation of truth; what is called 'Right View' as the forerunner of the Noble Path. There can be one-pointedness upon Right View ( here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html) however Right View is not exactly a "concept" but a body of knowledge comprised of many concepts

The idea of wisdom from a concept sounds like Papañca sammuti sacca. I doubt that this can really occur without direct seeing of the actually reality that concept represents. Why don't you start a new question on Papañca sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca and, in your question, provide some references (rather than expect others to do the work for you). Thanks

I'm working very hard right now

Now that I got all that crazy anger out of me, thank you for your comments because I think it might have taught me something(I'm not sure).  Of course, I am too stupid to comprehend why I would put references in a question.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

No, Samatha alone can't reach Nirvana; even Vipassana can't; neither Nirvana necessarily produced by any Dhyana. Although recorded in the Vinaya Uppalavanna was entering the 9th Dhyana when staying in the Dark Forest where 500 robbers happened also tracked there, she was not entering Nirvana, she arose from the Dhyana the next morning. The 9th Dhyana called the "extinguishing" meditation (滅盡定) was the Buddha's unique discovery, he had learnt the 8 Dhyanas from his teachers that were known and practiced by the heretics at his time.
I read from my sources Samatha (止) and Vipassana (觀) are always going together in Dhyana, they can't happen on its own, like a hand with the palm and back. Samatha is taking a passive approach, when thoughts arise, abandon that thoughts, closely observes any thought arose abandoned immediately - present of mind (not absent of mind, think of what is absent-minded, the opposite); Vipassana is taking the active approach, focus and work on the chosen meditation object, alert and patiently waiting for revelation.
I've not heard that the three characteristics are to be considered as the rule to be obeyed in all meditation practices. They are the truth Buddha obtained in his own Prajna quest, he just told you that are the correct answers. But to learn, you have to work out the same answer. As a student working out the equation by doing computing, using calculator to output an answer or copying from your classmate doesn't mean you know the answer, you must be able to do the calculation on your own, then you obtain the answer - the Dharma, else they are just terms, vocabularies. So, you may choose one of the characteristics as your object to work your Vipassana on it. Personally I found that a visual object is easier to work Vipassana on, rather than concept. Maybe I'm just a beginner not knowing the sophistication of meditation yet. Samatha can't derive Prajna, it is just a background building for Vipassana to set on working, Prajna obtained by Vipassana. Even the Anapana meditation included Samatha and Vipassana, Samatha as setting mind to the breathe, the breath is also the object in Vipassana.

Hello :) Are you saying vipassana has breath as the object but it also takes whatever distracts one from the breath as the object?(another object can be taken in place of the breath as the primary object, such as the entire body or thoughts.)

No. One object at a time, as an archer shooting arrow he focuses on the aimed until his attention fixed on one point. If another distracting object (thought) arose, immediately abandoned it return to the target. For beginner using breath as the object to 觀 (be watched) - Vipassana, when you are able to, you will see the breath how its going inside and around your body, penetrating into the tissues of your body, you can "see" the breathes. For higher level, you can "see" the internal organs, you can use the body as the object.

Beware the corruption those sexed up terms used by Dhamma teachers (traders?) found in the English Buddhist/meditation communities. There is nothing called Vipassana Meditation, or what so called Insight Meditation. Meditation is meditation, or called it Dhyana 定, period. When you are able to enter the Samadhi, with Vipassana you obtain Prajna. The difference of Prajna/wisdom and knowledge is, Prajna is like spring, self-generated, knowledge is like water held in whatever container. Forget those concepts dumped in your mind from those "meditation vocabularies architects" maybe helpful :)


text:
What is the difference between right thinking and right view?
They seem to be both elements that promote a healthy perception about things in life. I have a hard time differentiating between one and the other.

Famous quote: "Greed for views tend not toward edification."

Samma Sankappa (right thinking) is the result of right view (Samma Ditthi).
If you have the wrong view your thinking will be wrong thinking. (Mittcha Sankappa)
Generally, right view is the forerunner for the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path.
For example seeing things as impermanent is the right view and seeing things as permanent is the wrong view. With the first, you have the thoughts of renunciation and with the second you have the thought of accumulation.

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right thinking comes into being. In one of right thinking, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right liberation comes into being.
MN 117

Could you say then define right thinking as successful right view? From the way you explain it, it seems there is nothing to right thinking other than right view.

Samma sankappa (right thinking) is the result of right view (samma ditthi). If you have the wrong view, your thinking will be wrong thinking (miccha sankappa). Generally, right view is the forerunner for the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path.
For example, seeing craving (tanha) as a cause of suffering & something to be abandoned is the right view and seeing craving as beneficial is the wrong view. With the first, you have the thoughts of renunciation of craving (including when practising Anapanasati - mindfulness with/when breathing - meditation) and with the second you have the thought of accumulation of jhanas (which hinders meditation progress).

There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent
  on cessation, resulting in relinquishment (vossagga). Anapanasati
  Sutta

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making letting go (vossagga) the meditation object,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Indriya-vibhanga Sutta

To get to know the difference between right thinking (Samma Sankappa) and right view (Samma Ditti), it is important to first understand what these two terms mean. Therein, in this very understanding lies relationship between these two words, and the difference. There’s a  two-fold meaning to both: there is a mundane (lokiya) level and a supra-mundane (lokottara) level meaning to both. I will describe the higher states of both.
One attains the higher (Ariya) Samma Ditthi when one gets to know to a certain extent the meaning of anicca, dukkha, anatta. When one arrives at this ‘right view’, one has come to reject all immoral acts because one’s mind sees the futility as well as the danger of such acts. At this point one’s mind will be changed so that one will not  act even impulsively, let alone capable of pre-planning an act that could yield rebirth in the lower realms.
To better understand the key words in the Sutta Pitaka – the first basket, one has to look into the third basket - the Abhidhamma Pitaka of the Tipitaka, the Pali Canon.  It lists 19 universal moral cetasika that can arise in anyone  with true comprehension of anicca, dukkha, anatta (Samma Ditti).  Of that, there are seven universal cetasika (mental factors) that arise with each and every citta (thought). The more ‘panna’ (Samma Ditti) one has, the more one would generate amoha thoughts and come to Samma Sankappa.
Buddha said “dhammo ha vé rakkati dhammacari” or “dhamma will guide one in the direction of dhamma that one follows”. Vitakka (focused application of thoughts), when cultivated in the Dhamma Path become samma sankappa. Thus Samma Ditthi leads to the next step in the Noble Eightfold Path: Samma Sankappa.
“Samma” means “san” (adding things to perpetuate the suffering/rebirth process) + “ma” (remove or get rid of). Thus Samma Ditthi is the vision (anicca, dukkha, anatta) that helps removing “san“; Samma Sankappa are the thoughts that help remove ‘san“; Samma Vaca is the kind of speech that helps remove ‘san“, etc.

Maybe that's illustrated by the answers to "How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?"
A "view" is a belief, I think it's relatively long-lasting, it's taking something to be true.
Whereas "thinking" is more like the arising of a thought, maybe relatively short-lasting, perhaps more like an experience (experiencing an emotion or experiencing a thought) than a semi-permanent belief.

Also I'm not even sure what you mean by "right thinking" ... it's obviously an English-language translation but I'm not sure what it's a translation of!
Both other answers say it's a translation of samma sankappo, which I understand to mean "right intention" or "right resolve".
I think the doctrine makes sense with that translation: intention follows from (or follows after) view or belief.
For example, "I view chocolate as good (or I believe that chocolate is good), therefore I intend to eat as much chocolate as possible". Or, "I view identity-view as a source of suffering, therefore I intend to not cling to (or to abandon) views of self."
(Wrong intention follows from wrong view, and right intention follows from right view).

Another (less likely) possibility is that "thinking" might be a translation of the whole "mind" branch of the threefold training, so perhaps including right mindfulness and right concentration. "Thinking" isn't a very precise term in English.
So anyway, the distinction might be clearer if you stopped relying on the term "right thinking" as the correct translation of whatever it is you're thinking of (or referring to), and instead use the original term (e.g. samma sankappo) or a different translation (e.g. "right intention").

Disclaimer: by the way you added the zen tag to the question, however I tried to answer this based on my understanding of the Pali canon, not based on Zen doctrine.

Perhaps a good analogy is that Right View is like having correct axioms, and right thinking is what one can reason about or prove using logic? Axioms alone don't get one very far, no matter how correct they might be.

IMO another analogy is that "view" is like view-point: e.g. if you're on a hill-top you see things differently, have a different perspective on things, that you do from in the river-valley. Another analogy is that right view is a technique for solving problems: in that wrong view leads to problems or fails to escape from problems.

Sankappo is thought, intention, purpose, plan. Samma Sankappa is right thinking. This is by abandoning negative thoughts. The forerunner of this is right view or belief. You should cultivate a conducive belief system which leads to positive thoughts. They are very much related but not the same. E.g. If you believe in hunting or fishing as a sport or for food has no karmic consequences, then you develop harmful thoughts towards these creatures which you can to kill or eat.

Sankappa, aka: Saṅkappa

Saṅkappa, (saṃ+kḷp, cp. kappeti fig. meaning) thought, intention, purpose, plan D. III, 215; S. II, 143 sq.; A. I, 281; II, 36; Dh. 74; Sn. 154, 1144; Nd1 616 (=vitakka ñāṇa paññā buddhi); Dhs. 21; DhA. II, 78. As equivalent of vitakka also at D. III, 215; A. IV, 385; Dhs. 7.—kāma° a lustful thought A. III, 259; V, 31. paripuṇṇa° having one’s intentions fulfilled M. I, 192; III, 276; D. III, 42; A. V, 92, 97 sq.; sara° memories & hopes M. I, 453; S. IV, 76; vyāpāda°, vihiṃsa°, malicious, cruel purposes, M. II, 27 sq.; sammā° right thoughts or intentions, one of the aṅgas of the 8—fold Path (ariya-magga) Vin. I, 10; D. II, 312; A. III, 140; VbhA. 117. Saṅkappa is defd at DhsA. 124 as (cetaso) abhiniropanā, i.e. application of the mind. See on term also Cpd. 238. (Page 662)
Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary
saṅkappa : (m.) intention; purpose.
BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary
Right: sammā-sankappa (“thought”); .s. sacca, magga.
Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines
  'thought', is a synonym of vitakka. For sammā-s., or right thought, s. magga (2).
Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines

Samma Sankappa, aka: Right Thought, Right Intention, Right Intent

Right Thought is associated with seeing how our thoughts and emotions are closely linked, and how indulging in negative forms of thought leads to the development of negative emotions such as hatred and jealousy. Conversely, thinking in a positive way has an effect on our emotions, whereby we start to become more loving, more caring, and more sensitive to others.
Shambala Publications: General
right thinking;
Samma sankappa has to arise together with samma ditthi, right understanding, in order to be a factor of the eightfold Path.
Dhamma Study: Cetasikas
Right thought and intent; avoiding desire and ill will; the second of the Eightfold Path.
Buddhist Door: Glossary

Ditthi, aka: Diṭṭhi

Diṭṭhi, (f.) (Sk. dṛṣṭi; cp. dassana) view, belief, dogma, theory, speculation, esp. false theory, groundless or unfounded opinion.—(a) The latter is rejected by the Buddha as pāpa° (A.IV, 172) and pāpikā d. (opp. bhaddikā: A.V, 212 sq.; It.26): Vin.I, 98, 323; Dh.164; Pv IV.354; whereas the right, the true, the best doctrine is as sammā d. the first condition to be complied with by anyone entering the Path. As such the sammā d. is opposed to micchā d. wrong views or heresy (see b). Equivalent with micchā d. is kudiṭṭhi (late) Dāvs II.58.—(b) Characterized more especially as: (a) sammā diṭṭhi right doctrine, right philosophy Vin.I, 10; S.II, 17; V, 11, 14, 30 sq., 458 sq., M.I, 315; II, 12, 29, 87; III, 72; Nd2 485; Vbh.104 sq. See magga.—ujukā d. S.V, 143, 165; ujugatā d. M.I, 46 sq.—(b) micchā d. wrong theory, false doctrine S.I, 145; II, 153 (caused by avijjā); M.III, 71; Dh.167, 316; Nd2 271IIIb; Vbh.361, 389.—The foll. theories are to be considered as varieties of micchā d., viz. (in limited enumn) akiriyavāda S.III, 208; IV, 349; aññaṃ aññena S.III, 211; antaggāhikā A.I, 154; II, 240; III, 130; antânantikā D.I, 22 sq. S.III, 214, 258 sq.; assāda° A.III, 447; ahetukavādā S.III, 210; ucchedavādā D.I, 34; S.II, 20; III, 99; 110 sq.; bhava° S.III, 93; M.I, 65; A.I, 83; sakkāya° A.III, 438; V, 144; Sn.231 (cp. KhA 188); Nd2 271IIIb (20 fold, as diṭṭhilepa); sassatavādā D.I, 13; S.II, 20; III, 98, 213 sq., 258 sq.—(c) Various theories & doctrines are mentioned & discussed at: Vin.I, 115; S.I, 133; II, 61 sq., 75 sq., 222; III, 215 sq., 258 sq.; IV, 286; V, 448 (=D.I, 31); D.III, 13 sq., 45, 246, 267; M.I, 40; A.I, 32; II, 252 sq.; III, 132, 289, 349; Th.2, 184; Ps.I, 135 sq.; Pug.22; Dhs.392, 1003 (cp. Dhs. trsl. pp. 257 sq., 293, 325); Vbh.145, 245, 341, 393 sq.; Sdhp.13, 333.—(d) Miscellaneous: 4 diṭṭhiyo at Vbh.376; also at Vism.511 (sakkāya°, uccheda°, sassata°, akiriya°); 5 Vbh.378; 6 at M.I, 8; Vbh.382; 7 at Vbh.383; 20 see under sakkāya°; 62 under diṭṭhigata.—In series diṭṭhi khanti ruci laddhi characterizing “diṭṭhadhamma” at Nd2 299 & passim. Diṭṭhiyā sutiyā ñāṇena in def. of a theory of cognition at Nd2 300 as complementing taṇhā: see taṇhā B 3. Coupled with vācā & citta in formula (taṃ) vācaṃ appahāya cittaṃ appahāya diṭṭhiṃ appaṭinissajjitvā ... (nikkhitto evaṃ niraye) at S.IV, 319= D.III, 13, 15; combd with (& opposed to) sīla (as pāpaka & bhaddaka) at It.26, 27.—diṭṭhiṃ āsevati to hold a view M.I, 323; °ṃ bhindati to give up a view J.I, 273; Dāvs II.58.
—ânugati a sign of speculation Vin.II, 108; S.II, 203; Pug.33.—ânusaya inclination to speculation D.III, 254, 282; S.V, 60; A.IV, 9;—āsava the intoxicant of speculation, the 3rd of four āsavā, viz. kāma°, bhava°, d.°, avijjā° Vin.III, 5; Nd2 134; Dhs.1099, 1448; Vbh.373; cp. °ogha;—upadānā taking up or adhering to false doctrines, the 2nd of the four upādānāni or attachments, viz. kāma°, d.°, sīlabbata°, attavāda° D.III, 230; Dhs.1215, 1536;—ogha the flood of false doctrine, in set of four ogha’s as under °āsava D.III, 230, 276; Nd2 178;—kantāra the wilderness of groundless speculation Dhs.381, 1003, 1099, etc.; see °gata;—gaṇṭhi the web or tangle of sophisticism VvA.297; cp. °saṅghāṭa;—gata (nt.) “resorting to views, ” theory, groundless opinion, false doctrine, often followed by series of characterizing epithets: d.—gahana, °kantāra, °visūka, °vipphandita, °saññojana, e.g. M.I, 8; Nd2 271IIIb. Of these sophistical speculations 2 are mentioned at It.43, Ps.I, 129; 6 at Ps.I, 130; 62 (the usual number, expressing “great and small” sets, cp. dvi A.II, ) at D.I, 12—39 (in detail); S.IV, 286; Ps.I, 130; Nd2 271IIIb; Nett 96, 112, 160. ‹-› Vin.I, 49; D.I, 162, 224, 226; S.I, 135, 142; II, 230; III, 109, 258 sq. (anekavihitāni); IV, 286 (id.); M.I, 8, 176, 256 sq. (pāpaka), 326 (id.), 426 sq.; A.IV, 68; V, 72 sq., 194 (pāpaka); Sn.649, 834, 913; Pug.15; Dhs.277, 339, 392, 505; Vism.454.—adj. °gatika adhering to (false) doctrine Dpvs VI, 25;—gahana the thicket of speculation Dhs.381, 1003; see °gata;—jāla the net of sophistry D.I, 46; DA.I, 129;—ṭṭhāna a tenet of speculative philosophy D.I, 16; M.I, 136; A.V, 198; Ps.I, 138 (eight); Miln.332; DA.I, 107;—nijjhānakkhanti forbearance with wrong views S.II, 115; IV, 139; A.I, 189 sq.; II, 191; Nd2 151;—nipāta a glance VvA.279;—nissaya the foundation of speculation M.I, 137; D.II, 137 sq.;—pakkha the side or party of sophists Nett 53, 88, 160;—paṭilābha the attainment of speculation M.III, 46;—paṭivedha=prec. D.III, 253;—patta one who has formed (a right or wrong) view D.III, 105, 254; M.I, 439; A.I, 74; 118, IV.10; V, 23;—parāmasa perversion by false doctrine Dhs.1498;—maṇḍala the circle of speculative dogmatics DhsA.109;—vipatti failure in theory, the 3rd of the four vipattiyo viz. sīla°, ācāra°, d.°, ājīva°; opp. °sampadā Vin.V, 98; D.III, 213; A.I, 95, 268; Pug.21; Dhs.1362; Vbh.361;—vipallāsa contortion of views A.II, 52;—visaṃyoga disconnection with false doctrine D.III, 230, 276;—visuddhi beauty of right theory A.I, 95; M.I, 147 sq.; D.III, 214, 288;—visūka (nt.) the discord or disunion (lit. the going into parties) of theories, the (?) puppet-show of opinion M.I, 8, 486; Sn.55 (=dvāsaṭṭhi diṭṭhigatāni), K S.II, 44; Vv 8426; Pv IV.137; Nd2 301 (=vīsati-vattukā sakkāyadiṭṭhi); cp. Nd2 25 (attānudiṭṭhi); Dhs.381 (cp. Dhs. trsl. p. 101), 1003, 1099. See also °gata;—vyasana failing or misfortune in theory (+sīla°, in character) D.III, 235; Nd2 304;—saṃyojana the fetter or bond of empty speculation (cp. °anusaya) D.III, 254; A.IV, 7 sq.;—saṅghāta the weft or tangle of wrong views (cp. °gaṇṭhi) Nd1 343; Nd2 503;—samudaya the origin of wrong views A.IV, 68;—sampadā success in theory, blessing of right views, attainment of truth D.III, 213; 235 (opp. °vipatti), S.V, 30 sq.; A.I, 95, 269; III, 438; IV, 238; Pug.25; Dhs.1364; VvA.297;—sampanna endowed with right views S.II, 43, 58, 80; V, 11; A.III, 438 sq.; IV, 394; Vbh.366; Dialogues iii.206, n. 10;—sārin (adj.) following wrong views Sn.911. (Page 321)
Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary
diṭṭhi : (f.) dogma; theory; belief.
BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary
Ditthi means 'wrong view'.
This is Myanmar: The Doctrine of Paticcasammupada
(lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion, insight.
  If not qualified by sammā, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight).
Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchā-ditthi) are declared as utterly rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22:
"No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering, into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state, to woe and suffering."
From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27).
Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have influenced and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view which everywhere, and at all times, has most misled and deluded mankind is the personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-belief (sakkāya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2 kinds: eternity-belief and annihilation-belief.
Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of those physical and mental processes that constitute life and continuing even after death.
Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less identical with those physical and mental processes, and which therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. - For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkāya-ditthi.
Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations (vohāra-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately.
  For further details, s. anattā, khandha, paticcasamuppāda.
"The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away. He has seen what feeling ... perception ... mental formations ... consciousness are, and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say that the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and casting out of all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the 'vain-glory of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72).
The rejection of speculative views and theories is a prominent feature in a chapter of the Sutta-Nipāta, the Atthaka-Vagga.
  The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:
(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),
(2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),
(3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).
(1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosāla, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate.
(2) was taught by Pūrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected."
(3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc.
For further details about these 3 views, s. D.2, M.60; commentarial exposition in WHEEL 98/99, P. 23.
Frequently mentioned are also the 10 antinomies (antagāhikā micchā-ditthi): 'Finite is the world' or 'infinite is the world' ... 'body and soul are identical' or 'body and soul are different' (e.g. M. 63).
  In the Brahmājala Sutta .(D.1), 62 false views are classified and described, comprising all conceivable wrong views and speculations about man and world.
  See The All-Embracing Net of Views (Brahmājala Sutta), tr. with Com. by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS).
Further s. D.15, D.23, M.24, D.28; M.11, M.12, M.25, M.60, M.63, M.72, M.76, M.101, M.102, M.110; A.II.16; A.X.93; S.XXI, S.XXIV; Pts.M. Ditthikathā, etc.
  Wrong views (ditthi) are one of the proclivities (s. anusaya), cankers (s. āsava), clingings (s. upādāna), one of the three modes of perversions (s. vipallāsa). Unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta), rooted in greed, may be either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta); s. Dhs.; Tab I.
On right view (sammā-ditthi), s. magga and M.9 (Trans. with Com. in 'R. Und.').
Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines
Part of the Lobha Team.
Wrong View;
Ditthi is wrong view. It advises citta to see objects differently instead of seeing as realities. As ditthi cannot see realities, it see dhamma as men, woman, animals etc etc. This wrong view leads to more and more lobha and may switch to other akusala cittas.
Journey to Nibbana: Patthana Dhama
F (Sight, vision of things, belief).
Dhamma Dana: Pali English Glossary

Samma Ditthi, aka: Sammâdiṭṭhi, Sammādiṭṭhi

sammādiṭṭhi : (f.) right belief.
BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary
Right Understanding means understanding the Buddhist view, which, as we saw, is the middle view between eternalism and nihilism. As the Buddha said, knowing how the world arises due to causes and conditions enables us not to fall into the extreme of nihilism. The other aspect of the middle view is knowing how everything ceases when causes and conditions cease. Therefore, we do not fall into the extreme of the substantialist, essentialist, or eternalist view, because we realize that, even though things come into being through causes and conditions, nothing that exists on the physical or mental plane endures when those causes and conditions are no longer present.
Shambala Publications: General
(or r. view), r. thought, etc.: s. magga.
-- or --
-sankappa, -vaca, etc: see magga.
-- or --
sammā-ditthi; s. ditthi, magga 1, sacca IV.1. - For wrong view, s. ditthi.
Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines
right understanding;
Dhamma Study: Cetasikas
Understanding the Four Noble Truths; the first of the Eightfold Path.
Buddhist Door: Glossary

...using the pāli suttas as references:
Right View (sammā diṭṭhi)
There are many formulations of Right View in the suttas. Here's one, described as "the doctrine of affirmation" (MN 60), sometimes known as "mundane right view".

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
-- MN 117

From my understanding, this formulation is basically saying that:

Gifts are morally relevant (not just social convention)
karma is factual
How one treats their mother and father has different moral significance then treatment to ordinary persons.
There's life after death or other spheres of life
and there are people who have directly seen these spheres

Another formulation defines Right View in terms of wisdom (pañña):

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.

Another formulation is given as the understanding of the four noble truths. For example:

“When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome and the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome and the root of the wholesome,in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has unwavering confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
[...]
“When, friends, a noble disciple understands suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way leading to the cessation of suffering, in that way he is one of right view…and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
-- MN 9

In the sutta above, the four noble truths are also applied to each element in dependent origination as an alternative exposition of Right View.
Another method of exposition is by their opposite. Here, the Brahmajāla Sutta is the most important sutta, which discusses 62 kinds of wrong views.
Right View, as has been stated, is the foremost on the Noble Eightfold Path.
Right Thinking (sammā sankappa)
The PTS Pāli dictionary gives the following translation for sankappa:

thought, intention, purpose, plan

In the suttas, we find the following definition for sammā sankappa:

“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong intention? The intention of sensual desire, the intention of ill will, and the intention of cruelty: this is wrong intention.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right intention? Right intention, I say, is twofold: there is right intention that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions, and there is right intention that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right intention that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? The intention of renunciation, the intention of non-ill will, and the intention of non-cruelty: this is right intention that is affected by taints…ripening in the acquisitions.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right intention that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The thinking, thought, intention, mental absorption, mental fixity, directing of mind, verbal formation in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right intention that is noble…a factor of the path.

So, Right Thinking is the practice concerned with our inclinations, dispositions and intentions, aimed at enabling the eightfold path and realizing it's purpose.

I have also struggled with this. Right view is sometimes written as right understanding; right thought is sometimes written as right intent(ion). I think using 'right intention' instead of 'right thought' makes it a bit easier to understand and differentiate between the two.
My understanding:
The way that you view something will have an effect on your intentions. An example that has popped in my mind: if you see a person and, for some reason, view that person as someone who wants sex, your intentions might be to have sex with that person. If you see the same person but view that person as someone who is an intellectual (not that the two are mutually exclusive), your intentions might be to have a philosophical conversation with that person. You need to get rid of perceptions and see things objectively for what they really are so that your intentions are not swayed.

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


text:
Compassion and Wisdom
Does wise practice of compassion ever lead to suffering or bliss for the practitioner?
Is there a difference between compassion cultivated through the Brammaviharas and compassion cultivated through Vipassana insight?
If one is enlightened does that mean one is   compassionate or fully compassionate?
Why does wisdom lead to compassion or compassion lead to wisdom?

Yes, there is. There is a difference between compassion cultivated through the Brammaviharas and compassion cultivated through Vipassana.
With the Brammaviharas, one can be as compassionate to the maximum, but that does not mean one has gotten rid of ignorance. Those beings in the Brahma worlds do not generate any hateful thoughts. They have perfected the four Brahmavihara of metta, karuna, mudita, & upekkha. Yet they have ignorance (moha), even though they don’t have a trace of hateful thoughts, and thus can be reborn in the four lower realms.
Even if one gets rid of greed and hate, will still have ignorance, and will end up getting back greed and hate due to ignorance. But when compassion is cultivated through Vipassana, wisdom, or panna arises. The Buddhist mental factor ‘Adosa’ is not mere absence of ‘dosa’, but embodies compassion. The more panna one has, it is more likely that one would be generating ‘adosha’ and ‘amoha’ thoughts of compassion more often.

You can practice Brahmaviharas where the unwholesome roots remain dormant. This is by means of suppression or certain thoughts and replacing them with positive thoughts which might be through verbalisation. When you suppress it may bounce back with a vengeance when your concentration breaks.
When you practice Vipassana you are removing the defilements from the root. This way Brahmaviharas can be developed with more depth and stability.
Neither way is suffering through the effort you apply may not always be viewed as pleasant.
Compassion and wisdom goes hand in hand as mentioned before. One contributes to the other.

To answer your 4th question, wisdom is knowledge of truth, and compassion is acting in accordance with that knowledge.
I can search for this in the suttas, but not sure that it will be explained as such. It is just what the words mean.

Does wise practice of compassion ever lead to suffering or bliss for the practitioner?
Perhaps indirectly: compassion with attachment (or with conceit) could lead to suffering; conversely though, a skillful act of compassion might be occasion for lack of remorse, and so on.
Is there a difference between compassion cultivated through the Brammaviharas and compassion cultivated through Vipassana insight?
I don't think of Vipassana as a "cultivation" (a Bhavana).
Perhaps Vipassana leads to compassion by taking away obstacles (e.g. seeing without selfishness or without clinging), whereas cultivation (karuna resulting from metta-bhavana) is by adding incentives or motivation (e.g. viewing other beings as if they were your own friends and family).
If one is enlightened does that mean one is compassionate or fully compassionate?
I think that's a difference between different traditional categories of enlightenment: e.g. arhats and private-Buddhas are less well-known for their compassion; conversely the compassion of a Boddhisatva or Buddha is more famous (or more effective, more evident).

Does wise practice of compassion ever lead to suffering or bliss for the practitioner?

Yes, the Brahmavihar compassion is meant as an antidote for jealousy and feeling of being rejected/wronged by the world. Generating compassion puts one into an elevated position, so one can feel better.

Is there a difference between compassion cultivated through the Brammaviharas and compassion cultivated through Vipassana insight?

The realization-induced compassion is spontaneous and more authentic than the generated.

If one is enlightened does that mean one is compassionate or fully compassionate?

Perfectly compassionate. Which among other things means that one sees Samsara as Nirvana.

Why does wisdom lead to compassion or compassion lead to wisdom?

Wisdom leads to compassion, because we clearly see how foolish people suffer from self-inflicted trouble. We see how they entangle themselves in difficult karma due to pointless goals they saw as important. We see how people expect things to last despite the impermanence.
Compassion leads to wisdom, because it's a practice that helps one detach from the egoistic concerns, disentangle, and achieve enlightenment.


text:
Does Anyone know quotes relating to Once-Returners / sakadagami
I desperately need quotes from either scripture or from scholars.

The Sakadagami is mentioned in SN 55:24 - Sarakaani Sutta:

"Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. But he is not joyous in wisdom and has not gained release. Yet by destroying three fetters and weakening lust, hatred and delusion, he is a Once-returner, who will return once more to this world and put an end to suffering. That man is entirely freed from... states of woe."

This might be the definition (it is, at least, one of the places where it's defined):

"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are all once-returners who, on returning only one more time to this world, will make an ending to stress. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile (MN 22)
This is summarized (and clarified) in this Wikipedia article: The four stages of attainment.
This search returns about another 50 results from the suttas: https://suttacentral.net/search?query=%22once-returner%22&lang=en

Summoning up fresh courage, as a result of this glimpse of Nibbana, the Pilgrim makes rapid progress and cultivating deeper Insight becomes a Sakadagami (onnce-returner) by weakening two more Fetters — namely Sense-desire (Kamaraga) and ill-will (Patigha). He is called a Sakadagami because he is reborn on earth only once in case he does not attain Arhatship.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/narada/nutshell.html

This article was written taking into account an esteemed discourse that is included in the 9th Nipata of Anguttara Nikaya - called the Sōpādisēsa Sutta.

…….They are the Sakadāgāmi (the second state of realization of the Dhamma) disciples who have eliminated three Sanyōjana Dharma and lessened the Raga (lust), Dvesha (hatred), and Moha (ignorance). These disciples also have defilements that need to be eliminated. However, these Sakadāgāmi disciples have the ability to end all the sufferings by being born just one more time in this world, the Kāma World (Sakidēva Imanlōkan Aagantwa Dukkansantan Karōti). They are also in a state of which they are free from being born in the four low-level worlds.”


text:
How can mindfulness be about immovable attention?
There seem to be a lot of disagreements about the very basic term "mindfulness". Here is one of them.
Yesterday I listened to a talk, where it was it was said that if one achieve total concentration on an object, there is no mindfulness. This makes sense to me, as ALL attention is on the subject and none is left to be mindful of what is going on (it was also mentioned that there is no wisdom gained from this, as it is from the moving, momentary concentration in mindfulness that one makes realizations about the four noble truths).  This is all in accordance with my understanding of the difference between concentration and mindfulness.
Then later at the evening I read an article by Ajahn Brahmavamso ("The quality of mindfulness") where he says that "with development, you can experience immovable mindfulness. The mindfulness that is on one thing entirely...The Buddha said this reaches its peak in the fourth Jhanas". I have read and heard a thousand other places that this is what he said about samadhi (concentration). And that one of Buddhas main contributions was the introduction of sati/mindfulness which among other things makes one aware of impermanence.  How should "immovable mindfulness" ever give any realization of impermanence...immovable means permanent.  He also says that "Once you know that type of mindfulness, then you know how ridiculous it is to think you can become Enlightened without Jhanas. Without such powerful mindfulness you can't get the powerful insights". To my knowledge Jhanas and one-pointedness (which I would call concentration) is not about insight. To my knowledge Buddha, before he found the path to (his) enlightenment,  was taught meditation techniques which aimed towards being completely absorbed, but that he found that this did not bring him what he searched for. Isnt this one of the major points in buddhist teaching?

Here is a link that looks at many approaches to mindfulness: http://remindingproject.com/mindfulness-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/

This article might help: http://yuttadhammo.sirimangalo.org/2011/02/a-critique-of-brahmavamso-jhanas.html?m=1

When one gets absorbed, focused, or mindful in anything, no matter what the object is, the mental factor called “ekagghatha” takes over and make the mind latched on to it. Being mindful depends on the situation. The kind of mindfulness one has when driving a car is different from the mindfulness when reading a book, and the mindfulness needed to attain a jhana is different from those two.
The jhana that one comes to by using the breath only would not help in walking this Path. As you correctly pointed out Buddha figured this out, and managed to break through and achieve Nibbhana. Just by focusing the mind on the breath, one can achieve only a mundane type of jhana. Also trying to be mindful by doing “walking meditation” by saying “lifting the foot”, “putting it down” would only get you to this lower level mundane jhanas.
The higher levels of Jhana that furthers the Noble Eightfold Path are achieved by supermundane “ekagghatha”  that one comes to by coming to upacara samadhi.  When listening to a Dhamma discourse or reading about a Dhamma concept one can get to this type of mindfulness.
When contemplating on bad consequences of mind-made pleasures, willingly giving up by comprehending their bad outcomes one is able to come to the higher levels of Jhana.
If one’s intention is to walk this Path, the focus should be something related to Nibbana. It could be a Dhamma concept or Nibbana itself. Focusing on the peacefulness of discarding sense pleasures can be done only when one comprehends the true meaning of anicca, dukkha, anatta. By being mindful the correct way, one can come to samma sati.

Your concentration can be on a concept in which case it is concentration without insight. Also you can concentrate on the ultimate realities in which case it is concentration with insight. Using the later you can reach Jhana also.
To have wise attention your mind should be in touch with the universal characteristics or free from the corruptions of insight (Vipallasa).

There seem to be a lot of disagreements about the very basic term "mindfulness".

Yes.

Yesterday I listened to a talk, where it was it was said that if one achieve total concentration on an object, there is no mindfulness.

This is wrong. 'Mindfulness' means 'to remember'; 'to keep in mind', 'to not be forgetful or negligent'.  Mindfulness is a factor or prerequisite of concentration. The goal of Buddhist meditation is to achieve total concentration on an appropriate object. Therefore, when there is total concentration on an object, there is also total mindfulness because the meditator does not forget their task, which is to concentrate on/be attentive of the object.

This makes sense to me, as ALL attention is on the subject and none
  is left to be mindful of what is going on

If all attention is not on the object, how can you know what is going on? For example, if you must babysit children but instead pay attention to the TV, how can you know what is going on with the children?

(it was also mentioned that there is no wisdom gained from this as it is from the moving, momentary concentration in mindfulness that one makes realizations about the four noble truths).

This is wrong. When then the mind remains unmoving on the breathing, the breathing calms & the mind feels peaceful. The wisdom that arises from this is the mind knows when it is free from craving & attachment (by being unmoving), the mind becomes peaceful. Therefore, the mind realises the four noble truths, namely, the giving up of craving & attachment by making the mind unmoving or empty leads to peace & the end of suffering.
In addition, when the mind remains unmoving on the breathing, it discerns the breathing is coming, going & changing; the mind discerns the body breathes rather than the 'self' breathes. Therefore, by remaining unmoving on the breathing, the mind gains the wisdom that the breathing is impermanent & not-self (anatta).

This is all in accordance with my understanding of the difference
  between concentration and mindfulness.

These views are not "understanding". In Buddhism, the word "understanding" means to know according to verified observed reality. These views are in accordance to your "ideas"or "views" rather than according to "understanding".

Then later at the evening I read an article by Ajahn Brahmavamso

In respect to meditation, AB should generally explains things correctly. If someone disagrees with AB about meditation, this should raise a red-flag of caution.

("The quality of mindfulness") where he says that "with development, you can experience immovable mindfulness.

Correct. The mind is always abiding in accordance with the Dhamma when it is mindful.

The mindfulness that is on one thing entirely...The Buddha said this reaches its peak in the fourth Jhanas".

I doubt mindfulness reaches its "peak" in the 4th jhana because the mindfulness of a 100% enlightened mind (Arahant) would be superior to the mindfulness of the 4th jhana of a 75% enlightened Non-Returner.
I would assume what occurs in the 4th jhana is mindfulness is the most "settled" & "unchallenged" it has been since the start of meditation because the pre-jhana hindrances & the 1st & 2nd jhana rapture that challenge the mind to lose mindfulness have been overcome.
In the 1st jhana, rapture "tempts" to mind to attach to & become infatuated with it and mindfulness must work in a very subtle manner to ensure the mind does not attach to & become infatuated with the rapture of the 1st jhana.
Therefore, in the 4th jhana, the mindfulness is pure & untroubled. It can completely rest, knowing its work has been perfectly done.
I would suggest this is what is meant by the statement "mindfulness reaches its peak in the 4th jhana". In the 4th jhana, mindfulness stands on the dais & has won the gold medal due to defeating all of its competitors & foes.

I have read and heard a thousand other places that this is what he
  said about samadhi (concentration).

The 4th jhana is described in the suttas:

With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, I entered upon and abided in the
  fourth jhāna, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of
  mindfulness due to equanimity. MN 4

And then, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain—as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress—the monk enters &
  remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain. His earlier perception of a refined truth
  of equanimity ceases, and on that occasion there is a perception of a
  refined truth of neither pleasure nor pain. On that occasion he is one
  who is percipient of a refined truth of neither pleasure nor pain. And
  thus it is that with training one perception arises and with training
  another perception ceases. DN 4

~~~

And that one of Buddhas main contributions was the introduction of sati/mindfulness which among other things makes one aware of impermanence.

This is not completely correct. Mindfulness is not awareness or observation. Mindfulness means 'to remember'. Mindfulness remembers to meditate without craving & attachment. When the mind is free from craving & attachment, it can naturally observe impermanence.
Before the Buddha, meditators had craving for & attachment to wrong concentration. They would keep suppressing down their mind to destroy whatever object was in the mind. Therefore, they were unable to observe impermanence clearly because they were attached to the goal of keeping the mind suppressed.

How should "immovable mindfulness" ever give any realization of impermanence...immovable means permanent.

If the mind is permanently mindful, it is permanently without unwholesome states & hindrance, i.e. permanently pure. By being permanently pure, it can observe the impermanence phenomena, such as the impermanence breathing, impermanent body, impermanent feelings, impermanent peceptions & impermanent sense consciousness. Whenever there are (wholesome) thoughts, it can also observe the impermanent thoughts.
As I have explained, 'right concentration' in Buddhism is to use mindfulness to keep the mind free from craving. Therefore, while the mind will be 'unmoving', it will be open,  flexible (sensitive) & clear.
Where as when there is 'wrong concentration', while the mind is also unmoving, it is rigid, forced & suppressed because it meditating with craving rather than letting go.
In SN 48.10, the Buddha clearly states jhana is attained by making "letting go" the meditation object. Please read this quote:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
  isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
  non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
  samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
  sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
  of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
  perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
  correct samadhi

He also says that "Once you know that type of mindfulness, then you
  know how ridiculous it is to think you can become Enlightened without
  Jhanas.

This is not completely correct. While jhanas are certainly necessary for 100% enlightenment, believing you must attain jhana before any enlightenment can occur is wrong understanding & a hindrance. A Stream-Enterer is 25% enlightened but has not yet reached jhana.

Without such powerful mindfulness you can't get the powerful
  insights".

True. But without less yet powerful insights, you can't get jhana. Therefore, the Dhammapada states, somewhere:

There is no jhana without wisdom & no wisdom without jhana.

To my knowledge Jhanas and one-pointedness (which I would call concentration) is not about insight.

In Buddhism, "knowledge" ("nanna") is again synonymous with insight. You are again expressing an idea or view here rather than "knowledge".
Jhanas & one-pointedness are about insight, as written in many suttas, such as AN 9.36 & MN 111:

I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.’ Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?
  There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded
  from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana:
  rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought
  & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected
  with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as
  inconstant, unsatisfactory, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an
  affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns
  his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his
  mind to the property of deathlessness: ‘This is peace, this is
  exquisite—the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of
  all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
  Nibbana.’

While in the jhanas, there is not the 100% insight of seeing manic impermanence in every moment, there is lots of insight in the jhanas, particularly into the unsatisfactoriness of rapture (which is very liberating) and into the entire not-self process of jhana.

To my knowledge Buddha, before he found the path to (his)
  enlightenment, was taught meditation techniques which aimed towards
  being completely absorbed, but that he found that this did not bring
  him what he searched for.

These techniques were 'wrong concentration' or 'wrong absorption', as I explained, because they were based in craving for & attachment to a certain state of non-thinking or quiet.

Isnt this one of the major points in buddhist teaching?

No.
The scriptures state after his failure, Gotama remembered back to when he was a child under the rose-apple tree, where he spontaneously entered into the 1st jhana. He remembered this occurred spontaneously, i.e., due to non-attachment & non-craving. Therefore, Gotama realised this non-attachment was the way to enlightenment (rather than attaching to the suppressed annihilated mind of wrong concentration/wrong absorption).

I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I
  entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by
  applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of
  seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following
  on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to
  enlightenment.’ MN 36

In conclusion, the teachers that teach against concentration do so because they have either never reached concentration or, otherwise, have achieved wrong concentration rather than right concentration.
MN 117 explains these right & wrong factors.

Mindfulness is attention of wholesome and unwholesome activities in day to day activities with your wisdom (Panna).  Mindfulness is movable from attention of one activity to another depending on the cause of the activity and its effect. When the cause of the activity ceases its effect ceases too.  This would clearly explain in Dependent Origination of Buddha’s teaching

By definition, something which is immovable cannot change. Therefore there is no such thing, as there is no thing which is not subject to change.
Were you to truly have immovable mindfulness, your mind would cease to be able to be unmindful. But since there is no such thing as a mind which is not subject to change, this is not possible.
Technically, when we talk about enlightenment, the texts describe it as permanent, which implies permanent mindfulness, but this is not that stage - this is still the stage of the Jhanas, which is not permanent.
By looking at the context, you can see that the Ajahn merely means "strong, not interruptable by insubstantial means". I believe it is merely a use of language which appears objective but is actually subjective.


text:
Skillful ways to induce Rapture and Pleasure in meditation
The fifth and six steps in Ananpansati, talk about training ones' self to be sensitive to these feelings,  how can a mediator do this and avoid the dangers of getting caught up in them?

As I understand the description of 'Rapture' in the sutta on "Supporting Conditions", one is not likely to become attached to it. It arises naturally with development, not by pursuing it, so it is unlikely to be pursued after experiencing.

You should absolutely learn to induce pleasure and rapture. In fact doing that is what first two jhanas are all about.
In the first jhana, you induce it by deliberately going over good, inspiring thoughts. These could be thoughts about the Buddha, or thoughts about your own attainments and realizations, or thoughts comparing your life with the life of sentient beings wandering in Samsara with no chance of encountering True Dharma. You can pick any topic as long as it is inspiring and in accordance with Dharma.
In the second jhana, you induce the joy silently and thoughtlessy, after having completely internalized the first Jhana, by focusing on the effortlessness of being convinced of your own fundamental goodness.

If the meditator is trying to "induce" rapture & pleasure, as taught by some meditation teachers, the meditator is already caught up in them.
Buddhism is not the same as the consumer culture, where pleasure is easily obtained.
True rapture & pleasure are a reward for right morality & noble selflessness (non-attachment).
The quality of mind & mindfulness described in the Anapanasati Sutta is as follows:

There is the
  case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening
  dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on
  cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops analysis of
  qualities as a factor for awakening... persistence as a factor for
  awakening... rapture as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on
  cessation, resulting in relinquishment... serenity as a factor
  for awakening... concentration as a factor for awakening... equanimity
  as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on
  dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment.

You simply have to know the presence of the sensation, know it is arising and passing and be equanimous without getting attached to it. Attachment to pleasant sensation gives arise to the unwholesome root of craving. [Pahāna Sutta]

There are two ways this can be interpreted;
1. Attaining the pleasurable feelings and gladness of and by means of subduing the hindrances
2. Pleasuring the mind by reflecting on wholesome and inspiring themes; this also induces wholesome states far removed from unskillful qualities.
Now as it seems to me #2 is included in #1 anyway and will generally come into play in the course of attaining to #1, having attained either one can be said to attain both.
As for the variety of pleasurable feelings to be experienced, the Theravadin Abhidhamma offers a seemingly reasonable system of classifications in the Dhammasanghani.
Therefore i think in practice one can only attain to a variety of pleasure based on sensuality and a range of pleasure not based on sensuality. The latter is attained by staying mindful, ardent & alert and at that time one may become percepient of a variety of pleasurable feelings which may or may not be accompanied by perception of lights & forms.
In another circumstance one may become aware & mindful of ill-will or discontentment being present in the mind, a mind with a hindrance; or that mind is sluggish and lazy. As one is thus obsessed by a hindrance or sluggishness one may address it by developing a rousing theme associated with pleasure like metta, appreciation or recollection of one's virtue or the Triple Gem before withdrawing from that theme in due time and having gladdened the mind.
As i see it, in practice these are the possible ways to gladden the mind. As for the intended meaning of the actual Sutta i think the meaning it is closer to #1 than #2.
A way of not getting caught up in them is as i understand it the reflecting on the mind as it is released and straightening of views supported by reflection.

If you want to experience rapture and pleasure you must work yourself up to attain first jhana.

[FIRST JHANA]
"There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality,
  withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first
  jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by
  directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses
  and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from
  withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture
  and pleasure born from withdrawal.
"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath
  powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again
  and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated,
  moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not
  drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body
  with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of
  his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from
  withdrawal...
-- Jhana

The practice of metta for all human beings brought me to this experinece [although temporary]. I felt withdrawn from my surroundings with a sense of compassion for human beings. More concentrated, compared to my materialistic way of life. I felf pleasure and rapture in my [almost] entire body.
This Metta actually changes your POV in life. You can actually become a spiritual being, a real humanitarian in the true sense of the term.
The feeligs of rapture and pleasure become present in your heart as you develop love and your heart becomes cleansed from materialistic dirt. This is experiental statement and it cannot be understood by reading; you must gain experience. At the same time, as stated in the quote above, you become withdrawn from worldly affairs. So please do practice Metta for your own beneft.
If you get caught up in the feeligs of rapture and pleasure, you will stop your practice. This is expected in the beginning, when you experience apture and pleasure for the first time and start making new ideas of self. My advice is to steadily continue your practice and become more experienced and intelligent.

I enjoy the rapture/pleasure that arises during meditation but I agree that it is dangerous to try to create it or to despair that after a long session 'rewards' were not forthcoming. I wasted 15 years trying to skillfully induce results in meditation!

Here are EBT (early buddhist text) sutta passages that explain how one produces piti/rapture, and the nearly synonymous mudita, pamojja (altruistic joy).
http://lucid24.org/sted/7sb/4piti/book/index.html
Ajahn Lee's book "Keeping the breath in mind" is a classic, this is my personal favorite book on breath meditation.
His student, the famous B. Thanissaro also has an excellent book on breath meditation, "with each and every breath",  I'd say the most complete and authentic EBT guide to breath meditation in existence.
(Just google those authors and titles for the various free ebook formats pdf, epub, etc)
Now if you're really serious about your spiritual practice, and you want to experience 2nd jhana and higher, with a very powerful piti (rapture) and pleasure (sukha), you're going to need to keep 8 precepts, celibacy, lots of noble silence, and at least 4 hours a day of quiet meditation (sitting or standing). That will charge up your jhana battery. Otherwise, living an ordinary worldly lifestyle, people have weak batteries and are constantly draining their batteries through sex, sensual pleasures, talking too much,  and the pitisukha in meditation may be too weak to be felt as anything unusual.
That's the secret sauce that most teachers don't know or don't teach. Since monastics have to keep 8 precepts anyway, then that's just normal for them and no need to ever mention. But for lay people, you're never going to experience strong forceful piti sukha unless you nurture the battery and charge it up.


text:
Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha?
Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha? If so, are there any evidences of it. How about the finding of Buddhist Stupas and Idols in Harappa civilization?Is it linked with this fact?

kindly please refer to this answer

Endless before and endless to come, consider infinite space/time and the cyclical/dynamic/(I-change, I-ching 易經) of the cosmos(es). For instant, 大通智勝佛 (Buddha MahaPrajna?) spent 10 Kalpas in Samadhi to acquire the Buddha Dharma is one other than the 27.

Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha?
Yes, the Buddha speaks of them in his suttas, many of them from different times/planets throughout the universe(s).
If so, are there any evidences of it.
Other than the suttas themselves, yes in various other religious traditions.
How about the finding of Buddhist Stupas and Idols in Harappa civilization? Is it linked with this fact?
Yes it could be but rather than spending our lifetime endlessly trying to settle historical matters and learn other histories, let us be grateful for what the Gautama Buddha has provided us: a complete, methodical practice towards Enlightenment. We will need to devote whatever spare time aside from job and other duties to achieve what he achieved and the Buddhas after him (Padmasambhava). The other Buddhisms that stemmed from Hinayana Buddhism suggest there is a greater journey towards Complete Enlightenment and complete power, even after initial srotipanna and escaping the force of rebirth.
No need to excavate skeletons--it was hard enough for the Buddha to leave behind what he has and those after him.

The teaching/practice is more important than history, agree. Unless one developed the Iddhi ability to know directly, else history is just another one telling his version of the story. However, I wonder if Padmasambhava should be regarded as - in the official sequential of Buddhas in our Loka? Padma. is Bud. Shakyamuni in some tradition. Sutra 《佛説千佛因緣經》translated Kumarajiva, few pages only, lists thousand Buddhas and the previous Buddha Dipamkara etc. with very interesting accounts of them.

Please quote all of these suttas where the Buddha speaks of past Buddhas. Thanks

@Dhammadhatu If someone convicted to a dictionary that has only collection of A to D the rest E to Z missing, it's futile to reconcile the knowledge on E to Z; Sutra name provided in previous comment. Buddha Dipamkara must have been mentioned in the Pali Sutta as if words of C shared among these two dictionaries. Buddha 樓至 doesn't, same as words of K can't be found in one of the dictionaries.

@Dhammadhatu It's better to be a Buddhavacana-mysophobe than the fanatics though. Fanatics were the material used by the ambitious to trumpet the Crusade/Holy War. Fanatics lose their mind of discern, the elementary instruction of the Buddha to his students. Even the lame Wikipedia has collected some insights on pre-sectarian Buddhism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism, read those others with discern, than believed in blind faith on the promoted Theosophist Edward Conze's.

Yes there were three Buddha's before Gautam Buddha and they were all historical persons . If you read the travel record of Fahian and huen tsang they clearly write that we have visited the stupa of Kakusandh Buddha , and Kassapa Buddha .  King Asok in his Nigliwa inscription write "here at this place I doubled the size of stupa of Konagaman Buddha " . This is a very clear Indication that Kakusandh Buddha , Konagaman Buddha , Kassapa Buddha were real historical persons and this fact link Buddhist religion with Indus Valley .

Personally, I do not believe there were any Buddhas before Gotama.
This is why there is probably no evidence.
The idea of past Buddhas is found only a few suttas among thousands, where, in those suttas, the technology mentioned, such as chariot-making or potting, was the same as in the Buddha's time.

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


text:
What would happen if everyone became a monk or nun?
Theravada Buddhism holds that achieving nirvana is impossible for a lay person, hence my question.

"When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Blessed One: “Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering?”
“Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering".

MN 71  (Tevijjavaccha-suttaṃ)

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you provide a source for the statement; "Theravada Buddhism holds that achieving nirvana is impossible for a lay person". Thank you.

Within hours of becoming an Arahant, s/he will have to leave the lay life behind and become a Bhikkhu/ni. A lay person cannot survive for long, once an Arahant, due to the overbearing power of  that state.

See also Should a Buddhist have Children? which asks, "what happens if all people in the world stop having children?"

The distinguishing principle in the quote from MN 71 is:

'without abandoning the fetter of householdership'

I would assume (I will research later) 'the fetter' of householdship refers to concerns about & bondage to family, etc, as written in many suttas with the stock phrase:

...dwelling in a home crowded with children, enjoying Kasian sandalwood, wearing garments, scents and unguents, receiving good &
  silver... AN 8.54; Ud 6.2; SN 55.7; SN 55.53

A layperson can abandon 'the fetter' of householdership, as explained in the Haliddakani Sutta, which describes the 'household life' is a state of mind rather than a state of physical habitation:

The property of form, householder, is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form,
  it is said to be living at home. The property of feeling...
  perception... fabrication is the home of consciousness. When
  consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of
  fabrication, it is said to be dwelling at home.
"And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,
  or obsessions with regard to the property of form: these the Tathagata
  has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
  deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
  arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.
"Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to the
  property of feeling... perception... fabrication...
"Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to the
  property of consciousness: these the Tathagata has abandoned, their
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the
  Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.
"And how does one live with society? One who is in bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions is said to be living in
  society. One who is in bondage to the distraction of the society of
  sound-impressions... aroma-impressions... flavor-impressions...
  tactile-sensation-impressions... idea-impressions is said to be living
  in society. This is how one lives with society.
"And how does one live free from society? The Tathagata has abandoned bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions, its
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the
  Tathagata is said to be living free from society.
"The Tathagata has abandoned bondage to the distraction of the society of sound-impressions... aroma-impressions...
  flavor-impressions... tactile-sensation-impressions...
  idea-impressions, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
  deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
  arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be living free from
  society.
"And how is one intimate in villages? There is the case where a certain person lives entangled with householders. Delighting together
  with them, sorrowing together with them, happy when they are happy,
  pained when they are pained, he takes on any of their arisen business
  affairs as his own duty. This is how one is intimate in villages.
"And how is one not intimate in villages? There is the case where a monk lives unentangled with householders. Not delighting together with
  them, not sorrowing together with them, not happy when they are happy,
  not pained when they are pained, he does not take on any of their
  arisen business affairs as his own duty. This is how one is not
  intimate in villages.

Therefore, a layperson can end suffering (generally regarded to the degree of a Non-Returner).

A layperson does not necessarily have to be a householder. A layperson is not necessarily  clinging to a house if they live in a house. One can hold something but still not cling to it. When I use the word "hold" here, I mean to "have something" or "feel something" or "use something" without clinging to it, like for instance, "one can have love for a parent without clinging to the parent".

Indeed. Your answer is correct. I have answered in the same way as you, however from the suttas. Regards

It is not possible every person to become a monk or nun.
It is same as not every person become a doctor or nurse.
Only few people have the faith and energy to become a monk or nun.


text:
Must Lay Arahants become Buddhist Monks?
A lay person who becomes an Arahant must become a monk or they will die?
Can anyone explain what this teaching means?
Do they have to become a Buddhist Monk?
Can they just leave the world and become a hermit?
Could it be appropriate to just die and enter parinibbana?

If and when a lay-follower attains arahant-ship, he or she has to either enter the Order that very day or else must attain parinibbàna. This is a Dhammata. This is conformity to the Dhammaniyāma – a general rule in Dhamma.
This is discussed in the Milindapanha, which is a set of three Buddhist books that records the dialogues between the Indian monk Nagasena and the Indo-Greek king Milinda.

Milinda: "You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attain parinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it."
Nagasena: "The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die."

Where is it said the ideal of Nagasena is  Dhammata in conformity to Dhammaniyāma? Thanks

I wonder what Pali word is used for "layman"?

@UUU One of the words is gahapati

We say Upāsaka (male) or Upāsikā (female) for lay followers. These terms come from the Sanskrit and Pāli . This is the title of followers of Buddha and His Dhamma. Upāsaka and Upāsikā  are part of Ariya Sangha, once in the Path.  The Ariya Sangha is described as "the four" when taken as pairs, and as "the eight" when taken as individuals.

A lay person who becomes an Arahant must become a monk or they will die?

This is not by the Buddha but by Bhikkhu Nagasena in the Milindapanha (refer to Wikipedia).
Bhikkhu Nagasena was the monk who gave the illogical & false analogy of the candle flame to explain reincarnation.

Can anyone explain what this teaching means?

I suppose it means when all craving ends, life becomes totally meaningless thus you decide to die (like the silent Buddhas who entered into a mountain & were never seen again in MN 116) or you decide to join the Sangha to help other monks & people attain enlightenment.

Do they have to become a Buddhist Monk?

Probably not.

Can they just leave the world and become a hermit?

Probably, yes.

Could it be appropriate to just die and enter parinibbana?

Yes, particularly if there is no students capable of entering the noble path to teach.
However, a lay arahant could probably choose to live for many reasons, such out of compassion for his mother if his mother is alive, so to not cause his mother distress.

To me, The Dhamma can seem quite illogical all the time if I am just reading the words that point to the Dhamma. I don"t know why he would teach "reincarnation" unless he was making some kind of comparison or something.

Death seen by Ariya is quite different from the ordinary people. Arahant know the value of nibbana best. To carry the burden of the rupa and nama for samsara is dreadful which is viewed only by Ariya.

My person is not sure about "on that very day" and sees the "seven days", mentioned in the Suttas more resasonable.
As quoted by Upasaka Saptha Visuddhi in the anicent discussion, the relations within a householder-life, the regards are to weak to supporting, now having perfect virtue, since it's not likely that he may be proper offered what is required to support further life.
My person is also not sure about the saying "must join the order" in a formal sense, but of cause lead a live similar in it's way. Yet it might be "hard" to even get such as robe and bowl, not to speak of being far from people not used, not rejoicing, on special beggars.
It might be that one lives in association with virtuous people who might recognice or know or it might be, that one lives on ten precepts, yet wearing white, since a longer, used to proper live on alms.
How ever, this things are very rare and dhammata, usually, seven days without support might mark the end of the bodies abilities.

Pabbajjākathā
  The Discussion of Going-forth
(Mv.I.7.12) The money-lender saw Yasa sitting there and on seeing him said to him, “Yasa, my son, your mother is lamenting and full of grief. Give your mother her life (back?)!”
(Mv.I.7.13) Then Yasa looked up at the the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One said to the money-lender, “What do you think, householder: For Yasa, who has seen and known the Dhamma with the knowledge and vision of one in training — just as you have — whose mind, as he reflected on the level (of mind) as he had seen and known it, was through lack of clinging/sustenance released from effluents: Would it be possible for him to revert to the lower life and indulge in sensuality as he did before as a householder?”
“No, lord.”
“Householder, Yasa has seen and known the Dhamma with the knowledge and vision of one in training, just as you have.
“Reflecting on the level (of mind) as he had seen and known it, his mind was, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released from effluents.
“It would be impossible for Yasa to revert to the lower life and indulge in sensuality as he did before as a householder.”
(Mv.I.7.14) [The money-lender:] “Lord, it’s a gain for Yasa, a great gain for Yasa, that his mind is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released from effluents!
“May the Blessed One acquiesce to my meal tomorrow, with Yasa as your attendant monk.”
The Blessed One acquiesced with silence.
Then the money-lender, understanding the Blessed One’s acquiescence, got up from his seat, bowed down to him, circumambulated him, keeping him to his right, and left.
(Mv.I.7.15) Then Yasa, not long after the money-lender had left, said to the Blessed One,
“May I receive the Going-forth in the Blessed One’s presence? May I receive the Acceptance?”
“Come, monk.” Said the Blessed One. “The Dhamma is well-taught. Live the holy life.”
Such was the venerable one’s Acceptance. At that time there were seven arahants in the world.

There have been mentions in the text where even Once-returner could not continue ordinary life as usual and starved. My person remembers a young daughter, on hearing the Dhamma been taught, for example.
One may ask: "How comes that one is in such situation?"
Well, it might be the case that there was not much support and nurishment to have the required Upanissaya (strong condition) to have the "luck" being next to the opportunity to go forth. And one might remember that giving food, is the cause of long life.
Outwardly conditions (like food, weather/climate, person/association, dwelling/location) are a matter of upanissayapaccaya, strong condition causes. Having given causes, effects are met.
This to is why wise or faithful lay practing people never fail to invest into a good future, even if not seeing such requirement of the need to have the opportunities to lead the holy life, and give the causes that the/a good Sangha of Bhikkhus is near to them and good maintained.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]