text:
Can the substantiality of phenomena ever be conclusively ruled out through Buddhist practice?
I can see how one can develop, through one's practice, a very high degree of confidence in the truth of emptiness through inferring from the conditioned nature of phenomena, their impermanence, their dependence on a perceiving consciousness, and on the need for memory and intelligence in order to recognize them as existent, but is it possible to ever be 100% certain? Who's to say the Higgs Boson isn't the fundamental, truly existent building block of matter that can never be further reduced, even if quantum physics tells us it's in superposition when not interacting with an observer?

Enlightenment happen when knowledge is certain (such knowledge is usually called jñāna), so practice is supposed to provide result as 100% certain knowledge, in regard to what is also required to cease defilements and suffering. Knowledge about 'everything in the World' is not included in that. (Maybe Buddha knows all that, though.)

Who's to say the Higgs Boson isn't the fundamental, truly existent
  building block of matter that can never be further reduced, even if
  quantum physics tells us it's in superposition when not interacting
  with an observer?

Higgs Boson is a concept. And, as with any concept, we can invent into concepts any idea whatsoever, with any property we can imagine. What is constructed (and thus empty) in Higgs Boson is it's conceptuality, the way how that knowledge is reached.

The Buddhist equivalent of the Higgs Boson is Atta Kalapa. Though the practice of Vippassana you will be able to start seeing the arising and passing away of such particles. There is vast emptiness between the particles which we call ourselves. (There may be other doctrines of emptiness.) There particles arise and passes away. (Hence there is some substance through there seam to be energy and matter duality.) These particles are not under our control as we cannot manipulate this process at this lowest level through will hence we cannot associate ourself with such process which we have not mastery or control over and trying to do so out of ignorance result in misery. Since our metal image of our self and any sense of ownership of such rapidly changing cluster of phenomena over which we do not have absolute control would entail that there will be many occasions where there is a gap with our metal image and reality resulting in unsatisfactoriness.
Observation of these phenomena is possible by sharpening your mind. For this you should be passive with respect to the process of observations. But active and ardent in the methodology and practice of observation.
Revisiting the energy and matter duality: Some times phenomena are vibrating and gaseous, sometimes they are like liquid in nature with more cohesion and flowing, sometimes they tend to be solid and less vibrations and even more cohesive, also the presence of heat alters state of phenomena and vibrations.


text:
What is the origin and purpose of the alms bowl used by monastics?
How did this practice originate and what is the meaning/purpose for it's use?

The origin story can be found in the mahavagga, where after the Buddha considered that receiving alms with hands isnt' prper for an Arahat the Gods gave him such to receive.

(Disclaimer: I'm going to answer this pragmatically and straightforwardly without any reference since I think it doesn't require any. There may be memorable stories about the bowl but I don't think they are really necessary to explain it. Feel free to discard the answer.)
The alms-bowl serves the purpose of helping one carry the food & prevent spoiling it with external dirt. If you went on alms-round with your hands it wouldn't be helpful for yourself or for the lay people as it would create hygiene problems. It also helps one measure the amount of food to accept, whether it's only for himself or also for others with whom he shares the food.
(As the comments below show, the next paragraph is not applicable, since monks should hide their bowls under their robes until they know someone intends to give.)
Additionally, it helps other people identify readily what the person with the bowl wants, food. In other words, if one carries a bowl around, instead of a hat or any kind of cloth, it is more straightforward what he wants. If one carries a hat or any kind of cloth, it is easier to perceive that he wants money or something else apart from food.
As for it's origin, if I wanted food I would also use a bowl. Why would I use anything else? With this I mean that the origin is not necessarily something special or traditional, it's just a pragmatic tool that anyone who wants food would use.

Just a note that Buddhist monks aren't supposed to show the bowl until they are aware of the desire to offer food.

I wasn't aware of that. Thank you. Can you give a reference? If that is so, I wonder, how does the desire to offer food appear in people if the monk can't show his bowl or give any clue he wants food? If a monk is just standing there or passing by without showing the bowl, why would people even stop to talk if they have no reason to interact?

Cv VIII.5 'When food is being given to him, he should lift up his robe (Samghâti) with his left hand so as to disclose his bowl, take the bowl in both his hands, and receive the food into it.' The idea is to only take food from those looking to give, rather than hinting with the bowl.

Thank you for the reply. If a monk is in the street standing, how does he know who's willing to give? I can only envision a passer-by asking out of curiosity why he is wearing robes and that leads the monk to disclose his livelihood. Is this how it goes?

You don't just stand by the side of the road, you walk through the streets, checking to see if anyone is offering food. It is a technically passive practice, otherwise it would involve greed.

Thank you for the reply. Standing or walking, the question still stands though, how does the monk know who's willing to give? I can only envision a passer-by asking out of curiosity why he is wearing robes and that leads the monk to disclose his livelihood. But in this case, since he is walking, the passer-by might not even ask since it seems the monk is going somewhere. On a side note, what do you mean by "technically"? Please don't take these questions the wrong way, I'm just trying to understand how the alms-round goes with a hidden bowl. Maybe this should be taken to the chat or elsewhere.

Well, practically most monks probably want food, so it's only technically passive, but the point is to allow for a non-greed based practice, so it must be technically passive. There are guidelines on stopping and waiting to see if someone is giving. See the cula-vagga: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe20/sbe20083.htm

I still haven't found how the monk knows if someone wants to give food but I'll try and find it some other way. Thank you for the replies. I added a note above due to these comments. May you be well.

The Origin:
As I know the origin goes, before the Buddha's enlightenment. According to the legend,
Siddhartha Gautama in seeking Enlightenment sat under the spreading bowers of a giant Nuga Tree lying close to the bank of river Neranjana. Then the daughter to the village chief name "Sujatha" offered a bowl filled with rice, thinking he was the divinity of the tree (You could read the full story here.
Purpose:

Collect alms for one or more than one monk. For instance if another monk is too sick to go on alms rounds
Server as a kind of suitcase, specially for the forest monks. They can keep all the robes inside the bowl and keep it away from the rain or the small animals(Insect, Mice)
Very practical object a symbol

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mind-Stream Continuum's Origination?
What is the origination of the mind-stream continuum? What are the basic elements that make up the mind-stream continuum?

Gautama never described an origin. Whether existence had a beginning or end was never defined. Some traditions have taken to saying "beginningless." So if mindstreams have a beginning, the Buddha never said so. The asker was either told that the answer was irrelevant to liberation (hence not worth answering) or that the question did not apply.
The Pali canon relies on dependent origination for explaining where minds come from, but does not describe mindstreams themselves. Later commentators, such as Asanga and and Vasubandhu of the Yogacara school of thought would expound on additional layers of conciousness. From my experience, most talk of mindstreams take their source as the alaya-vijnana; itself a term that has been mentioned by some contemporary Theravadin monks (Ajahn Geoff and Ajahn Sujato).
I believe the orthodox Theravada response would be the parable of the poison arrow, and Mahayana responses would depend on the proclivities of the instructor. A Yogacarin would describe the features of the alaya-vijnana and a Madhyamika (in a Tibetan tradition) would conclude that mindstreams simply are (in conventional terms at least; illusory "like a city of gandharvas" in an ultimate sense).
There is no set "Buddhist" answer here, unfortunately.

the madhyamika would say simply that its one of the 5 elements that neither have been arisen nor will they cease.so it simply has always existed.dependant origination or momentariness is an upaya in madhyamaka.in reality nothing originates and thus nothing ceases(everything that originates must cease).in Dzogchen wich basis itself on madhyamika,it is one of the 5 personal wisdom lights reified mistakenly into 5 elements.these wisdom lights have always existed and will always exist.

the Vajrayana view based on Madhyamaka would be that each sentient being has a basis,wich is a term for the collection of the 5 wisdom lights together,wich have been reified as 5 elements by the sentient being.one of those elements is Space or awareness wich form the mindstream of a person.nothing arises and nothing ceases.so the mindstream has always existed thru beginingless ignorance,since the 5 wisdoms are reified mistakenly into 5 elements by the deluded mind since beginingless time.a Buddha is simply someone that recognizes these elements as lights and as empty in Vajrayana and Dzogchen.

the Only Difference between Nirvana and Samsara is thus perspective.this knowledge of them as 5 empty lights is nonconceptual and experiential ,wich is why practice is necassery for Buddhahood.a 16th bhumi Buddha has simply recongized this fact.this recognition is why the Adi Buddha woke up when beings got dejected from the deva heaven after prayala and karma set in to make us as regressive buddhalike devas regress back into Samsara.there is no nirvana without Samsara in mahayana and Vajrayana.there is no end to the 5 wisdoms.as something that doesnt arise cant cease.

Mind is a created thing, further conditioned by experience. The “mind stream” actually isn’t mind at all, since mind is completely dropped in Nibbana. The “unborn, deathless” is what, I think, you are referring to. The unborn is not a static “state”. It flows. In ignorance it flows, creating mind. That-which-flows identifies with mind, creating ego. That-which-flows does not at this point have awareness of itself. That awareness doesn’t happen until one achieves stream entry, the first insight into self-realization. The fruits of stream entry are well known. But when this stage is passed through, one has the “turning in consciousness” spoken of, i.e., full self-realization. I know I am somewhat off the point here, but bear with me, as I think this gives a fuller appreciation of the difference in mind and that-which-flows. When one awakens and reaches Nibbana, mind is dropped but not abandoned completely, else one could not come back and function. Rather, mind changes. A new awareness, of which that-which-flows has achieved, now occupies the mind. (This is obvious from the fact that the mind is created by that-which-flows.) Lastly, you might ask how the unborn flows when it is beyond both time and space. Think of the flow as movement of awareness. It’s not exactly that, but that is a good metaphor for it. Another way is to ask yourself if insight flows. YES! It does. That is what I mean.

In my understanding:
Mind-stream continuum originates from the growth and evolution of tendencies. It is created by the same mechanism that lies behind "the natural evolution of species".
(Phenomena that create causes that either support their continued existence or aid future arising of similar phenomena tend to "survive" and "procreate". These are called tendencies.)
Most phenomena carry imprints of other phenomena, one way or another. Carrying imprints they carry information about (or representation of) other phenomena. These are the basic building blocks mind is made of.
Phenomena that carry imprints of other phenomena can also happen to be like that, cyclical self-supporting tendencies. The more imprints they accumulate, the better their odds for continuation and accumulation of even more imprints.
The rest is explained in the Twelve Nidanas. The cyclical tendency becomes habit to seek similar imprints. This iteratively grows until it becomes an ability to recognize.
Once there's recognition, there's association. Once there's association, there's interpretation of signs. Once there's interpretation of signs there's citta-vrti, the associative loop. Here we go, this is a full-blown Mind-stream.

the mindstream is merely a element(consciousness) like earth,water,fire,air etc it has always existed and will always exist.it is one of the 5 wisdom lights in vajrayana wich has always existed and will always exist.Vajrayana basis itself on madhyamika,and in madhyamika nothing arises and nothing ceases.dependant arising is an upaya in a sence.the 5 wisdom lights are reified as elements thru (beginingless)ignorance of their true nature,the only difference between a 16th bhumi buddha and a ignorant being is nonconceptual(that is experiential knowledge thus) knowledge of their true nature as empty and as wisdom lights basically according to Dzogchen and mahamudra.
the 5 wisdoms are personal and unique to every sentient being,together they form the basis(Gzhi).there are infinite basises(meaning every sentient being has one basis known also as mind,also known as 5 wisdoms) unique to infinite sentient beings.basically sentient beings have always existed and will always exist.
the reason we percieve the same universe is explained by a container universe yogacara model in vajrayana.
people think madhyamika is saying nothing exists.or that its Nihilism.it isn't saying that.simply that reality is nonestablished and is a contradiction in itself and that it is not arisen .it is simply saying that there is no absolute,without its relative parts and thus there can never be said to be a independant absolute entity.thats it.madhyamika is pretty simple and logical.

"the mindstream is merely a element(consciousness) like earth,water,fire,air etc it has always existed and will always exist." Does the mindstream, as you define it, exist for one who has taken paranibbana?

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

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


text:
How does one do an "eye opening" for a new statue?
What the actual words or at least the structure of of the ceremony/ritual?
I'm particularly interested from the Mahayana East Asian standpoint (Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese/Japanese) However, I don't speak or read any of those languages.
It may or may not be relevant, but I have a Samantabhadra, Kwan Yin, Medicine Buddha and a Shakyamuni statue.

afaik, the eye opening is done only after the statue filling ritual is completed. During the filling ritual the face of the Buddha has to be covered and only at the end the face is revealed. Traditionally, some would paint the Buddha's face only after the filling is done. Nowadays it is rather difficult, so the statues are purchased with the faces painted and then the filling ritual is done. Are your statues filled already?

They were made by what appears to be a secular company in China. They're solid- as far as  I can tell- so probably not filled with mini-sutras.

Normally you can't buy an already filled statue. If you didn't fill it yourself, it is most probably not filled. A statue should be hollow inside so that one can fill it and then perform eye-opening ritual. At least in Tibetan Buddhism.

@Rabbit can you post an answer, just for format's sake?

My answer refers to Tibetan Buddhism, I am not sure whether the same applies to other traditions.
Eye opening ritual is the final stage of a statue filling ritual. A newly bought statue is hollow inside and its base can be opened with a tool. If one sells an already filled statue, it is a good practice to ask in what circumstances it has been filled.
During the statue filling ritual the face of the Buddha is covered. Traditionally, the face wasn't even painted before the statue has been filled. In this case the eye-opening ceremony involved adding the actual eyes to complete the statue. Nowadays it is difficult since many statues are acquired in Asian countries to be sold in the West.
To fill the statue one needs a special transmission to do so. In the West various local Buddhist centres organize statue filling events so that people can bring their own statues and have them traditionally filled. You can see a photo relation from one of such events. I have never heard of anyone filling the statue without receiving special instructions.
Personally I own a two statues. One has been bought and filled in Germany and the second one was bought in Kathmandu and filled in a local monastery. I uncovered the eyes only when it safely arrived to my home and I placed it on my altar. I've been told it is a good practice to cover the eyes of the Buddha during the travel and open it only when you can place the statue at it's final destination.

In Thailand you can take to the Abbot in a temple. They will do a blessing and open the eye. I have one Buddha I took to the temple In Koh Phangan and the Abbot actually drew on the Buddhas eyes and also applied powder to the base. Other temples have simply blessed and made chants.
Most importantly is they way you feel about your Buddha and how you respect it. It is different for everyone but my Buddhas are special.


text:
What is taught about Buddha nature in Theravada Buddhism?
Reference: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot02.htm
The very last row talks about Buddha Nature. According to this page, Buddha Nature is not taught in Theravada Buddhism, and to my understanding, Buddha Nature is the potential for a being to become Enlightened. Is there any reason why the potential to become Enlightened isn't taught? It seems - to me - to be common sense that anyone can find their way to become Enlightened. After all, the Buddha is an example of what all beings could become.
Is my understanding of Buddha Nature wrong or is there more to this than I'm seeing regarding how Theravada Buddhism incorporates this in their teachings?

Tathagatagarbha is a huge topic-- many formulations, starting with optimism about the ability to achieve enlightenment, up to a reframing of the goal (from becoming enlightened to merely recognizing it already is true) and in some formulations, essentially positing an eternal soul, except argued from a Buddhist standpoint. In the pre-Mahayana, this was debates about squaring no-self with reincarnation.

Something may be not taught because it's not required in particular teaching approach. It may be required in other approach, then it's taught.

Consider this: Theravada posits Nirvana as a remote goal, while Mahayana posits Buddha-Nature as self-existing state of affairs. This is the key.
The reason Gautama Buddha declared Nirvana, is because he was modeling the Path after his own quest. Because he achieved his Enlightenment after having gone through numerous trainings and realizing Three Marks of Existence, Twelve Nidanas and Four Noble Truths, he saw that all students must go through similar experiences in order to achieve the same Liberation. Indeed, for someone without basic discipline, critical thinking skills, and capacity for self-reflection, attaining Buddha-Eye is outright impossible.
By the time of Mahayana though, because Buddhism became very popular and the essence of Teaching was somewhat lost in the noise of speculative philosophy and esoteric speculation, many new students would become obsessed with the idea of Nirvana, and instead of training the skilfull qualities of mind required for Enlightenment, would engage in fruitless search of Transcendental Realization. Out of compassion for future seekers, Bodhisattvas established the notion of Buddha Nature, openly declaring that Enlightenment is not something remote you have to attain, but rather one's innate nature to be recovered.
So Buddha-Nature is basically Nirvana or Enlightenment, except now you know you already have it, and only need to open your eyes, instead of running around the world seeking it. That said, you still have to work on dropping all attachments, deconstructing the ego, and becoming the master of your mind/emotions before you can take legal ownership of your rightful possession :)

That is because the main goal of Theravada practice is the state of Liberation (Arhathood), being free from first of the two veils (the veil of disturbing emotions). But reaching full Enlightenment (realizing Buddha-nature), when both veils are removed (the second veil is stiff ideas), becomes a topic only in Mahayana. That is because Bodhichitta, the great motivation for the sake of all beings, is an integral part of Buddha-nature and it is not stressed in Theravada tradition.

Theravada couldn't have all the possible teachings, so it has only some of them. The teaching about the Buddha nature probably didn't seem necessary at the time of Buddha.
It was rather obvious that practitioners could follow the eightfold path and come to awakening (Arahantship & Buddhahood). It was mentioned in Pali suttas, e.g. in Maha-parinibbana sutta (see the last talk of Buddha, with Subhadda the Hermit).
So the need to introduce "Buddha nature" developed later. As dialog develops, it often happens that more ideas need to be articulated to help people understand well. That's why Mahayana teachings developed, and they continue to develop nowadays.
For example, when I explain Dharma, I often use language, ideas and pictures which didn't exist in Buddha's times. I speak about objects compared to their photographs, and it makes easier to understand, for example, Diamond sutra, Two truths and the like.
Thus the concept of Buddha nature developed with time, maybe as a pinnacle of explanation of why everything. Indeed, limited people have limited views and goals. We do something because we want something, we are attached or repulsed, and so on. But why would Buddha act? If he isn't limited, free from wishes, from attachments and repulsions?
If you say Buddha acts for the sake of other beings, then please recall that beings are illusory, and suffering is illusory...
It's not easy to understand: why do anything, what could be the goal, if there is no attachment, no limits...
So as understanding of illusory nature of delusions developed - helping people to practise efficiently - the need to understand what is natural developed too.
If you are interested to understand Buddha nature in the context of the three main philosophical schools of Mahayana, and their application to Zen practice, see:
Master Chi Chern. Immaculate Self-Nature

As a Theravadan ive made the mistake of thinking Buddha Nature is just "everyone's ability to become awakened".  There is apparently more to it then that but im in no way qualified to explain that as I have much to learn about it myself.
As for Theravada it is true as far as I have seen in my years of study and practice that "buddha nature" is not taught.  However the Buddha says many times in the suttas that everyone has the ability to become awakened bases on their own effort and practice in this very life,  so in that sense everyone has a "buddha nature".
Also it may be important to note the differences between arahants and buddhas between the traditions.  In Theravada the only difference between a buddha and an arahant is that a buddha finds the path on their own when it has been lost,  there is no difference between a buddha and an arahant in terms of wisdom/ability etc in Theravada,  not so in Mahayana.

"there is no difference between a buddha and an arahant in terms of wisdom/ability etc in Theravada" - This is not true. Read about the "Shad-asadharana Nana". There are 73 types of Nanas(knowledge/Wisdom) in total. An Arahath can only achieve 67 of them.

I will check it out as ive never heard of this before. My response comes directly from Bhikkhu Bodhi's audio series(The buddhas teaching as it is)  on the basics of theravada Buddhism.

What he's probably saying must be that the enlightenment of the Buddha and the Arahaths are the same. Not wisdom/ability. The 73 Nanas of the Buddha is a commonly taught subject by Sri Lankan Theravada monks.

The short answer is that the Buddha is omniscient. Arahaths are not. An Arahath may not even have any special powers.

@SankhaKulathantille Can you please explain what is meant by "Buddha is omniscient. Arahaths are not"... Thanks!

@Parag, read (e) and (f)

I have not read the Buddha says many times in the suttas that everyone has the ability to become awakened, In fact, I have read the Buddha said the opposite of this in MN 26 (parable of the lotuses) and AN 10.95. Regards


text:
How does one become a lay Buddhist?
I'm well aware that there are many different types of Buddhism, so I'm looking for the fortune-cookie sized description of the various kinds of induction/process/rituals/ceremony involved for the lay follower.

For Theravada and some Mahayana traditions becoming a lay Buddhist is as simple as taking refuge in the Triple Gem of the Buddha,  Dhamma, Sangha and taking the 5 precepts. This is usually at a ceremony and "given" by the monks however the true taking  of refuge is something done in the mind,  not recited or given.
You are in short taking refuge, showing trust in the Buddha and his awakening,  the dhamma as the truth,  and the sangha as the keepers of that path,  more specifically the aryan(awakened)  Sangha and also all monastics.  Then you attempt to live a more skillful life that is beneficial to yourself and others by following the precepts to the best of your ability.
The ceremony usually involves a recitation in the Pali for Theravadan or the cultural language for the Mahayana.
This link to Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on the subject is great for further reading on the subject.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html
Going for refuge,  recited x3
Buddham saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Buddha;
Dhammam saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Dhamma;
Sangham saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Sangha.
And precepts:
(1) the training rule of abstaining from taking life;
(2) the training rule of abstaining from taking what is not given;
(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;
(4) the training rule of abstaining from false speech; and
(5) the training rule of abstaining from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.

Perhaps worth mentioning is that the precepts are for one's own benefit, and are most helpful if taken daily (just for yourself). So done with the monks or not, it is a tool we use remind ourselves how to skilfully lead our lives, that day, every day.

Great answer and also true of Vajrayana as well (at least from personal experience), with the refuge prayer being spoken in Tibetan.

Thank you I did not want to say for All Buddhists because I wasn't sure. I said " some" Mahayana because I actually took the refuge and precepts in a Mahayana (Chan) monastery and other then it being spoken in Chinese it appeared similar to what I'd later come to know in the Pali via Theravada.

What kind of big-assed fortune cookies do you eat Jayantha!? :-) (Yeah, yeah, mods, go ahead and delete ;-) )

I practice within the Triratna Buddhist community. For us someone becomes a lay follower when they become a Mitra. The requirements for this are fairly light really. Self identity as a Buddhist to some extent, be working on the five precepts and be wanting to practice in the triratna context for a bit.
The ceremony itself is always described as a simple ceremony when I attend. The new mitra presents a flower, candle and some incense to the shrine. Because we are quite a talky movement the simple ceremony normally lasts for over two and a half hours and I miss my train.

There are no necessary rituals or induction processes. You can just become a student and practitioner. Being a Buddhist means constantly going through an induction process. There's an old story from the 1950s. perhaps apocryphal, about an American who travelled across the world to meet the Dalai Lama and become a Buddhist. After overcoming all the obstacles he succeeded in gaining an audience and pleaded with the DL to make him a Buddhist. Okay, said the DL, you're a Buddhist.

"There are no necessary rituals or induction processes." So one goes into a shop, sees a nice Buddha picture and decides to become a Buddhist... Is householder Peter sure that there is no introduction needed, no deed (ritual) to do? Maybe even by birth? Something that is "Buddha-nature"?

@SamanaJohann - I did not say there is nothing to do to become a skilled Buddhist or a buddha.

One does not need to be skilled to become follower, housholder Peter, but needs to take refuge, having met. Does Nyom Peter think that the one who met the DL was a actually follower?

@SamanaJohann - One does not have to be skilled to call oneself a Buddhist. One needs only to aspire to take refuge in the Three Jewels. I am not a householder Buddhist. I never call myself a Buddhist. It might suggest I'm not a Christian, a Taoist or a Sufi. I have no idea whether .the one who met the Buddha was a follower. This is not important to the story.

Practice, study... then more practice.
as far as Theravada is concerned (which i personally recommend) Yuttadhammo has a WHOLE lot of great insight and info on his youtube account! and also at Sirimangalo.org
Theravada is very straight forward and doesnt delve too deep into any mysticism or guesswork.

There are no various kinds of becoming a follower of the Buddha, householder MatthewMartin.
By going for refuge, seeking refuge on it, toward the Sublime Buddha, the sublime Dhamma, and the Sangha of Bhikkhus, one becomes a "Buddhist", Upasaka, Upasika (householder having the Gems as his/her refuge) or more if asking for leaving home under the Tripple Gems (the second might not for all accessible, give-able).
The become a follower of the Buddha, Upasaka, Upasika, it requires to perceive the real Buddha, to perceive his good Dhamma, to perceive his straight following Sangha, and to for refuge in them, declaring it by body, signs and thought possible best toward the carrier of his heritage.
What ever else refuge, either wrong perceived or incomplete can not be seen as the entrance of Upasaka-ship.
If going outwardly for refuge toward "fake" Gems, as long as perceived as proper and no doubt, there would be no problem.
If having gone to refuge to the Tripple Gems and having doubt later, it's good to take anew refuge toward proper objects. If one has the wrong refuge taken the Sangha might be not so able to guide toward right refuge.
If having gone to refuge toward the right Tripple Gems outwardly but still perceiving them in wrong ways, the refuge as been taken correct to that extant and the Sangha would be more able to help to derive also to correct understanding.
It's worthy to note that, in cases where one has not reached the stream yet (having gained firm confidence, no more relaying on something outwardly the Tripple Gems), as soon as this refuge has gone broken by relaying on something else, it should be renewed since it is not secure, not firm, at this stage. This being the reason, Lay-Buddhaparisata as well monks are eager to renew this refuge min. weekly of on full and half moon days, requesting it anew from the Sangha of monks, after having asked for forgiveness for fault toward the Tripple Gems.
This is in as far an important aspect because without refuge into the Gems there is no protection by the Gems for one and one is open to do a lot of unskillful deeds.
Taking refuge, better asking for refuge, is always better and more secure gained if in relation to the community of the Buddhas homeless disciples.
Note that the taking on of precepts and also declare such toward the Sangha might not only be a additional possibility for the Sangha to guide one, but also make one not only to "just" follower but to a virtuous (good) follower with more chances to gain much benefit form this undertaking.
Although there are certain formal ceremonies, rituals, practiced, they are not necessary required and monks would guide one to make it in best ways after being asked to to so, which is good to declare in a devoted manner and announcing three times. One then only needs to follow the advice, speak following them, and good Sanghas pronounce the refuge formula in two ways, so that it would fit also to Vinaya measures.
General on the problem of wrong perceiving, see also: What's the safe bet, the secure practice, to gain relation toward the right refuge?.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

There are various stages of becoming a lay Buddhist as shown below, starting with taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, then undertaking the five precepts etc.

“Sir, how is a lay follower defined?”
“Mahānāma, when you’ve gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching,
and the Saṅgha, you’re considered to be a lay follower.”
“But how is an ethical lay follower defined?”
“When a lay follower doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit
sexual misconduct, lie, or consume alcoholic drinks that cause
negligence, they’re considered to be an ethical lay follower.”
“But how is a faithful lay follower defined?”
“It’s when a lay follower has faith in the Realized One’s awakening:
‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished
in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for
those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened,
blessed.’ Then they’re considered to be a faithful lay follower.”
“But how is a generous lay follower defined?”
“It’s when a lay follower lives at home rid of the stain of
stinginess, freely generous, open-handed, loving to let go, committed
to charity, loving to give and to share. Then they’re considered to be
a generous lay follower.”
“But how is a wise lay follower defined?”
“It’s when a lay follower is wise. They have the wisdom of arising and
passing away which is noble, penetrative, and leads to the complete
ending of suffering. Then they’re considered to be a wise lay
follower.”
SN 55.37


text:
Isn't Buddhist insight practice more scientific than the so-called scientific method?
All enlightened beings since the first Arahant have confirmed the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path to be true through their own experience. So there is a community of Ariya Sangha who accept them to be the truth. Isn't this better than the peer review evaluation used in the "Scientific Method"? Many findings that were previously accepted under the scientific method as scientific knowledge have since been rejected, but no enlightened being has ever changed his mind to say that the four noble truths or the noble eightfold path are false.

This question doesn't seem a good fit. "Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise."

Is this a question or an opinion disguised as a question?

Voting to close sorry. It does seem opinion based but i believe there is an interesting set of questions about the relationship between science and Buddhism. Could this perhaps be reformulated in some way i wonder or used as a jumping off point

"Scientific knowledge later being proven wrong" is a fact. "No enlightened being has ever changed his mind" can also be taken as something that hasn't been disproven. So the only opinion is the question title itself. :)

I'm not sure; are we really disallowing questions that express an opinion and ask whether said opinion is correct or not? The prohibition against opinion-based refers to the answers that will be generated, not the question itself.

Voting to close on the basis of that any answer is going to be purely based on an opinion with at most limited expert value.

Voting to close. There does not seem to be a way to present verifiable answer to this question, nor does it seem to fit the site.

Well, the Tipitaka does not say anything about the "scientific method". But that doesn't mean you can't compare the two.

Voting to keep open... seems like a valid question to me, since a critique of the scientific value of Buddhism need not be opinion-based (see my answer).

I suggest that this argument and the following answers be checked against http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection for logical and rhetorical fallacies.   (Sorry about the name of the link, it was not under my control.)

"Science is our best tool for understanding the world around us." I guess the point is that it is not the best tool for understanding the world inside of us.

With all due respect, there is insufficient objective evidence for that assertion.

Depends what you mean by objective; your bias is towards an interpersonal framework, which is invalid regarding the inner world. I think there is perfectly good evidence that meditation is a good tool for understanding the world inside of us, whereas material science has been completely ineffectual (harmful in many cases) in its efforts to this end.

At any rate, Buddhism holds that meditation is a scientific endeavour, so there is no reason to close this question just because material science would hold it to be "opinion-based". In that case, I'd imagine we would have to close a vast number of questions on the Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. sites.

Objective evidence is quantifiable information that can be verified through the use of analytical tools and other forms of research (Source: http://thelawdictionary.org/objective-evidence). What you are talking about is subjective evidence, evidence from a witness. Subjective evidence is subject to the interpretation of the observer and is thus unreliable.

In voting to close, I am applying SE's own criteria, namely that it is an opinion.

The problem with thinking that science is objective is that it is filtered through subjects (the scientists). Like the buddha says, do not believe something unless you can verify it on your own (regardless of whether it is verified by one person or an entire group of people); vast amounts of science are unverifiable by the lay person. At the very least, I can listen to someone's claim about meditation and sit down and see if I can verify it. On the other hand, not everyone can build a rocket and fly themselves to the moon.

@KevinJohnsrude the dogma you quote may be applicable to material science, but not Buddhism, which considers evidence one gains for oneself to be objective, as per the explanations in my answer. As for SE's criteria for being opinion-based, that applies to answers, not questions. If one expresses an opinion, then asks whether it is well-founded, answers need not be opinion-based.

rationalwiki is probably not a good source for unbiased information; they're pretty hard-core materialist.

The unstated part of the question is "by who?"  If by "who" we mean Buddhists, then the answer is Buddhism. If by "who" we mean scientists, then the answer is "science."   For me this appears to be a circular argument and not worth further discussion.  People may believe what they wish but if they wish to invoke "science" then they must follow the scientific method.

@KevinJohnsrude, equating "science" with "the scientific method", with the latter being given the normal contemporary sense of the word, is a relatively modern invention. It is also related to the rise of scientism which is as much a dogmatic opinion as anything else out there. I disagree this question should be closed.

I think this is a fundamentally important question. I've rephrased it to try to obey the rules about avoiding opinion-based answers.

If it was up to me I would delete this question as invalid. The object of material science is not the same object as of Buddhism, so their methods lie in different dimensions. This is a bit like comparing ping-pong to cooking :)

@AndreiVolkov that doesn't make the question invalid; your comment would be a valid answer to it, for example.

@AndreiVolkov, I think that's begging the question. Exactly what is the object of science is a matter of significant debate. For example, is it the investigation of "objective" reality, or the investigation of inter-subjective reality? The fact that this is open to debate is a large part of what makes this question not only valid but central.

The statement ""Scientific knowledge later being proven wrong" is a fact. "No enlightened being has ever changed his mind" can also be taken as something that hasn't been disproven." is the logical fallacy of inconsistency of the same order as the statement "Evolution isn't good science, since it can't be proven. Intelligent design is good science, because it can't be disproved."

Comments using the words "dogma" and "scientism" are of course "ad hominem" arguments.

The statement "Depends what you mean by objective; your bias is towards an interpersonal framework, which is invalid regarding the inner world. I think there is perfectly good evidence that meditation is a good tool for understanding the world inside of us, whereas material science has been completely ineffectual (harmful in many cases) in its efforts to this end. " contains at least two unsupported assertions as well as an ad hominem argument if one counts "material science" as a prejorative. Certainly "material" is perjorative.

@yuttadhammo another problem is, this question came with an agenda, generated much controversy, and keeps sucking everybody's time and energy away from more useful questions. It is a mind trap. Can we add this as a new close reason? ;)

@empty, I strongly disagree. "scientism" is a philosophical position. It's not one I agree with, but people are entitled to hold it. It is not, however, the same as science. But a characteristic of scientism is that it is not evidence-based and as such is often presented as dogma. Neither of those are ad hominems.

@Andrei, I agree that this is sucking time energy, but it's not the question itself that's doing it; it's the discussion as to whether or not the question is valid. Surely the sensible thing is to leave the question alone, to be voted up or down as people see fit. It's clearly of sufficient interest to some knowledgeable people (Yuttadhammo, and, in terms of philosophy of science, me), so why waste time trying to close it.

@Tommy, conflating the scientific method with scientism is both an ad hominem and straw man rhetorical fallacy.

The statement "Depends what you mean by objective; your bias is towards an interpersonal framework, which is invalid regarding the inner world." contains an unproven assertion ("begging the question") in the course of setting up a "straw man" argument.

@empty, I disagree. I guess we should just leave it at that. Notice though, I was distinguishing between scientific method and scientism, My point is they are not the same. That is the very opposite of conflating.

No dead person has ever changed their minds. And dogmas can never change, by definition, because if a dogma changes, then it is no longer the same dogma.

I like this question (I've cleaned it up a bit for clarity).
Basically, what it's asking is whether Buddhist practice should be considered more or less scientific than the scientific method. I've tried to make this argument before - most recently in a talk at the University of South Florida. The concepts are still a bit vague, but I think the argument is sound.
The problem is in defining what constitutes valid scientific inquiry, and what is meant by knowledge.
In material science, the frame of reference is an interpersonal environment where the requirement for evidence is third-person verifiability. A theory is only considered scientific if there is some means of impersonal falsifiability (i.e. can it be disproved by a third person through experimental means). Observations should be made by an impartial third party (preferably a double blind where the observer and the administer are two different people) reproducible by others undertaking the same experiments as the original observer.
In insight meditation, the frame of reference is internal and so any observations must be made by the individual themselves. Thus, their observations are seen as unreliable by the modern scientific community. Within the context of an interpersonal frame of reference, this makes sense.
An argument in defence is that the frame of reference in Buddhism is not interpersonal - i.e. it doesn't matter whether I "really" made observation X; what is important is that I perceived it as being observation X. Using this premise as a basis for investigation, I think it is still possible to separate objective observations from subjective ones, though it is of course more difficult.
The difficulty I've found is in explaining Buddhist insight practice as objectively objective; how can one prove that the act of reminding oneself "seeing" actually allows oneself to be completely objective? I think there is some logic behind the fact that reminding oneself of the inherent nature of the observation creates objectivity, but it is still an uncertain hypothesis.
I think the answer lies in the expected outcome; we would expect experimentation A to be objective if it brought about consistent, reproducible (again, only by the individual) results in all situations. Subjective experimentation would lead to inconsistent results. Objective experimentation would also be expected to lead to clear definition of the nature of the objects of observation (i.e. object X appears to invariably display property A).
Such principles could then be verified between experimenters; interviewing individual meditators could potentially lead to patterns of observations of the sort mentioned above.
The point of all this is that there is at least a quasi-scientific aspect to personal meditation; it need not be discarded as purely subjective, especially since it is acknowledged that the mind does seem to follow orderly principles.
Where this all gets interesting is at the level of enlightenment, where a meditator actually claims to be certain of their observations, due to overwhelming personal evidence of its truth. Obviously such certainty is useless in an interpersonal frame of reference, but for the meditator themselves, such statements can perhaps be examined and differentiated between. For example, a meditator may come to a certainty through faith, in which case it will be of a specific quality that must be different from that arrived at through overwhelming evidence. The former would be subject to alteration in the face of further observation (or even over time), whereas the latter would only be confirmed through further observation.
From the frame of reference of the individual, then, it wouldn't matter what anyone else said about the subjectivity or invalidity of their claim; since their every observation reaffirmed the certainty of their conclusion, they would feel their claim to be scientifically arrived at, and it would be impossible to shake them of that conviction without resorting to tactics like brainwashing.
Further, once a meditator attains nibbana, even brainwashing would be unable to shake their conviction, since their very being would be changed by the realization; not clinging to body and mind, they would be impervious to all attempts at subversion.
The point here is that they would regard their certainty as scientifically gained; i.e. through what they felt to be objective observation. The obvious criticism is that anyone can claim such objectivity, even in the case of those under the influence of subjective partiality. Again, this is only important in the case of an interpersonal frame of reference. Within one's own mind, it is completely up to the individual to critique their own observations, since it is indeed only they who can possibly determine whether an observation is objective or not.
We therefore place the onus on the individual to critique themselves, and assume that there is indeed a means by which one can distinguish a subjective state from an objective one. Defining criteria by which one could undertake such discernment would assumedly look a lot like the Buddha's own methodology of separating experience out into constituents parts and subjecting each aspect to rigorous inspection to determine natures of each aspect and relationships between aspects.
In the end, then, the idea would be that the meditator would be able to cultivate an increasingly objective outlook on their own experience, eventually culminating in a paradigm shift from subjective partiality to objective observation, at which point they would intuitively understand the nature of observable phenomena.
The purpose of this would be a heightened level of "knowledge" (i.e. certainty) about a given claim, e.g. "no experience is worth clinging to". The idea here is that such knowledge would be weaker without such cultivation.
The question, then, is whether such knowledge is superior to material scientific knowledge. Obviously, it is inferior in the sense that it cannot be directly shared with others, but given the premise that anyone can undertake the same practices, with the claim that they will achieve the same level of knowledge, even this is a poor argument. Equally obvious is the superiority in the sense of the level of individual certainty which, according to an arahant themselves, would be absolutely and eternally unshakable.
The only really valid criticism is as to whether such certainty can be in any way distinguished from simple brainwashing. The defence against this criticism, I think, lies in the ability of an individual to distinguish between states of knowledge; in fact, there is the sense that brainwashing is not knowledge in any real sense of the word, since the certainty would go against one's own experience.
Which is another key point (sorry for my meandering thoughts) - that there are two levels of observation - the conceptual and the ultimate. Whereas the nature of and relationship between concepts can be changed, those of the building blocks of experiential reality are immutable.
For example, an experimenter may administer an experience to trick the subject into finding a correlation between stimulus A and result X where there wouldn't naturally be one (e.g. A Clockwork Orange). What the experimenter cannot do is affect the perceptions of the individual itself. So, while it is possible to brainwash someone into believing that violence is a cause of nausea, it is not possible to alter their observations of the experience of the violence and the nausea, because the building blocks that make up the experience cannot be changed, nor can their relationships. This seems like a reasonable premise, one which allows an individual to potentially discriminate between brainwashing and true knowledge.
Obviously, since there is no potential for peer review, such discrimination is extremely unlikely to occur in the average individual, hence the esteem given to the Buddha; still, this doesn't invalidate the claim that it is technically possible, given the right tools and determination. The important point is that it is not only possible, but absolutely preferable given the inherent strength of such knowledge, even over peer-reviewed material scientific knowledge.
Or something like that :)

Thank you for the comprehensive answer, Bhante! I've heard that, back in Buddha's time, there were Arihants with the ability to read others' minds. They could verify if one has attained Nibbana. Even the gods who haven't attained enlightenment seemed to have read the minds of the Sangha to see if they are enlightened. The Buddha himself had special Nanas that could be used to measure one's level of attainment. ex: Indriya Paropariyatte Nana, Asaynusaya Nana. So we could have a 3rd person observation within the community of Sangha.

The statement "The important point is that it is not only possible, but absolutely preferable given the inherent strength of such [Buddhist] knowledge, even over peer-reviewed material scientific knowledge." is another instance of "begging the question."  In addition, the answer contains many other unsupported assertions such as "Equally obvious is the superiority in the sense of the level of individual certainty which, according to an arahant themselves, would be absolutely and eternally unshakable."

@empty you are taking this to be an argument within the frame of reference of material science; I am assuming a basic premise of Buddhism. Rather than arguing whether the statements made by Buddhists are true, I'm focusing on whether the statements made by Buddhists, if true, constitute a better sort of knowledge than that claimed by material science. There is no question-begging in that regard here.

Just as a side note, historically, I see that science owns a field whenever, in such field, "tools to see" are developed -- allowing an improved degree in precision on discussions and comparisons. Before such tools and techniques (and the vocabulary that follows), discussions are vague, opinion-driven, and often religious in nature (eg. anything, like medicine millenia ago). With that mind, anything that would help us see/discriminate "internal states" would likely be huge for helping us evaluating, understanding, and training, like "here, that's how your brain waves should be like in jhana".

There is a potential false dichotomy here in distinguishing between the two types of knowledge. There has always been a respectable line of thinking -- not universally accepted, but respectable nonetheless -- that all knowledge is subjective. The rise of Quantum Mechanics in the early 20th century merely gave us some experiments that made that possibility even more obvious.
What seems different, at first sight, about science (specifically, Physics) is that it is, to use Bernard d'Espagnat's term, inter-subjective. In other words, when I view photons coming through slits I collapse their waveforms in just the same way that you do when you view them.
But, crucially, those are two separate experiments and observations. You are not confirming, when you see an interference pattern (or otherwise) that I saw what I saw. One consciousness simply cannot, as far as we can see, experience another consciousnesses experiences. That privacy of observation is, on one account, precisely what it means to be a consciousness. As a result, science is not objective.
Given all of that, I still find it hard to see why observations in Physics are, in principle, any more reliable than those in Vipassana. In practice, of course, there's a difference. I can set up our double slit experiments in ten minutes, and we can both be comparing notes five minutes thereafter. To set up our respective Vipassana "experiments" can take many years. (Of course, the same can be said, in the realm of Physics, with the amount of time it takes to build up the expertise needed to run advanced experiments).

yeah... it depends who you ask.
research conceptual truth vs ultimate truth.

I would like to begin with the all important question : why does this matter? ;) I don't think that we must or can agree to a better path of anything. Especially when often times it might be a sad excuse for an ego trip.
When we look at knowledge from the perspective of emptiness,  every thought concept is a created one. This implies that to follow any means of written knowledge or personal realization, we must have a certain level of faith.
Science is the dropping of the self in order to have a modeled version of reality. This selfless evaluation is otherwise called an objective perception. How can we give importance to anything we find, when we don't know what we are? Of course this is not a valid question to ask, because we are using words. Words are just another form of conventional thinking that we created in order to limit the ineffable. Questioning their integrity is a pointless task. Especially since one would question it outside of its perceptual frame. This is the opposite of considering. It's a shunning of knowledge based on the fact that if you take a perspective that is incompatible with the knowledge itself, you will conclude that it is wrong.
That being said science and all forms of shared knowledge, are conventions that allow for utility in our world.
Buddhism has the opposite original goal as compared to science. It is going into this self and seeing the meaning behind our senses (including the 6th Buddhist sense: the mind)*. It is trying to give meaning behind what we are and what we can know. This yields many similar conclusions as science does. But in the end, all the written texts in Buddhism are conventions that we can state.
Buddhist conventions share a common thing with all other conventions; utility in our world. The main difference, lies in what aspects of the human world experience.
There's the material, and the spiritual. Saying that one is more valuable than the other, is pointless because we must take the opposite view in order to prove our point which is a redundant way of making enemies. ;)
Science points to us how we can use the world. Buddhism points to us how we can use the self.
Both of them being important, but different.
In the end it really depends on if you can trust yourself, or if you can trust others.
The funny thing is that ultimately the teachings are compatible.
*this is again, only a convention.

Just because things are accepted as truth does not necessarily mean that they are. As the Buddha would say, figure it out for your self, do not rely on others to give you the answers. Since I am not liberated, and I do not believe you claim to be, it is hard for either of us to know who actually is other than the Buddha himself; this is meant to emphasize the Buddha's idea that we should figure things out for ourselves.
An argument could be made that given science is willing to admit mistakes that it is a better source.

In the same way, just because things are accepted as truth in science doesn't mean that they are. I'm not sure how willing is mainstream science to admit mistakes. They are still pretty much hard-core materialists and denies the Nama(mental aspect) of the universe. Buddhism is willing to admit mistakes if you are capable of pointing out any. :)

This logical fallacy is known as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning".

@empty can you expand on that? What is the logical fallacy?

"Begging the question" is when a statement has an unproven premise. By using the "weasel words" "I'm not sure how willing..." SK is able to make the unsupported attack that science doesn't admit to error. In addition to this being an ad hominem attack, it enables SK to set up a "straw man" argument.

I suggest that the critical reader parse all the arguments on this page with the list of logical and rhetorical fallacies enumerated in http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection

@empty Thanks. In case you are unaware, if you do the '@' symbol + 'username' it sends that individual person a message and makes it clear for everyone else too.

@empty: Denying the mental aspect of the universe is indeed an error as it stems from ignorance. That's not an unproven premise. That's proven within the community of Arya Sangha. They also teach you how to prove it to yourself. ex: For someone to prove Nibbana to you, you should first clean up the defilements in your mind. Your mind should be developed enough to grasp the truth. Try proving quantum theory to nursery school kids. :)


text:
Is self-immolation an ethical act?
The image of the Buddhist Monk Thich Quang Duc committing suicide by self-immolation is a hugely iconic image of the 20th century. But bearing in mind the first precept against taking life, can this be considered an ethical act in the context of Buddhism.
I appreciate that as a political act it was brave and significant. Since Thich Quang Duc was a committed Buddhist I would imagine that he was pretty certain it was in keeping with Buddhist ethics. What was his line of reasoning? Is there precedent in scripture for this kind of act?

I've chosen to include the image since it is so iconic and it what the question is about. If anyone deems it inappropriate I will of course take it down or feel free to submit edits as required

There is no simple answer, since it will always depend on the context. However, in most cases, it would go agains the first precept: to abstain from killing.
However, there could be situations where the act is interpreted in different contexts. Thich Nhat Hanh once wrote (a few years after the incident in the picture):

The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, says with all his strength
  and determination that he can endure the greatest of suffering to
  protect his people. What he really aims at is the expression of his
  will and determination, not death. To express will by burning oneself,
  therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an
  act of construction, that is to suffer and to die for the sake of
  one’s people.

In a more recent interview (with Oprah Winfrey), Thich Nhat Hanh mentioned that there were a lot of killings (by the government of its citizens) in the country at the time, and that the monk that chose this action saw it as a peaceful action to put an end to the violence (protesting with a non-violent action to create attention, instead of violence that would cause more violence). In other words, the action to save many lives was an act of compassion.
From Wikipedia regarding sacrificing the body:

The act of sacrificing one's own body, though not by fire, is a
  component of two well-known stories found in the ancient Buddhist text
  known as the Jataka tales, which, according to Buddhist tradition,
  gives accounts of past incarnations of the Buddha. In the "Hungry
  Tigress" Jataka, Prince Sattva looked down from a cliff and saw a
  starving tigress that was going to eat her newborn cubs, and
  compassionately sacrificed his body in order to feed the tigers and
  spare their lives. In the "Sibi Jataka", King Śibi or Shibi was
  renowned for unselfishness, and the gods Śakra and Vishvakarman tested
  him by transforming into a hawk and a dove. The dove fell on the
  king's lap while trying to escape the hawk, and sought refuge. Rather
  than surrender the dove, Śibi offered his own flesh equivalent in
  weight to the dove, and the hawk agreed. They had rigged the balance
  scale, and King Śibi continued cutting off his flesh until half his
  body was gone, when the gods revealed themselves, restored his body,
  and blessed him.

A much discussed topic, and the answer is that it depends on the context.

Jakata tales often use the literary device of the main character giving a piece of their body to someone hungry, or who otherwise can make use of it.

The Lotus Sutra describes the Medicine King drinking scented oils,
  wrapping his body in an oil-soaked cloth, and burning himself as an
  offering to the Buddha. His body flamed for 1,200 years, he was
  reincarnated, burned off his forearms for 72,000 years, which enabled
  many to achieve enlightenment, and his arms were miraculously
  restored.

Source wikipedia
So if this is a 1st precept violation-- it depends. Motivation seems to play a role. Suicide as a way out of a terminal and painful disease is okay, not taking care of yourself and dying is not okay, suicide as a means of helping others is okay.

Simple straight up answer has to be no,  since its a direct breach of precept of non-harming of beings and suicide as a monk is an offense in the vinaya,  granted not a grave one but still.
Now the answer will vary by tradition.  People can bring out parts of the pali suttas where an awakened(emphasis on awakened..) being committed suicide for some reason or another and the Buddha considered it appropriate.  It  also appears to be a much more accepted and condoned in mahayana traditions so im sure many would not agree with my assessment,  and thats fine.
This is a common question in buddhist discussion forums. I struggle to see the point in killing yourself to make a point...  ESPECIALLY when we are part of a religion that espouses non-violence in all we do.  I feel its a waste of monk who could be helping others and it holds no valid part in any kind of non-violent resistance.

The image is one of the primary things that got me interested in, and now practicing, Buddhism. So if we applied a "by their fruits ye shall know them" test, I'm a +1 for TQD doing something good.

Whatever others say about self-immolation, the intent of the person is a significant part of the act.
Is this planned as a way out or is there a benefit to others that exceeds the harm to the body. We don't own the body, it is on loan. Dogen says the body and mind are one. That may not be supportive of self harming in any form.
So the Buddha's precepts of do no harm may outweigh the theoretical benefits to others.
It is a topic with many sides but I wanted to give voice to the side of the discussion that self-harm is not justified. This was discussed more in another question in this forum:
Can a stream enterer commit suicide?

Human life is very rare and precious. Also when doing this the chances are that your last thought will not be good leading to rebirth in a lower relm. So in my opinion and general consensus in my tradition is that this should not be done. Also in doing this the following conditions of killing is met:

You know that yourself is a living being
You device a method to for self immolate
You follow through with the intention
As a result you die


text:
What is the difference between learning the Buddhist way and simply learning from life?
What is different about being a Buddhist than an atheist?
As far as I can tell, "western" thought is a mix of different philosophical approaches that can be applied to life with a dose of common sense: ethics, rationalization, self, society, abstraction, belief, existence, nature... there's place for everything in "western" thought, one just needs to look in the right places.
I've heard good things about Buddhism, but everything I've read about until now is just a different way of saying something that I've heard elsewhere. Different words, a different language.
Does Buddhism recommend itself as the best approach to reach enlightenment, or can this fulfillment be achieved outside of Buddhist schooling?
Or more subjectively: Why should a person follow Buddhism instead of something else?

This is primarily opinion based/there isn't a problem to be solved here. (This could have been a good thread starter on  forum, but isn't a good fit for a Q & A site)

Perhaps you could obtain an introductory text on what Buddhism actually is?  A book, for example, or even one of the many websites which exist.

You are asking from a skeptical standpoint. From a buddhist standpoint, there is a well established concept of a "Pratyekabuddha", which is a person who happens to re-invent Buddhism independently. It isn't a suggestion that man on the street folk philosophy will get you to enlightenment. What it is, is the recognition that the historical Buddha discovered the Dharma independently, so hypothetically speaking, so could other people. The implied assumption about pratekya-buddhas is that they are exceedingly rare.

The main difference is time. Buddha shows the way in simple instructions, so that you don't have to discover the path to enlightenment by yourself.

It would probably take a book to adequately answer such a question.
Some of us would say there are different ways to the same understandings. And that understanding in such a context is not merely about philosophical insight, but involves the human condition in its totality.
But imagine a person trying to negotiate a maze. There are different ways of understanding the maze. The maze as it is experienced by someone trying to seek the exit and a transcendent perspective in which the maze is seen in its greater context. e.g. another person has a map.
These are different perspectives of the maze. However what should be understood? The maze, is only one aspect of this experience, another part is understanding the experience of being lost in the maze, of coping with such situations, and thus being able to empathise with others experiencing the maze.
Thus to really understand the maze different perspectives are helpful.
But note, the person who is lost in the maze may come to understand the maze eventually and create their own map, and thus come to understand the maze and find their way out.
Thus transcendence can inform immanence, but likewise immanence can inform transcendence.
Western understanding has tended to focus on the intellect and thinking, whereas in the East there has always been an understanding that thinking and intellect had to in some way be transcended in order to find a greater comprehension. But it is equally recognised that such an Eastern approach requires a fairly single-minded concentration on the search for "reality" or whatever, something which people with busy lives are unlikely to pursue.
Some would push one way at the expense of the other.I would say they are simply different approaches, and people gravitate to the approach that suits them in their life.

Buddhists believe in rebirth, gods, ghosts, hells, heavens, Karma. Atheists don't!
Paticca Samuppada, the Four Noble Truth and the Noble Eightfold Path are not taught in other religions.
Different religions have different concepts of enlightenment. What Buddhism teaches as 'Nibbana' can only be achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path and realizing the 4 Noble Truths.
Nibbana is the deathless element. It is a permanent, peaceful state which is soulless. I don't think you get that definition in other religions.

Some Western Buddhists (and others maybe) would argue that not all Buddhists believe in all the things you mention in the first line.

Ok, I was talking from a Theravada Buddhist perspective. But even in Mahayana & Vajrayana Buddhism, those are accepted. Not sure if Buddhism needs another sect called "Western Buddhism".

Yes,  the first line was written with the utter ignorance of Buddhism.  Buddhism is not about believing at all!

Buddhism is not just about believing. It teaches you how to know it yourself. But faith(saddhā) has an important role in Buddhism. It is utterly ignorant to say "the first line was written with the utter ignorance of Buddhism". You should start by reading the Sutta Pitaka.

The key difference is Detachment from the Event that you are learning from. Your life is a series of events, both good and bad. Through observing the "self" using Buddhist techniques such as Vipassana, you can witness your own emotional reactions to events almost as a third person. This helps create a balance in how you respond to events, promotes equanimity and empathy towards yourself. It takes the learning beyond what you would see through the lens of your emotions. For example, you will stop blaming yourself or someone else, and learn that an event was the natural transition from circumstances that were unavoidable. This philosophy of learning is also referred to as "Mindfulness".

Being an atheist you always deal with conceptual thinking even though you can be a very good person. But any happiness you get out of impermanent things is impermanent and thus is not absolute. It cannot be preserved when old age, sickness, death and loss come.
Being a buddhist you decide and work to reach a state of mind that is beyond any conceptions and that brings you to the state of absolute happiness. And out of that state you can also be best possible help for others. For that you take refuge (decide that it is most important for oneself) in the goal (Buddhahood), the way (Dharma, Buddha's teachings) and the friends on the way (Sangha). So it is about practicing Buddhas instructions to reach the state of a Buddha. Also being a buddist means you don't just believe in what Buddha said, but you try, practice and see if those instructions work in your case. It's about experience, not about belief.

You could say that Buddhism provides methods to use life as a lesson, every moment is a learning opportunity. That's why the texts and talks are called 'teachings' - by learning to change our perspective on life, we can deal with it more skilfully.

Does Buddhism recommend itself as the best approach to reach enlightenment, or can this fulfillment be achieved outside of Buddhist schooling?

Buddhism contains teachings that are singularly designed to help human beings get out of this endless wheel of suffering (in Buddhism called Samsara). By learning to see things from the perspective that There is suffering, Suffering is caused by craving/clinging, There's a way out of suffering and The path to end suffering is detailed [in eight 'components'] we can skilfully reduce our suffering/anxiety/dissatisfactoriness of our lives.
Most importantly, the Buddhist teachings were not designed to be believed in. The were designed to be used. So we can choose to learn the doctrine like any other religion, and believe it or not, or we can put the teachings to practice. Only then will they have an impact on your life.
Part of Buddhism ("being a Buddhist"), involves taking on five (or more) precepts, similar to other religions. These include refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and taking intoxicants. However, to practically train the mind, meditation is an essential component of the Buddhist training. There are thousands of techniques that can be put to use, most helpfully aided by an experienced teacher.

What is different about being a Buddhist than an atheist?

The question does not entirely apply, but suffice to say that atheists reject that there is any god that "rules the world" - Buddhist teachings include the existence of deities, heavens and hells (all plural), but that none of them "rule the world", that there is no one entity that decides over this existence. Important is to note that these deities are not worshipped as if they are above humans, and Buddhists have compassion for those in the hell realms.
NOTE: This is a very simplified answer in response to your questions. In summarizing this way, inaccuracies may have crept in, unintentionally. I encourage hearing more from a Buddhist, in person (ideally a monastic), to get a better understanding. (opposed to just reading about Buddhism)

Buddha probably thought buddhism was the best approach, or else he would have spent his time promoting something else.
The idea of "learning from life" makes me think of learning based on the rules of the society a person is born into. Most societies are deluded. It is more unlikely to just have an epiphany one day and realize this than it is to follow a set of instructions that have helped people have this realization for thousands of years.
This way of approaching life and escaping delusion exists without "Buddhism"; someone can figure out to follow the same approach as a Buddhist without ever knowing that Buddhism existed. This is why individuals can escape samsara even when the teachings have been lost. In the same sense, a person could rediscover algebra... but think how much easier it would be to just go to school and be taught algebra.

It's technically not possible to be a silent-Buddha while Buddhism still exists in the world.

I have heard it explained that a lone Buddha can exist when Buddhisms teachings are corrupted. ...not necessarily non existent.

That's when the Sasana ends after about another 2500 years and whatever teaching left is not enough to make one enlightened.

In any case, both of these points, whether it takes the decline of the teachings for a lone buddha to awaken and when the time of the dhamma ending age will occur, are debatable.

It's a complex question, with a lot of components needed for a complete answer. I'll offer just one.
A fundamental difference between Buddhism and "western thought" (as you call it), is that word "thought". A key part of Buddhism is you have to do it; it's not just a set of ideas to believe or reject. If your knowledge of western philosophy extends to the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger, think of Buddhism as, in part, applied phenomenology.
Analogy time. You can read all you like about weight training, cardio, diet, stretching and so on, but merely reading about them won't build your muscle mass or your endurance. In that sense, the bias in western thought makes it like reading about those things; Buddhism is more about doing them.
Oh, and in that context, the Buddhism/atheism thing is probably a false dichotomy. I don't necessarily agree with him, but see Stephen Batchelor's "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist" and "Buddhism Without Beliefs".


text:
Did the Buddha ever talk about his family?
When Siddhārtha Gautama left his home to become an ascetic, he left a wife, son, father and step mother. His achievement of enlightenment and subsequent teachings of the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Noble Path has brought obvious benefit to the world for the potential of the cessation of suffering. But what is known about the suffering of the Buddha's personal family due to his leaving? As the Buddha, did he ever speak of this matter?

He went back home and recruited his son to the sangha. Some stories say the same of Yasodara, his wife, that she become a nun. (joined the family business so to speak) Martine and Stephen Batchelor in "Conf. of Atheist Buddhist" and "Spirit of the Buddha" respectively have good (but different) stories of how this likely worked out. The big difference is that family systems then look nothing like they do today. These weren't romantic relationships.

This was something that upset a few members of a Buddhism 101 class I attended. It's a bit of difficult thing for some to understand.

Would you want to make your comment an answer @MatthewMartin?

I'd recommend you to read "Life of the Buddha" by ven. Ananda Mathreya Thera. It's considered as a textbook on life story of the Buddha. Although, I'm not sure if there's an English translation available.

Thanks @SankhaKulathantille. I'm not finding an English version on Amazon or anything but maybe in the future someone will translate.

Too bad! It's a really detailed book. Will post here if I find something similar in English.

Did you find anything in english about the book? I just tried to do a google search and found nothing. I would really like to read this book.

No I couldn't! But you can read the Sinhala book since your name is 'Lanka' :)

The Buddha praised princess Yashodara's virtue by dispensing the Channakinnara Jataka when he visited her at Kapilavatthu. Yashodara has never been a wife to another man since the life when Bodhisatva received the confirmation from Deepankara Buddha to become a Buddha in the future. The Bodhisatva was always her husband.
So the Bodhisatva and his family have spent plenty of time together as family in many a previous life. If that didn't take away their suffering, what's the point of doing more of the same?
Lets take an analogy. If your family is suffering from a mortal illness and if you alone have the capability to go find the cure, wouldn't you leave them behind to get the cure instead of lingering there to give them false comfort?

I hadn't realized they were a family in previous lives. Very interesting!

Here's a summarized version of the story of princess Yashodara:
http://sophal1.blogspot.com/2011/09/yashodhara-theri.html

Thank you for this knowledge Sankha. I didnt know about this too. Very interesting.

Are you familiar with the Vessantara-jātaka?  As the last tale in the Jataka series, it is basically the story of the Buddha’s incarnation immediately preceding his life as Shakyamuni (so you could say it’s rather significant!)  Be that as it may, what happens to the Buddha-figure's immediate family is rather shocking.
The Vessantara-jātaka is supposed to illustrate the virtue of dāna, or generosity.  The main character is a prince who goes into the forest (in effect becomes a renunciant) in order to save his father’s kingdom.  His wife and two children go with him.  At one point an old Brahmin whose wife needs a personal slave comes to Vessantara and asks him to give up his children, and he does.  Later he also gives away his wife, but luckily it is the god Sakka who receives her.  Later everything is reversed, Vessantara becomes king and riches rain down on his palace from the sky, so he is able to practice the dana virtue in an unlimited way.
This Jataka has a prominent place in Thai Buddhism – everyone knows the story, it was used for teaching and is often recited at temples as an exercise in merit-making.  Charles Keyes wrote that it was historically one of three core texts in Thai popular Buddhist practice, along with the Traiphum, a work of cosmology, and the story of Phra Malai, which contains a lesson about the future Buddha Maitreya.  (By the way, neither of the latter texts appears in the Tripitaka at all.)
Many Thais are disturbed about the seemingly anti-family message of the Vessantara-jātaka.  (Other, less well-known jatakas can be disturbing too.  There is one where a male hermit lets his female companion, also a renunciant, starve to death – she is just too weak to follow the path.)
It’s all about ridding oneself of attachments, of course.  One of the most difficult things about becoming a monk must be to do this, although in practice the severing of ties is not absolute – family members may continue to feed the monk by donating food on his morning rounds, for instance.  The Vessantara-jātaka has a message for both laypeople (how virtuous it is to give) and for monks (a model for renouncing worldly ties.) That may account for its popularity - who knows really?
Here’s a good summary of the Vessantara story – the full version is very long.
The tale of Prince Vessantara

One of the problems with most of the Jatakas is that the stories are actually commentaries, i.e. not in the Tipitika (the Buddhist canon).  So you'll have cryptic verses in the actual Jataka, and then the commentaries will explain it with a story, which sometimes seems to fit, and sometimes doesn't.  So if what you're saying is true, then the Tipitika may not have that story at all.

The suffering his family experienced at his departure was only because of their attachments.  They were in the royal family; he knew they would be taken care of materially.
The Buddha's son became a monk under the Buddha and his ex-wife became the first nun.  His father convinced the Buddha to make a rule for monks that a person couldn't become a monk or a nun without the permission of their parents (if living) and their spouse (if married.)  Indeed, it was the rule that required the permission of both parents that prevented me from becoming a monk, though I cannot guarantee that it would have happened even with their permission.
On a related note, according to the Commentaries (?), the entire Sakya clan was massacred during the Buddha's lifetime.  (See, for example, http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/sa/sakya.htm)

you have stated - "On a related note, according to the Commentaries (?), the entire Sakya clan was massacred after the Buddha's parinibbana ."  Can you kindly give the reference/link?

@zaxebo1 Added a reference to my post.


text:
How to determine the end of a meditation session without a clock?
I have a clock, it just is distracting having to look at it every few minutes.

I keep an alarm to ring after 20 mins. In the mean time I don't think of the clock. The alarm tone is the sound of a Tibetan gong and it doesn't startle me when it goes off :)

If you have a smartphone, consider using a meditation timer app for keeping track of sessions. Simple ones like Meditation Helper (Android) or Meditation Timer (iPhone) are free and do the simple job of keeping the time, ringing a bell when finished. This cen perhaps let you just focus on the meditation for the entire session.
Note: I only have experience with the Android Meditation Helper, which is why the link is provided. It has reminders and a log, quite simple.
UPDATE regarding the use of timers and bells:
Using a meditation timer can be beneficial, especially for beginners, where hearing repeated bells at intervals (starting out as frequent as 2 minutes, increasing to 5, then 10, and so on) can work as a reminder to gently return to the meditation object. However, there is a point where the bells become a hindrance, where they may disturb a deeper meditation, so the recommendation is to phase out the use of the bells.
Meditate for as long as you can, each time. Only if you have limited time for a setting, then use the bell as a reminder. The app works well for this, where you can first set the bells at intervals, then to end the session. If you only look at the meditation timer (locking the screen during meditation) after the meditation session has ended, you can use it to evaluate the session. You may find that sometimes a 30 minute meditation can be challenging, and other times you're surprised to find that an hour and a half passed while in deep meditation.

I specifically do not meditate for as long as I can. The reason is that I'm trying to build a habit, and there is evidence (e.g. http://tinyhabits.com) that forcing oneself to stick to a modest goal to start with (even when you feel you could do more) has advantages. Totally personal thing, I think. I just wanted to point out that for some people, baby steps work better. (Also, B. Alan Wallace points to Tibetan traditions which encourage starting with several shorter sessions gradually becoming fewer longer ones). For timers: I use https://insighttimer.com)

@Tommy fully respect that view. In the perspective I am working from, the focus is on being kind to oneself (the body, the mind, the experience), first and foremost (developing Metta is part of that), then using methods that do not rely on goals (goals tend to get clinged to, and evaluated with success/failure, which can be unhelpful). However, even with this view, starting out short is good (being kind to when the mind wanders, when not trained enough to sit longer, and so on).

The best way I've heard to a) keep track of time b) without a clock (or timer) was related to me by my 91-year-old teacher who said in the old days they used to use incense sticks; once the incense stick was finished, they would switch from walking to sitting. For shorter sessions, you could cut the sticks in half, etc. Of course, it still means you need to open your eyes every so often during sitting.
I often suggest meditators just to look at the clock every so often; it's not really that big of a deal with insight meditation, since the concentration is momentary anyway. It can be a good exercise in patience watching how often your mind wants to check and see if you're finished yet :)
Eventually, as someone said, your mind can estimate pretty well how long you've been sitting and you'll find yourself checking the clock (or incense stick) just when it's time to finish.

Trying to think of a good SE-class question that would allow you to elaborate on "...with insight meditation...the concentration is momentary" ...

Having to look at a clock every few minutes really defeats the purpose!
Have you ever tried telling yourself to wake up at a certain time before you sleep? I can tell you from personal experience that it works.
My meditation teacher asks us not to use any clock. She asks us to train ourselves to emerge from meditation at specified time without external help. I haven't really tried it yet (except for waking up from sleep), and the teacher will always ring the bell in our group sitting despite her advice :).
After all, one of the jhana mastery is the ability to remain in jhana for exactly the pre-determined length of time.

A meditator should first master the lower jhānas, before they can go into the higher jhānas. There are five aspects of jhāna mastery:

Mastery in adverting: the ability to advert to the jhāna factors one by one after emerging from the jhāna, wherever he wants, whenever he wants, and for as long as he wants.
Mastery in attaining: the ability to enter upon jhāna quickly.
Mastery in resolving: the ability to remain in the jhāna for exactly the pre-determined length of time.
Mastery in emerging: the ability to emerge from jhāna quickly without difficulty.
Mastery in reviewing: the ability to review the jhāna and its factors with retrospective knowledge immediately after adverting to them.

I use a wind-up kitchen timer. Because it is low-tech, it works better for me than a smartphone app, which has a subtle distracting effect due to being an open-ended device. I do make sure to have no clocks in sight. In the zendo we used to have a giant pendulum clock, which ticked loudly and chimed every 15 minutes. That had its charm too :)
Another way to keep time is to count breaths on phalanges of hands, with the thumb. 3 phalanges times 4 fingers makes 12. 12 on one hand times 12 on the other makes 144 (breaths). This is about 25-30 minutes, depending how you breath.

Using phalanges is a great idea

I use the meditation timer app and its very useful!
I usually have meditation time set for an hour, and a mild bell to ring every five minutes, every few bells or so ill switch to walking or sitting. I'm still trying to solidly make it a full five minutes of absolute mindfulness without drifting off or zoning out but... maybe next time... hah.
but yeah, after it goes off a few times you'll lose track and then its just a reminder and/or starting point or you can set it to go off anywhere from every one minute to 2, 3,4,5,6... etc all the way to 24 hours (or not to go off until the time is up)
so yeah, i second that recommendation!

I can only say what helps me. I usually have recorded tracks of music playing (like chanting to Quan Shi Yin, Amitabha, or loving-kindess chanting) and I stop when the track is over. I have tried using a bell, but, for me, often the anticipation of the bell might as well be as distracting as looking at a clock.

At first I did what you are trying to avoid and checked the clock on the wall.  Then I used an electric kitchen timer; this was effective, but the alarm was  unpleasant.  Thus I switched to the pre-installed timer on my Android device for a while and did fairly well, but it does not have the ability to set up multiple meditation periods.
Now I'm using an Android app called Zazen Meditation Timer.  I chose it because it required no special permissions, where all the others I investigated required permissions which I did not think a meditation timer needed and which I did not want to grant.  It allows the user to set up different meditation "sessions" (e.g. weekday 20 minute sit, weekend hour & one half sitting and walking).  Each session can have different periods (e.g. 30 minutes sitting, 15 minutes walking, 30 more minutes sitting).
Some sources sell dedicated meditation timers.  Many can be easily found on the World Wide Web via the search engine of your choice.
Edit to mention a couple things I initially forgot:
I also have a CD I got during a retreat.  It features gongs, bells, and other summoning sounds, followed by a starting bell.  There there are 20 minutes of silence, followed by a bell to mark the end of a 20 minute meditation period.  It has other chants, gathas, etc. and then another 20 minute meditation period, followed by some ending chants.
Also, while a lot of the things you'll find searching for "meditation" on Youtube are lengthy musical pieces that may be more appropriate as background music, there are guided meditation sessions, if that's what you're seeking.

If you burn incense sticks, you can train your mind to pick up the smell of cold ashes when the stick has finished burning.

Best is to use Adhitthana. Initially this might not be perfect but over time it becomes accurate. When you sit make a strong determined though that you will meditate for a particular time period.

I can't find what you're referring to when you say 'Aditana'-- do you have a link to a definition?

Some links http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Determination_Determines.htm http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhi%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADh%C4%81na

I use an APP called Meditation Helper.  It is very useful. I has a nice bell sound. You can program the total time and also interval times.
I also like the "reminder" function that you can program, the App will remind you to meditate every day.

To refer to the traditional way that time is kept:

"The best way I've heard to a) keep track of time b) without a clock
  (or timer) was related to me by my 91-year-old teacher who said in the
  old days they used to use incense sticks; once the incense stick was
  finished, they would switch from walking to sitting. For shorter
  sessions, you could cut the sticks in half, etc. Of course, it still
  means you need to open your eyes every so often during sitting."
  --this answer

The act of not timing your sitting is a profound one. It's not like the Buddha timed his sittings when he attained Enlightenment!
After nourishing himself the Buddha himself literally said "I will not get up from this Bodhi tree until I attain Awakening! Let my bones break and my flesh rot before I shall arise."
And then he entered the 1st jhana, 2nd jhana all the way to 4th and then experienced the 4 formless absorptions one by one and then attained Awakening.
He did not time his sittings except taking a bit of a break when he was truly exhausted and he opened his eyes to look at the night sky to take a bit of a rest.
And like magic, right then, he Awakened.
[Similarly Zen practitioners and other "hardcore" practitioners do not time their sittings... and they tended to Awaken when they took a bit of a rest and their Buddha Nature spotaneously opened to them, their skandhas dropping away giving them a strong taste of Awakening.]
Thus, the ultimate "inorganic" method is your own physical exhaustion, your own body telling you it is time to take a break from your arduous efforts!
Nonetheless, You can use other similar methods that are "organic" and do not use digital devices: tea kettle boiling, the birds starting to chirp in the morning as you push your meditation on in the early morning, etc.
Also your question is an important question because we all need to do an electromagnetic detox! We are all heavily dependent on our devices and are sleeping, reading, and practicing in a pool of EMR. I definitely notice a huge difference when I wear my crystals than when I am not.
Many of us experienced times when we go to a garden or some greenspace, far away from wifi connections and our mind completely clears and it feels the bliss of concentration is close at hand. It is also much easier to think about one's own life and contemplate in such an environment, also due to having less electronic devices subconsciously yelling and calling us in hundreds of ways.

The best thing to do is just do it as long as you feel it. Once your mind starts emerging, you're done. I've never understood people who try to turn it into a marathon, seeing how long you can go. That's totally counterproductive. Once you feel like getting up, get up.
Alternately stare at a clock. That might sound like a joke, but you've got to stare at something. The tension and tediousness of staring at a second hand going round and round is bound to be useful in breaking through to release.
I don't recommend listening to music. That also defeats the purpose. Also, don't overthink it. Make sure you're not using the question of how to time your sessions as an excuse not to do them.