text:
Pali Canon support for living on the edge between all dualities?
I am still a novice and searching for specific canon support for Shakyamuni's view on "walking the median path" between dualities. My goal is to dispel this pervasive view that Buddhism is a rigid, cold existence. I think this is my best starting point but haven't read these portions of the dhammapada yet or my memory is just getting bad in my old age.

The Pali canon?

Certainly. I will start anywhere

I am curious as to who says that Buddhism is "a rigid, cold existence".

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist':
  That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata
  teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite
  condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering." SN 12.15

Your answer was excellent and most appreciated. namaste my friend! I often have a very hard time interpreting the interpretations of Pali canon. I am new to this and the interchanging syntax in the speech throws me. But when someone points me in the general direction I usually come up with the same conclusions. You map here has been most useful and helped me immensely!

SN 56.11:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

this one is helpful as well by categorizing the dualities vice listing them by cause and effect. I actually like this one better in some ways as it's not forcing linear thought. thank you!

In the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha gives his monks a discourse on the "The Exposition of Non-Conflict". In here he mentions the Middle Way:

"Here, bhikkhus, the Middle Way discovered by the Tathagata avoids both these extremes; giving vision, giving knowledge, it leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. It is a state without suffering...and it is the right way. Therefore this is a state without conflict.
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words.
-- MN 139: Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta

In the Samyutta Nikaya, The Buddha also mentions the Middle Way. Here in the "The Book of the Six Sense Bases":

"There are, headman, these two extremes which should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth into homelessness: the pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. And what is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision . . . leads to Nibbana?
It is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view . . . right concentration. This is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana.
-- Samyutta Nikaya: IV. The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Saḷāyatanavagga)

In the Anguttara Nikaya, The Buddha mentions the Middle Way in relation to the practice of meditation:

“Bhikkhus, there are these three ways of practice. What three? The coarse way of practice, the blistering way of practice, and the middle way of practice".
“And what is the middle way of practice? Here, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings . . . mind in mind . . . phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. This is called the middle way of practice.
  “These, bhikkhus, are the three ways of practice.”
-- Anguttara Nikaya 156: Ways of Practice: Establishments of Mindfulness

I think the origination of the vision, knowledge et al is also a result of the harrowing nature of the path. I imagine the path itself as a razor's edge with a slippery slope on either side ... and we tend to stray a bit on one side and then the other ... but slips to each side give us insight and knowledge just as Shakyamuni acknowledged that suffering also led to determination and learning and other positive motivations. I see traversing that path as more of a drunken sailor than a keen soldier's march straight thru the center. This is something I will study further.
Thank you very much!

Middle path in refered are based on:

Avoiding Extreme View
Avoiding Extreme Practices
Avoiding Unwholesome Roots or Metal States

In each case what is chosen as the Middle is:

Noble 8 Fold Path
Dependent Origination
Jhana is Also the Middle Way

Avoiding Extreme View

Kaccā(ya)na.gotta Sutta - extreme regarding everything exists and do not exist is not right, this also leads to the notion of self and the middle teaching is dependent origination

“This world, Kaccāna, mostly
  depends upon a duality: upon (the notion of) existence and (the
  notion of) non-existence.
But for one who sees the arising of the world as it really is with right wisdom, there is no
  notion of non-existence regarding the world.
And for one who sees the ending of the world as it really is with right wisdom, there is no notion of
  existence regarding the world.
This world, Kaccāna, is mostly bound by fixation [attachment], clinging and inclination.
But this person (with right view) does not engage in, cling to, incline towards that fixation and
  clinging, the latent tendency of mindset and inclination—he does not take a stand (that anything is) ‘my
  self’.
...
‘Everything is [all exists] (sabbam atthi),’ Kaccāna, this is one extreme. ‘Everything is not [all
  does not exist] (sabbam n’atthi),’ this is the second extreme.
Without resorting to either of these extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Teaching by the middle:
With ignorance as condition, there are volitional formations;
...

Lok’āyatika Sutta - extreme regarding everything exists and do not exist is not the right view and the middle teaching is dependent origination

(1) “What now, master Gotama, do all [do everything] exist (sabbam atthi)?”
  “‘All exist,’ this, brahmin, is the oldest world-view [cosmology].”
(2) “What now, then, master Gotama, do all not exist (sabbam n’atthi)?”
  “‘All do not exist,’ this, brahmin, is the second world-view.”
(3) “What now, then, master Gotama, is all one [is everything a unity] (sabbam ekattam)?”
  “‘All is one,’ this, brahmin, is the third world-view.”
(4) “What now, then, master Gotama, is all many [is everything a plurality] (sabbam puthuttam)?”
  “‘All is many,’ this, brahmin, is the fourth world-view.
Without tending towards any of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dharma by the middle:
with ignorance as condition, there are volitional formations
...

Avoiding Extreme Practices

Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta - avoid extreme practices and the middle way is the noble 8 fold path - similarly Ariya Pariyesanā Sutta and

“Bhikshus, there are these two extremes to be avoided by one who has gone forth. What are the two?
(1) The devotion to the enjoyment of sensual pleasures—it is low, vulgar, worldly, ignoble, not
  connected with the goal [unprofitable], and
(2) the devotion to self-mortification—it is painful, ignoble, not connected with the goal
  [unprofitable].
Bhikshus, without turning to either of these extremes, there is the middle way

Maha Saccaka Sutta, (Deva) Saṅgnrava Sutta, etc. - no need to avoid pleasure which does not give arise to unwholesome states

‘I do not fear the pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome
  states!’

Avoid Unwholesome Roots

Dhamma,dayada Sutta

Here, avuso, greed (lobha) is bad, and hate (dosa) s bad.
  There is the middle
  way for the abandonment of greed and hate, that gives rise to vision, to knowledge, to peace, to direct
  knowledge, to awakening, to nirvana.
And what, avuso, is this middle way?
  It is this very noble eightfold path,

Maha Saccaka Sutta

Then, Aggi,vessana, I thought thus, ‘I recall that when my father the Sakya was occupied while
  I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from
  unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first dhyana that is accompanied by initial application
  and sustained application, zest and joy born of seclusion.
Could that be the path to awakening?’
Then following on that memory, Aggi,vessana, I realized, ‘That is the path to awakening!’
I thought thus, ‘Why do I fear the pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and
  unwholesome states?’

(Deva) Saṅgnrava Sutta

Then, Bhāra,dvāja, it occurred to me, ‘I recall that [during the ploughing festival]132 when my
  father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded
  from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and dwelled in the first dhyana
  that is accompanied by initial application and sustained application, zest and joy born of seclusion. Could
  that be the path to awakening?’
Then, Bhāra,dvāja, following on that memory, I realized, ‘That is the path to awakening!’

See Dhyana by Piya Tan, section on Middle Way


text:
my meditation practice question
Would like to ask if my method of meditation(Mahasi method rising-falling) is correct. When some feeling arise in me, most of the time, i can noting the feeling was somewhere in the body( example: scare feeling near my abdomen/ back of my body).
When i concentrate on that feeling, i will either yawn/ tears coming out or even deep sign. Then i will feel better after every 'reaction'.
I would like to know when i noting the feeling part inside/outside the body, is this the right way? i did not do it purposely but i can just feel it when i concentrate'
Looking for a meditation teacher for years(answer my question from time to time- prefer online). Been practicing meditation for years on and off as i could not really get a teacher. I practice and learning teacher S.N.Goenka method before but i feel Mahasi method suit me. Unfortunately cannot get one to help.
Appreciate if anyone out there know any online tutor/ bante who can online help in meditation. Thanks

Would like to ask if my method of meditation(Mahasi method rising-falling) is correct.
If you try to validate this against the teaching of the Buddha as per the Pali Canon, this is not a valid or correct technique. More on this see this answer and other referenced material.
Suttas which cover insight meditation are:

Maha-satipatthana Sutta
Anapanasati Sutta

They do not have any reference to either noting nor the rising and falling of the abdomen. It is later innovation like this which lead to the decline of the Dhamma, where by you give more importance to later developments than the words and teachings of the Buddha. These later developments will not give the same results as when you practice the original, it may also give arise to more difficulties, hence people will lose faith in the practice. For more information see this answer.
Any correct method should be based on the Tripitaka. More particularly:

Maha-satipatthana Sutta
Anapanasati Sutta

which covers most part of what is the right way to practice. You can complement this with other Sutta readings. In the Satipatthana Suttas it is mentioned that Satipatthana is the one and only way (ekāyana maggo) for purification of the beings. Also at the end he Buddha gives a guarantee that if it is practiced the right way (as per the instructions given) you can get the fruit or Non Returner or Fully Liberated within 7 days.
When i concentrate on that feeling, i will either yawn/ tears coming out or even deep sign. Then i will feel better after every 'reaction'.
This can be due to past Sankhara. Past conditioning causes unpleasant experiences when they surface and manifest themselves. E.g. you have past Karma to break a leg. But you are in meditation. This may surface as a severe pain in the leg but since there is not other conditions for an accident this will pass away.
When some feeling arise in me, most of the time, i can noting the feeling was somewhere in the body( example: scare feeling near my abdomen/ back of my body).
Getting sensitive to sensations is a good thing. You have to see how this lead to unwholesome states.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta
Also how it relates to causality

As such, bhikshus, the instructed noble disciple closely and wisely attends to dependent arising itself, thus:
Imasmiṁ sati, idaṁ hoti; „When this is, that is;
imass’uppādā, idam uppajjati. with the arising of this, that arises.
Imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti; When this is not, that is not;
imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati. with the ending of this, that ends.‟
Bhikshus, dependent on pleasant contact, a pleasant feeling arises. With the ending of the pleasant contact, the pleasant feeling that arose in dependent on that pleasant contact, ceases, is stilled.
Bhikshus, dependent on painful contact, a painful feeling arises. With the ending of the painful contact, the painful feeling that arose in dependent on that painful contact, ceases, is stilled.
Bhikshus, dependent on neutral contact, a neutral feeling arises. With the ending of the neutral contact, the neutral feeling that arose in dependent on that neutral contact, ceases, is stilled.

The whole scene shere is unsatisfactory. The impermanence and non self nature contributes to this also.

regarding pleasant feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?
regarding painful feeling, what is painful, what is pleasant?
regarding neutral feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
I would like to know when i noting the feeling part inside/outside the body, is this the right way? i did not do it purposely but i can just feel it when i concentrate'
This is also a good sign. Totality of insight include:

internal (ajjhatta)
external (bahiddhā)

So you are experiencing this. For more on this see this answer.

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is Unwise Consideration?
I am reading a book on the jhanas and it stated,

All hindrances arise from unwise consideration. To overcome them one must apply wise consideration.

Now i think what unwise and wise consideration is the things you focus on. Unwise Consideration maybe focusing on your past or your future asking question that have no really meaning pondering them. While wise is focusing on suffering and overcoming it. Is thia correct?

In short:

having Vipallasa (see: Vipallasa Sutta),

I.e., not seeing the three marks of existence

having the unwholesome roots

having craving and clinging due to the unwholesome roots arising
having defilements

having the 5 mental hindrances
having ignorance

not aware of causality (4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Conditional Relations) due to ignorance (not knowing the 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Conditional Relations)
because ignorance also displaces the rights view no knowledge of the right view (not knowing or wrong understanding items mentioned in Samma Ditthi Sutta) or having know the wrong view.

Piya Tan has done a good detail explanation which I have quoted below:

Ayoniso manasikāra, as such, means “not directing the attention to the roots of things” or “directing
  the attention away from the roots of things,” that is, not observing phenomena as they truly are, not noticing
  that they are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. As a result, wrong view arises, and when this
  become a habit, wrong view is reinforced so that it remains as a latent tendency (anusaya). Let us examine
  a little more as to how this happens.
“Unwise attention,” according to the Vibhaṅga, is the regarding of what is impermanent as being
  permanent, what is painful as being pleasurable, what is not self as self, what is foul as beautiful. 6 The
  Majjhima Commentary says these are the four “perversions” (vipallāsa). It explains unwise attention
  (ayoniso manasikāra) as attention that is unskillful in means (anupāya,manasikāra), attention shown the
  wrong way (uppatha,manasikāra), that is, by way of the four perversions, namely:
what is impermanent is taken to be permanent (anicce niccan ti);
what is painful is taken to be pleasurable (dukkhe sukhan ti);
what is not self is taken to be self (anattāni attan ti); and
what is impure is taken to be pure (asubhe subhan ti).
The (Akusala,mūla) Añña,titthiya Sutta (A 3.68) says that the three unwholesome roots (akusala
  mūla) of lust, hate and delusion arise through unwise attention. Lust arises and grows through unwisely
  attending to a “beautiful sign,” that is, being captivated by what we perceive as attractive in a thing. Hate
  arises and grows through unwisely attending to a “repulsive sign,” that is, what we take to be unattractive.
  And delusion arises and grows through unwise attention itself. In other words, delusion is present when
  there is lust or hate. Delusion arises and grows because of the four perversions mentioned above.
On a deeper mental level, as explained in the (Āhāra) Kāya Sutta (S 46.2), unwise attention gives
  rise to the five mental hindrances—sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and
  doubt—which prevent us from attaining samadhi, that is, meditative mental focus, or any kind of wholesome
  attention.
  In short, we are hindered from our mental development.
Unwise attention, in other words, is based on ignorance, which starts off the dependent arising of
  mental formations (saṅkhāra), which are karmic activities, and these lead on to a whole mass of suffering,10
  and the prolonging of the samsaric cycle (vaṭṭa) (MA 1:64 f). In short, unwise attention is the root
  of samsaric existence. Unwise attention is food for a lack of mindfulness and full awareness, which in
  turn increase ignorance and craving.

Introduction to Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta by Piya Tan. The next section discusses what is wise attention.
Also see my other explanation in these answers.

Yes, it's what you attend to, you are correct. Sometimes thinking about the future is useful though, as in forecasting results of your action before you do it. But generally speaking yes, one can make oneself miserable by focusing on the wrong things, or once can make oneself strong. The effort is the same, it's what you focus on.
If you let your attention go to things that cause craving, your mind can get infected by desire.
If you focus on the negative side of things, you will maintain yourself in wounded and miserable condition.
If you focus on good things, you can learn to enter and stay in first jhana.

MN 2 lists examples of unwise attention:

What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of
  sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire
  increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen
  taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance arises in
  him and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things
  unfit for attention that he attends to. MN 2

MN 19 provides a clear example about how wise reflection/attention is used to develop the path.

As I abided thus, diligent, ardent and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire
  has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’
  affliction and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes
  difficulties and leads away from Nibbāna.’
When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided
  in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it
  subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes
  difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me.
  Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it,
  removed it, did away with it.

I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.
Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse:
From inappropriate attention
  you're being chewed by your thoughts.
  Relinquishing what's inappropriate,
      contemplate
      appropriately.
Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
  the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues,
      you will arrive at
      joy,
      rapture,
      pleasure
      without doubt.
Then, saturated
      with joy,
  you will put an end
  to suffering & stress.
The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention (SN 9.11)

And below this lack of mindfulness and complete awareness lies unsystematic reflection (ayoniso manasikara). The books say unsystematic reflection is reflection that is off the right course; that is, taking the impermanent as permanent, the painful as pleasure, the soulless as a soul, the bad as good. The constant rolling-on that is samsara, is rooted in unsystematic thinking. When unsystematic thinking increases it fulfils two things: nescience and lust for becoming. Ignorance being present, the origination of the entire mass of suffering comes to be. Thus a person who is a shallow thinker, like a ship drifting at the wind's will, like a herd of cattle swept into the whirl pools of a river, like an ox yoked to a wheel-contraption, goes on revolving in the cycle of existence, samsara.

from The Seven Factors of Enlightenment by Piyadassi Thera

To format a paragraph as a blockquote, I just add a > character in front of the paragraph; to make a line break (for poetry), two spaces at the end of the line; and to make a hyperlink, I use brackets and parentheses like this [Example](http://example.com). More details here: Markdown Editing Help.

Thank you, Chris for your wonderful contribution to the Dhamma and the helping others.

SN 44.55 states yoniso manasikara is a condition for Right View.

Sūriyassa, bhikkhave, udayato etaṃ pubbaṅgamaṃ etaṃ pubbanimittaṃ, yadidaṃ — aruṇuggaṃ; evameva kho bhikkhuno ariyassa
  aṭṭhaṅgikassa maggassa uppādāyauppāda etaṃ pubbaṅgamaṃ etaṃ
  pubbanimittaṃ, yadidaṃ — yonisomanasikārasampadā.
Monks, before the sun rises, there is the forerunner & precedence of dawn; in the same manner for the arising of the Noble Eightfold Path
  to the monk, the forerunner & precedence is wise thinking.

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


text:
Does Pa Auk Has A Plan To Translate Tipitaka Pali To English?
I have known about the other translation's versions.
However, I need to know the possibility of translation project especially from Pa Auk.
I also want to know, if it is possible to know, the reason that they do not start the pali to english translation project.

I am not sure if there is any Tipitaka translation project at the Pa Auk monastery when the Ven. Sayadaws book Nibbānagāminipaṭipadā remains still to be translated into English.

Oh! I through the time, I have thinking  that Nibbānagāminipaṭipadā already done in english translation. I like pa auk because of they can answer like commentaries (I understand tipitaka before I met pa auk), so I never done to read Nibbānagāminipaṭipadā.

It is difficult to answer.
I think your best option is to try and contact Pa Auk Forest Monastery.
Their contact information can be found here.


text:
feel 'me' inside what should i do for the next step
I have two times experience where first time i am doing my sitting meditation. I was so calm i feel like i was 'trap inside the body(don't know how to explain)' i can feel that i was deep 'inside there'. by that time i cannot feel my breathing or heard any sounds from outside. I can 'feel/see' my body from inside.
second experience- when i was walking home from work. i guess i was too concentrating while walking. Again i can feel i was again 'inside'(different from the first experience) and i can see(not using my eye) it clearly that my 'leg' is moving 'by itself'. My eyes was open when i walk but i feel like i am not seeing 'my leg' using my eyes.It's a bit freak me out but i was very calm at that time.
Anyone out there please kindly help me what should i do when i face this problem again?
Thanks

As your meditation progresses you will feel sensations both inside and outside, which was covered more in detail in an earlier answer. These sensations depend on Fabrications which manifest itself as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. As you meditate you might get blissful feeling. Do not get attached to them or dwell too much on the experience.
Also the breath is bodily fabrication. When you meditate you bodily fabrication will calm down. Your breath will become so subtle that you might not feel it.
Mostly when you see inside your body or this can be just imagination, through if you develop supernormal powers you will be able to do this. In the case you feel inside and outside it is a different case. When this happens you should keep looking until you see arising and passing throughout your body, i.e., you see your whole material body is in a flux of change.
Finally do not dwell too much on meditative experiences because you can get carried away and get attached or perhaps averse to them. You have to keep and unattached and clear mind to see things as they are. I.e., you have to keep your mind equanimity at all times.


text:
Right effort and concentration
I was reading about the noble eightfold path and Right effort, thought and concentration, they seem to be very similar. What are the differences?

Right Efforts is about removing unwholesome states and cultivating wholesome states. Right Concentration deals with developing the Jhana as a means to displace certain subset of unwholesome states. Jhana is a wholesome state hence arousing Jhana can be viewed as applying efforts to abandon the 5 hindrances. This done through developing the Jhana factors. A mind with the Jhana factors aroused is wholesome.
In short:

Abandoning hindrances and developing the Jhanas, Right Concentration, is a subset of Right Efforts hence the similarity
Right Effort deals with abandoning all unwholesome states and developing wholesome states, while Right Concentration deals with developing the Jahan, hence the difference

Right Effort

(6) And what, bhikshus, is right effort?
  Here, bhikshus, a monk
  brings forth the desire for the non-arising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort,
  rouses energy, applies his mind, and strives;
he brings forth the desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort,
  rouses energy, applies his mind, and strives;
he brings forth the desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states; he makes an effort, rouses
  energy, applies his mind, and strives;
he brings forth the desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their non-decay,
  increase, growth and fulfillment by cultivation; he makes an effort, rouses energy, applies his mind, and
  strives.
This, bhikshus, is called right effort.

Right Concentration

And what, bhikshus, is right samadhi [concentration]?
  Here, bhikshus,
(1) a monk, detached from sensual pleasures, detached from unwholesome mental states,
  enters and remains in the first dhyana,
  accompanied by initial application and sustained application,
  accompanied by zest and happiness, born of detachment [ie born of samadhi].
(2) With the stilling of initial application and sustained application,
  by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness of mind,
  he enters and remains in the second dhyana,
  free from initial application and sustained application,
  accompanied by zest and happiness born of samadhi.
(3) With the fading away of zest, he remains equanimous,
  mindful and clearly knowing,
  and experiences happiness with the body,
  he enters and remains in the third dhyana,
  of which the noble ones declare,
  ‘Happily he dwells in equanimity and mindfulness.’
(4) With the abandoning of pleasure and pain—
  and with the earlier disappearance of joy and grief—
  he enters and abides in the fourth dhyana,
  that is neither pleasant nor painful,
  with a mindfulness fully purified by equanimity.
  This, bhikshus, is called right samadhi.

(Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta also in Sacca Vibhanga Sutta


text:
Is Mahasi Sayadaw's "counterfeit dhamma"?
There are certain people on this website and one in particular who claim to know the only "true" teachings of Buddha and they are saying that following Mahasi Sayadaws and other masters teachings where you focus on the movement of the breath at the abdomen is not what Buddha taught so therefore it's incorrect practice and "counterfeit dhamma" and will therefore not lead to enlightenment. I absolutely do not agree with this. It reminds me of fundamentalist/evangelist Christians who take the bible literally and follow the Old Testament etc and tell everyone they are going to hell for not conforming. It's actually disappointing to see people behaving like this around Buddhism but I suppose at the end of the day it is just another religion so it's to be expected that dogma and zealotry will be part of it.    What do others think?

I tried to rewrite this question to make it better match this policy. I hope this edit made it a better question?

Um no you just butchered it.

I think the current question doesn't match this policy ... and is also your accusing other users of the site of being like Christian fundamentalists, which should be off-topic too.

This isn't really a question. I found that it was a continuation of an argument you were having in the comments (which I have since deleted too) below this answer. I don't think its content is worth preserving.

i had not heard the name, so upvoted. did he have any new teachings? if not, in what way is his emphasis unusual? you could try rewording the question so that it asks about the opinions of people that don't use the site, or what makes something "counterfeit dharma"

"Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living
  on the food offered by the faithful, engage in wrangling
  argumentation, (saying to one another): "You don't understand this
  doctrine and discipline. I am the one who understands this doctrine
  and discipline." — "How can you understand this doctrine and
  discipline?" — "You're practising the wrong way. I'm practising the
  right way." — "I'm being consistent. You're inconsistent." — "What
  should have been said first you said last, what should have been said
  last you said first." — "What you took so long to think out has been
  confuted." — "Your doctrine has been refuted. You're defeated. Go, try
  to save your doctrine, or disentangle yourself now if you can" — the
  recluse Gotama abstains from such wrangling argumentation." Brahmajala Sutta

Is generally my fallback option for argumentative encounters within Buddhism.. There was a sutta in the MN where the Buddha asked a few of his top disciples about how they perceive the Dhamma, and they all gave somewhat different answers, but the Buddha was happy with all of them (if anyone knows the one, thanks in advance!).
I guess in the end this is to do with where one draws the line between concepts and practices deemed to be of absolute necessity for progress within the path, and concepts and practices that are deemed useful, but may be adjusted based on personal experience. (Khandhaka 5 for the Buddha allowing monks variance with regards to rules and practice in Avanti, a place closer to modern day Mumbai than Nepal)
Concentrating on the diaphragm rather than the nostrils is detail and arguably not worth discord.. Buddhism, more than any other practical philosophy, is an individual path and people come to it from different angles. It is well defined overall, but concentrating on the differences between one's own practice and another's is avoiding the fact that to progress one needs to concentrate on one's own practice. There is room for analysis and advice, and any point should be analysed according to merit (beginning of DN1 again). I would however say that if a statement doesn't sit within right speech, it becomes harder to take it as coming from an authority within the Buddhist sphere.

The true teaching attributed to the Buddha is found in the Tripitaka. So it is best to sticking with this orthodoxy than innovate with other practices. This way your practice is closest that the Buddha taught. The Buddha being more accomplished than anybody else and also having the quality "Leader of persons to be tamed" would have preached the best mode of practice to follow.
It is always good to be orthodox as dhamma disappears when counterfeit Dhamma emerges:

Kassapa, the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world. But when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears. - sn16.13

Also discussed in more detail in this answer.
Like there are Christian, Muslim and Hindu are Buddhist countries. There are Buddhist countries also how has a history, culture and tradition of trying to preserve the Dhamma. This will make people of a Buddhist cultural upbringing be protective of the doctrine (pariyatti), practice (patipatti) and the fruit (pativedha) for future generation. Culturally some may feel this as a duty when brought up in a Buddhist environment.
In addition, regardless of the label you add as X tradition or Y tradition or A religion or B religion the Dhamma is universal and works the same way as long as you practice the right way. There is only one right way (ekayana magga) which is what is given in the Maha Satipatthana / Satipatthana Suttas. The Buddha gives a guarantee that you will get results of the practice this the right way. The key here is you should practice it in the way prescribed in the Sutta to get the results. To get the result you have to reconcile you practice with the Sutta and do accordingly. Applying a label as this is the technique of X tradition or Y tradition or this teacher or that teacher does not decide the results. It is the correct practice which gives result. If you are not getting results you should recheck what you are doing to see if it confirms to the steps given in the prescribed method to which the guarantee by the Buddha is attached to. This is more analogous to going through the instruction manual properly before assembling something. If you do not follow the instruction what you assemble will not work. If you follow it then it will work. Also if you do not follow the instruction manual properly the warranty also maybe void. Having said this one is one's own master, hence anybody is free to follow what they wish.

The question had the following also which since seems to be edited away.

Why are Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings controversial? Can you outline the arguments which people present, in favour of and against these teachings?

For this please refer to this answer and linked content.


text:
Life of Buddha, to be taken seriously?
I've been studying Buddhism for the past few months and part of it entails reading about Siddartha's life story, including his path to enlightenment.
What's been confusing to me is whether or not one is to believe all of the "magic" that is described in his past - things like his birth and walking, leaving behind him roses in his path (a newborn baby walking?); or later when he doesn't eat for incredibly long periods; when he creates a golden bridge in the sky and walks it to prove his enlightenment (week 3 after enlightenment);when a king cobra wraps itself around him to keep him warm (6th week after enlightenment)?
All of these things seem very unrealistic, akin to stories about Jesus in the christian bible. My struggle is that, as far as I'm understanding and what has truly drawn to Buddhism, this religion is supposed to be based on logic.... these events do not strike me as "logical", i.e., they defy our understanding of science and the material world.
Are these stories, therefore, meant to be understood as metaphors, or are they believed as fact?
Thanks for any thoughts on this!
Kevin

Leaving other things aside if we solely focus on their teachings Buddha far surpasses Jesus. And as far as those "illogical" things are concerned they are added to a great personalities and such things are there for many other great people as well.

"All of these things seem very unrealistic [...]"
Notice that a doctrine is not the same as a biography.
The buddhist literature is vast and the biographical accounts are small in comparison and really not the main point. So, for a practitioner, the Buddha's biography (though profoundly inspiring and worth of learning) is not the place to focus the most on and it's not the best place to find the "logic" that seduced you.
To better illustrate this point, if we consider only the four main collections of the Pāli canon, the biographical accounts of the Buddha not only are rare but are pretty down to earth -- I recall only one or two suttas mentioning the Buddha as a baby talking and walking and so forth.
Consider now that there are over twelve thousand discourses in these collections alone. So if these extraordinary events are hard to conciliate, it's easy to dismiss one or two passage and focus on the actual bulk of the teachings. Furthermore, one will eventually notice that these teachings are, in a sense, telling one to not waste energy dwelling with these conflicts anyway.
However, there are more texts describing "supernatural" powers, and a few more with spiritual beings participating. These increase in size if we also consider the Mahayana texts. So, these elements are really intrinsic to Buddhism, though there are buddhists who prefer to dismiss them, like secular buddhists. In some way, this is also a testament to the strength of the nucleus of the doctrine which, even when these elements are removed, remain valuable to people who dislike them.
"Are these stories, therefore, meant to be understood as metaphors, or are they believed as fact?"
One thing here is how buddhist should perceive this stories. Whereas commonly we understand religions in the west as "believing is seen", perhaps Buddhism is more aligned with "seen is believing". In the orthodoxy, I know of no part of Buddhism that states something like "you have to believe this, or else go away". Other sects, however, may put some extra value on faith about something.
So, some buddhists believe the stories, some believe them partially, and others don't. But, as per the Buddha's discourses, these stories are meant to inspire disciples to practice.
On the factuality of these stories, however, there's really not much evidence available to judge their veracity. Plus, there are different biographical stories -- so you better check your sources. Also, apart from his tours across the country, some events of his life have been argued more substantially that they are likely to have happened, like the period where the Buddha studied under the other two ascetic teachers.
But other biographies show some signs of creativity. For example, a popular story (I'm not entirely sure from which texts it's from) says that the Buddha-to-be saw a sick, an old, and a dead after leaving his palace for the first time and that these marked him deeply. However, it's known from an unrelated discourse of the Buddha that he referred to these three things as metaphors or signs that "wakes" a person to the tragedy of existence and inspires them to look for an escape from suffering. So it's not far fetched to imagine that the author of this particular biography decided to put these signs quite explicitly in the Buddha's own story.

Ask enough people to tell you the same story and eventually you stop hearing the same story. But ask no one and you never learn the story.

A fine answer my friend, What matters is the core not the magical details, But there are some things like Heavenly realms (Alien planets in the modern interpretation) that defines a buddhist. Without these beliefs, one can't call himself a buddhist. But if one find the birth and such non-canon related stories are not in the same domain.

the Buddha taught that there is unsatisfactoriness in this world and the way out of it which is more systemised as the 4 Noble Truths.
If these stories help you understand unsatisfactoriness and help you come out of it or inspire you in any way to practice and strengthen your faith, by all means use them. If not leave them aside without outright rejection and concentrate on what appeals to you.
What is most important is you follow the Noble 8 Fold Path divided into the 3 Fold Training which results in understanding the 4 Noble Truths.

Three months after Shakyamuni's death the first Buddhist Council was convened. There was no written method to record his teaching so a group of monks, many with eidetic memories, were chosen to commit the Buddha's lessons to memory. This was the system used to pass down his teachings for hundreds of years.
So, that said. it remains rather unsurprising that certain liberties were taken with the "facts" in order to facilitate a good story. The type of story that would survive hundreds of years of interpretations. When I see what appear to be outlandish statements I try to focus instead on the idea or feeling they are trying to emphasize with the casual approach to reality.
Especially in various koans this approach becomes very useful. I see the exercise as a further lesson taught to us by the dharma. Not as some attempt to mislead.
I hope this helps you. I encountered the same concerns years ago as I sought refuge in the dharma. In fact, to me this is part of seeking refuge ... how willing and successful are you at parsing the kernel of knowledge gleaned amidst the so-called chaff? Namaste my friend.

It seems to me like this approach can apply to most religions, despite the fact that many believers would disagree with it.

I worked on a dissertation showing a high degree of likelihood that all the major religions drew from the experiences in the far east. Lots of empirical data supporting the hypothesis.

MN 123 describes the Buddha's physical birth; standing, walking & prophesying about himself. This contradicts MN 64, which states a new born child has no mental conceptions of self or identity.
Since there is a contradiction here & since we know from reality that new born children cannot mentally construct words about themselves, we can be confident the birth story of the Buddha is false & a form of religious mythology.
MN 123 is of a tiny genre/style of suttas similar to the later-day Jataka, Apadana & Buddhavamsa stories. Therefore, it is highly probable the Buddha did not speak MN 123 & that MN 123 was a later-day composition. These Hinduistic ideas eventually contributed to the extinction of Buddhism in India because they reinforced/supported Hinduism & diminished the uniqueness of Buddhism.

Other stories, such as seeing the four signs of an old, sick & dead man and seeing a monk and then sneaking out of the palace, also appear to contradict what is written in the suttas, which report Gotama was well aware of aging, sickness & death in the palace and that he left the palace with full knowledge of his parents, who had tears streaming down their faces.

The Pali canon was put down in writing hundreds of years after the parinibbana of the Buddha, having been transmitted orally for that time. If not the message, then at least the presentation of the message was altered to suit rote memorization (one reason why some perceive the canon to be a 'dry' read).
It is good to be aware of the fact that the Digha Nikaya was likely an introduction to Buddhism for the wider brahminical/Hindu society of the time, hence the mix of very 'clean' suttas with ones that discuss gods etc.
Interestingly, though a later creation (likely 100BC), the Milinda Panha offers an explanation that all these jumps that the Buddha and his disciples make to Sakka's realm etc are only mental episodes -  a reasonable explanation imo, given the prevalence of that imagery at that time, as well as the power of the mind to see that which it has been concentrating on for long periods of time.
Even in the canon, there are suttas where the Buddha addresses monks who have come from different schools, wherein he discourages them from staying engaged with beliefs they had from their times before joining the Sangha (with Samkhya philosophy in MN1 for example), so it would be no surprise if later, after his parinibbana, new devotees brought a level of their own baggage to the texts.
Personally, I don't mind that a 2500 year old expounding of a world view has a little embellishment and degradation in it - expecting otherwise would be misunderstanding how humans tend to act, and a disservice to the understanding of anicca!
The Dhamma the Buddha declared was stated as verifiable in the here and now, and for the most part the canon is very repetitive and consistent for the main message. If you come across ideas that cannot be verified, or seem to be one off entries in the canon, it is fair to question them, especially if they break with our now basic knowledge of science (newborns walking etc).
If a part of a text does not directly discuss the Dhamma, see if it points to aspects of the message indirectly. If you can't see anything, enjoy the story!
(though I wouldn't be too critical of the austerities part, the Samana movement seems to have had some pretty determined people in it at the time, and in SN 56.11 (the first sermon), the discourse is specifically about staying away from the extremes of sensory indulgence and self mortification, meaning austerities likely played a big part in the Buddha's path to enlightenment)

I have been fascinated studying the intertwined history of messages contained within the Upanishads and the dhammapada while comparing it to historical human migration in regions like the Kush from europe into SE Asia where the arya (people) met with the indo. Also the influence that spread after taoism and the uniform elements between confusianism, taoism, buddhism, and hindi. I so envy the history.

I do find history fascinating too, though early Buddhism lacks for it - likely even hindered by the Buddha himself, as he stated that he an all other Buddhas turned to the Dhamma above all else, including themselves (sorry, no memory of the reference!). The Tao Te Ching is a fascinating side by side read too - it seems to straddle the original message of emptiness, with similarity to the later Buddhism of Buddhagharba in a fascinating way.

I think that the story of the new-born baby walking and talking might possibly come from (or is most commonly found in) the Jataka tales (and/or the Buddhavamsa), and not the suttas.
Conversely I think the suttas tend to be more "realistic", as you put it.
There's only one sutta that I know (but there may be others) that mentions a supernatural birth, which is MN 123 ... but, and I don't know why, MN 123 isn't translated on Access to Insight, nor on Dharmafarer. Perhaps neither translator found that sutta among the most important to translate?
Anyway you might prefer to read, might find more benefit in reading, the suttas than the Jataka tales.
One of the anthologies of suttas, which people on this site recommended, is In the Buddha's Words  ("An Anthology of Discourses
from the Pali Canon,
Edited and introduced by
Bhikkhu Bodhi").
Are these stories, therefore, meant to be understood as metaphors, or are they believed as fact?
If you are talking about Jataka tales, then see for example the answers to the topic, Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?
Some popular anthologies/stories of the Buddha's life start with the Four Sights and the Prince's decision to leave home, rather than at birth.

It's like the bible. Some more moderate believers see it as metaphorical whereas the more hard core believers take the whole thing literally. Personally I think the whole thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Nobody can prove any of it is real just like they cannot prove the bible. The dangers of taking such writings literally leads to fanaticism and violence which can be seen all throughout history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics and https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CAPIOQ-2.PDF&ved=0ahUKEwji-Kfwst3UAhURJlAKHXcpDDcQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHCwMPZagzcHJxaJMnTe3u9czKmtQ for a more recent hint that the core ideas are closer to how things are.

After 50 years of mindfulness meditation practice and receiving novice ordination some 30 years ago (full ordination was not available in Canada back then), I can say with certainty that it is meditation practice that counts the most in the Buddhist teachings. From this point of view, the most important part of Buddhism is the Buddhist psychology of meditation, even though it is incomplete and offers almost no explanation as to why meditation works. The life of the Buddha tells us little about meditation. There are many gaps in the "logic" of Buddhism. I sincerely hope you will take up meditation practice anyway.


text:
What are timeframe were pali canons, included commentaries, done, especially Mahavihara-Theravada?
My conclusion from tipitaka and commentaries:
Most of Tipitaka canons and commentaries, except Kathāvatthu the forth of abhidhamma, began before 1st saṅgāyanā, but catagorize at 1st saṅgāyanā (see: DN.Commentary.)
But some tipitaka canons had done at 1st saṅgāyanā, some at 2nd, some at 3rd, and just vinaya-history in parivāra had done after 3rd saṅgāyanā (because vinaya have serious rule about the qualification of vinaya-successor, so list of vinaya-memorized successor's names were required, in parivāra, that began in upāli-thera school).
What canons were done at 1st?
Because of unanimous decision of 500 saṅgha at 1st saṇgayanā, that saṅgha must not add/cut/change any buddha's words off teaching. So this canons must done in 1st saṇgayanā:

Buddha's literal canons, that was learn & memorized by ānanda, upāli:

7 vinaya-pitaka (except sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga), parivāra-content (except vinaya-history), 4 nikāya, buddha's literal canons in kuddaka-nikaya.

Sāriputta's literal canons, that was learn & author by sāriputta-mahāsāvaka and memorized by his students, who were in 1st saṇgayanā instead of sāriputta, who died before 1st saṇgāyanā. Buddha chose to support sāriputta as the best teacher (etadagga) like himself. So no one can change his speech, too. So his canons should had done in 1st saṇgayanā, too:

Sāriputta's literal sutta in 4 nikāya, sutanipāta, sāriputta-theragāthā, niddesa, paṭisambhidāmagga, sāriputta-apadāna, cariyāpitaka, 6 abhidhamma-pitaka, Mahāaṭṭhakathā (The great commentary).
In my opinion I think buddha-apadāna and many jātaka are memorized by sāriputta, too. Because of buddhavaṃsa's and cariyāpitaka's characters. And in nidāna of DN.Commentary. also have an conversation between ānanda (dīghabhāṇaka) and sāriputta's students (macchimabhāṇaka) at first saṇgāyana about the categorization of KN. & buddhavaṃsa & cariyapitaka that should include in suttanta or in abhidhamma.

The other sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech, that were memorized by some saṇgha in 1st saṇgāyanā:

Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were memorized by ānanda: Itivuttaka, The remaining speech in 4 nikāya.
Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by the owners: Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna.
Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by their students: Sāriputta-theragātha/therāpadāna, Moggallāna-theragātha/therāpadāna, etc.

What canons were done at 2nd?

Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna (some thera died after 1st saṇgāyanā such as ānanda, kassapa, anuruddha, upāli, etc.)
Sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga and just sattasatikakhandhaka's commentary. (In my opinion arahanta, in 3rd saṇgāyanā, did not author 3rd saṇgayana history anymore because they realized that it will be over responsibility of future-generations-vinaya-memorizers).

What canons were done at 3rd?

Kathāvatthu and just kathāvatthu's commentary.
Commentary about 3rd saṇgāyanā history.

What canons were done after 3rd?

Vinaya-history in parivāra.
None-Pali commentaries' translation and extension (andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, kauanadī-aṭṭhakathā, pañcarī-aṭṭhakathā).
Visuddhimagga and Abhinava-aṭṭhakathā (the combination of commentaries. It is just old commentaries in new package. Buddhaghosa wrote that he never add/edit anything. He just remix fussy/duplicate texts and translate siṇhala commentaries to pali language).
Abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, abhidhammāvatara, and many conclusion-commentaries.

Related Answer:

Beginner's Buddhist Course Syllabus By Ancient Pali Canon (Ganthadhura And Vipassanādhura)
Layers of pali literality already being in buddha-living-period.https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21166/10100

Perhaps there is much competent information on https://discourse.suttacentral.net/

I am going to rewrite above after I read the anti-Abhidhamma book carefully. As I read through, there is much information from Pali canons that they never told you in SuttaCentral's book. The looking over the information can destroy the real story and origin the unfinished debate. What I prefer are pieces of evidence from the history which no one ever told you, although what I quoted still appearing in the Pali canon, but they avoid them to keep their books go on right. This is not honest because their analysis could be wrong. They should give us all possible aspects, not only their analysis.

"As I read through, there is much information from Pali canons that they never told you in SuttaCentral's book." <-- do you mean here the differences between the different Abhidharma and which ones follow the sūtras and which ones don't?
If you mean this, the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma follows the sūtra closer than the Pāli Abhidhamma, but this is a matter of opinion, because each particular Abhidharma follows the Buddha in their own way.  One has to read all of them to be in a good position to decide which ones follow the Buddha and which ones follow the Buddha poorly.

This may not exactly be the answer that you're looking for, but it's related. It doesn't say at which council, but it speculates on the chronology of different parts of the Pali Canon, from an academic viewpoint.
On this page and this page, you can find the "Chronology Of The Pali Canon" by Dr. Bimala Churn Law.
Here, it is written in the beginning:

Rhys Davids in his Buddhist India (p. 188) has given a chronological
  table of Buddhist literature from the time of the Buddha to the time
  of Asoka which is as follows:--

The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
Episodes found, in identical words, in two or more of the existing books.
The Silas, the Parayana, the Octades, the Patimokkha.
The Digha, Majjhima, Anguttara, and Samyutta Nikayas.
The Sutta-Nipata, the Thera-and Theri-Gathas, the Udanas, and the Khuddaka Patha.
The Sutta Vibhanga, and Khandhkas.
The Jatakas and the Dhammapadas.
The Niddesa, the Itivuttakas and the Patisambbhida.
The Peta and Vimana-Vatthus, the Apadana, the Cariya-Pitaka, and the Buddha-Vamsa.
The Abhidhamma books; the last of which is the Katha-Vatthu, and the earliest probably the Puggala-Pannatti.

But later, after in-depth analysis, the author comes to the conclusion:

The results arrived at concerning the chronology of the Pali canonical
  literature are presented in the subjoined table:
(1) The simple statements of Buddhist doctrines now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
(2) Episodes found, in identical works, in two or more of the existing books.
(3) The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen poems without the prologue, the atthaka group of four or sixteen poems, the sikkhapadas.
(4) The Digha, Vol. l, the Majjhima, the Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code of 152 rules.
(5) The Digha, Vols. II & III, the Thera-Theri-Gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, the Suttavibhanga, the Partisambhidamagga,
  the Puggala-pannatti and the Vibhanga.
(6) The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada
  and the Kathavatthu.
(7) The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana, the Itivuttaka, the Suttanipata, the Dhatukatha, the Yamaka and the Patthana.
(8) The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka and the Apadana.
(9) The Parivarapatha.
(10) The Khuddakapatha.

But there is no table available listing each sutta with its date of writing.

Thank you for the information. They miss a lot that they didn't consider the personal speech style, the separated memorizing group, the difficulty of content, the lazy of the other monk, etc. Especially, they didn't understand Atthakatha before they made that timeline. Rhys David's paper is a very old analysis from the paper age should be re-created by the digital information.  Nowadays, we can read all the Pali canons by ourselves on the computer.

If Dhamma is realised, it is obvious this question is unanswerable because each Nikaya has inauthentic Dhamma in it.
The Samyutta Nikaya is the most authentic (but includes minor inclusions of Anguttara non-sense). This is why the first three sermons and the real teachings of dependent origination are in the SN.
The Majjhima Nikaya is mixed with 'heartwood' plus later Jataka ideology.
The Anguttara is loaded with Brahmanistic mumbo-jumbo.
The Digha Nikaya is the least authentic & shameful.
The Udana can be funny but has many fantastic stories in it.
The Sutta Nipata has good teachings but the language sounds different to the Buddha of the Nikayas.
The Dhammapada is obviously a compilation of various verses.
The Abhidhamma is ineffective and excessive. Venerable Sariputta would not have spoken or composed such excessive & unnecessary words.
The Jataka and Past Lives of the Buddhas and Disciples is contrary to the original teachings.
It is obviously by the study of doctrines and language that either the Nikayas were compiled at a later time or, otherise, suttas were added to the Nikayas at a later time.
What should be analysed is the genre/content of individual suttas rather than each Nikaya.

I sent you an E-Mail. It was to be expected that this answer receives dislikes because a lot of people assume that every Sutta must be the words of the Buddha. I doubt that too. Ultimately, it's as you said at the beginning: If Dhamma is realised one needs scriptures less & less

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


text:
Buddha's Power of Seeing Other Beings Mind
What is the proper Pali word for Buddha's power of seeing other beings mind? I think it starts with Paricitta or something. I want the proper Pali term. Also, can I have any sutta references to it as well?

Katamañca, kevaṭṭa, ādesanāpāṭihāriyaṃ? Idha, kevaṭṭa, bhikkhu parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ cittampi ādisati, cetasikampi ādisati,
vitakkitampi ādisati, vicāritampi ādisati: ‘evampi te mano, itthampi
te mano, itipi te cittan’ti.
And what is the miracle of telepathy? There is the case where a monk reads the minds, the mental events, the thoughts, the ponderings of
other beings, other individuals, [saying,] 'Such is your thinking,
here is where your thinking is, thus is your mind.'
Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta
ādesanā = pointing out, guessing, prophesy; only in phrase -pāṭihāriya trick or marvellous ability of mind-reading or guessing other peoples character

Parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ cetasā ceto paricca pajānāti
He knows the mind of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own mind.
Kayagata-Sati Sutta
paricca = distinguished or understood
pajānāti = knows clearly
para = other
sattānaṃ = beings'
puggalānaṃ = persons
cetasā = minds
ceto = mind

Hinduism: para citta ādi abhijñatā: knowing the minds of others

The word you are looking for is para citta vijana nana
Pali:

Para - another
Citta - mind
Vijana - understand
Nana - knowledge

I.e., knowledge of another's mind.
This is also known as ceto pariya ñāṇa.


text:
how can spirts/sould see physical things without eyes
I was listening and watching the Tibetan Book of the Dead (Audiobook) and i got one question in my mind. When soul/conciousness leaves physical body how can it see all the physical things without a physical eyes?

Why does it need to see physical things?

You need the eye faculty to see. In Humans and animals you have a physical eye made of gross material. In finer material spheres you will have eyes with finer material. Only in immaterial realms you will be without sense faculties.
In finer material realm your sense faculties are finer / shapere than being gross faculties. This is why in super normal powers this one of the power is know are divine [godly/heavenly] eye.
In all realms you have the 6 faculties in some for or the other except in the immaterial realms where you do not have the physical faculties.
Being in some finer material realm (heavens and hells) can see people in our realm and perhaps other realms also.
Perhaps in other realms also there might be being without an eye faculty like the blind in our realm. I don't this there being would be able to see.


text:
Gautama self torture, holding his breath
I posted yesterday here for my first time and received many very helpful answers. I'm so grateful for having found this site because I always have questions.
In continuing with yesterday's question regarding the Buddha's path to enlightenment, during his 6 years of searching he practiced extreme fasting, which I've heard of. But there's one mention that I've come across that states the following:
"Another way of torturing his body was to hold his breath for a long time until he felt violent pains in his ears, head and whole body. He would then fall senseless to the ground." (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/14lbud.htm)
Does anyone have any thoughts on the holding of the breath practice? Not that I'm interested in trying it myself or anything, that is, I'm aware that the Buddha eventually found these extremes to be unskillful, thus the middle way became his goal. I'm just curious as to its roots and the thought behind it.
Thanks!
Kevin

Like most ascetic practices, there actually is some value to this kind of breath practice.  The problem is that the concept behind it is often misunderstood and the mechanization that make it work get turned into something unskillful or even dangerous.
In Katsuki Sekida's book Zen Training, the relationship between blankness, mu (e.g. shunyata) and the breath is explored at length.  If you are interested in this sort of thing (especially in relation to Zen practice) I'd strongly encourage you to check out the book in full.  For now, we can do a little experiment.  Watch your breathing for a minute.  Once you've calmed your mind some - we'll say five minutes of anapansati practice - focus on fully exhaling all of the breath from your lungs.  As you do that, watch your mind.  You will notice that as your lungs empty, mental chatter subsides and is replaced by a sense of space or blankness.  This is mu, albeit a very conditioned, superficial       version of it.
Meditation practice, at least from a Zen perspective seeks to deepen this experience of voidness.  The means for arriving there is to lightly watch the breath through one's inhalation, exhalations, and, most significantly, the space between the two.  Eventually, this blankness will disconnect from the breath and become an object of meditation all on its own.
I suspect that the kind of breath practice undertaken by the striving Buddha was aimed at accessing this sort of blankness.  Obviously, there are gentler and more effective ways of accomplishing this; that's why he left it behind!

In the ancient Hindu tradition, Tapasya or severe asceticism was the practice that was thought to give one special spiritual superhuman powers. There is some truth to that, if you think about it - it all boils down to developing will power.
What Buddha has realized, is that self-mortification and infliction of physical and psychological pain is counterproductive to the goal - however, development of will power - especially as it comes to one's ability to control one's thoughts, emotions, and the state of mind - is confirmed to be as valid as ever.
Holding one's breath is not especially more useful than any other physical exercise involving application of will power, otherwise Buddha would have taught it post-bodhi, but I'm sure there are other physical and mental exercises that can help one develop will power and control over one's attention, emotions, associations, mood, and energy - without risking health issues.

I'm just curious as to its roots and the thought behind it.
Self mortification is done with the intention that it will end the past store of bad Kamma through experiencing all negative karmic results through mortification. When all the past Karma is exhausted, it is expected that you reach enlightenment, i.e., you do not experience any more pain. This is the reasoning behind the Bodhisattva's mortification practice including breathless mediation, which was also based on widely held contemporary beliefs and practices.

Nirgranthas, you have done bad deeds before. Exhaust them through sharp painful austerities. And
  restraining your body, speech and mind right here and now, you would not be committing further karma.
  Thus, by the destruction of old karma through asceticism and by doing no fresh karma, there will be no
  more flow of karma through its being destroyed. With the destruction of karma, there is the destruction
  of suffering; with the destruction of suffering there is the destruction of feeling; with the destruction of
  feeling, all suffering will be exhausted.

Cūla Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta

‘Whatever this person feels—whether pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—all that is caused by
  past action.
Thus, by eliminating past action by asceticism, and by doing no new action, there
will be no further flood of karma.
Without further flood of karma, there is the destruction of karma.
With the destruction of karma, there is the destruction of suffering.
With the destruction of suffering, there is the destruction of feeling.
With the destruction of feeling, all suffering will be exhausted.’

Deva,daha Sutta - it is best you read the whole sutta as it is about self-mortification and too long to quote in full
during his 6 years of searching he practiced extreme ...
With regard to other references about Buddha's path to enlightenment and also self mortification see:

How the Buddha awakened by Piya Tan
Ariya Pariyesanā Sutta
Maha Saccaka Sutta
Mahā Sīha,nāda Sutta

The first quote is a description of Nigaṇṭha i.e. Jain doctrine (which might be similar to the doctrine which the Bodhisattva was exploring).

From personal experience breath stops when you reach a certain mental calmness or cessation of thought. I experienced it prior to knowing what it was all about, I just thought it was cool to continue living and not breath. I've just learned recently, this is a meditative state of Jnana. Everything turns off, sight, hearing and even the body is in a state of running on kamma energy. Years ago, I did try to hold my breath, thinking a near death experience would bring about enlightenment...it just hurt. This state is what many are intending to attain, but it comes from skills built up from past lives.
Prior to learning Buddha Dhamma I experienced the non-permanent or Anariya jhanas as compared to the Ariya jhanas. Ultimately what is most important is the purification of one’s own mind and the true meaning of anicca, dukkha and anatta (Tilakkhana) as it's impossible to maintain anything to our satisfaction in the longterm (anicca) and this causes suffering (dukkha) which leaves one helpless in the rebirth process in this world of 31 realms (anatta) of sansara governed by the laws of cause and effect (paticca samuppada). The following are links to references:

Nirödha and Vaya – Two Different Concepts
Nirodha Samāpatti

With metta,
Donna :)

If you want to post a link, please specific link to a specific page (not a link to the top-level page of a whole web site), and only when that page is relevant to the specific questions which the OP asked (for example, in this case, about stopping breath).

Ok, thank you! :)

Self-mortification was an accepted way of achieving elevated states of being in the Buddha's time and that is why He pursued them on his path of seeking liberation. In many of his teachings, post-enlightenment, as recorded in the suttas he specifically speaks about self-mortification to the ascetics of his day that were practicing them. His message to all of them was consistent and in my understanding could be oversimplified as saying something like, "You can practice any type of mortification you like, however it will not, in itself, move you forward on the path towards liberation." I am getting this specifically from sutta 25 from the Digha Nikaya but there are many other sutras where this can be found.
The Buddha taught that it is not practice of mortification that purifies the mind and heart but rather it is from refraining from unwholesome actions that cause unwholesome states to arise and unwholesome states to persist that will purify. Whether or not you practice holding your breath if you restrain yourself from being "pleased and satisfied at having attained your end" then you are purified. Whether you succeed at holding your breath or not, it is your restraint in not "elevating yourself and disparaging others" that purifies. If you practice self-mortification it is whether or not you harm living beings that counts. If you practice self-mortification it is whether you take what is not given that counts. If you practice self-mortification it is whether or not you lie that counts. If you practice self-mortification it is whether or not you crave for sense pleasures that counts. "And through this restraint, through making THIS austerity, he takes an upward course and does not fall back into lower things."

He tried both extremes. Kamasukhalyukanuyogaya was one extreme where as a prince he lived a life of luxury. Attakilamatanuyogaya was the other extreme of self torture.
What is important to note here is he gave up both extremes. It does not mean the solution is somewhere in the middle. Both the extremes as well as any moderation all remain in the mundane path (Loukika).
The only solution is not the middle path as popularly considered. The soulution is a total escape with Nibbana i.e. breaking the shackles that ties one to the mundane path.
This is becoming Lokottara i.e. super-mundane or escaping the mundane.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#majjhimapatipada

The 2 syllables majjhi (intoxication) -mā (escape).  People are intoxicated with the mundane life thus do not see an incentive to renunciate. majjhima means escaping this mindset.

Perhaps I see why you say that, i.e. the dictionary says that majjati means "intoxicated", and its past participle e.g. "Majjita" and its aorist e.g. "majji" almost sound like what you're saying. Anyway, the dictionary also says that Majjhima ("middle") is like the Vedic "madhyama". And perhaps you're right, i.e. it is the "middle" in the sense that it is neither extreme. SN 56.11 also says that the "middle way" is the noble eightfold path, so.

Sura-meraya-majja-pamadatthana veramani <- that "majja" (intoxicate)

Yes that's Majja (a noun, an intoxicating drink). I think the Majjhima Nikaya for example is translated as the "Middle-length" discourses.

Yes all similar translations are wrong. Do not compare with Vedic/Sanskirt when Buddha lived in Sri Lanka and used Pakrit languages.

So perhaps you're using non-standard translations then. Do other people do that too, use the same translations as you do -- which organisation[s], what teachers teach that? Do you use a dictionary or commentary for reference, or ...?

The standard set by Sakyamuni is here -> http://panhinda.sirisaddharmaya.net .That is what I use.

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


text:
Was Buddha deceiving others to get them on the path?
I understand that the Buddha used different teachings styles, depending on the audience/people that were listening. Also, I understand that there seems to be a ,superficial', easier accessible Buddhism and a more advanced, transcendental one.
In the light of this, I am wondering if it is seen as ethically correct, that the Buddha taught some people differently than others, especially by using, I would say, manipulative techniques.
There are two examples I'd like to bring up.
One is the parable of the burning house, in which the Buddha promises playthings to get the children out of the burning house.
..."Then straightaway, intentionally devising a lie, he announced to the children, "I have various precious playthings, one for each of you, here outside the door.  For one, a goat-drawn cart.  For one, a deer-drawn cart.  For one, an ox-drawn cart.  Come out, all of you!  For your sakes I have made these carts, following the desire of your own thoughts."
Thereafter, he is offering them even more valuable carts than promised (the Dhamma I assume). But he used the first promise to lure them out of the house. Of course, as it is a parable, it can be interpreted in varying ways. However, in this case he intentionally lied to the children in order to get them to the right path. Isn't that manipulative?
The second example is about Karma and re-birth. After reading about the topic from different sources and books, it seems to me that the mechanism of Karma and re-birth primarily serves as to bring the common people to act ethically (good karma, bad karma, different realm of re-birth). However, in my understanding there is actually no self that can be re-born, as the 5 aggregates dissolve at the moment of death (where there is actually no death also). When there is no self, nothing can die nor be reborn, nor can there be a ,bookkeeping' of good and bad karma. Therefore, it seems that the teachings here bring the karma and re-birth theory up only to attract the common people and have them behave in line with Buddhist ethics. However, in fact after realising that there is no self, this whole construct becomes redundant (Simpler vs. more advanced Buddhism?).
I would be very happy to read your view on this, as this issue has kept bugging me for a while. I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.
Thank you so much.

it would be helpful if you could let us know from which Sutta / Sutra that you took this the parable of the burning house. I have not come across this before. So it could be a Mahayana Sutra (words such as Karma, Sutra, Dharma... are found in Mahayana text). If it is of the Theravada, the same is spelt (spelled) as Kamma, Sutta, Dhamma.

it is from the Lotus Sutra, ch. 3. Thanks.

so yes, the parable is from a Mahayana text.
What I have written about Karma is just a general understanding I have of it. So far, I was not able to understand it satisfactory.

two ways to answer your question. 1. only the path to liberation is really true 2. in what ways can the buddha be evil

The parable of the burning house is not universally accepted by all buddhists.
First because it comes from a text that is not universally accepted. As it was pointed out, the sutra it appears in is regarded as Mahayana, and some buddhist traditions don't accept them.
And second, because many regard that parable as a stretch that is incompatible and inconsistent with the attitude of the Buddha shown in other texts.
I believe in all buddhist tradition this topic is known as "skillful means". In the pali corpus, this skillful means encompasses similes and recasting of terms to new meanings. For example, karma was part of the vocabulary of people in the buddha's time with established meanings, but he rebranded it: "intention, i tell you, is karma". In another occasion, a person told the Buddha he learned he should worship the six directions (north, south, west, east, up and down). In reply, the Buddha recast that practice completely as a buddhist practice, but using the same idea and terms (i.e. the directions).
So, in essence, he appears as a skillful teacher in that he takes the context and language of his audience and use it to show truth, always focusing on meaning and never on terminology (so he never seem to fall into traps of, for example, debating semantics).
Where in the early sutras it seems the Buddha never sacrifices truth (he himself said arahants don't lie), In the Lotus Sutra, many interpret, like you did, that the Buddha lied. So it seems Mahayana take "skillful means" to a greater extent.
But mahayanists may interpret the burning house parable in many ways, not necessarily approving  "white lies" or approving of "end justify the means".
For example, in Zen, the words themselves are secondary, sometimes irrelevant. Sometimes, The only thing that matters is whether it's utterance summons truth or not in the mind of those who hear it. But yet, deceiving is still considered unskillful, though usually zen practitioners avoid evaluating hypothetical cases and generalizations, sticking to real and case by case evaluation.
As for karma and rebirth (as in life after death) the traditional stand is that these are actual laws and facts. They are not lies, but factual. So they are not artificial expedients to attract people to Buddhism.
One way of seeing it is that the path to happiness here and now is in the same direction of the path to a happy destination after death, which is in the same direction of the path to Nirvana -- the ultimate goal. Just like if you are in Argentina, the path to Mexico is in the same  path to US which is in the same path to Canada. That's how the teaching goes from "mundane" to "supramundane".

Please point out if my line of thought is flawed.

It is an established principle since the time of the Buddha there are two types of teachings:

mundane, worldly or moral teachings (lokiya dhamma)
supramundane, transcendent or noble teachings connected to emptiness (lokuttara dhamma)

The moral teachings bring moral (non-harming) benefits but do not remove attachment.
These teaching exist because the majority of people are unable to remove attachment.
Therefore, your line of thought is certainly flawed because how can it be expected of  most people to give up attachment towards sexuality, reproductive drives, partners, children & family?
If you expect all people to give up attachment & realise not-self, when they are actually incapable of doing so, it is you rather than the Buddha that is deceiving people.
Please refer to MN 117 (linked).

Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming];
  there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a
  factor of the path. MN 117

Please also refer to MN 12 & MN 26 (below):

Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...
Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...
Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a
  Tathagata's power...
MN 12

Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did
  so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much,
  those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good
  attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard,
  some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. MN 26

As for 'rebirth', the Buddha did not deceive or lie. Again, this is a long established principle.
The Buddha used certain well-defined words & it is not the Buddha deceiving people but people interpreting the Buddha's words in different ways that generate various ideas about 'rebirth'.
The commentaries state:

The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.
Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true.  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)

I feel this line of thought is correct and I tend to also think of it using the analogy of teaching young children vs. adults in issues of morality. The 'arguments' one would use to stop a 2yr old from hitting others would certainly be different from those to a 15yr old. Both sets of 'arguments' would have the same goal but would be quite different in their content and presentation. Though each would be very different, neither would be wrong - given their intended audience.

When I look at this translation,

The text says "skillful means", not "lie"
Sariputa is asked twice whether that's deception:

The first time he replies "no" because the children get carts instead
Even if they weren't given carts, it wouldn't be deception because the man's thought was to help the children escape

I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.
This answer for example suggests that the end can be justification for the means.
And Andrei's comment was that's a "Mahayana-style" answer, which of course the Lotus Sutra is too.
I'm inclined to think of it as a 'simplification' rather than a lie (see Lie-to-children for example). Most of the Physics that I was taught at school, for example, wasn't a 'lie' but rather a 'simplification' of the 'truth'.

The Buddha uses parables to illustrate points of the Dhamma. These are not intend to deceive, not untrue statement but example. The conditions for lying are:

i) The statement must be untrue.
ii) There must be an intention to deceive.
iii) An effort must be made to deceive.
iv) The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.

Source: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)
The Buddha used many techniques to teach the Dhamma but lying and deception was not one of them. See:

The Teaching Methods of the Buddha: A dynamic vision of Buddhist hermeneutics by Piya Tan
Language and Discourse by Piya Tan
Dhammapada 97: The two levels of religious language Translated & annotated by Piya Tan
Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu.

With regard to teaching of Karma, the Buddha spoke of the dangers and pitfalls of Karma. One intention of doing this is to encourage the cultivation of morality. But this does not make it untrue, but making the truth to be know so people will know the dangers which might befall them.
Also your of the Pāramitā one Pāramitā is Sacca Pāramī which is truthfulness, honesty. Also one of the Sila that the Bodhisattva never broke after definite prophecy is false speech.

Thank you so much for the useful links. I will take a closer look there.

If the action is beneficial for either party or not unbeneficial for both parties it may be ok to pursue irrespective of the term you use to describe that act. (tactic etc.)