text:
What is the difference between the progress of low and high intensive meditators?
What is the difference between the progress of "low intensive" meditators as opposed to "high intensive" meditators?
  By low intensive I mean like a meditator who has never been to a ten day intensive retreat and spreads sitting time over a longer period of time. By progress I mean Vipassana insight progress, Jhana progress or any other kind of meditation progress in any tradition.

This seems really hard to answer. I typed up a full reply last week but did not send it because of the subjective nature of it. I would say I am a low intensive meditator. I have never gone to a ten day retreat. I meditate daily for 45mins.

What is meditation progress? How can it be measured and how can it be compared? What is the default progress at any intensity? What is intensity based off of? What is the scale of intensity? At what threshold does one switch between low to high intensity?

Good questions. I know in the tradition that I am in there are 16

I assume you mean a 16 step scale of intensities. Coming from Vietnamese & Japanese Zen background, I have never heard of that.

16 stages. of insight. This information is kinda esoteric and underground. There is even this Buddhist website called dharmaoverground. The members talk a lot about what is almost never talked about outside the teacher/student relationship and that is their individual meditation experience and the progress of insight or Jhana...they seem(and I am generalizing here) kinda secular and not much into rebirth. Some members admit to being Arahants also so....but they have  analytical information about how individuals progress in meditation that seems to be good information...

I would rather have a teacher guide me through these stages because some teachers who have mastered the teachings say if a meditator tries to learn the stages of insight on their own it will make it hard or impossible to reach liberation...

I have heard that the most famous Vietnamese Zen Master of Plum Village(I can't remember his name) followed the same stages of insight as the Mahasi method. Maybe Mahasi got the 16 stages from this Zen tradition, the other way around or it is just a coincidence. I speculated a lot here so...

Zen also tries to keep its insight progress system unknown. A meditator is guided by the teacher, stage by stage and t

If we learn how the progress of insight works intellectually first without experiencing them first by way of practice then it might be harder or even impossible to get through these stages...This is basically  what I heard my teacher say about it. This is probably why you don't hear Zen Masters talking about insight progress in a public way.

As a Plum Village layperson, I have not heard that before by Thich Nhat Hanh or any of the monastics here.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Ullum: Mahasi got those 16 stages in Vissudhimagga, they an old part of the tradition. Though they seem to occur naturally even for those who never read Vissudhimagga, though the division of the progress may be different (there are less in Vimuttimagga, for instance); in general there is pre-real-vipassana (getting concentration and mindfulness), then deep insight into arising&passing (called sometimes "pseudo-nirvana", as it may have some raptura attached (upakilesa)) followed by suffering insights (bangha, "dark night"), equanimity, and then supramundane stages (cessation).

I guess the short answer is that in general the more intensive meditation practice you do the more familiar you will become with the jhanas and the more insight you will experience. Larry Rosenberg in Breath by Breath does say that retreats are needed to experience certain levels of insight. However he does emphasise practice in everyday life even more.
However I don’t think things are that simple....
Intense practice isn’t necessary for insight
Willougby Britton in the Dark Night project has been analysing negative effects of meditation i.e. the dark night. This is a state that it’s possible (likely, certain???) to get to with a certain amount of practice. She says the two populations of people who appear vulnerable to this are

Super intense meditators typically in their 20s to 30s who go to
Asia, ordain and then spend 12 hours plus a day meditating.
Middle ages practitioners who have been meditating for an hour a day for 10 to 20 years an maybe going on retreat once or twice a year.

The point being that both lower and higher intensity mediators do progress along the path but a different rates. The second population is doing enough and has a real and effective practice.  That said the second group is still pretty dedicated but not outrageously so.
Retreats aren’t necessary for insight
Dipa Ma, the Buddhist master taught a nursing mother enough mindfulness practice that she attainted the first stage of realisation without leaving the house. So long retreats aren’t an absolute necessity for insight.
Even formal meditation practice isn't necessary for insight
The founder of dharmaoverground, Daniel Ingram, said in this Buddhist Geeks podcast that people can and do have genuine insight from yoga practice, on long marches in the military or even breath control classes for actors. So formal meditation isn't even necessary for insight.
So ...
I've heard the relationship between insight and meditation described in terms of being struck by lightening. If you hang around on windy moors in thunderstorms (i.e. meditate intensively) you are more likely to be struck by lightening (insight) than if you sit in front of a TV set and never go out (i.e. never meditate). However people that do habitually sit in front of the TV do occasionally get struck by lightening. Similarly people on windy moors in thunderstorms may never get struck no matter how often they go out and jump up an down with a foil hat on.
There's no guarantees - meditation just increases your chances. To use another analogy - you can't force plants to grow. You can only dig the soil, water the earth and put the best conditions possible there.

The links you provided lead to some hard to find info (: Metta :)

The problem with short sessions of meditation is that it takes time to get beyond our psychological problems and really start paying attention to our concentration object.
Thus there is great benefit in longer practice sessions, especially full-on retreats where the entire focus is on meditation for tens of hours at a time with minimal sleep...
Daniel Ingram, American author of Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, a very self-empowering book, answers this question in-depth in Chapter 9.
(If you want to know more about the Stages of Insight, especially in line with this sort of subject, I suggest you read the entire book because Ingram's book is the best ever I've seen that covers it in depth, relating to many other subjects. And has some awesome parallel charts on his site.)
Before sharing the excerpt that will answer your question, first read the introduction to the chapter.

WHEN, WHERE AND FOR HOW LONG?
The best time to meditate is when you can, as in “get it while you
  can!” The best place to meditate is where you can, and the best
  duration is for as long as is available or necessary for you to get
  what you wish out of it. This may seem like an obvious answer, but
  people can sometimes get it into their heads that certain times are
  better than others and thus not meditate when that seemingly sacred
  time period is unavailable or interrupted. They may feel that certain
  places or special circumstances (special cushions, noise levels, etc.)
  are oh-so-necessary, and if these are not available then they may feel
  frustrated and unable to practice. They may feel that a certain
  minimal duration of meditation time is necessary, and thus find
  themselves unable to make use of what time they may have.
If you have two hours each day for meditation, great! If you have two
  jobs, six kids, and just can’t find more than ten minutes each day for
  meditation, make good use of what you’ve got. There have been times in
  my life when I was very grateful that I had twenty hours a day to
  practice. On the other hand, when I have only had ten minutes a day, I
  have been grateful for the sense of how precious those ten minutes
  were. Skillful urgency and well-developed gratitude for a chance to
  practice at all can allow us to really use limited pieces of time to
  their fullest.
If you can take off a month each year for intensive retreats,
  wonderful. If a weekend retreat once a year is all you can do, go for
  it. In short, honor where you are and what you can realistically
  accomplish given your current circumstances. If they are not entirely
  to your liking, and you want to take more time for practice, work on
  rearranging things a bit in a way that leaves you with a life that you
  still find fulfilling should you later decide to practice a bit less.

The answer to your question is found within below excerpt in bold.

DAILY LIFE AND RETREATS
A very related issue here is that of the world of retreats and
  monasticism and how it contrasts with the world of “daily life” or the
  life of a “householder.” Each has its own set of issues, but many of
  them overlap and the differences may be more question of degree than
  of dichotomy.
Now, it is true that the battle is not always to the strong, nor the
  race to the swift, but that’s the way to bet. In other words, those
  who do lots of practice in daily life, go on more and longer retreats,
  are more consistently able to concentrate and investigate quickly and
  precisely, pay attention more often during their daily activities, and
  have their morality trip more together are, on average, much more
  likely to make progress.
When on retreat, people have the opportunity to practice nearly all
  day in settings that are usually designed to be very conducive to
  clear, precise inquiry and depths of meditation. (Why so few people
  actually take advantage of these circumstances when they go on retreat
  is beyond me, and I will spend some time ranting about that later.)
  The point is that going on retreats can give opportunities for much
  faster and deeper practice to those who choose to really practice.
  Said another way, if you go on retreat, make good use of that time.
There is a huge difference between the experiences of people who do
  retreats halfway and people who really follow the instructions all day
  long. In my experience, there is no comparison between retreats I have
  done when I really powered the investigation from the time I awoke
  until I went to sleep at night, causing fast and profound progress,
  and when I took breaks here and there to think about things such as my
  issues and meditation theory, generally causing moderate to slow
  progress. While many people think that retreats are for more advanced
  practitioners, I think that a few retreats early in one’s practice can
  really jump start things, allowing one to then make much better use of
  meditation time off retreat.
I often think of the momentum that retreats generate in terms of
  rolling a boulder over a hill. If you get a long running start,
  pushing hard the whole way, you are more likely to be able to get the
  boulder rolling fast enough so that it rolls over the hill in one
  straight shot. If you push intermittently or half-heartedly, the
  boulder is likely to roll back when you get to the steep part of the
  hill, but you have worn the hill down a little bit, and you may also
  be a bit stronger for the exercise. Thus, it is possible to wear down
  the hill given enough time, but it is much faster to simply power over
  it the first time and move on to the next hill. I know of no obvious
  benefits from slow practice that fails to gain some footholds in the
  territory of concentration or insight.
Those who take the wear down the hill approach may eventually lose
  faith and interest, having done lots of work to little effect. Those
  who really apply themselves and cross a few hills early on through
  focused and consistent effort, such as retreats or really solid daily
  life practice, will have more of a sense of accomplishment and
  empowerment, and may have even put in less total time and effort than
  those who tried to wear down the hill. This irony should not be lost
  on those who want to be smart about developing their meditative
  skills.
For example, lets say that you could allocate 365 hours out of one
  year to formal meditation practice. Given a choice, I would be more
  inclined to take half of those hours, about 182, and do a 10 day
  retreat practicing hard and consistently 18 hours a day with minimal
  breaks at the beginning of the year, and then spend half an hour
  meditating each of the other days. I would be much more likely to
  cross into some interesting territory early on and overcome some of
  the initial hurdles than if I spent one hour each day for that year
  practicing well. The amount of time and effort is the same, but the
  effect is likely to be quite different.
A few odds and ends about retreats. First, retreats tend to have a
  semi-predictable rhythm to them. Realizing this allows us, if we have
  the time and resources to space, to choose how long a retreat we want
  to meet our meditative goals. Even if we are practicing well, the
  first few days of a retreat tend to be mostly about adjusting to the
  place, the posture, the routine, the people, the local customs, the
  schedule, etc.
Similarly, the last day or two of a retreat tends to bring up thoughts
  of what we are going to do next. Thus, to give yourself some time in
  the middle when you are not dealing with these things as much, I
  recommend greater than 5-day retreats when possible. It is not that
  benefit can’t be derived from shorter retreats, but there is something
  about those middle days that tends to make strong concentration and
  good practice easier to attain.
Second, every retreat center and tradition has its neurotic shadow
  aspects and downsides. This is inevitable, but by identifying them and
  realizing that there are ways to have them not slow our investigation
  down is helpful. One center where I have spent a bit of time is prone
  to attracting very serious, scowling people who trudge around in their
  walking practice like the slightest sound or glance from anyone around
  them might set them off like a bomb. I have been to another center
  where sometimes I have been the only meditator there, requiring me to
  have more self motivation and discipline. Another monastic center I
  have been to has the whole male hierarchy thing going which can cause
  all sorts of reactions from retreatants both female and male.
Then there are basically always neurotic things around food (huge
  topic, of which vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian is just the tip of the
  iceberg), bathrooms, quarters, showers, hot water, washing clothes and
  dishes, cleaning duties, heating and cooling (one place I have been to
  has cantankerous wood stoves in some buildings for heat, another in a
  tropical setting has open windows that let the mosquitoes swarm in),
  clothing (e.g. some centers have people wear white, others won’t
  tolerate skimpy or revealing outfits, some don’t care), fragrances,
  chemical sensitivities, incense, morning wake-up bells (too quiet, too
  loud, someone forgets to ring it at all), schedules, roommates
  (particularly those that snore, smell, are noisy or messy, etc.),
  strictness of silence, eye contact or the lack thereof, etiquette
  around teachers (e.g. to bow or not, to ask challenging questions or
  not, limits on the time we have access to them, their personalities
  and neurotic stuff, whether or not they speak the language we speak,
  etc.), etiquette of entering rooms with icons (e.g. whether to bow
  three times or not), the presence of icons or not (and which icons),
  and issues of the orthodoxy of ritual, dogma, posture, hand position,
  eating rituals, chanting, vows, etc.
This list doesn’t include issues of corruption, romances, cults of
  personality, affairs, crushes, miscommunications, vendettas, scandals,
  drug use, money issues, and all the other things that can sometimes
  show up anywhere there are people. In short, whatever you imagine that
  you or other people might have issues around, these are bound to show
  up sooner or later if you spend enough time in spiritual circles or
  retreat centers. While solo practice is an option, that doesn’t get
  you away from all of these issues and has its own set of downsides.
The crucial thing is to realize that great practice can occur in
  conditions far from perfect, particularly if we realize that all the
  sensations that make up these inputs and our reactions to them are all
  worthy of investigation and thus as much a source of ultimate and
  often relative wisdom as any other sensations. I have rarely had what
  I considered perfect practice conditions, but I have done well and you
  can also. That said, some centers, particular retreats, and teachers
  are better than others, and it is worth exploring and asking around.
  All these things can be particularly distracting and distressing for a
  first time retreatant, as often there are some naïve hopes, however
  unacknowledged, of walking into the Garden of Eden, sitting with the
  Buddha, and hanging out with the most evolved fellow retreatants one
  could imagine.
When off retreat, progress is still possible, particularly if one has
  used retreats to get past some of the initial hurdles (hills) and get
  a few tastes of what is possible. Do not underestimate the value of
  careful and honest awareness of what one is going during one’s life
  off the cushion. On the other hand, if you want to significantly
  increase your chances of tasting the fruits of the path, do your best
  to make time for retreats in a way that honors your spiritual goals as
  well as your other commitments. One of the reasons for monasticism is
  that your commitments become your practice, but there are plenty of
  people who have figured out how to live in the world and use retreats
  and strong daily practice to achieve the same effects. In fact, in
  this unusual time in history, there are plenty of places to sit for
  very little money and get great support for practice without having to
  deal with all the ritual, dogma and other hassles that are involed in
  ordination.

My meditation practice has always been simple
I will only speak about what has worked for me.
Never, have I had a set rule for meditation, but I have been consistent if I look back over my life. Hours of sitting  meditation does not work for me. I need to be around nature with a connection and a flow of light energy. Walking meditation is my way into the stream.
I have been doing walking meditation for about 20 years.  Actually, I never set out to
do this. (I didn't know about Buddhism)  With my circumstances and this kind of walking with nature, I have achieved so much for my personal progress. My walks rage from 30 mins -
2 hours. If I had been told  or forced to do this for 20 years, I would never have started! -  Buddhism found me years later and it all clicked into place.
Be well.

"Low intense meditation" - Ideally should be done after a "High intense meditation" session. The main purpose of a "Low intense meditation" sessions or daily practice for about 2 hours is to ensure you do not form new mental volitional formations and perceptions which was dissolved in a "High intense meditation" session.
"High intense meditation" - You should start with "High intense meditation" and switch over to "Low intense meditation" with occupational "High intense meditation" session perhaps every year. A "High intense meditation" session helps in establishing a high degree of concentration and reasonable desolation of some Volitional Formations and Perceptions which otherwise you cannot doing "Low intense meditation".

What is the difference between the progress of "low intensive" meditators as opposed to "high intensive" meditators?
Progress is much slower for low intensive meditators.(not taking into consideration one's karma).
From personal experience the amount of time i sat meditating continuously directly correlates with meditation progress.In other words high intensive meditation resulted in meditation progress for me.
X hours of meditation= X Progress.Give or take.
but i cannot speak about others.As this is what i have observed,tried and tested and is true in my own life.This is my karma.No matter what i do i never seem to get more or less then what i put in.This is unfortunate because progress depends on how much effort i am willing to put in which at times can be a challenge.Some people don't have to do much.They just sit and they enter the Jhanas or gain insight but my karma is different.And so is yours.
Always remember cause and effect. So if you cause (Meditation) there will be an effect (Progress/Insight/Jhana).When,how much,how long,you'll have to observe,try and test it in your own life.

What is the difference between the progress of low and high intensive meditators?
the simplest answer for this question is the approach and the idea of meditation of the person, and their experience :)
Average (or low as you mentioned) - are people who are doing meditation but still have not fond the ultimate reason of it. simply said they want to gain some thing out of it. such as relaxation, reduce of stress etc. the paradox here is these are for sure benefits of meditation but not the core of it. hence it limits them to get in to deep stages of meditation cuz at the end there looking for something which is not the deeper meaning of it. hence they find that they have to put a lot of effort to meditate for even more than 30 min.
High intensive meditators - on the other hand are people who do it for the simple reason of joy. Yes Joy or Happiness. When ur looking for joy and Blissfulness in every moment of meditation it means the approach is now different. If you want to be happy right now that means that you will have to find peace with your self in the present moment situation of your meditation no matter which level you are. And the biggest Paradox is, when you are able to be happy in what ever stage in meditation (regardless of the stage you are in right now or the next), because now your finding joy in it, it takes you more deeper in to the rabbit hole(meditation). And this means that the more Blissful and joy you find your self the less you want to come out of it at all. So there is no huge effort but a simple case like, "putting a small effort in the right place."
But the ironic and funny part is some times to understand this by ur self it will some times take a lot of years in ur practice. It almost took me 10 years. But now i have told you the secret ;)
I hope this answer finds its way for the one who is close to the end of all suffering, and this helps you :)

It depends on one's current condition such as behavioral inclinations and intensity of the appearance of spiritual faculties.
A person with dull faculties & muddled convictions may need to take another birth to become a proper disciple. Whereas another might have right convictions and or modicum understanding attaining fruition of the first level of sainthood no later than the moment of death.
I think that if people are trained correctly then the intensity of the training will correlate with the quickness in attainment and general contentment with how they spend their days & nights.


text:
Significance of Three Customs Involving String
I've noticed three different customs involving string at Theravada temple service. If by chance anyone is familiar with the significance of any of these; it would be nice to know. The service is not in my native language so I miss a lot of nuances and end up forgetting to ask when I have a chance.

The monks sit up on a raised area and occasionally seem to be winding string around various objects creating a web like display. What does this signify?
At times long pieces of string are sent through the group of lay followers and everyone tries to hold a piece of the string. What does this mean?
At the end of the service people sometimes line up to receive a small string bracelet and a blessing from a monk. Is this just a nice gesture or does it have a particular meaning? Does anyone know what the blessing is for?

Thanks for any insights. :)

Chanting and good thoughts of the monks (even any other being) generate positive vibes. The string is used as a better means of conducting the vibration than may be air. (If you attach a tin to the end of two string and you speak into one you can hear the voice in the other.) Generally the string is wrapped around a vessel of water which cases the water to vibrate in tune with the chanting. These strings and water is given out as it the vibrations will carry some positive conditioning.

Interesting! Yes, one of the monks does come around with water. He'll dip flowers into the water and then shake the droplets across the crowd. I hadn't even thought to ask about that. Is that the water that the string was tied to?

Funny, because that part always reminded me of what priests do with holy water at Catholic Church, except people are very solemn when they receive holy water but with this custom at the temple people are very happy and they talk to the monk and everyone seems to be having a good time with it. :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to explain what Buddhism is?
My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family.
At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age).
But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good."

So

Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it?
Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth?
Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth?
Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you").
Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

Ajahn Brahm introduces it in a quasi-reverse order : 1) Happiness 2) How to get Happiness 3)Unhappiness 4) Ending of Unhappiness

It's much more suited to the mind-set of non-Buddhists - since many shirk at the word "Suffering" - since they are living in constant denial of reality. Instead, one starts with what they are actually chasing after - the ever-elusive "Happiness" - I agree that this isn't exactly what the Buddha taught - But, it is a skilful way of introducing the Buddha's teaching, to persons with a certain kind of mentality - this very twisting of words to encouraging certain perceptions in the mind of the hearer and preventing the arising of others.

In fact, in the suttas - we find that the Buddha often does something similar - he twists around the meaning of words, bending them to suit reality (and sometimes, to the needs of his audience). Even many of the Vedic words were re-defined by the Buddha to make them resonate with Reality.

@Monk: re your first comment above: people seem to get stuck on the 'ending' part and forget what brought them there in the first place. You went to the hospital, were treated and released... Now what were you doing before that? Oh, that's right...

1) It's hard to summarize Buddhism in brief without resorting to one of sometimes inaccurate or misleading summaries. A summary that starts with the Hindu-style cosmology, imho, misses the point. Also depends on the audience, i.e. do they see other religions as being different kinds of Christianity or essentially Christian heresy or as superstition. The worst misunderstanding is that Buddhism is only a devotional religion just Christianity with the words Buddha/God, Pure Land/Heaven, and so on swapped.
2)I've been reading about the different forms of Buddhism, a lot. What is surprising is that each branch has a slightly different take on what the problem is that Buddhism is meant to solve.

Shin Buddhism. The fundamental problem is arrogance, particularly with respect to the idea that we think we can engage in practices to solve our other problems.
Theravada. The fundamental problem is suffering, particularly suffering associated with grasping and desiring things. I don't like to waffle-- this view really does say the problem is akin to depression. I visualize the historical Buddha as suffering from depression, but not everyone suffers from depression. The flip reading of this is, that the fundamental problem is to figure out how to be happy. The Dalai Lama sometimes uses this in public speeches to summarize the goal of Buddhism.
Mahayana. The fundamental problem is ignorance, particularly with respect to the question of who we are, and that we think our fundamental problem can be solved individually
Tathagata-Garba. The fundamental problem is that we think we have a problem, particularly of the sort that could be solved by realizing our problem is already solved. (I certainly don't claim to grok this, it sounds like the fundamental problem is we don't think we are good enough, but eventually we realize we were good enough all along. Personally I think it's nonsense, my opinion of myself has no bearing on anything except for people trapped in a society that obsesses about relative rank)

3) I don't start with the 4 noble truths or 8 fold paths. I'd rather start with what practices I do and to what goal.
4) You can't help but say something about what you personally think, else you'll be parroting the party line  of a particular institutionalize form of Buddhism or boring people with an encyclopedic listing of Buddhist schools.
5) If someone really has no problems, that's great, they are Enlightened! The historical Buddha (According to Stephen Batchelor's retelling) said as much on his death bed, when he asked if anyone had any questions left, no one did, so he said, well you all must be enlightened then. People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).
I was reading "Wicked" the retelling of "Wizard of Oz" from the witch's standpoint. In one scene, the main character was looking through a glass as a child and saying "Horrors, horrors" as she could see something no one else could. Later in the book, she grows up to be a political radical and rebel because she was one of the few that saw the horror of the consequences of the government (the Wizard's) policies.
Anyhow, I don't claim to have a good solution for the problem-- how do we stay optimistic and positive or happy once we realize the muddle we are in, but at least the Mahayana version, provides a path towards how to find happiness-- by taking action to solve everyone's problems.

I was pointed here from another Q. It is indeed fascinating that different sects see "the problem" differently! I did not realize that. Of course, people in general vary. The same situation seen by an NT, NF, SP or SJ (MBTI / Keirsey-Bates) looks very different! They all want something different! One size does not fit all. But when you say: the fundamental problem is to figure out how to be happy - Wow, that hits me hard. I spent my life wondering that, and now it seems to be in hand, but I don't know what to do next! I agree with ChrisW's mother. Is there a non-personal statement of Good?

I don't know, I'm Mahayana. One day you wake up and you realize you are in a horror movie, you want to leave it, but you are trapped in it because you don't exist as an individual anyhow, you're just part of the collective consciousness. The project is to solve the suffering of all sentient beings, which is achieved by working tirelessly to fix the mundane problems of the world (sickness, hunger), not so much with the aim of happiness but equanimity & peace.

In a nut shell Buddhism revolves around the 3 trainings:

Living a life of morality so we do no create misery for one self and others
Developing mastery over the mind so we do not react but be proactive so we can be at peace with our selves and other
Developing wisdom of your cognitive process to identify how misery is generated so we can come out of misery

So, once you have all that, what is a good thing to do for others? What to create, promote, share...? A path that only ends in cessation is Existentialism, as far as I am concerned. What lies on the other shore?

What lies on the other shore? - A completely balanced and happy mind immune to any experience that can hurt you. What ceases is the defilements that make you unhappy or the suffering itself.

In addition to my comments, I quote Ajahn Brahm from his book "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond"

The Highest Happiness
The Buddha said, “Nibbāna is the highest happiness” (Dhp 203, 204). This is, perhaps, the most helpful
  description of enlightenment. Not only is it straightforward and
  lacking in gibberish, it is also very appealing. It reveals why men
  and women have been striving for nibbāna throughout the past
  twenty-six centuries. We all want happiness, and if the highest
  happiness is on offer, then that’s what we want. Thus Buddhism’s
  perennial teaching is how to be happier and happier, until one reaches
  the summit of all happiness in this very life: nibbāna.
These days, I
  present the Buddha’s special teaching of the four noble truths having
  rearranged them. I have found that if I begin with the noble truth of
  suffering, then my audience is turned off. They know enough about that
  already in their lives. They didn’t give up their evening to come and
  listen to more suffering. As any salesperson knows, first impressions
  are paramount. Therefore I introduce the four noble truths as follows:

Happiness
The path leading to happiness
Unhappiness
The cause of unhappiness

This is essentially the same as the Buddha’s teaching, but reordered for greater impact. Some might call
  this rearrangement “marketing,” but it emphasizes the goal of Buddhism
  by placing it first.
Nibbāna portrayed as the highest happiness also
  reveals that the noble eightfold path is the way of ever-increasing
  happiness. Those who follow the path wholeheartedly get happier. As
  the Buddha said in the Araṇavibhanga Sutta, “One should know how to
  define pleasure, and knowing that, one should pursue pleasure within
  oneself.” One pursues such inner pleasure, which is jhāna, without
  fear until one reaches the highest happiness.
What is the highest
  happiness that you have experienced? Drugs? Sex? Music? Falling in
  love? Seeing the birth of your first child? You will find that the
  happiness of jhāna exceeds all of these. That is why one’s first
  experience of jhāna blows apart all one’s old conceptions about the
  meaning of happiness. Jhāna provides deep insight into happiness. Not
  that jhāna is the highest happiness, but it is so close that, as we
  said earlier, the Buddha called it sambodhi sukha, “the bliss of
  enlightenment.” From jhāna one proceeds to a happiness a little bit
  higher, and that is nibbāna.
Recent scientific studies support the
  assertions that meditation makes one happier and that Buddhist monks
  may be the happiest people of all. Therefore, anyone who wants a
  really good time should be a really good meditator. And if one wants
  the highest happiness of all, then go for nibbāna.

Thank you for identifying a/the specific book of his which contains that message (because he's written about 10 books).

I find that Jhana increases my enjoyment of everything else. So, I lead back in to life without hindrances, but to do... What? As Kurt Vonnegut said in one of his books, "What in Hell are people For?"

It may be useful to choose certain aspects of Buddhism that people can relate to such as Cause and Effect. This reminded me of the dilemma The Buddha had when he almost didn't teach The Dhamma because he thought it was too hard to grasp.But Brahma persuaded him that there some people who can understand.Perhaps the best way to approach this is by treating Buddhism completely as a philosophy something to ponder about in the distance and not to be experienced as this can be met with aversion.Create that distance so your mother can feel safe and not like her views are being threatened.Just like we don't see the need to disagree that Christians believe in Jesus Christ as it makes no difference your mother should be put in a position where she is aware what these so called Buddhists believe but does not feel threatened by it.Try watching a documentary on the life of The Buddha visit a Buddhist temple or attend
A Buddhist ceremony maybe travel to a buddhist country.just like a curious tourist where you can explain some of the symbolism or mythology.
But for her to be able to grasp the teaching would depend on her karma.The Buddha himself did not start by explaining complex teachings such as Annata or Dependent Origination to people who could not understand.He mainly just started with explaining the importance of Generosity or being Good. Because you needq sufficient merits to clear the mind enough to grasp the teaching or the essence of what the Buddha taught.a
imagine if you were a stranger what could you say to make your then self understand Buddhism.Remembera how you first understood buddhism was it like somebody telling you what to accept or was it kind of likke something you forgot then went oh that's right!an aha moment a moment of insight.

Great, totally agree. My first impression of Buddhism was super powers and fighting. Now it seems the opposite.

He mainly just started with explaining the importance of Generosity or being Good. I thought that this teaching started with the noble truths i.e. the Dhammacakkappavattana. When you say that he "started with explaining the importance of Generosity or being Good", what teaching[s] (or book or whatever) are you referring to?

Remembera how you first understood buddhism I was reading a story of his early life: that before his birth someone predicted he would be a spiritual teacher or a ruler, that his parents kept him insulated/ignorant in a palace, that as a "prince" he escaped into town and discovered sickness and death there, stopped being happy with the gilded cage (palace) he was in, went to homelessness, tried asceticism, was eventually enlightened under the bodhi tree, and then started to teach the Middle Way and the Four Noble Truths. When he mentioned the 1st Noble Truth I agreed: thought it self-evident.

@Chris W Please read what the sentence i wrote before "to people who could not understand".The Dhammacakkappavattana was expounded to "five Asctetics".People whose only goal in life is spiritual enlightenment.When the Buddha explained Dependent Origination or Anatta he was mostly addressing Bhikkus or Monks.The Aṅguttara Nikāya contains more suttas targeted directly to lay people.Overall the suttas addressed to lay people show a very strong emphasis on good conduct by body, speech, and mind.And a higher emphasis on the goals of happiness in this life,generosity and a good rebirth.

This Answer is intuitive and skillful. Long ago, I shared a book by Alan Watts (whom I no longer respect) with my mother. She said, "I don't need someone to tell me how to think!" It hurt, but she was correct. One must "meet people where they are". This is a hard thing to get across to prospective "preachers" because they are so full of their understanding and relief that they do not intuit their audience! You understand this well. We should spend as much time studying other people as ourselves, and the Dharma.

I think a brief overview of Buddha's life is an excellent way to explain Buddhism, because the listener can follow the train of observation and reasoning that led Buddha to renounce a life of ease for a difficult life as an ascetic, then wandering teacher.
To me the most salient feature of Buddhism is that there is no central role for a "god". Other salient features are the stress on self-insight, and the importance of intention in judging the morality of action.
If someone asks why Buddhists bow before statues, I usually say it is to pay respect to the wisdom of Buddha and his teachings.
In explaining the Noble Truths, I usually say "all people suffer at some point in their lives" and "the reason people suffer is that they desire something, even if it's only desire for things not to change". The third and fourth noble truth I usually explain as "we can limit our suffering to the extent we can master our desires" and there is a way to master desire, the Eightfold Path.
Harder to explain are anatta and "what is reincarnated after we die?".

I don't think that people suffer because they desire something. They suffer because they cannot get it, or getting it makes problems. They might want the wrong thing (for example, drug highs, which don't lead anywhere) but desire in itself cannot be wrong. Master it, so that it can be well-directed, yes. Stifle it, no. So, what should people actually DO?

But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I
  don't agree: I like life, I think life is good."

It seems like your non-Buddhist mother understood the Dhamma (Truth) better than you. The 1st noble truth summarises all suffering as attachment (upadana) to the five aggregates. It is not about 'life' but about mental suffering. Birth, aging, death, sorrow, separation from loved, etc, are just examples of attachment (upadana).
If you explain to your mother Buddhism is about happiness & suffering and it explains suffering occurs when there is clinging; be it clinging to life, clinging to a person or clinging to a view or opinion, your mother might agree; given mothers are prone to worry about their children because of clinging. This is how Queen Mallika explained the Dhamma to King Pasenadi in the Piyajatika Sutta.
This said, be sure to explain the happiness (Nibbana) part of Buddhism, particularly the moral teachings about skilful kamma in relationships, such as metta & gratitude, including family relationships. Here, you can demonstrate how Buddhism nurtures your relationship with her.
If you focus too much on suffering, your mother may think you are unhappy rather than happy.
Its important to try to make your mother comfortable & happy.

There's some more on that topic here (to which you posted an answer similar to this one): Did the Buddha really say that “life is suffering”?

I voted this down long ago and now looking back I have no idea why I did so. I just looked at this question again for the first time in a long time and was going to answer much the same way when I saw this and noticed I had previously voted it down.

You can re-vote the answer up if you wish (since i added another sentence to it, at the very end).

Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it?

I find this line of questioning to illustrate the First Noble Truth to be more useful:
Are you aware what you do all the time ? You seek pleasure and pleasurable experiences. Sometimes it appears that this seeking does produce some pleasure, some pleasurable experiences. But does it make you happy? does it ever satisfy? If it does, why are you back at seeking pleasure again instead of being happy with what you have found?  Is it because everything changes and soon you have to redo it again and again? When does this ever end?

Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth?

It depends on the listener. For someone who is family/relationship oriented, clarifying that dukkha is interleaved in all of these aspects (death/aging/illness) can help. For the intellectually inclined, similar response to the one I have prescribed above may be of more help... at the least to get them thinking along these lines.

Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

Nobody wants to be pointed out that what they are doing is not right, especially when they are doing somethings right according to some metric. You have to point them to what they are not seeing, what they are missing. It is not an easy task, from my limited experience.
Hope this helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCX0muRLJWc
Buddhism in a nutshell,
"Avoid all sin
Do good
purify the the mind
this is the teaching from all the Buddhas"

Yes, that's from the Dhammapada. http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=183 suggests that it and the next two verses belong together.

By my experience, Tipitaka is Buddhism; Buddhism is Tipitka.
I develop my life to be happy every way follow to tipitaka. Then I always show my happiness every time to everyone by smile. When someone ask me for the reason of smile, I tell them "because buddhism make me happy".

There is no need to explain what Buddhism is.  If outsiders get curious, just tell them it is about purifying your mind, being aware, and serving your debt to the universe.
Sometimes, when you feel the need to explain (and you are not indebted to an asker), you are seeing a me-ism (what's the Buddhist word?) -- an ego artifact whereby you try to bolster your confidence or power by getting others to agree.  Be aware of it -- it may or may not be part of a healthy personal reaction.

A me-ism -- perhaps "a conceit".

@ChrisW:  Except it is revolves around an extreme kind of self-awareness and not about pride, but almost a distorted rejection of pride or self.  A self rejecting self.

Start off with skilful means. This requires knowing your audience well, and having established a good rapport and relationship which opens up the ability to listen.
Secondly, know the world-view of your audience. Explain Buddhism in accordance with the audience.
Buddhism is a word.  Despite it's usage - an attempt to encapsulate several thousand traditions over two thousand years that span half the world's surface with no centralisation - what it boils down to is Bodhi - enlightenment, from the verbal root "budh": awakening.  We can define 'Buddhists' to be those who consider Bodhi to be a worthy goal and who aspire towards it. However, that is quite a broad scope - it includes many other religions.  So if we feel a need to narrow it, then we can say that Buddhism recognises Sakyamuni Buddha as an individual who both experienced awakening, and also decided to teach it to others.
The purpose of Buddhism, however, remains the same - our purpose is to be awake.  Why? Well, once we are awake we won't be sleepily drifting around making trouble for ourselves and everyone else any more!
This covers many Buddhist traditions, but not all– The pure land schools don't really acknowledge the need to practice the three higher trainings in this life, and instead concentrate on developing a strong relationship with Buddha Amitābha in order to be reborn in Sukhāvatī in their next life, where training in awakening is much easier.  But the training in Sukhāvatī is the same as here - three higher trainings.

This is a slightly Mahayana answer, is it? I thought that the Pali suttas centre around "ending dukkha" as the goal, and that all the doctrine is further to that goal -- and here you're saying that the goal or purpose is to attain bodhi. Unfortunately I'm not sure that I can explain what bodhi means, because e.g. Wikipedia suggests that the meaning varies. Your summary of it though, "once we are awake we won't be sleepily drifting around making trouble for ourselves and everyone else any more", is a nice neat introduction!

@ChrisW, Bodhi (Sanskrit: बोधि; and Pali) in Buddhism is the understanding possessed by a Buddha regarding the true nature of things. It is traditionally translated into English with the word enlightenment, although its literal meaning is closer to "awakening". The verbal root "budh" means to awaken.   cf. https://www.cittaviveka.org/files/books/dawn/dawn15.htm  This isn't specific to the Mahayana.  In the Dharma traditions, especially Buddhism, awakening and liberation are causally linked. Awakening leads to liberation.

Yes; but if someone knows only the common/English meaning of "awake", how should they understand it (because if everyone already wakes up every morning, how is "awake" an extraordinary goal)? I guess it's a metaphor, "awake as if from a dream" -- where the "dream" could be understood as some disconnect between the internal/subjective world and the external/objective world -- for example "craving" (wanting things which don't exist), "attachment" (to memories) and sankharas (based on previous experiences), unjustified self-views (e.g. pride) which aren't objective (shared by other people).

When you are asleep and you are dreaming, you may not know that you are asleep and dreaming. Sometimes you may suspect it.  Awakening - that sense of knowing that what had transpired was as a dream, and now being sure that you are awake;  It was accepted that we were by the early Sramana traditions, right?  Of course, 'awakening' is used as a metaphor - but then so is 'enlightenment' - and 'liberation' and 'freedom'.

The First Noble Truth is sometimes misunderstood; it doesn't mean that life is "bad".  (Assigning the labels "good" and "bad" to conditioned states is unskillful.)  The First Noble Truth, is not that all living things are in excruciating pain constantly, but that suffering, at least intermittently, is inevitable; and that any source of lower-order happiness, from physical pleasure, novelty, or companionship, is fleeting.
In fact, the parable of the darts explains that the uninstructed worldling does not actually desire happiness, does not desire pleasure for its own sake; whether he acknowledges it or not, he rather desires happiness and pleasure as a diversion, a distraction from unhappiness and pain, even if that unhappiness and pain is merely the awareness of his own mortality.
I think that "happiness" is not the ultimate good: because "happiness" is conditioned, caused by something: either physical pleasure, artistic novelty, or companionship.  Possibly other things--but there is always a cause.  Something has made you happy.  Nirvana, on the other hand, is a state of un-caused, and therefore un-disturbed and un-disturbable, calm.

Nyom Chris and those interested,
my person find it always very useless to explain such as "Buddhism" and ways of "Buddhists" because what matters is to do the right things which would help others.
Helping ones mother and father is a natural intent of a person with integrity, and as the Buddha taught:

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father."
Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude

So what ever extend one is able to motivate ones parents in direction of virtue, generosity an discerment, one works not only for the repayment of ones debts but also gives condition for possible understanding the Dhamma when hearing.
It's not sure that such giving back is possible, but it's for sure merely impossible is one does not show by deeds the attributes of virtue, generosity and discerment for oneself, not only strives for pleasure and enjoyments for oneself but also invites mother and father just in occations of such.
As the Buddha pointed out, in this way one will not only never pay back but also not reallt help ones parents.
One is clear, a virtues, generouse life of a child, his way and discerment, even if not direct explained, has impact on the parents and family, and when one starts not to simply waste away ones old merits, the possible luck like seen in the Mangala-Sutta, but also encourages ones parents not just waste them but doing merits, one does good.
Even if coming from a western or christian cultur, such as doing merits was not alien, yet in one generation it seems to have become. Less are boundage of people who are enjoying, praising and sharing deeds of merits with each other and invite neigbors and others to join.
So in this frame it might be useful to think and reflect how much benefical for oneselft and his/her beloved is actually, aside just talk and justifying, in daily life done?
Conviction, the base of all, that deeds make a different, that deeds have an effect, and that good can be reached, is the base of all and it's by doing and displaying deeds that one gives chances for others to get interested and join ways, different form the usual living on "luck" (nissaya), not knowing from where it came.
So what about the traditional way of teaching Dhamma, strating with teaching:

The Lessons of Gratitude
Opening the Door to the Dhamma: Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice

and really display them in daily life and social conduct as prerequisite?
(Just came to mind: My person made a small booklet, with the basic teaching, useful for everyone, as a Dhamma present especially for family and friends, far away from even ideas of my persons way. Its in German, and based on the ZzE/ATI treasures. It would be good if such would be compiled in english and other languages as well, but for now very limited in technical regards. Maybe an inspiration: Der Schlüsselband - "Über Freunde, Großzügigkeit und Tugend" - "The key-book - About friendship, Generosity and virtue", following the links the english teachings can be found)
There is a small booklet which shows well how Dhamma is taught and introduced traditional, based on the basics of right view: Under the shade of my parent's love, far, far of the "western" or modern way of useless discussions on self, and emptiness, but effective for this world, the next and even beyound. (Now my person "needs" to go for an alms round, to give other parents and childs the possibility to make merits, to work out their path, little by little as well.)
It's by the way, not out of reason, to renounce (mostly for a limited time) and ordain so to benefit the parents which are, out of that reason, encounter by the Dhamma as a "family-issue" in that way. That is why it is said that the ordination of a child is of great benefit for the parents. A very usual practice in SE-Asia. Of course it also gains it's critic if done just as meaningless ritual.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

If i try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, my strategy for explaining it is to provide a general overview of the Four Noble Truths in a single lifetime reducing anguish (stress and psychological pain) over the travails and sorrows that all lives include. That is, i remain pragmatic about it and don't intrude any of the unusual characteristics in which i have no confidence whatsoever.
I don't know about a classic illness/agedness/mortality significance for this term, nor do i think that this is at all convincing. What i learned of the Dharma did not give me the impression that Buddhism either should try to avoid these, or could possibly overcome them. Instead, it features them as important incentives to focus on what is real, advantageous, and enduring.
One means of introducing Buddhism which doesn't begin with the first Noble Truth is to focus on the common attempt to heroically attain a revelatory or insightful result by slowing down, reflecting carefully, and applying of what one becomes aware while doing this throughout one's life.
Agreed that it would be helpful to explain what you think Buddhism as you encounter it means to you, and also that it may indeed make it seem less strange to your mother and be less acceptable to her.
As for whether she's doing things right, it is a commonplace adage in many cultures that one's parents ought be honoured as sage counsel, and thus provided a benefit of the doubt where her insight is concerned. If she appears to contradict, through her actions or words, the teachers whom you revere, be careful to afford her a measure of your patience and indulgence that her views may be beyond your comprehension and worthy of a second chance before presuming to instruct her in the Dharma. In this way potential insight and compassion may not be overlooked while proper honour is presented to one whom you love.

In the simplest words, Dhammapada:

Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

Word Buddhism – was not in the vocabulary of Buddha. Buddha was not a Buddhist nor was he belonging to a religion. This is very clear to a person who understands his teaching. He discovered the Three Universal Characteristics of life existence phenomena. Anicca- Dukka – Anatta.  The meaning of anatta is ‘not self’ and ‘self’ comes into place the moment you cling onto anything (ego due to craving) , hence the moment you put a  label,  ‘Anatta’ is gone out of the window.
The teaching of Buddha therefore called ‘Dharma’ –  Dharma practitioner take refuge in Triple Gem -  Buddha, Dharma and Sangha ( the discoverer of the ultimate truth, his teachings and the Monks who renounced the worldly life who has taken a vow to follow  Buddha’s  strict code of conduct  in order to preserve Dharma without diluting and to  guide the lay people while practising to attain Nibbhana ) The lay people who wish to practise Dharma takes refuge in this triple gem, therefore it will not bring any benefits just by belonging to a cult as it is the individual who can be liberated through his own efforts.
Dharma – First thing you need to read and understand:  Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta.  The Buddha’s entire teaching based on these three Characteristics of life existence phenomena.
Only then you will understand that existence is an un-satisfactory condition, mentally and physically both, it cannot maintain sensual pleasures and happiness continuously and everything changes moment to moment, there is more suffering than pleasure  and it is never ending, and there is existence after existence (re-birth process) which goes in a cycle, hence suffering never ends until attain Nibbhana.  This was what Buddha discovered and he investigated further to identify how the mental factors function, what is cause and effect, what is an existence combine of, the cosmos and its functions, matter, thought, sense sphere, consciousness etc etc.. and came up with a well structured teaching guide for individuals to follow in order to liberate from this never ending life existence call Samsara.  All who are new to Buddha Dharma will first need to study and understand all this before taking refuge in the Triple Gem.  Knowledge of Dharma is not for the ignorant but the practise of Dharma can be for all.
MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER  - BUDDHA DHARMA IS A STRUCTURED PROGRAM TO PURIFY YOUR MIND BY REMOVING YOUR PRESENT AND PAST HABITS - ie. EXPERIENCING THE MIND'S UNCONDITIONED (asankhara) ESSENTIAL NATURE Nibbhana.
"All beings subsist on nutriment" — this, according to the Buddha, is the one single fact about life that, above all, deserves to be remembered, contemplated and understood.  If understood widely and deeply enough, this saying of the Buddha reveals indeed a truth that leads to the root of all existence and also to its uprooting. Here, too, the Buddha proved to be one who "saw to the root of things" (muula-dassaavii). Hence, it was thought useful to collect his utterances on the subject of nutriment (aahaara), together with the instructive explanations by the teachers of old, the commentators of the Paali scriptures.
The laws of nutriment govern both biological and mental life, and this fact was expressed by the Buddha when speaking of four kinds of nutriment: edible food, sense-impressions, volition thought, and consciousness. It is hunger that stands behind the entire process of nutrition, wielding its whip relentlessly. The body, from birth to death, craves ceaselessly for material food; and mind hungers as eagerly for its own kind of nourishment, forever new sense-impressions and for an ever expanding universe of ideas.
Craving (ta.nhaa) is the principal condition of any "in-take" or "up-take" (upaadaana), that is, of nutriment in its widest sense. This is the first factor common to all types of nutriment, be they physical or mental.
Nutrimental definition, any substance or matter that, taken into a living organism, serves to sustain it in its existence, promoting growth, replacing loss,
But in addition to the vindication of the Anattá doctrine (not-self), nutriment is likewise a convincing teacher of the two other characteristics of life, Impermanence and Suffering.
Change, or Impermanence (anicca), is at the very root of the nutritive process which cries for constant replenishment of the food consumed. The bottomless gaping hole has to be filled again and again as long as the being lives. And it is no different with our mental hunger that craves for change and variety.  This repetitive monotony of the process of nutrition kept going by the urge to preserve life — this is enough to reveal the Suffering (dukkha)-nature of life,
This is the suffering inherent in the very function of eating, though mostly hidden by the habituation to this most elementary feature of routine life. The concrete suffering and pain involved in the search for food and its acquisition, is obvious enough to all and this misery was, is and will be life’s constant companion.
what the Dharma teachers of old said remains true: that the search for food (áhára-pariyeþþhi) is an ever-present source of suffering (vattamána dukkha) and as such it can stir man’s sense of urgency (saívega) when he considers, in the light of “nutriment,” man’s own nature, his incessant needs and his situation in the world.
This contemplation of the dukkha-aspect of nutriment leads us to a formulation of the Four Noble Truths in terms of nutriment.
The four nutriments of life (edible food   {to the Body }, sense-impressions (pleasant, painful and neutral feelings), volitions thoughts {gathi or karma thought}, and consciousness stand for the first truth of Ill; the craving for the four nutriments is the origin of Ill, the second Truth; the stopping of that craving is the cessation of the continued process of grasping for material and mental food, which is the end of Ill, the third Truth; and the Noble Eightfold Path is the way to that cessation the forth Truth.
It is because the process of nutrition  demonstrates the conditioned nature of all existence that we have found it to cover those salient features of the Dhamma — the three signata (impermanence, suffering and not-self) and the Four Truths.

But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree--->
He is some of my personal story. My dad is a pure atheistic and super fan of Premier Mao or the Red Army gang, the first communist head in China. He rejected any form of religions.
I spent 17 years as an effort in my journey to the light and converted him. I tried every single aspect to understand inner mindset of him. i.e. from his good friend, his daily activity, what is attached inside his mind, what his interest, "desired" most, etc. Buddha once said everyone has Buddha inside them, it's depends how to trigger it.
Recently he was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer, i told him those western therapy will do more harm than good. Most effective and Zero cost medicine are those Buddhism books that  i already put on his desk. I printed some success story and share with him. He is quite money concerned old folk so zero cost solution surely will influenced him deeply. Of course, base on my inner study of him so i know what type of resources will influenced him.
I gave some motivation 2 quotes to my dad,

"Do you wanna try this zero cost Therapy that lead to heaven/pure land or complaining of your pain daily like a hungry ghost like in hell (dukkha)?"

"If so happen in Miracle that your cancer is really cured and your stories shared and inspired someone to be Buddhist then it's great merits point lead you to the pure land"

Miraculously the stage 3 lung cancer was stop spreading once he started to recite those Mantra and Buddhism stories that i shared. Those negative energy(dukkha) that he used to spread was reduce like 50% in my home so happiness increased by 50%.
You may shared this story to your Mum that Buddhism healed a stage 3 cancer old man and increase 50% happiness in a family. If she wants some medical report, i can proof it.
Note: This could be applicable to free thinker only :)

(e.g. health change with age) -->
I am not sure you aware about the secret of the bio-age and i believe you do as Wudang Tai Chi has supreme secret inside that i have not explore yet. Eventually you can revert the clock age inside your body as much as 20 years or more so u gained optimal result especially doing with meditation. I found when Stress, Sleep, BP and Heart rate are not normal will impact the result of the meditation and your greatly your bio-age.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-chronological-age-2223384
You may search how to reduce your bio-age online? Many of my friends or peer is so surprise when i expose my actual age. I am not craving or attach of my physical body here but just create a best version of mine in the search of the light.

If the person u are trying to reach is not grasping dharma try another way. Explain What buddhism is to you. And then explain what buddhism is not. See if she is even listening. Tell her something that sounds too outrageous to be true but is dharma and see how she reacts lol try to engage her intellect and make her debate for instance tell her that a woman can never be a buddha if she is a feminist lol when she comes back upset and angry tell her that well technically buddha can be a woman but she would have to have been born male lol
If one technique does not work try another. Some gurus have horrible techniques but if they work......the ends justifies the means i suppose..

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:
Dhammapada – What is the "beyond"?
In the chapter of the brahmin this is one of the paragraphs:

Whoever is
  Untied and free of distress,
  And for whom neither a "beyond," a "not-beyond,"
  Nor a "both beyond-and-not-beyond" exist,
  I call a brahmin.

What is the meaning of "beyond" here? What would be the "both-beyond-and-not-beyond"?
Thanks.

Just as a reference, it seems to be Dhammapada 385 that is being referred to: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.26.than.html

Here is another translation

385. He for whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he who is free of cares and is unfettered — him do I call a holy man. [27]

Here's a footnote:

(v. 385) This shore: the six sense organs; the other shore: their corresponding objects; both: I-ness and my-ness.

Here's a Sutta which includes the parable of the 'raft' and 'other shore':
Asivisa Sutta: Vipers

"'The great expanse of water' stands for the fourfold flood: the flood
  of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the flood
  of ignorance.
'The near shore, dubious & risky' stands for self-identification. 'The
  further shore, secure and free from risk' stands for Unbinding. 'The
  raft' stands for just this noble eightfold path: right view, right
  resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
  right mindfulness, right concentration. 'Making an effort with hands &
  feet' stands for the arousing of persistence. 'Crossed over, having
  gone to the other shore, he would stand on high ground, a brahman'
  stands for the arahant."

I'm not sure why the Sutta praises "the further shore" whereas the Dhammapada praises non-awareness of shores. I suspect that the former is 'renunciation' whereas the latter is either 'middle way' or 'meditative absorption/concentration' ... but this/my interpretation might be non-standard i.e. wrong.

Here's a version in French (I don't know whether buddha-vacana.org has an English-language translation of the Dhammapada)
whose footnote gives the same explanation/interpretation of 'shore' as the accesstoinsight.org footnote does:

1 cette rive, l'autre rive: 'cette rive' correspond aux six āyatanas internes (œil, oreille, nez, langue corps, esprit), et 'l'autre rive' correspond aux six āyatanas externes (objets externes correspondant chacun des six āyatanas internes).

At the bottom of the page it says its translation is based on work by Daw Mya Tin and documents on the DLMB web site.
So, here (on the DLMB web site) is a detailed analysis of the Pali. It ends with a commentary which says,

Mara once approached the Buddha and asked him what does the word para (the other shore) mean. The Buddha knew that it was Mara and replied with this verse, saying that the other shore is the Nirvana, which only the Arahants can reach.

On this page (the work by Daw Mya Tin) is perhaps the simplest or most complete description. I copy-and-paste the whole below (but note that this web site has a similar page of description for each other verse in the Dhammapada):

Dhammapada Verse 385
  Mara Vatthu
Yassa param aparam va
  paraparam na vijjati
  Vitaddaram visamyuttam
  tamaham brumi brahmanam.
Verse 385: Him I call a brahmana who has for him neither this shore (i.e., the sense-bases) nor the other shore (i.e., the sense objects), and who is undistressed and free from moral defilements1.

1 'This shore' and 'the other shore' are used in the sense of the internal and the external ayatanas. The internal ayatanas are the sense bases, viz, the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind; the external ayatanas are the sense objects, viz., visible object, sound, odour, taste, touch and mind-object.
For a true Brahmana (i.e., arahat) there is neither 'this shore' nor 'the other shore' which means that the senses of the arahat are calmed, and his passions extinguished.

The Story of Mara
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (385) of this book, with reference to Mara.
On one occasion, Mara came to the Buddha disguised as a man and asked him, "Venerable Sir, You often say the word 'param'. What is the meaning of that word?" The Buddha, knowing that it was Mara who was asking that question, chided him, "O wicked Mara! The words 'param' and 'aparam' have nothing to do with you. 'Param' which means 'the other shore' can be reached only by the arahats who are free from moral defilements."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 385: Him I call a brahmana who has for him neither this shore (i.e., the sense-bases) nor the other shore (i.e., the sense objects ), and who is undistressed and free from moral defilements.

Given this translation I don't understand why the 'further shore' are 'sense-objects' and why that further shore can only be reached by the arahats. The internal/external ayatanas are introduced e.g. in this Wikipedia article.

Āyatana (Pāli; Sanskrit) is a Buddhist term that has been translated as "sense base", "sense-media" or "sense sphere."[1] In Buddhism, there are six internal sense bases (Pali: ajjhattikāni āyatanāni; also known as, "organs", "gates", "doors", "powers" or "roots"[2]) and six external sense bases (bāhirāni āyatanāni or "sense objects"; also known as vishaya or "domains"[3]).

My only guess is that it might be related to some desire to 'see things as they really are, beyond illusion/subjectivity' or something like that.

"The other shore", " beyond" is a common metaphor for transcendental realization.
"This shore" or "not-beyond" is then this worldly life with its pleasures and sorrows.
The one who is neither beyond nor not-beyond has no craving for transcendental realization, or escape, nor is tangled up in this world's affairs.


text:
How do you tell a 4-year-old who the Buddha was?
I'm in the process of organising a family day at my Local Buddhist Centre. I'll be taking my 4-year-old daughter with me and she will once again ask me who is the Buddha? Previously I have always given really weak answers such as 'he was a very nice man who lived a long time ago'. Not very satisfying to anyone. So what would be an age appropriate way to describe who the Buddha is?
I want the description to be accurate and accessible to her. Obviously the more complete the better but realistically things are going to be left out. Also I don't want to slip into using Christian type words for Buddhist concepts - for instance not using heaven for nirvana, church for sangha etc...
So what would be a good way to describe who the Buddha is to her. I'll be honest I think I want a Dr Phil script of the month type answer for this.
Many Thanks for all/any help on this one.

Tell her the Buddha was God.

But later then you must tell her there is no God, and there is only isness, the whole.

Hello @ThisIsNotAnId. Your statement that "Buddha was God" would be considered untrue by many Buddhists. But there is at least one master, (Thích Nhất Hạnh), who has written about a concept of God in Buddhism; maybe more. If your idea is more than to simply tell a child something untrue, please consider expanding this as an "Answer" to clarify what you mean. Just a suggestion.

In my comment above, I'm not suggesting Thích Nhất Hạnh said that Buddha was God in a conventional sense. I'm referring to his book "The Energy of Prayer" where he explains a concept that includes God as part of a whole.

What I mean by that is you can tell a young child Buddha is God. Any deeper explanation will unnecessarily complicate things. And then there's my second comment too. The word God can be interpreted in any one of a number of ways, but by saying that Buddha was not God, you are already interpreting the word in a particular, incompatible manner (with Buddha). To put it shortly, she will understand something like Buddha was God.

But later you have to clarify that there is no person such as God, while maintaining there is God, though not necessarily in the sense one might expect. But that's up to you. I, in all fairness, also have to admit my opinion doesn't come entirely from Buddhism, but is influenced by the other spiritual traditions of the east as well.

@ThisIsNotAnId I don't think any discussion of God is going to help my daughter with this. She currently believes that God lives in London (truly). ;-)

Well then! There we have it folks, God lives in London! :)

I was taught about the Buddha and his eight-fold path and 4 noble truths in school but it didn't make me a better person - whereas later in life practicing compassion and kindness out of a genuine will to do so, without reference to any religion instantly made me a Buddhist, a Christian, and a Hindu . So, do tell her about the truths such as aspiration for the Bramha Viharas, and the importance of following precepts. These can be easily understood using examples in her life. We don't need to idolize the Buddha, in his own words, all awakened ones speak the same self evident truths.

live the Dharma! your life is key. How you handle problems, stress...will speak more than any book/teaching.

Buddha was a very wise man who taught people how to be happy in this world. That's a 4-year-old level of understanding of Buddha.

A 4 year old can be told that the Buddha was a man who wanted to understand how to be happy and free and he worked very hard to understand how to be truly happy and free. Then he taught other people what he learned.
For many years the Buddha taught:

Sometimes people feel sad.
Sometimes the thing that makes people sad is not getting something they want or getting something they don't want.
There is a way not to be so sad about not getting what you want or getting something you don't want.
The way is to not think so much about what you want at all, but instead think about how you can be kind and helpful to your family, your teachers, your friends, other people, animals, bugs, and everything that lives. :)

I believe my little one would understand this. Good answer.

In simple terms this can be along the lines of:

Do you get sad, angry and low? The Buddha taught the way out of it, and how to be a good person!

Lord Buddha was no GOD nor Saint but an human being who was born in a wealthy royal family. As prince who gave up his wealth to seek happiness of the mind and body. He understood that being attached to materials only make people suffer from these. the word Buddha means 'the enlighten one'. in summary it means he who found the right path of happiness...
I often taught my kids.. always remember his wisdom words ..: "not the right, not to the left but the middle-way is your guide!"
For 4 old, it's simple to clarify that with an example of a music instrument such like a guitar.. has strings..if you tighten the string too much then the string will break.. but if you don't then no sound will come out of it.. :)
In English words.. do everything with moderation and don't do and go to the extreme path!! (especially with what happened in the world in recent weeks).. ;(
If your little 4 is fast learner then you can explain further that the Buddha was no God, he didn't cure people's diseases nor make miracles. He only taught people to be happy with what they need and not with what they want! for example.. people need/wish little foods to eat to survive and they are happy... but there are people want to have beautiful car or fancy clothes to be happy.. :)
I hope that would help little kid to understand.. my kids were 4 and 5 when I started to explain to them the wisdom of the Lord Buddha! And since they never questioned me why I had to say 'no' sometime... lol :D
Hope these will teach your child to appreciate his/her world better. :)
Best wishes..
Phoebe

You've described how to tell a child about Buddha's teaching, and who he isn't and what he didn't do (under the assumption that who he is and what he did was already decently explained), but this doesn't appear to discuss teaching them who Buddha is. Note that the asker never said they explained Buddha as a god.

I wonder what was missing from my words to describe who was the Buddha?? You can surprise of how many people who never understood what is Buddhism means.. do believe that Buddha is actually a Buddhist god!! lol

Luckily me .. I started with the first sentence describing that Buddha wasn't a god but a human being... lol

Right, isn't the whole point that he was a human being which can give us all hope that we an attain a similar transcendence? To allude deity indicates his experience is beyond our capacities.

Lord Buddha said that if you do good things to others , good things happen to you and you will be happy , if you do bad things to others , bad things will happen to you and you will be sad , so do good things and be happy .

That the Buddha was a man, and lived a long time ago, are not the most interesting facts.
And even the question 'who was he?' reminds me of 'the unanswered questions' ...
... so  suggest you answer slightly different questions, for example: 'what did the Buddha do?'; or 'why is the Buddha important?'; and maybe make it personal like 'why is the Buddha important to us?'
In general, 'near' (in time and space) and 'personal' (in relationships) are more 'important/interesting' than far away and impersonal/abstract.
If you want to describe what the Buddha did, there are verbs you can use: for example the Buddha  'discovered' (or found out), the Buddha 'taught' (or told), ...
If you want to describe the Buddha, consider the Anuradha Sutta in which the Buddha explained how (and how not) to do that. It ends with,

And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — [...] Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

As for how to describe 'nirvana' and 'sangha':

nirvana: Can I presume your daughter knows what 'angry' is? Does someone teach her to recognize/label emotions (e.g. "now, you're feeling hurt/angry because Sarah is playing with your toy", or similar)? Assuming she can label and recognize 'negative' emotions, instead of "nirvana" perhaps you can use negations: "not hurt, not angry, not sad" etc.
dhamma: Here is one summary of the Dharma, as adapted for a UK primary school, i.e.:

The basic tenets of Buddhist teaching are straightforward and practical: nothing is fixed or permanent; actions have consequences; life has difficulties and it is possible to overcome them.

And this suggests it's possible to teach Dharma (i.e. "key principles of Buddhism in a practical way") perhaps without even necessarily saying a lot about the (historical) Buddha himself.
sangha: Would it be reasonable to translate "sangha" as 'friends': e.g. "the Buddha realized [dharma e.g. how to not be unhappy] and then told his friends"? At the famous 'Sermon at Benares' the former acquaintances recognized him as Gautama and addressed him as "friend", and the Buddha told them not to do that (not call him "friend") so I'm not sure about that. I hope it's at least possible to describe the sangha (if not the Buddha) as 'friends'.

Veering off-topic you might also want her to be developing concentration. I asked my mum, who's a Montessori teacher, about 'concentration' in AMI Montessori schools: she said that yes it's important/central, but it (in pre-schoolers) is unforced and comes from the child's interest in the material, that the teacher's role is (to some extent) create an environment with interesting materials and without other distractions / disruptions.

Show her this video : )
The Story of Buddha
"A short version of the story of Buddha with animations designed for children."
As with most things like this for kids, a lot gets glossed over, so you will have to decide for yourself whether it is accurate/appropriate and covers the factors about Buddha that you'd like your daughter to know.

Having watched it I think it's too old (e.g. 'dancing girls' and 'suffering' at about time 2:00, and 'ascetism and enlightenment' at time 3:00, etc.) for a four-year-old.

@ChrisW Thanks for your thoughts on that. Each parent has different standards and each child has different levels of comprehension, which is why I made sure my answer included '...decide for yourself whether it is accurate/appropriate...'.

Ice-cream is sweet, so you like it.  Candies are sweet, so you like it.  Flower is beautiful, so you like it.  You know each of those things are sweet because you had experienced it before.
Just like you, there was another man called Buddha, he also experienced a lot of things and finally found out the sweetest thing in life.  He experienced enlightenment and hence he knew its taste.

I definitely would have taken the experiential route. I would have sat the child down crossed-legged. I would have asked the child to take a deep breath and while exhaling ask the child to listen and feel the wind, listen to how it changes and even stops, feel how it touches the skin. Then i would ask the child to take another deep breath, this time, while exhaling, feel and see the sunshine. See how the light dances on everything it touches, feel the warmth of the sunshine on your skin. Next, i would ask the child to take another deep breath, this time, i would ask the child to pick up a hand full of dirt/soil, i would ask the child to feel the texture of the soil in the hand and fingers, then smell the soil... i would continue through all the senses, hopefully arriving with the child calm, focused and relaxed.
I would then explain that the Buddha was a very special man who taught people to focus on all the momentary changes within our senses, and in doing so, humanity, wherever they might be, they could always find their way back to this moment full of beauty and peacefulness.
Metta.

Buddha is a title, not a person. It means 'one who has woken up'.
It is a title given to wise men who seek to help others, and remove suffering from the world.
The most famous Buddha is Gotama, who considered his duty incomplete until all suffering was ended, and is regarded as one of the founders of Buddhist philosophy.

This explanation might be better for a 10-year old. For a 4-year old we have to keep it very simple.

Buddha never a 'was', he is here when we are talking of him. I don't have anything to suggest to tell anybody but i have a massege : in our time (humanity) there were people who are not with us right now (phsically) but they can be with us for understanding the basic of our future.

What does coke taste like?
Can any intellectual discourse give you the answer? And even if you drink coke, can you explain what it really is to others?
The Buddha was a man who tried to work it all out. Was he right or wrong? or in the middle?
The 4 year old can be a Buddha by using his her mind/heart exploring everything she/he can.
Cheers.

Interesting and challenging question. I would say Buddha is a person who can help anyone of His friends in any situation and speaks so that everyone can understand Him because He knows everything.


text:
So what's the sense of it all?
Perhaps too straightforward question (I know it's too general) but still - when there's the enlightenment why we even exists? If Samsara can be brutal and full of suffering, what's its purpose? To suffer and then enjoy how nice it is to not suffer? Or to have the choice whether to be good or bad? As humans we can surely limit the suffering. But how much really?
If there are 6 realms (hell, afflicted spirit, animal, human, asura, and heavenly beings) - what sort of principles could ever decide for such an order? Isn't everything supposed to be going towards the enlightenment? If that is so - what's the sense of having e.g. the hell? To "punish" those who act as evil so they could "taste" their own acting? I'm not really sure if I understand the purpose of going through all of it..
I believe it was Erwin Schroedinger who expressed an interesting idea that the total number of all minds in the universe is one. Just one mind. Split into different lives in different time and space. If that's the case I only wonder why would the same mind ever "start" this. Most likely it's only my limited point of view. Seems like never-ending fight between good and evil. Does the Buddhism somehow grasp such let's say - more (perhaps too much) general questions?

possible duplicate of What is the meaning and/or purpose of life?

When there's the enlightenment why we even exists?
We exist believing in a permanent self because of craving.Enlightenment is when we let go of this craving and any other craving.
If Samsara can be brutal and full of suffering, what's its purpose?
I'll answer this question by asking another question.If you throw a ball up what is the purpose of the ball falling down?
There is none.Its just cause and effect.
Samsara was not created by a higher being and we were not put in it to learn some kind of life's lesson or as a kind of test.Remember,Samsara is not a place it's a state of mind of always craving.
To suffer and then enjoy how nice it is to not suffer? Or to have the
choice whether to be good or bad?
Enlightenment is when you transcend both.It's good that your disenchanted with this roller coaster of good then bad good then bad.Don't play the game anymore.If you want to be happy in samsara you'll need to accept the fact that you'll be unhappy when that happiness changes.Everything changes.Impermanence.That's about the only thing that's permanent with samsara.
As humans we can surely limit the suffering. But how much really?
Depends on our own effort.We can limit our suffering through our own merits but we will not be able to eradicate all suffering until enlightenment.
If there are 6 realms (hell, afflicted spirit, animal, human, asura, and heavenly beings) - what sort of principles could ever decide for such an order?
Karma.
If that is so - what's the sense of having e.g. the hell? To "punish" those who act as evil so they could "taste" their own acting? I'm not really sure if I understand the purpose of going through all of it..
We create our own heaven and hell.no one punishes or rewards us.Our actions creates these realms.To simplify things,If you don't want to go to hell do not act like you are already in hell.
Isn't everything supposed to be going towards the enlightenment?
could you tell me more about this.
I believe it was Erwin Schroedinger who expressed an interesting idea that the total number of all minds in the universe is one. Just one mind. Split into different lives in different time and space. If that's the case I only wonder why would the same mind ever "start" this.
I have heard of this concept in Gnostic and Hindu teachings.The closest thing i can relate to Buddhism is There is only awareness.But because of delusion we believe it's my awareness,my consciousness,my perceptions,my thoughts,my feelings,my body.My life.Infinite numbers of beings believing they have individual and separate egos.If i had to pin point what started this all i would say Delusion.But this is all beyond my scope.Please take it with a grain of salt.

Great answer. Thank you. BTW. in terms of everything going towards the enlightenment - surely I have no idea whether it's even possible, or if it has any sense but..I believe sooner or later everybody will get tired of "raise and fall" concept (if it's called samsara?). You die. Then be born again. Over and over again. Going through happiness and suffer. It's like when you play a game. Sooner or later will experience all the possible scenarios and simply won't see any sense in "playing".

Yes i see now thank you. It is very senseless indeed.

I know some religions that believe that the humanity is constantly evolving, and that eventually we will get to a plateau of ultimate evolution. But I never listened or read this in Buddhist context. I don't think that it is supposed to come a time when everyone is enlightened, because there is no one great purpose at all. And "future" is just a fabrication of the mind, if we think about what will happen in ten, a hundred or a thousand years, it is just imagination.

I believe sooner or later everybody will get tired of [samsara].
You can't take it as granted, people naturally thinks that samsara is the ultimate truth of reality, that it makes sense and that suffering is needed. Read this QA, there are many things about rebirth, samsara and karma.

My answer is an another question: are you considering any other religion irrespecte of religion buddhism ? If itsnt then my answer is we all are alike a neuron in some real mind. That real mind has set us free to think whatever we can think of ourself (actually itself, the supermunden mind). Its just like a re-confirmation about what i am doing, why doing that and when it can be equal to the reality).

No religion. I don't respect any. Just thinking about life from more philosophical perspective. I like your idea of being like neuron in this only mind.

I am only a neuron of the actual mind and trying to get the meaning of the equanimity atmos.

You should look up Acinteyya, The Four Imponderables and the ten indeterminate questions. In here The Buddha stated that there are some things that should not be thought about.
Why?
Because they have no answer and will leave the mind agitated and distressed. Actually there have been great scientists that had commited suicide because of pondering these questions too much and not finding answers.
Unless one is a Buddha, one should not think about these things. They will not set one free.
On page 61, in "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri. Dhammanda, there is a great chapter of the Buddhas Silence regarding the ten indeterminate questions. You should check that out too.
May you be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.


text:
How do you trade a career for a life geared toward becoming awakened?
I am a sales person according to my profession. I skip working and wander all over the unknown places, everyday. I just love doing that. But now that I am understanding Buddhist philosophy and am able to relate it to my real world, I am feeling the urge to be awakened. How can I do that with this modern world and its demands upon me?

Hi jitin. Your question about wanting to stop your worldly routine and focus more on your spiritual needs sounds a bit like this question. There may be something useful to you in this. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5920/caught-between-two-worlds

@Robin111, I'm impressed you managed to figure out the meaning enough to provide that link! Would it be worth (you :-) ) editing the question to make that meaning clearer? I was going to try but I just can't get straight precisely what is being asked, especially in the all-important last sentence/question.

@tkp, I've attempted to clarify what I believe is being asked. Jitin, if I've changed your meaning too much, we can roll it back to the original or you can re-edit if you like.

I'd recommend reading the book "Dipa Ma: The Life and Legacy of a Buddhist Master" by Amy Schmidt. It's a very good illustration of how one can pursue the Buddhist path to a very significant degree, including coming through significant personal tragedy, and still be immersed in the day to day challenges of the world.

Can I second that recommendation. An inspiring book about practising in daily life

I completed reading that book, just now. It is helpful @tkp


text:
Was the Buddha known to chant during his meditation?
Did the Buddha chant some mantra or holy word throughout his meditation? Or he was just silent to realize what is coming through him to interpret?

There is a sutra in the pali-canon where he explicitely said that he disliked a) translation of his dicourses into the (upper-class/theological/intellectual) language of Sanscrit, and b) chanting his discourses. I don't have the sutra-index at hand; if I find it (and you want it) I'll post it as an answer (but perhaps you find it your self at accesstoinsight.com (?).

more like contemplating rather chanting.
origination or dependent arising, Pratītyasamutpāda. He told Ananda he would contemplate, recite Pratītyasamutpāda when he was alone.

During his developmental years (before he became Enlightened) he might have.
This is because mantras are a way for you to match vibration with a particular deity and thus receive their assistance.
The Buddha gave many such great mantras including the Zhunti mantra but a Buddha has no reason to use them because the Buddhas are all connected simultaneously through their uncovered dharmakaya/Tathagatagarba/Buddha-nature.