text:
List of book recommendations
For the reasons explained here, can you recommend one or more books about Buddhism?

I suggest a format like,

Title of Book by Name of Author
A summary of what's in the book, recommended for these reasons.

One book per answer (but multiple answers, a different book for each answer, is welcome)
Books -- but not videos -- i.e. readable; published in print, and/or online
I think it's more important to mention why you recommend a book, and less important to summarise what's in it

Unlike most other topics on this site, this topic is Community Wiki.
If it's a good introductory book then post it here instead -- Introductory books to Buddhism -- and use this topic for other (non-Introductory) books about any more-specific topics.

"In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. The PDF version of it can be downloaded here.
It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali Canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds the Sutta Pitaka too huge and difficult to traverse. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one of the foremost translators and scholars of the Pali Canon. He also created this 512-page anthology arranged in a systematic manner, for the benefit of Pali Canon students everywhere.
I quote from the Preface:

In an ongoing series of lectures I began giving at Bodhi Monastery in
  New Jersey in January 2003, I devised a scheme of my own to organize
  the contents of the Majjhima Nikaya. This scheme unfolds the Buddha's
  message progressively, from the simple to the difficult, from the
  elementary to the profound. Upon reflection, I saw that this scheme
  could be applied not only to the Majjhima Nikaya, but to the four
  Nikayas as a whole. The present book organizes suttas selected from
  all four Nikayas within this thematic and progressive framework.
This book is intended for two types of readers. The first are those
  not yet acquainted with the Buddha's discourses who feel the need for
  a systematic introduction. For such readers, any of the Nikayas is
  bound to appear opaque. All four of them, viewed at once, may seem
  like a jungle—entangling and bewildering, full of unknown beasts—or
  like the great ocean—vast, tumultuous, and forbidding. I hope that
  this book will serve as a map to help them wend their way through the
  jungle of the suttas or as a sturdy ship to carry them across the
  ocean of the Dhamma.
The second type of readers  for whom this book is meant are those,
  already acquainted with the suttas, who still cannot see how they fit
  together into an intelligible whole. For such readers, individual
  suttas may be comprehensible in themselves, but the  texts in their
  totality appear like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered across a
  table. Once one understands the scheme in this book, one should come
  away with a clear idea of the architecture of the teaching. Then, with
  a little reflection,  one should be able to determine the place any
  sutta occupies in the edifice of the Dhamma, whether or not it has
  been included in this anthology.

This topic should not strict in english version only, because the best buddhist book maybe didn't  write in english.
I recommend paṭisambhidāmagga-pāli by sāriputta.
Content:
Clearly explanation of every  important dhamma, which often appear in sutta, such as ñāṇa, dhammacakkappavattanasutta, vipassanā, pariññā, samatha, sīla, etc.
Reasons:
Sāriputta is in the middle of budhha, upāli, ānanda, atthakathā, buddhagosa, thai monks, and myanmar monks. So, if you can understand his concept, you can understand the whole theravāda canons.
The referene for above reason:

Sāriputta is tipitaka-memorizer who born in the same time with the
buddha.
Sāriputta was announced by the buddha as the best teacher in
Ekanipātā, Ekapuggalapāli:

Bhikkhus, I do not know of any other person who could follow up the teaching proclaimed by the Thus Gone One other than Sāriputta.
Bhikkhus, Sāriputta follows up the teaching proclaimed by me.

In the introduction of dīganikāya's atthakathā wrote that sāriputtas' students were co-designers of tipitaka's structure.
In Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāgosiṅgasālasuttaṃ, every leaders of 1st saṅgāyanā's members such as, kassapa, ānanda (sutta-memorizer), anuruddha, upāli (vinaya-memorizer), and their students (memorizer of abhidhamma and athhakathā), often go to listen sāriputta's dhamma explanation.
Budhhagosa used paṭisambhidāmagga as the main reference when he authored the path of purification, visuddhimagga.
The tipitaka-strict monks in Thailand and Myanmar are using visuddhimagga as the main reference to access tipitaka.

People discuss this a little here. An English-language translation titled The Path of Discrimination, tr. Ven. Ñāṇamoli can be bought here from the Pali Text Society.

http://seeingthroughthenet.net has many of Venerable’s other works available free for download but does not include the title listed above. Making mention in the event you are captured by Venerable’s style of sharing the Dhamma in written form. These works are presented in the English language.

The Way of Zen    By: Alan Watts
The PDF version of it can be downloaded here.
Yes its Zen but it outlines the origin and basics of Buddhism very clearly and it is a very good read.

"The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa" in eight volumes.
Brings together the writings of one of the first and most influential and inspirational Tibetan teachers to present Buddhism in the West.

The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, In the World by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula
The author was born in Sri Lanka and lives in Texas.
This book is written for laypeople. It's structured as several chapters. Each chapter a different topic (e.g. "choosing a marriage partner"). Within each chapter, the author selects relevant suttas (intended for laypeople), and paraphrases them to summarise the advice in them.
In other words it's a summary of suttas intended for laypeople, organised by topic.
It's helpful because many of the suttas in the whole Sutta Pitaka may be intended more for monks, so this book helps to answer laypeople's requests for "practical" advice ... about work and family etc.
Here was an example of a summary of one chapter.

Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha: An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book by Daniel Ingram
My practice and life was irreversibly changed. The author provides every practical piece of information that you could possibly need to attain enlightenment. It is the core teachings of the Buddha with almost all dogmatic additions of practice stripped away. I attribute the current state of my perceptions to the increased clarity of meditation practice that this book guided me towards.

"The Profound Treasury of the Ocean of Dharma" by Chogyam Trungpa is a three-volume set compiled from the seminary transcripts:

Volume One, The Path of Individual Liberation
Volume Two, The Bodhisattva Path of Wisdom and Compassion
Volume Three, The Tantric Path of Indestructible Wakefulness

Covers the spirit of the Teaching, over the three teaching styles: hinayana, mahayana, and vajrayana.

"Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa, Volume One.
A concise summary of the entire curriculum studied by Tibetan Lamas.

"The Buddha's Way: A Socio-Historical Approach" by Nalin Swaris
Chapters 9-14 explains the main point, the true essence of Buddha's teaching.

Try books written by venerable Rerukane Chandawimala thero and venerable Mankadawala Sudassana thero.
As far as I know the if you search, you might find English translations. All books are good. As I know Rerukane Chandawimala theor's books are directly written by referring "thripitaka". Depend on your level select the book. If you are a beginner "Handbook of the Buddhist" will be a great start.
If you are totally new and if you have no idea about Buddhism just try to get the background idea about it instead of trying to dig deep. Reason is, you wont be able to handle complex things if you haven't solve your small doubts and clear things properly.

http://www.online.buddhistcc.com/books/handbook-of-the-buddhist-detail.html is a link to Handbook of the Buddhist  (Sinhala only).

This should work. But not for free. Google it. You will find a pdf to download for free.

The Buddha and his Dhamma by Dr. B.R Ambedkar.  It can be downloaded here : http://www.satnami.com/buddhdhamma.pdf
It is the best book on Introduction to Buddhism that I have come across. It contains detailed and well-researched information on the life of Buddha and a very understandable introduction to the Dhamma.

The most important book for most Buddhists (who are not stream-enterers) for the reason they don't end up in hell due to misrepresenting the Lord Buddha is:
Two Kinds of Language by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

Everyday language vs Dharma language: In every day language the term birth refers simply to physical birth from a mother's body: in Dharma
  language birth refers to a mental event arising out of ignorance,
  craving, and clinging. Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I,"
  the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind
  of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth. Anyone who
  falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything
  of the Buddha teaching.
The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed.
  The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical
  birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.

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


text:
How is Nichiren Buddhism different from other branches of Buddhism?
Nichiren Buddhism is a branch Mahayana Buddhism founded by Nichiren in the 13th century Japan. How is it different from other sects and branches of Buddhism? What are it's tenets, philosophy and practices? Do they venerate Buddha as a God or as a great personality and spiritual master?

No, Nichiren Buddhists do not venerate Buddha as God. The word "buddha" means "awakened one" and in Nichiren Buddhism this refers to the the possibility that all human beings can "wake up" from a fundamentally mistaken view of reality. In other words, buddha is one way people can choose to live. Nichiren is considered to have attained buddhahood and is therefore accorded a great deal of respect as is Gautama Siddhartha (Shakyamuni).

Nichiren Buddhism differs from other schools of Buddhism in focusing on this world, and in its view that it is the only correct tradition. It also emphasises the importance of individuals taking responsibility for improving themselves. Although it can be seen as a highly self-focused religion, followers of Nichiren Buddhism believe that individual empowerment and inner transformation contribute, in turn, to a better and more peaceful world.
Beliefs: instant enlightenment
Instant enlightenment is one of the key elements of Nichiren Buddhism. It teaches that enlightenment is available to everybody. One writer has encapsulated this idea as a "shortcut to salvation". The essence of enlightenment is opening a person's innate Buddha-nature in this world.
Nichiren, the founder, came to believe that he was living in a degraded age, an age of mappo (very similar to the English term "end times") where Buddha's teachings were misinterpreted and as a consequence many bad things were happening. Nichiren followed the Lotus Sutra in his teaching that all living beings could attain enlightenment on earth and could do this through chanting and 'human revolution'. Nichiren emphasised the Lotus Sutra to the extent that he taught that it was the only way that could lead to true Buddhahood, and create a truly good world. He taught that other Buddhist practices no longer provided a road to enlightenment, and that it was the neglect of the Lotus Sutra that was responsible for the evils of his time; including such things as earthquakes. Nichiren was not just a scripture scholar, he was an activist. Having worked out what was wrong with contemporary Buddhism he did something about it. He engaged in shakubuku. This Japanese word means "to break and subdue".
The main practice of Nichiren Buddhists is chanting, primarily the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo which means 'I devote my life to the law itself'. Chanters repeat this mantra to enter more deeply into the spiritual tradition of the Lotus Sutra.
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is both the heart and title of the Lotus Sutra, which teaches the enlightenment of all living beings. Believers also recite sections of the Lotus Sutra as part of their daily practice. The chant is performed in front of a scroll called the Gohonzon. Chanting is usually performed for about 30 minutes night and morning and is believed to bring about changes in a person's life and reverse bad karma.
Nichiren Buddhists specifically believe that everyone can change their destiny and bring about the effects they desire. Followers are encouraged to write their personal goals down on a piece of paper and have it in front of them while chanting. The aim of the practice is to establish high states of self-development. As Yukio Matsudo writes, it "works as a regular and constant inspiration to manifest the qualities of the Buddha in one's daily life."
Chanting versus prayer: This chanting tradition is very different to the tradition of chanted prayer in many other religions. Those who practice it believe that the chant is "an influence at work in the metaphysical economy" and actually changes the force and action of karma.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do Buddhists believe Buddha to be God? Do Buddhists practice idolatry?
I have seen Buddhists worship Gautam Buddha, a great personality, a great philosopher, a great social reformer and spiritual master, with incense and candles. They would offer flower to his idol made of up of  rock, marble, metal, wood, etc and also offer bowls of water and eatables in front of him, like the Hindus.

Buddhists don't praying Buddha. Not reciting chants as devotee does for other gods. We just ignite candle which is symbol of enlightenment and we just pay homage to Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha those are Three Jewels.
Faith in Buddhism centres on belief in the Three Jewels. Here may answer to your question.  Same like @Bonn's answer .

Old fashion hindu, brahma, was begun before buddhism, so people in buddha time usually worshiped to  their god, before they change to be the buddha-follower.
Buddha just change them from god-believer/random-result/suffering-still-remain
 to cause&effect-professor/best-advantage/suffering-perfectly-vanishing.
So, if they normally worship god with incense, candles, flower, etc, buddha just change them to worship the cause&effect-professor, buddha&dhamma&saṅgha, instead.
Because idol and statue are what the follower try to imitate to do and to be the same. If they were still paying the worship to god, they will be god-believer, but if they change their habit to pay their worship to buddha/dhamma/saṅgha, they will be cause&effect-professor instead.
Example, can you change the homeless habit immediately? If you can't, how can you use their daily habit to change themselves?
This is the reason why the buddha is the best teacher, anuttaro purisadhammasārathi&bhagavā, because he can change the illogical homeless/illogical king/illogical people to be the perfect cause&effect-professors.
Another, Worshiping, offering, giving gift, donating, making statue, naming the road as the people name, and investing are just an exchange. We are acting like that because we expecting some effects.
So, the buddha just let them do the right exchange by leting them change their common action, god-worshiping, to the new right habit, cause&effect-worshiping, such as in Sutta. Ma. U. mahācattārīsakasutta, that the buddha taught the listener to worship to right reason, right relation of causes&effects, instead of god:

sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā[saṅkhāra, kamma-bhava] right view depending on kilesa-vaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda [kāma-āsava (kāma-upādāna), diṭṭhi-āsava (diṭṭhi-upādāna, sīlabata-upādāna), bhava-āsava (attavāda-upādāna), avijjā-āsava], right view that is kammavaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda, right view that give vipākavaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda.atthi dinnaṃ [sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko],There is given-gift-action['s fruit and result of good and bad given-gift-actions].atthi yiṭṭhaṃ [sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko] , There is worshiped-action['s fruit and result of good and bad worshiped-actions].atthi hutaṃ [sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko], There is given-oblation-action['s fruit and result of good and bad given-oblation-actions].atthi sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko, There is fruit and result of good and bad actions.atthi ayaṃ loko [sukatadukkaṭaṃ kammaṃ], There is this-aggregate (=cause) [loka sutta].atthi paro loko [phalaṃ vipāko], There is another-aggregate (=effect).atthi mātā [imā lokā sukatadukkaṭā kammāikā], There are benefactor mother (=cause).atthi pitā [imā lokā sukatadukkaṭā kammāikā], There are benefactor father (=cause).atthi [imā lokā sukatadukkaṭā] sattā opapātikā,There are benefactor deva (such as died mother, died father).atthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā ye imañca lokaṃ parañca lokaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedenti.There are teachers who have done right path then have clearly viewed this-aggregate (=cause) and another-aggregate (=effect) by themselves.

The answer seems to be yes or no: depending on how you define "idolatry", and whether you consider the belief+intent or only the action+appearance.
For example, Wikipedia says "yes",

According to Eric Reinders, icons and idolatry has been an integral part of Buddhism throughout its later history. Buddhists, from Korea to Vietnam, Thailand to Tibet, Central Asia to South Asia, have long produced temples and idols, altars and rosaries, relics to amulets, images to ritual implements. The images or relics of Buddha are found in all Buddhist traditions, but they also feature gods and goddesses such as those in Tibetan Buddhism.
Bhakti (called Bhatti in Pali) has been a common practice in Theravada Buddhism, where offerings and group prayers are made to Buddhist icons and particularly images of Buddha.

That Wikipedia section seems to be citing anglophone academics.

Conversely What Buddhists Believe, written by a monk, says no:

Although it is customary amongst Buddhists to keep Buddha images and to pay their respects to the Buddha, Buddhists are not idol worshippers. Idolatry generally means erecting images of unknown gods and goddesses in various shapes and sizes and to pray directly to these images. The prayers are a request to the gods for guidance and protection. The gods and goddesses are asked to bestow health, wealth, property and to provide for various needs; they are asked to forgive transgressions.
The 'worshipping' at the Buddha image is quite a different matter. Buddhists revere the image of the Buddha as a gesture to the greatest, wisest, most benevolent, compassionate and holy man who has ever lived in this world. It is a historical fact that this great man actually lived in this world and has done a great service to mankind. The worship of the Buddha really means paying homage, veneration and devotion to Him and what He represents, and not to the stone or metal figure.
The image is a visual aid that helps one to recall the Buddha in the mind [etc.]

Apparently the earliest phase of Buddhism was aniconic: see Aniconism in Buddhism.
I'd treat the above as an orthodox answer but it's possible that the answer (personal beliefs, people's hopes for answered prayer) may vary from person to person and/or from school to school.

In case you're interested, history includes a very similar question or concern, about whether other religions are idolatrous -- for example there is art and statues in many Christian churches; but they'll tell you they're not worshipping the statue itself, rather that they're praying to the saint (or Jesus) represented by the statue.
Even so there have been various "iconoclastic" movements or reforms at various times in history.
I can't tell you to what extent that's "like the Hindus" (you could ask that on Hinduism.SE).

Buddhists don't consider Buddha to be a god. Buddhists consider Buddha as a being beyond any god. That's why he is called "Satta Deva Manussanam" - the teacher to gods and humans.
The things you mentioned are forms of paying respect to the Buddha. If you learn the meanings of the stanzas Buddhists chant while worshipping, you will understand the purpose better.
The statues are used just as a representation of the Buddha. They know that those are not the real Buddha and that they are made of stone or wood. The concept is similar to people using framed pictures of their dead parents and lighting candles etc. as a form of respect and appreciation.

It's better if you have added the real intention of worshiping. Simply it's a good deed.

Paying respect and showing appreciation is one intention. Meditating on the virtues of the Buddha is another

This answer is from the perspective of Theravada Buddhism.
The Buddha is not The God or a god. He was a human being who sought to discover the solution to the suffering condition of sentient beings, and found it when he became enlightened at the age of 35. He taught the path to the end of suffering to people around him, who were willing to listen to him. He then passed away at the age of 80. His teachings were known as the Dhamma.
After passing away, the Buddha was not reborn in any realm. It is impossible to reach him through prayers or rituals.
Before he passed away, he told his disciple, Ananda (in DN16):

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
  yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
  island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

So, the Buddha did not tell his followers to pray to him for salvation. Rather he told them to depend on the Dhamma and their own effort for enlightenment.
The Buddha told Vakkali (in the Vakkali Sutta):

He who sees Dhamma, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.

This means that after his passing, the Dhamma is the only "form" in which he remains present.
If that is the case, then why do people still have statues for the Buddha?
Again from DN16, the Buddha explained to Ananda, why it is beneficial to have a stupa for a Tathagata (a Buddha):

And why, Ananda, is a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One
  worthy of a stupa? Because, Ananda, at the thought: 'This is the stupa
  of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' the hearts of
  many people will be calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with
  their minds established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the
  body, after death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly
  happiness. And so also at the thought: 'This is the stupa of that
  Paccekabuddha!' or 'This is the stupa of a disciple of that Tathagata,
  Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' or 'This is the stupa of that
  righteous monarch who ruled according to Dhamma!' — the hearts of many
  people are calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with their minds
  established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the body, after
  death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness. And it is
  because of this, Ananda, that these four persons are worthy of a
  stupa.

I would therefore extrapolate that the purpose of the statue of the Buddha is similar to the purpose of the stupa of a Buddha, which is, to be an inspiration for peace of mind and happiness.
Today, people in USA remember Martin Luther King, people in India remember Mahatma Gandhi and people in South Africa remember Nelson Mandela. They may have photos or statues of these revered persons put up in public places and treated in a respectable way. The statue of the Buddha is no different. They are there to serve as icons of inspiration.
The Buddha is no more supernaturally reachable through prayers and rituals, than King, Gandhi or Mandela.

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


text:
When you see The Light (according to textual sources)
According to the original textual sources, what happens during that moment you become enlightened? What is felt? What is it that you see?
Please quote or provide a reference.

Sorry I didn't (I should have) understood "primitive" to mean "early" or "original".

I don't think it's described as a "feeling", nor even exactly as a "sight", in the Pali suttas.
The most famous description might, I guess, be from Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (MN 26), translated as follows, describing the Buddha's own enlightenment:

"In search of what might be skillful, seeking the unexcelled state of sublime peace, I wandered by stages in the Magadhan country and came to the military town of Uruvela. There I saw some delightful countryside, with an inspiring forest grove, a clear-flowing river with fine, delightful banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides. The thought occurred to me: 'How delightful is this countryside, with its inspiring forest grove, clear-flowing river with fine, delightful banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides. This is just right for the exertion of a clansman intent on exertion.' So I sat down right there, thinking, 'This is just right for exertion.'
"Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. [3] But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.

So it's described as an arising of "knowledge and vision".

This version is very slightly different:

Knowledge and vision arose in me:
Ñāṇañca pana me dassanaṃ udapādi:
‘My freedom is unshakable; this is my last rebirth; now there are no more future lives.’
‘akuppā me vimutti, ayamantimā jāti, natthi dāni punabbhavo’ti.

Maybe that (difference between "unprovoked" and "unshakeable") is in how akuppā is translated.
See also:

Definitions for dassana
Definitions for ñāṇa

The definition for dassana includes,

in combination ñāṇa-dassana either “knowing & seeing,” or perhaps “the insight arising from knowledge,” perfect knowledge, realization of the truth, wisdom

... so perhaps not literally "sight", but rather "insight".
("Right View" i.e. samma ditthi isn't mentioned here, but that's another example of the dhamma using a word for sight, i.e. view, in a not-quite literal way -- to mean something like "insight" or something seen or formed by the mind, rather than seen by the eye).

There's a more detailed description given in this formula: Knowledge of the destruction of the āsavas
I won't quote it here because it's better to see the original page (i.e. follow the hyperlink). All the words on that page are linked to dictionary definitions, if you hover over the word with a mouse.

Note that "enlightenment" and "see the light" are Western or European, English-language, expressions or idioms. Wikipedia's Enlightenment in Buddhism says,

The English term enlightenment is the western translation of the term bodhi, "awakening", which was popularised in the Western world through the 19th century translations of Max Müller. It has the western connotation of a sudden insight into a transcendental truth.
The term is also being used to translate several other Buddhist terms and concepts used to denote insight (prajna, kensho and satori); knowledge (vidhya); the "blowing out" (Nirvana) of disturbing emotions and desires and the subsequent freedom or release (vimutti); and the attainment of Buddhahood, as exemplified by Gautama Buddha.
What exactly constituted the Buddha's awakening is unknown. It may probably have involved the knowledge that liberation was attained by the combination of mindfulness and dhyāna, applied to the understanding of the arising and ceasing of craving. The relation between dhyana and insight is a core problem in the study of Buddhism, and is one of the fundamentals of Buddhist practice.

I expect there are other descriptions, in the suttas, and in other sources (other than the suttas, perhaps other schools/traditions of Buddhism); I think though this is the most famous description in the suttas.
And there are other descriptions, of what enlightenment is; of what the Tathagata is or isn't like, after enlightenment; and of the path[s] to enlightenment.

Do most accounts (like that one) tend towards describing a state of realization (epiphany) in contrast to visualization?

The account gives the impression of a strong presupposition of samsara. That is, that the enlightened individual takes for granted the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, as a matter of faith.

The Pali says birth (jati) not rebirth. Some people explain that "birth" too is a metaphor (see e.g. the "birth" section in the document linked from this answer) (see also this topic).

@useranonis Yes I think so -- not "visualization". There's a type of meditation called "vipasanna" which is sometimes translated "clear seeing" but it's also known as "insight meditation": i.e. insight not visualization. There are other meditations which are associated with visualization, I think those are forms of concentration (samadhi or dhyāna).

There is also, described, some "recollection of past lives (more literally 'previous homes')" in the process leading up to enlightenment (MN 39) -- I don't know whether that "recollection" is a "visualization" -- but in any case I think that's not the moment of enlightenment, but maybe part of the process or path towards approaching it (perhaps towards abandoning any further/future becoming).


text:
Anapanasati (Forced Breathing)
Is the breath all important? I know that the breath conditions the body, in that the breath tranquilizes the body, but often I read about NOT volitionally breathing in and out and this is exactly what I am doing. Can I use an alternative object or even open monitorin, that is many objects in a succession?

If this is asking about having too much conscious control when breathing, see also Meditation - how to breath naturally?

Anapanasati is not about Forced Breathing. It not about Breathing. It's just a way to concentrate the mind. It's about looking at normal breathing. Not controlling. It's a part of Samatha Bawana.

The breathing naturally arises as a "sign" that the mind has right mindfulness & right concentration. If a meditator aspires to fulfill the 16 stages of Anapansati, they should never seek to observe the breathing & never be concerned about the breathing. The Buddha taught his path is the abandoning of craving. The meditator should only watch the mind; to ensure the mind is free from craving.
An analogy is a mother hen sitting on eggs hoping for the eggs to hatch. All the mother hen does is sit on the eggs, to keep the eggs warm & safe. In time, the chicks inside the eggs will hatch the eggs. The mother hen does not use a hammer or her beak to crack open the eggs.
Similarly, the more the mind thinks about watching breathing, the less the mind will watch the breathing. This is because thinking cannot watch breathing because what watches breathing is consciousness.
Using thinking to watch breathing is the same as a mother hen using her beak to crack open the eggs. It is the wrong method & will only harm the chicks.

Although I understand the point of view of the individual that came before me, I believe the importance of what you focus on depends on what type of practice you are working on.
You stated that "the breath conditions the body". If you are working up your concentration abilities through samatha meditation, voluntarily breathing is not an issue. Your focus should be on how long you can hold your attention onto the breath. If you notice other experiences, or thoughts arising, simply acknowledge it and return your attention to the sensations of your breath.
You may experience thoughts about your experience of breathing. The previous writer is correct in that thinking cannot observe breathing. But what the Buddha taught is that consciousness is an illusion created by a belief in a separate, permanent self. Consciousness is not self. When you concentrate on the sensations of the breath, try to observe and realize the truth that in that moment, all you are experiencing is breath. There is no one to do the observing.

You do not force to do anapanasathi meditation. Only you have to concentration your inhale and exhale pattern. Before you do that, you can concentration on any object.I think that is the beginning to start a anapanasathi meditation.

I think that many misunderstand the use of word 'concentration' here. And instead of concentration on breath they end-up doing concentrated breathing. I think a more suitable word would be maintaining 'awareness' on breathing.

Is the breath all important?

You can use the alternative object, such as a living being of Mettā meditation, however, the recommend object for the beginner from the elder Thai, such as Mun Bhuridatto, and Burmese monks, such as Ledi sayadaw or Ācinna sayadaw, is Ānāpānassati. Why?
Because the Buddha taught Dhamma sequentially, and the Ānāpānassati is the first meditation in MahāSatipaṭṭhānaSutta, KāyagatāsatiSutta, and ĀnāpānassatiSutta. Why?
Because Ānāpānassati is the easiest meditation because the breath is urging the practitioner every time while the other meditation is not. It likes someone who provoking the practitioner every moment at the nose.

I know that the breath conditions the body, in that the breath tranquilizes the body, but often I read about NOT volitionally breathing in and out and this is exactly what I am doing.

It's not that natural. It's just practicing to know the claiming down breath. The practitioner knows only breath. Don't care of  volitionally or not.  If you breath volitionally but you don't care of it, then you come back to know your breath, it's ok.
This is the misunderstood from the reading study system.
There are 4 subjects that the practitioner needs to recite and memorize:

Measuring the breathing in/out long at the apparent measuring on the nose point (sometime left hole, sometime right, sometime on the upper lip, etc, whatever is ok because the practitioner is caring to measure the breath, not the touching).
Measuring the breathing in/out short at the apparent measuring on the nose point.
Trying to measure the entire breath in/out sensitively continuously at the apparent measuring on the nose point.
Trying to measure the entire claiming-down breath in/out sensitively continuously at the apparent measuring on the nose point.

These 4 subjects need to go together, but the practitioner who just read without reciting and memorizing will forget some of them then the meditation will not grow upper step.

Can I use an alternative object or even open monitorin, that is many objects in a succession?

Actually, the practitioner uses many meditations in daily life as the support meditations, but the Ānapānassati is the easiest primary meditation for the beginner.

One should not resort to controlled or forced breathing as this practice is Pranayama one of the contemporary practices the Buddha tried and rejected in favour of Anapanasatti.
In Anapanasatti one just watchers the breath.
Sammā Diṭṭhi Sutta lists 16 alternatives:

I. Karma (kamma): the unwholesome [§4]; the roots of the unwholesome
  [§5]; the wholesome [6]; the roots of the wholesome [§7].
II. Food (āhāra) [§10], arises and ends with craving (taṇhā) [§11].
III. Suffering (dukkha) [§§14-19].
IV. Decay and death (jarā,maraṇā) [§§21-23].
V. Birth (jāti) [§§25-26].
VI. Existence (bhava) [§§29-31].
VII. Clinging (upādāna) [§§33-35].
VIII. Craving (taṇhā) [§§37-39].
IX. Feelings (vedanā) [§§41-43].
X. Contact (phassa) [§§45-47].
XI. The 6 sense-bases (saḷāyatana) [§§49-51].
XII. Name and form (nāma,rūpa) [§§53-55].
XIII. Consciousness (viññāṇa) [§§57-59].
XIV. Formations (saṅkhāra) [§§61-63].
XV. Ignorance (avijjā) [§§65-67].
XVI. Mental influxes (āsavā) [§§69-71].

When it comes to breathing, think of it as a cyclic biorhythm more than just vacuum imposed gaseous exchange.
If you chart the resting breath it would look something like cos or sin on a graph... Along with your breath there are various other biorhythms in a state of harmony and as such the functions of the body run by the background processors of the mind.
When you exercise, that strain imposed on on system results in a disharmony and in order to maintain that state of strain your mind has to exert more conscious energy on the relative harmony of the biorhythms.
As explained in my reply to this similar question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/43689/20365
A biorhythm may be encompassed by another if the agonist component (muscle - in this case the diaphragm) is turned into a passive. In other the words, by the diaphragm remaining stationary and other muscles exert enough pressure on the lungs to promote gaseous exchange, you don't have to thing about the breath, only the movement.
I got the idea from great whites and their necessity to continue swimming. They compress one side of their body so the other side of the body can be flooded with blood. Turns out we can copy their example of blood pressure efficiency for breathing efficiency when exercising.
Cultivate in harmony


text:
What is Sanna Samapatti and Nirodha Samapatti?
What is Sanna Samapatti and Nirodha Samapatti?
How this differs from Sanna Vedaniya Nirodha?
What is the sutta reference?
This question based on the following Dhamma talk in the Sinhalese language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1422&v=IdvO1AvwOrQ

[354]  Yā  cāyaṃ  bhikkhu  ābhādhātu  yā  ca  subhādhātu  yā  ca
  ākāsānañcāyatanadhātu    yā    ca    viññāṇañcāyatanadhātu    yā   ca
  ākiñcaññāyatanadhātu        imā        dhātuyo       saññāsamāpatti
  pattabbā     .    yāyaṃ    bhikkhu    nevasaññānāsaññāyatanadhātu    ayaṃ
  dhātu     saṅkhārāvasesasamāpatti     pattabbā     .    yāyaṃ    bhikkhu
  saññāvedayitanirodhadhātu    ayaṃ   dhātu   nirodhasamāpatti   pattabbāti  .
  Paṭhamaṃ.

Source: http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/pali_read.php?B=16&A=3621&w=%CA%AD%DA%AD%D2%CA%C1%D2%BB%B5%DA

The answer to this question is found in AN 9.36, as follows:

Iti kho, bhikkhave, yāvatā saññāsamāpatti tāvatā aññāpaṭivedho.
And so, mendicants, penetration to enlightenment extends as far as
  attainments with perception.
But the two dimensions that depend on these — the dimension of neither
  perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and
  feeling (saññāvedayitanirodho) —are properly explained by mendicants
  who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from
  them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.

Saññāsamāpatti is attainement with perception and nirodhosamāpatti is attainment without perception.
Therefore, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4h, 5th, 6th & 7th jhana and vipassana resulting in the destruction of the fermentations/taints (asava) & the experience of Nibbana are examples of saññāsamāpatti, as described in MN 111.

There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality,
  secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed
  thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana
  — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind,
  contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire,
  decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he
  ferreted them out one after another.
Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended.

saññāsamāpatti is  full saññā-in-jhāna, with full citta and full cetasika, because he never try to stop sankhāra-nāma.
saṅkhārāvasesasamāpatti  is less saññā-in-jhāna, with less citta and less cetasika, because he try to stop sankhāra-nāma, but he can't because he still  have "me atta"-tanha in saññā, so he cannot stop, nirodha, that saññā. He can just make sankhāra-nāma lesser than the other arupa-jhana.
saññāvedayitanirodhadhātu is  no sankhāra-nāma after jhana, no citta and no cetasika. He can do, because his lokiya-jhana, which trying to pause rupa&nama, already successful by anagami-magga, and he already enlightened nibbana, which stoped "me atta"-tanha, also.


text:
What are the aggregates made up of?
Namo Buddhaya.
In this vast ocean of knowledge I haven't gained much knowledge. There are five aggregates, namely form,feeling,perception,volitional formations and consciousness.If I am not wrong, the aggregates are called aggregates because they are the sum total of many heterogenous things taken together.
I am asking a very basic question here: What are these aggregates made up of?

Rupa(form):

Patavi (earth element or hardness/softness)
Apo (water element or cohesion)
Tejo (fire element or heat/cold)
Vayo (air element or motion)
24 secondary elelments

Vedana(feeling)

bodily agreeable feeling
bodily painful feeling
mentally agreeable feeling
mentally painful feeling
indifferent feeling

Sanna(perception)

perception of form
perception of sound,
perception of odour,
perception of taste,
perception of bodily impression,
perception of mental impression

Sankhara(Mental Formations)

11 are general psychological elements,
25 lofty (sobhana) qualities,
14 karmically unwholesome qualities.

Vinnana(Consciousness)

eye consciousness
ear consciousness
nose consciousness
tongue consciousness
body consciousness
mind consciousness

Read more here

As @Bonn pointed out the aggregates are called aggregates because they refer to past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. For example :"Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the feeling aggregate." What is your opinion on this ?

@DheerajVerma that's just another way of classifying it. ex: if you ask what is the aggregate of cars, you could say cars made in the past/present/future, near cars, far cars, basic cars, advanced cars etc. Or you could say the different types of cars like sedans, sports cars, luxury cars, hatchbacks, micro cars etc.

"Aggregate" in "Five Aggregates" is a common translation of the Sanskrit word "skandha" or Pali "khandha". Other translations of skandha include "heap", "group", "collection". The image for this is a heap of firewood. In the metaphor of fire (SN 35.28), in which dukkha is compared with burning, and liberation (nirvana) is compared with extinguishing, the heaps of firewood are the stuff that burns. That's why they are called "puncca upadana skandha" (lit. "five heaps of fuel").
It is important to understand that when Buddha speaks about existence in the ultimate sense, he almost always speaks from phenomenological perspective. This means Buddha speaks about direct subjective experience, because direct subjective experience is all we have direct access to, everything else we know about the world is always mediated by direct subjective experience. (Strictly speaking, we don't even know if the world we experience actually exists. We could all be connected in some sort of Matrix, or sleeping in some Inception-like dream. But our experience is real when taken "as is".)
So when Buddha talks about "dharmas", he means the smallest possible elements of subjective experience: sort of the atoms the experience is made of. In pure subjective experience, dharma does not have a carrier, there is no such thing as "dharmin". All we can say is that there is a quality (lakshana) that we can experience, and that momentary atom of experience that has some sort of quality is a dharma.
When Buddha used vipashyana to analyse his direct subjective experience, he classified the entire "stream" of dharmas into groups. Entire world, everything we normally experience "outside" of ourselves, fell into "rupa-skandha", or the dharmas associated with the world of forms. The four other skandhas represent the so-called "internal" experiences. So when you "look" inside, when you do introspection or self-reflection, everything you "see" will fall into one of the four skandhas.
In general, in all cases everything you see "inside", and everything you see "outside", is a dharma, by definition. These dharmas are classified into five groups or heaps of firewood. No dharma exists outside of this classification of five skandhas. So to answer your question, skandhas are made from dharmas - the "atoms" of subjective experience.
It is a big mistake to think that the first Skandha only refers to one's body, and the rest refer to mind. It is an equally severe mistake to assume that it refers to physical objects. So we can't say 'these dharmas are made from water, fire and so on', because that would be speaking from a regular materialistic perspective. Here we are talking phenomenologically!
Instead, dharmas are samskaras (assemblies) of causes and conditions. For each dharma (experience) there is a number of causes and conditions responsible for why we are currently experiencing it. These causes and conditions are themselves dharmas, of all five types. In the fire metaphor, the causes and conditions are the pieces of wood supporting the upper pieces and so on. The whole thing is like one giant burning campfire, that we analytically separate into the five heaps.

If earth, wind, fire & water, aggregates, etc, were "subjective phenomenological experience" then different people would have different experiences and there would not actually be five aggregates or four elements but myriads of permutations of aggregates & elements. I marked your post down because it is actually not about experience but about some common internet doctrine. Its not Buddha-Dhamma.

You are commenting on your misunderstanding of my post.

1.Khandha/aggregate definition

If I am not wrong, the aggregates are called aggregates because they are the sum total of many heterogenous things taken together.

Khandha-word is used in tipitaka 3 meaning: gather of uncountable dukkha, wholesome-dukkha, and paṇṇatti of dukkha. Khandha, which translated as aggregate, is gather of uncountable dukkha as alike as khandha in  Sutta. Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto puññābhisandasuttaṃ:

Just as, brethren, it is not easy to measure the water of the great ocean (saying) ‘there are so many measures of water, so many hundreds of measures of water, so many thousands of measures of water, so many hundreds of thousands of measures of water ’-for it is reckoned as a huge, immeasurable and boundless  quantity (=khandha;aggregate) of water;

So, when you read khandha/aggregate word, you should mae it full like this example:
Rūpa-khandha = gather of uncountable rūpa-dukkha, such as:

uncountable 28 past rūpas,
uncountable 28 future rūpas,
uncountable 28 present rūpas,
uncountable inside rūpas,
uncountable outside
    rūpas,
uncountable big rūpas,
uncountable small rūpas,
uncountable
    beautiful rūpas,
uncountable unsightly  rūpas,
uncountable far
     rūpas,
and uncountable near rūpas.

**Uncountable 28 present rūpas because of (4)-(11) in the present are uncountable. Also, all past and future are the present as well. Because the past is the vanished present, and the future is the unborn present.*
So, buddha defined khandha in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. khandhasutta:

"Now what, monks, are the five aggregates?
"Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external;
  blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the
  form aggregate.

2. Khandha making up of by paṭiccasamuppādasutta
In the end of every paṭiccasamuppādasutta, dependent origination, is summary by khandha/aggregate, such as in Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Vibhaṅghasutta:

jāti·paccayā jarā-maraṇaṃ soka parideva dukkha domanass·upāyāsā sambhavanti. Evam·etassa kevalassa dukkha'k'khandhassa samudayo hoti.
conditioned by jāti arise jarā-maraṇa, sorrow, lamentation, dukkha, domanassa and distress. Thus arises this whole mass(=aggregate) of dukkha.

So, past-avijjā, past-saṅkhāra, present-taṇhā, present-upādāna, and present-kamma-bhava in paṭiccasamuppāda are  causes of past/present/future upadāna-khandha(clung-to-aggregates)/dukkha-ariyasacca (suffering-truth).
But there are the other side causes, too, such as utu (temperature), etc.

So are you saying that when we say form aggregate we do not suggest that form aggregate is made up of earth ,water , fire , air,etc ? If I understand correctly you are saying that Buddha said that form aggregate is made up of past  ,future or present form, internal or external form , blatant or subtle form , common or sublime form ,far or near form.

@DheerajVerma I am sorry. I already edited it.

From my understanding they are called aggregates not necessarily because they are made of something. Its because they are described in plural. For example 'Foam Aggregate' is translated from Rupa Skandha, meaning the aggregate of Rupa or aggregated rupa. Same goes for other 4 as well.
Also asking what they are made of in general sense might not even be correct. Because some are not things, example feeling is a process/action/event so as perception. And when you take all 5 together, what is described is an ongoing process, which we incorrectly perceive as an object (self).


text:
Going on a Budhist Pilgrimage and Want to Make it as Focused as Possible on the Buddha's Teachings
I'm headed to India (and Lumbini in Nepal) in some months for a pilgrimage. This isn't a tourist trip. I want to make this trip as spiritually relevant as possible. Any sort of advice, tips, guidance as to important destinations within India would be most appreciated. This includes advice from Indian citizens regarding customs and culture, as I am a westerner. Thank you!

Wear conservatively and never go alone. Always go with a group. Carry enough water and other refreshments. Behave respectfully at religious places. Don't try to take photos in disrespectful ways. Don't get too familiar with strangers Here is a list of places

Most of this question would be more on-topic at Travel.SE (but maybe too broad there too). Can you edit this question to focus more specifically on Buddhism?


text:
Should I identify myself as formless?
Namo Buddhaya.
Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Form is Anatta too. Meaning form is not worth identifying as myself, me or mine.
Does that mean that I should identify myself as formless ? Am I in form or am I formless or I do not exist ?
Similarly for feelings and consciousness. Should I identify myself feelingless? Should I identify myself consciousless( i.e. I will become without consciousness) ? I am pretty confused.

There's a nice explanation in the Khemaka Sutta below. It has the analogy of the scent of a flower, and its lack of direct relationship with the flower's constituent components. A similar analogy based on music and lute can be found in the Vina Sutta.

Ven. Khemaka: "I am not getting better, my friend. I am not
  comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are
  signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening." .....
As he was sitting there, the elder monks said to him, "Friend Khemaka,
  this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I
  am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say,
  'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do
  you say, 'I am something other than consciousness''? This 'I am' of
  which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?"
"Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am
  something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling...
  perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am
  something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five
  clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't
  assume that 'I am this.'
"It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone
  were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the
  scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"
"No, friend."
"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"
"As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he
  were describing it correctly."
"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I
  say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling...
  perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am
  something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five
  clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't
  assume that 'I am this.'
"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower
  fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a
  lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am'
  obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of
  arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates:
  'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is
  feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is
  consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps
  focusing on the arising & passing away of these five
  clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am'
  desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.
"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
  washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
  rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
  spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
  or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
  away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
  scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.

An explanation here from Walshe on the residual "I am" (for the case where Khemaka has no wrong views but he is still not yet an arahant):

Subcommentary says: "By way of clinging and conceit (ta.nha-maana),"
  that is, not by wrong views (di.t.thi). At this stage, wrong views
  would have been eliminated, but the other factors would still be
  residually present.

Note from ChrisW: There's a more detailed commentary by Piya Tan on the Khemaka Sutta here on Dharmafarer.
Also from SN 22.47, where the Buddha said:

“The five faculties remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to
  them the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance and arouses true
  knowledge. With the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true
  knowledge, ‘I am’ does not occur to him; ‘I am this’ does not occur to
  him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and
  ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be
  nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor
  nonpercipient’—these do not occur to him.”

I will chew over it. I found what I was looking for. Essentially with regards to five aggregates I am not this and 'I am' results due to craving and clinging. Only upon removal of craving and clinging that I unbecome. Unborn is a state which is called Nirvana.

@DheerajVerma OK. I updated the answer with a commentary on the residual "I am" being caused by clinging and conceit, but not wrong view.

I asked "How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?" because "conceit" is a fetter until the final stage of enlightenment, while "identity-view" is abandoned at the first stage.

@DheerajVerma There's a more detailed commentary about the Khamaka Sutta here on Dharmafarer. The "conceit" is also associated with "ignorance" (the opposite of which is ñāṇa), and with the āsavas.

I think the doctrine is saying that you shouldn't "identify yourself" at all. Quoting from this answer

"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

I think that, "I am form", "I am formless", "I exist", "I don't exist", are all self-theories ... theories about self ... and from accepting or assuming any of these theories arises "sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair".
There is also (quoting from MN 2):

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

... so if you say that, "I am pretty confused", I think that is what the dhamma was predicting as the result of attending to views of self (i.e. it predicted "a thicket of views", etc.). I remember "a thicket of views" as a warning, a sign, of attending inappropriately to some view[s]-of-self.
See also:

What are examples of identity-view?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

And yet I also like Why is the Buddha described as trackless? and The Trackless One?
Perhaps there's some ambiguity: between "not describing (not constraining, not leading) the Tathagata", compared to "describing the Tathagata as 'not' (or describing as 'formless')".
But that kind of consideration is, more or less, stuck right in the middle of "the thicket" again -- so, if the question is confused, I maybe shouldn't try to tie a (clear) answer to a (confused) question.
So instead of this answer, I hope you find its references helpful.

If it helps, I once saw a video (Dalai Lama's guide to happiness) where the Dalai Lama said,

... I always open.
  I never consider myself as a something special.
  If I consider myself something different from you, like, I am Buddhist, or, even more, I am His Holiness Dalai Lama, or even is I consider I am Nobel Laureate, then actually you create yourself as a prisoner.
  I forget these things, I simply consider I am one of the seven billion human beings.
  We are mentally, emotionally, intellectually, we are same.

Take another example : I am thought or I am without thought. Truth as you say I am neither because state of thought and thoughtlessness arise and I identify with them because of craving. Without craving there is no identity to identify state of thought or thoughtlessness. Am I correct ?

I'd guess that, "I am thought", "I am without thought", "I am neither", and/or "I am both", might all be examples of self-views. I'm not sure how craving and identity-view are connected. One author (the author of The Notion of Diṭṭhi in Theravāda Buddhism) writes, I think that the term implies an ‘identification’ with the khandhas. The identity-view does not see things as they are, and this produces craving and attachment. The opposite to the identity-view is the nonidentity-view, the non-craving-view, namely, right-view. ... in other words, that craving is because of identity-view.

But the 12 nidanas suggest the cycle is craving -> clinging -> becoming.  Maybe that's more of the thicket, though, alas. :-)

This question is as valid as asking "is Superman an American citizen?". Superman is a fictional character. So there's no validity(in reality) in questions asked based on the assumption that Superman exists.

Just as craving for existence in Form World(rupa-raga) leads to origination of self in Form world, craving for existence in Formless World (arupa-raga) leads to origination of self in Formless world. Superman is a fictional character but Self is not fiction. Self becomes mature with the grasping of aggregates. If you identify with body then you are the body however wisdom tells us that one should not identify with body because it is not worth clinging as me , mine or myself. But that doesn't mean Self is a fictional character. It originates and with good training in Dhamma it ceases.

Self is fiction. Craving for form leads to birth in the form worlds. But it doesn't create a self. The notion of 'self' is a mere misunderstanding to begin with.

Yes. Self is a misunderstanding but now that misunderstanding has been removed , why do we still say 'I am' ? Because conceptual understanding is not enough. We must develop the mind to realise dispassionate state of Anatta. Work on the path must be done. In that sense Self is real.

Even Arahanths may use the words "I am". That doesn't mean they believe in a self. It's the way the language is constructed.

Please forward me the link where Buddha says I am using the word 'I am' because of the way language is constructed. Thanks.

I doubt you could find that exact wording anywhere in the Tipitaka. But if you read the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta you will understand that enlightened beings don't consider anything as a self. Form or non-form.

It would be silly not to use concepts to communicate. In Mahayana key is not to be caught up by them. Realisation is not within the mind to understand, it is where you convince yourself without doubt (fetter) to realise. Eightfold path is extremely long process and you cannot accelerate no-Self unfortunately. Any attempt of acceleration by conceptual knowledge to satisfy overcurious mind may be a hinderance and actually cause more bad than cessation. In Zen its effective to deprioritise knowledge and sutras completely for the sake of experience, and then material is gradually introduced

@DheerajVerma Choose any example where the Buddha refers to himself. In the Mahaparinibbana sutta, for example, he says, "I am eighty years old". In Pali that's a phrase like "Eighty years to my age happens" -- not "I am" but, still, using a possessive pronoun ("my"). I think the dhamma says to not identify with the aggregates, because that results in suffering (and arises from inappropriate attention), nor to view them as a permanent Soul.

I have two understandings that may help in this regard - the negation of existence/nonexistence and the affirmation of dependent arising. I will substitute "form" for "exist" just to make it simpler. Additionally, I am still learning so please feel free to object to any points.
In terms of "exist", it is easy to see that nothing truly exists on its own. Everything is made up of parts which are, in turn, made of parts. A table, for example, never truly exists. There are trees, bits of metal perhaps rubber or plastic, and other materials that go into assembling what we call "table". We typically don't look at objects this way and it takes a little bit of concentration to do so. Those parts are also made of parts all the way down to subatomic particles.
Beyond even that, things come to be only from causes. The parts cause the table, and other causes cause the parts themselves. There is no start to this cycle - everything that comes to be is dependent on its own causes.
Thus, if everything comes from causes, then nothing exists inherently and is temporary. Thus, if something were to exist in a permanent, inherent way, then it would have to be uncaused. Additionally, it could not change as that would indicate cause and thus violate any sense of permanent inherent existence.
We don't see things this way typically. We think of "I" and "you" and "this" and "that" as if things are substantial in an inherent way. Even "I" am not the same physically or mentally. The atoms making up our body turn over constantly,  and our mind is simply a series of mental moments, one causing the next moment to moment. Thus, the "me" I know is not the "me" of ten years ago or even one week ago.
When it comes to "non-existence" in light of this, then it is easy to see that such a concept is nonsensical. You would have to presuppose the possibility of something existing (in an inherent, causeless way) in order for it not to exist. Since we have already seen that permanent, inherent existence is a conundrum, likewise any notion of non-existence is as well.
So we are left with the dilemma - nothing is in a state of existence or non-existence. How do we solve this?
The answer is known as dependent arising. Things "exist" but not in a way that is permanent, eternal, or inherent. In other words, things only "exist" in a relative way. Everything is caused by the immediate moment before and, in turn, becomes the cause of the next moment.
Thus, we experience reality as existing on a relative level. It is truly there as "something" that comes into awareness from the immediate moment before and passes away as a cause to the next moment. We never experience anything in a permanent, self-inherent way as that is nonsensical. At the heart of what we perceive as reality is therefore emptiness - that is, everything is lacking inherent existence. There is no such thing.
Thus, you are in form in a relative way as are your thoughts and feelings. They do "exist" in a relative way. But they are all dependent on causes and do not arrive into awareness out of nothing (i.e. self-created inherent causeless existence).
Source: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika https://www.amazon.com/Nagarjunas-Middle-Way-Mulamadhyamakakarika-Classics/dp/1614290504
HTH!


text:
Someone told me Buddha copied almost everything from Brahmanism, how accurate is that?
I am fairly new to the Dhamma and this site specifically. I was told by an Indian person that dyana (meditation) was a part of a yoga system which became zen in china, dharma became dhamma, most of Buddhists texts are sutras, ideas of reincarnation, maya (phenomenon), nirvana, samaddhi, sat (truth), chitta (conciousness), daya (compassion), ahinsa are all Hindu themes reinterpreted.
How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?

Is "Brahim" is mis-spelling for something, or is it a real word? Did you mean "Brahmin", for example?

Dyana meditation is basically keeping your focus on one object. Various forms of it can be found in many religions. There's nothing exceptional about it. Even christians/muslims praying to a God is a type of concentration meditation that could lead to the first Dyana. In that case, the object of focus is conceptual or fictional.
In Buddhism also you can find types of Dyana meditations as they are useful methods of developing concentration and subduing defilements. But what makes Buddhism exceptional is Vipassana meditation. This meditation is not found in any other religion. Then there are so many unique teachings like the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, most of the teachings in the sutta, abhidhamma, vinaya pitakas that amount to 84,000 teachings.
So if someone claims that the Buddha copied almost everything from Yoga, it only speaks of his lack of knowledge in Buddhism.

if I'm right even bodhisathwa learned all "rupa jhana" and "arupa jhana" from different teacher. Those jhana existed even before lord Buddha. Lord Buddha found Vipasana meditation on his own. As you have mentioned in your answer I don't think it's not available in any other religion.

The Bodhisatta attained the first jhana on his own when he was a child. Yes he learnt Arupa jhana from 2 masters.

Yes I have heard about it. But when in rupa jhana, there are 4 jhanas. As I know Bodhisatta learnt about other three at least from another teacher. I think its the first teacher

Sorry for asking to do something in comment. I tried to ask a question. When I looked for a tag as "Buddhism" there wasn't anything like that. But there were several tags as tibetian buddhism, chinese buddhism etc. As I believe there are no such things. Only Buddhism exist. You have reputation needed to create a tag. So, please create a tag as buddhism or theravada buddhism.

The Bodhisatta had perfected all the Arupa jhana and Rupa Jhana in previous lives. That's why he was able to masters them pretty fast

@Joe If you want to ask about tags please post on Meta. There's no "Buddhism" tag because every topic on this site is related to Buddhism. There is already a [tag:theravada] tag if you want to use it -- which you may use when or if you want to exclude (avoid) any answers from a Mahayana or a Tibetan Buddhism tradition.

congratulation and grateful for giving such answer.

Prior to the Buddha (born 563 or 480 BCE), was the historical Vedic religion (1750 - 500 BCE), followed by the shramanic movement (500 - 200 BCE), and the beginnings of the Upanishadic movement within Hinduism (500 - 200 BCE). Buddhism is also considered to be part of the shramanic movement. Vedanta came later as part of Classical Hinduism (200 BCE - 1100 CE). You can find this information here.
Prince Gautama, after leaving home, followed the shramanic traditions which were based on asceticism. Jainism was one of the major shramanic traditions at the time. The Pali Canon (DN2) has descriptions of various shramanic teachings at the time (Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sanjaya Belatthiputta and Mahavira). These teachings may or may not be compatible with the Vedic religion at the time.
Gautama tried to follow the different teachings at the time (Vedic and shramanic teachings) and found that it did not lead to the goal that he sought. And you know the rest of the story of how he found enlightenment and started teaching.
Hindu religious scholars today like to do two things. The first is to place all these different groups under the umbrella of Hinduism, sometimes including religions that do not accept the authority of the Vedas like Buddhism and Jainism, but sometimes not. This is often used to generalize that all concepts in Hinduism today are older than Buddhism, when in fact, not all concepts in today's Hinduism come from the ancient Vedic religion. On the other hand, Buddhist scholars tend to describe Classical Hinduism as "Hinduism", while they describe the Vedic religion as "Brahmanism".
By grouping everything together, the Hindu religious scholars hide the fact that Buddhism (and other shramanic schools) had indeed influenced Vedanta and Classical Hinduism. It is well known that the founders of Advaita Vedanta including Gaudapada and Adi Shankara, were influenced by Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna's Mula-madhyamaka-karika and Buddhism. This can be seen in Hinduism.SE questions here and here.
The second thing that Hindu religious scholars like to do is misrepresent the age of a scripture. The Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras which includes criticism of Buddhism (see this question) is claimed to be much older than the Buddha by Hindu religious scholars (see here). Meanwhile, in the Wikipedia article on this text, we can see that most historians and academic philosophers have the opinion that the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras come at least two centuries after the Buddha. The same applies to other Hindu texts like the Bhagavad Gita and certain Upanishads (Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka, Prasna, Mandukya), according to the timeline of Hindu texts.
This again shows that many writings that come after the Buddha, would most likely have experienced influence from the Buddha's teachings, but would be misrepresented by Hindu religious scholars as being far older than the Buddha.
While the ancient Vedic religion was based mainly on sacrifice and worship to the Vedic gods, I would guess that ideas like dhyana and samadhi come from the shramanic movement, which include ascetics who may or may not accept the authority of the Vedas. It is also likely that shramanic ascetics may have influenced each other, just as the Buddha learned some things from other teachers like Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, although they did not achieve the Buddha's level of enlightenment before the Buddha did. It is well known that the Buddha discovered Vipassana meditation but not Samatha meditation (see this answer). Samatha meditation existed before the Buddha's time.
Apart from that, there are also other concepts that are simply common human themes that can be found in many cultures around the world, or are common words found in many languages. Examples include karuna (compassion), atma or atta (self), maitri or metta (friendliness).
Here are some major doctrinal differences between Buddhism and Classical Hinduism:

The middle way between eternalism and annihilationism (Hinduism subscribes to eternalism of the self) - see this answer
The self is not eternal, not standalone and not independent - see this answer, and SN44.10, and contrast with Hindu BG2.24
The self or soul does not pervade the body (unlike the Hindu BG2.17) - see SN35.85
There is no Supreme God (unlike Hinduism) - see this answer
The self or soul does not transmigrate (unlike Hindu BG2.22) - see this answer
Warriors dying on the battlefield while performing their duty do not go to heavan after death according to SN42.3 (unlike Hindu BG2.32)
Lay people eating meat that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket is not sinful - see this answer

Centuries after the Buddha's passing, the development of Buddhism and Hinduism did influence each other. As discussed in this answer, later on, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy influenced each other to produce Advaita Vedanta and Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Also, Tibetan Buddhism have adopted some Hindu deities. On the other hand, there has also been debates in later times between Hindu and Buddhist scholars (see this question).
It must be clear that the Buddha's unique contributions that cannot be found in Hinduism and other religions, are anatta, vipassana, dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) and the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism (see this answer).
Furthermore, anatta is the irreconciliable difference between Buddhism and Hinduism, as stated by eminent German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp in his essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.

Do we have a list of scriptures mentioned by Gautam Buddha?

Do you mean Hindu scriptures or Buddhist scriptures?

Yeah, I mean Hindu scriptures.

The Buddha mentioned Three Vedas in the Canki Sutta, presumably the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda and Sama Veda. The other Hindu scriptures were probably non-existent during his time.

No, at least Upanishads were also existent for he uses the Upanishadic word 'Brahman'.

Actually, no. The Buddha only talked about Brahma (the deity) or Brahmin (the caste), but never Brahman (the Ultimate Reality), to my knowledge. Translators of the Pali Canon usually translate the term for Brahmin (the caste) as Brahman, hence it might cause confusion. Also, this answer in Hinduism.SE shows that Brahman (the Universal Reality) also appears in the Yajur Veda.

No, Find the mentioning of Brahman here. It is union with Brahman, the ultimate reality. Neverthless, as it is present in Yajurveda already let me point out the word Brahma the diety is puranic. Puranas also seem to be predate Buddha at least historically then, as other puranic demigods including Brahma also mentioned by Buddha.

"Union with Brahman" in DN 13 comes from one translation. Another translation says "company of Brahma". But this makes a nice question to ask on Buddhism.SE. I will ask it.

@ruben2020 well-done answer, this has helped clear up a lot for me. :)

Someone (I forget who -- Paul Carus perhaps) drew an analogy with Christianity -- saying that Buddhism is a reformation of Brahmanism, like Christianity is a reformation of Judaism.
In my opinion, the doctrines might seem similar superficially, in that they inevitably have some words in common -- a common language or vocabulary, the vernacular. If Christianity and Judaism both use the word "God", here you say that Buddhism and Hinduism both use the word "mind". I don't understand that to mean that it's "copied" though. If I paint an  original picture, and you paint an original picture, and we both use the same paints -- we're both using the same paints (the same words) to create our pictures, but that doesn't mean that we're copying each other's pictures.
dyana (meditation)
Forms of meditation were practised in China too at about that period -- without I think being copied from Hinduism.
I don't assume it (meditation) is specifically "Hindu" rather than "human".
Sakyamuni did study under other contemporary teachers, before he attained enlightenment -- he found their teachings insufficient, though.
dharma became dhamma
It's a very general word, meaning something like "doctrine" or "reality" or "the way things are".
Every doctrine has (or is) dhamma, by the definition of the word, that doesn't mean they're copied from each other.
ideas of reincarnation
I'm not really familiar with Hindu ideas of reincarnation, I think the ideas might be dissimilar though.
I presume that the Buddhist doctrine of anatta (the non-existence of a permanent self) makes it unlike the Hindu idea.
daya (compassion)
Again, IMO this (Compassion) is a human theme: not specifically Hindu or copied from Hinduism.
How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?
There are many suttas in which the Buddha interacts with (talks with) Brahmins -- sometimes to criticise their behaviour, or to explain why and how his (Buddhist) dhamma is different from theirs (early Hinduism).
I think it's truer to say that it's "reinterpreted" rather than "copied". Even so that reinterpretation (i.e. contrasting Buddhism with Hinduism) may occur especially when talking with Brahmins.
There's a Wikipedia article Buddhism and Hinduism -- I think it's an OK article, not brilliant -- at a minimum it begins to illustrate how many similarities there are, and how many differences: more than it's easy to answer fully, here.

I've also heard the opposite, for what it's worth -- that some aspects of (later) Hinduism are copied from influenced by, or in response to, Buddhism (and/or Jainism). I don't know any details of that though; only that Hinduism continued to evolve after Buddhism started. Hindu synthesis and smriti says:

The smriti texts of the period between 200 BCE and 100 CE belong to the emerging "Hindu Synthesis", proclaiming the authority of the Vedas while integrating various Indian traditions and religions. Acceptance of the Vedas became a central criterion for defining Hinduism over and against the heterodoxies, which rejected the Vedas.[17]
The so-called "Hindu Synthesis" emerged during the early Classical period (200 BCE – 300 CE) of Hinduism.

I think Sakyamuni was earlier (Wikipedia says "c. 563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE"), with Jainism founded maybe one generation before that.
Buddhism could, perhaps more accurately, be seen as a "reinterpretation" of Jainism rather than Hinduism (see "Jainism and Hinduism", and "Buddhism and Jainism"), perhaps only in that before his enlightenment he tried various austere/ascetic/extreme (Jain-like) practices, before eventually abandoning them as unprofitable and practicing and teaching "the middle way" instead.

Technically not "the vernacular" -- I mean, "understood by the people who used the language".

About the core unique teachings, the suttas report the Buddha saying:

Pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā
  udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi
Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose,
  illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard
  before...
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

Everything is an incarnation of something else.  If you read the upanishads and Bhagavad Gita those go really well with the Dhammapada.  Gautama was from Indian where it left and went to China and Japan and eventually the world.  But naming like we do when we categorize has its limits.

Buddha came around 500-800 BC and Vedanta originated about 100 BC - 1100 AD. So in fact its the other way around.
If you read and understand these philosophies, you will find that Advaita Vedanta is a copy and paste of buddhist philosophy with some minor changes. Most of the terminology is also same.
Only difference are some abstract terms in buddhism such as consciousness, karmic structure are replaced with terms paramatma and atma etc. Rest is all same.
In fact, Adi Shankaracharya is considered by many as cryto-buddhist (or closet/ hidden buddhist) who changed the bhakti and ritualistic nature of Hinduism and turned it into spiritual system/ meditative system.

Brahmins ate beef & strict propogadist of evil customs which we Buddhist cannot believe from 2500 years . China is a centre for Buddhism expansion to other regions as like srilanka who spreads Buddhism to far South East region of asia. As From South Asia , brahmins were group of propogadist who were involved in massacre of followers of Buddhism. Everytime you need to find out the way how our South Asian followers were vanished from their original roots of our Buddhist culture, as they were pressured to convert & murdered. Buddhism is most infly religious beliefs of South Asian community but vanished in previous centuries. But as we know reactions follows after actions , Srilanka is one of centre still follows our traditional Buddhist culture & some South Asian also cooking towards new recipe of Buddhism in India.