text:
Decline and the ending of Buddhism
Here is link giving a bit of details that Buddha preached about the decline of Buddhism after parinibbana.
http://www.lawsofthenature.com/GotamaSasana.aspx
 I share with you the following passage taken from the page of the above link

The Buddha said that after His parinibbaana, only for 1,000 years will
  the monks be able to acquire the analytical knowledge (Patisambhida),
  or what we know as Arahanthship or deep knowledge. Then, as time goes
  on, they will only be able to attain Anaagami (Never return). And then
  only Sakadagami (Once return), and finally, only Sotapanna (Stream
  enterer). With the death of the last disciple who has attained
  Sotapanna, the attainments will disappear.

 Here's my issue with the above. From what I understand is that after a certain period of time after parinibbana, the maximum attainment that one could achieve reduces from arahant to anagami and so on. But this is illogical because if a person attain anaagaami he/she will only have at most 1 life where he/she will become an arahant which makes the above statement false, unless it means that the person will be born as a deva maybe having a very long lifetime until the next Buddha. This is confusing.

All Anagamis are born in one of the five Suddhavasa Brahma realms. There they will attain Arahanthship. Yes, they have a very long life span. The lowest realm 'Aviha' has a life span of 1000 Maha Kalpas. So they will see many Buddhas in the future before entering Parinibbana.
The text is talking about monks. That means the human world. Divine beings are not discussed here.

This is a question from the same link. Why is refraining from claiming to have attained the four spiritual levels a deadly sin?

@Heisenberg It's the other way round: killing, claiming attainment, stealing, and sexual conduct are all "deadly sins", in the sense that a person who commits one of those acts is no longer a bikkhu. There's more to being a bikkhu than just keeping those precepts, but the link you posted said that "as time goes on" these are the only four disciplines they will keep.

Why is claiming attainment wrong? I am sorry if this is totally unrelated. I can post this as a fresh question if you wish

Claiming that you are enlightened(4 stages), when you are not, invalidates your monkhood, if  done knowingly. Truly enlightened beings do not usually discuss their attainment with others.

@Heisenberg This commentary classifies it as robbery or false pretenses. Technically it's falsely claiming attainments that's wrong (but monks avoid making claims at all). See also page 87 of this which says, "All conscious lies are forbidden by the first p›cittiya rule, but knowingly to
make a false claim to a superior human state is one of the most heinous lies a
bhikkhu can tell, so here it receives its own rule and the heaviest possible
penalty."

Better to use a term like "rules of defeat" for the parajika rules than "deadly sins".

The passage quoted is more opinion than  a Sutta. Therefore it should be set aside. It can discourage one to give up on the goal even before starting. Further the authenticity of the Anagathavamsa Sutta is challenged by some scholars and is considered as a later addition.

It's not an opinion. It's mentioned as the word of the Buddha and it hasn't been rejected by the Buddhist councils. Whether you like to believe it or not is a personal matter.
All Parajikas are bad karmas and they kill one's monk status. So the term fits.

Can the section quoted in the question be traced to a Sutta? Here's one of many links claiming that the Anagathavamsa Sutta is post canonical.http://www.budsas.org/ebud/metteya/arimet00.htm.

However this is not to say that the Maitri Buddha is not mentioned or relevant to Dhamma. Just that when citing sources we need to ensure the authenticity of the source. That's all.

A text being post canonical or not being able to trace to a canonical Sutta does not mean it is inauthentic. If the teaching is inline with the Dhamma and if it is not rejected by the councils, it's pretty safe to accept.

That is true Sanka.  There are a lot of Sravaka Dhamma in line with the Dhamma. However they are not 'what the Buddha said...' as posted above.

No, what I meant was you can't make the assumption that every thing the Buddha preached during the 45 years was included in the Tipitaka at the time it was written down


text:
Zen & Dukkha -- Is Everything Suffering?
Thich Nhat Hanh seems to deny a major teaching on dukkha/suffering common to both Theravada and Tibetan teachings -- the idea of all-perasive suffering ("the suffering of composite things",samskara dukkhata)-- found in many places in the Pali and Tibetan canons. Below are some excerpts. A link to the whole chapter is at the end.
I think his interpretation may well reflect a misunderstanding of all-pervasive suffering -- it does not deny joy; it simply says the only lasting happiness comes from addressing conditioned existence in general (or emptiness/shunyata and inherent/intrinsic existence in Mahayana terms); it cannot be found by only addressing worldly suffering directly.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding him. But he is pretty emphatic, even to the point of implying that the Pali Canon was corrupted to reflect this teaching before it got written down. He also suggests removing dukkha from the Three Dharma Seals/Marks, replacing it with nirvana (rather than just adding nirvana to make four seals, as is usually done)
My questions -- does this reflect Zen teachings in general, or is it limited to Thich Nhat Hanh and/or some schools? If some Zen schools or teachers do teach all-pervasive suffering, can someone point me to references? I'd also be interested in other Zen teachings that reflect Thich Nhat Hanh's strong objection to the doctrine of all-pervasive suffering.
Thanks.

The following quotes (with my emphasis added) are from Chapter Five, "Is Everything Suffering?", from The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, by Thich Nhat Hanh,

Since the Buddha said that the First Noble Truth is suffering, many good
students of the Buddha have used their skills to prove that everything on
Earth is suffering. The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering was
such an attempt. It is not a teaching of the Buddha.
The first kind of suffering is "the suffering of suffering" (dukkha
dukkhata), the suffering associated with unpleasant feelings, like the pain
of a toothache, losing your temper, or feeling too cold on a winter's day.
The second is "the suffering of composite things" (samskara dukkhata).
Whatever comes together eventually has to come apart; therefore, all
composite things are described as suffering. Even things that have not yet
decayed, such as mountains, rivers, and the sun, are seen to be suffering,
because they will decay and cause suffering eventually. When you believe that everything composed is suffering, how can you find joy? The third is "the
suffering associated with change"(viparinama dukkhata). Our liver may be in
good health today, but when we grow old, it will cause us to suffer. There is no point in celebrating joy, because sooner or later it will turn into
suffering. Suffering is a black cloud that envelops everything. Joy is an
illusion. Only suffering is real.
...
This dialogue is repeated in many sutras:

"Monks, are conditioned things permanent or impermanent?"
'They are impermanent, World-Honored One."
"If things are impermanent, are they suffering or well-being?"
"They are suffering, World-Honored One."
"If things are suffering, can we say that they are self or belong to self?"
"No, World-Honored One."

By the time the Buddha's discourses were written down, seeing all things
as suffering must have been widely practiced, as the above quotation
occurs more frequently than the teaching to identify suffering and the path
to end suffering.
...
The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering is an attempt to justify the
universalization of suffering. What joy is left in life? We find it in
nirvana. In several sutras the Buddha taught that nirvana, the joy of
completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts, rather than suffering, is
one of the Three Dharma Seals. This is stated four times in the Samyukta
Agama of the Northern transmission. Quoting from yet another sutra, Nagarjuna
listed nirvana as one of the Three Dharma Seals.  To me, it is much easier to
envision a state where there are no obstacles created by concepts than to see
all things as suffering. I hope scholars and practitioners will begin to
accept the teaching that all things are marked by impermanence, nonself, and
nirvana, and not make too great an effort to prove that everything is
suffering.

When you quote someone or text you have to be extremely careful and never take it as a just text level.
Said or written things are not meant for general audience. It is meant for specific awareness level.

I sometimes disagree with Thich Nhat Hanh's wording, but that is unimportant. I don't think anyone can meaningfully state that things suffer. If you are seeking a root cause for Being, the only sane answer is that Being exists to manifest Joy. This has the side benefit of completely explaining the statement: "Samsara is Nirvana."  (if that is of interest to you)

“Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun.” ― Alan Wilson Watts

Thich Nhat Hanh made an error because he was attempting to rationalize another error. If Thich Nhat Hanh actually understood the teachings, he would not state the teaching of 'samskara dukkhata' is false but instead, simply rectify the error in the interpretation of the teaching.
The spirit of what Thich Nhat Hanh said is correct, namely, there is no inherent or pervasive suffering in the five aggregates & there is a state of bliss & freedom living beings can experience, which is called Nirvana. The teachings explain quite unambiguous that it is attachment (upadana) to the five aggregates that is suffering rather than the five aggregates themselves.
As for the Three Characteristics, the 2nd characteristic is not 'suffering' but 'unsatisfactory'. The five aggregates are unsatisfactory (in that because of their impermanence they cannot bring lasting happiness) but the five aggregates are not 'suffering'.
In short, the idea of all-pervasive suffering ("the suffering of composite things",samskara dukkhata) does not exist in the Pali suttas because the term 'samskara dukkhata' does not mean "the suffering of composite things" but means "the suffering of mental constructing".
Thich Nhat Hanh has correctly said that nirvana is the joy of completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts. However, Thich Nhat Hanh does not intellectually understand that the word 'samskara' has many meanings dependent on context and, in the context of the compound 'samskara dukkhata' means 'ideas and concepts'.
Thus, using the language of Thich Nhat Hanh, the three kinds of dukkha are translated correctly as: "suffering about pain" (dukkha dukkhata); "suffering of ideas & concepts" (samskara dukkhata) and "suffering about change" (viparinama dukkhata).
Intellectually, Thich Nhat Hanh was wrong but spiritually Thich Nhat Hanh was correct.

That seems to be what TNH is saying, e.g. elsewhere in the referenced chapter, "A table will only make us suffer if we attribute permanence or separateness to it. When we are attached to a certain table, it is not the table that causes us to suffer. It is our attachment."

TNH, despite being nominally from the Zen tradition, seems to have some difficulty with the Mahayana concepts (as well as Theravada one here), resulting in his attempts to re-translate the heart sutra. He also support a materialist view of Buddhism which I think is veering too much towards nihilistic views.

Nihilism is a 'self-view'. TNH is not teaching about self-view therefore TNH is not teaching nihilism.

"not 'suffering' but 'unsatisfactory' - There is no difference in the texts between these two things except in English.

There is a difference in the texts between unsatisfactoriness  & suffering, such as Dhammapada 278: - "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html  Suffering is the emotional trauma of the mind. Unsatisfactoriness is a never ending universal characteristic of all conditioned (material & mental) things. A Buddha destroys all suffering on this mind but a Buddha does not end unsatisfactoriness, which can never be ended.

I think the onus is on you to show that the Buddha made a distinction between unsatisfactoriness & suffering in that quote. The original Pali:
"Dukkhalakkhaṇavatthu
“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti,
yadā paññāya passati;
Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
esa maggo visuddhiyā."
https://suttacentral.net/pi/dhp#278
Dukkha and its grammatical variants are used to indicate both part of the text. You need to prove that the word meant two different things in that context.

Regarding nihilism I was talking about his teachings in other sources, I just brought it up out of interest.

I have seen the change of word to unsatisfactory before, and I think it is the single largest correction that needs to be made in Buddhist writing. Thank you for explaining it so well. Also I agree with you stating that Thich Nhat Hahn was intellectually incorrect but spiritually correct. I have long felt that way when reading him.

I cannot see how anything in your response supports this statement: "If Thich Nhat Hanh actually understood the teachings, he would not state the teaching of 'samskara dukkhata' is false but instead, simply rectify the error in the interpretation of the teaching." In particular not in the context of the question that was asked. Perhaps you can expand or point me in the right direction?

You should try to understand my answer. The word sankhara does not mean all composite things. The word sankhara means "ideas & concepts". Therefore, there are three types of suffering: (i) suffering about physical pain; (ii) suffering about change/loss; and (iii) suffering of ideas & concepts/too much thinking/confusion. Regards

My interpretation would be that all things are not suffering, for several reasons.
First of all, the first Noble Truth needs to be seen in context with the other Noble Truths - it says in life there is suffering, but also that there are causes and a path to the cessation of suffering. Most composite entities are not alive and so cannot follow the path. It stands to reason that most composite things follow a natural path to physical decomposition and recomposition, which doesn't necessarily include (mental) suffering.
Second, in the sutra's the words 'conditioned things' often refers to Sankhara, which is a term that largely refers to mental phenomena. To extend this to try and construct a doctrine which implies that the whole physical world is suffering is an error in conception.
Without clinging there can be no suffering, and clinging is a property of mental formations. I would say that Thich Nhat Hanh may well be right. Others are likely better placed to comment on Zen beliefs and practices regarding suffering.

"All-pervasive suffering" is one translation of Sankhara-dukkha. Here are several other translations.
Does that analysis of dukkha comes from one sutta? Dukkha Sutta (SN 38.14) says,

There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness.

Instead of looking for a translation of Sankhara-dukkha and instead of translating it as "everything is suffering" or "life is suffering" or "all-pervasive suffering", it might be better to figure out what sankhara means.

Note this series of comments, where Ven. Yuttadhammo implies that "life is suffering" doesn't accurately quote what the Buddha said.

I don't know of any example where the Buddha actually said "life is suffering". – yuttadhammo
Do you know a better English-language paraphrase/summary/approximation of the First noble truth? – ChrisW
the first noble truth is simply "This is the truth of suffering." Nowhere in the enumeration of what is suffering does it refer to life. – yuttadhammo

One more story, I read this somewhere:

Thich Nhat Hanh said that, when he was seven years old, he saw a picture of the Buddha on the cover of a Buddhist magazine.

He was sitting on the grass ... very peaceful ... smiling. And I was impressed. Around me people were not like that, so I had the desire to be someone like him.

I take it that we're meant to understand that the Buddha himself found a way to escape 'suffering'.

Wikipedia says,

As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence[4] sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.[5][6]

Those footnotes reference Thich Nhat Hanh, but also two other authors, Rulu and Hsing Yun (who I think are both Chinese).

From the Theravada perspective.

Whatever is felt is included in suffering - Raho,gata Sutta & Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta

Feeling are 3 types which are related to unsatisfactoriness (everything is not satisfactory or unpleasant):

Pain is suffering on its own but pleasant when it changes (dukkha-dukkhatā)
Pleasure in itself is not suffering but leads to suffering since it changes and ends hence Whatever is felt is included in suffering (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)
Neutral feeling are suffering as conditioned existence birth, old age and death is unsatisfactory (Sankhara-dukkha) {what is satisfactory is Nirvana which is not associated with any sensation} and also this can very well lead to the above two types of suffering. This is painful when unknown and pleasant when known.

The main reason for our continued existance which opens us to future situation of suffering (birth, decay, mishaps and death) is craving towards pleasant feeling, aversion towards unpleasant and being ignorant of reality when experiencing neutral feelings. [Pahāna Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2]
Coming back to conditioned existance which associated with unsatisfactoriness of existance (Sankhara-dukkha) is suffering as you are not exempt from birth, aging and death. This is associated with ignorance. This can become a pleasure if known (eradicate ignorance) but painful when unknown (with ignorance). Conditioned existance is not unpleasant entirely but connected to it. [Cūla Vedalla Sutta]

I didn't cite it, but TNH also doubts in this piece that craving is the sole cause of suffering:
"Another common misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching is that all of our suffering is caused by craving. In the Discourse on Turning the Wheel of the Dharma,the Buddha did say that craving is the cause of suffering, but he said this because craving is the first on the list of afflictions (kleshas). If we use our intelligence, we can see that craving can be a cause of pain, but other afflictions such as anger, ignorance, suspicion, arrogance, and wrong views can also cause pain and suffering."

I did not mean that.

No this does not reflect Zen teachings. Thich Nhat Hanh is his own man in his attempt to reconcile Buddhism with popular views such as scientific materialism. He even recently attempt to try to re-translate the Heart Sutra to fit his own conceptions. I could be wrong my judgement of him, he could in actual fact be practicing skillful means to teach Buddhism to skeptical, pleasure seeking westerners who do not want to hear that all things are suffering. In fact the Buddha himself did not teach the doctrine of suffering to laymen because of the risk of misunderstanding. You can see from the sutta quoted above that he taught it specifically to advance monks.
By itself not teaching suffering is ok, there are examples of suttas where the Buddha taught about better births which are more pleasurable than our current life to lay Buddhists who has good ethics. Mahayana Sutras like Pure Land sutras are also employ skillful means of teaching the reward of bliss first for practicing Buddhism such as the Pure Land of Supreme Bliss of Amitabha. However I think Thich Nhat Hanh harms the cause of Buddhism when he starts going around claiming that various doctrines does not reflect the teachings of the Buddha, as if he knew better than all the previous masters who agreed on the teachings of the Buddha and preserved them.
In fundamental Buddhist doctrine: All conditioned existence are ultimately suffering.
However from a conventional point of view many of the states of existence will be described as extremely blissful and peaceful.
As I understand it, everything is suffering in the sense that they are ultimately unsatisfactory because of impermanence.
Sure the experience of the Jhana/Chan/Zen is supremely blissful and peaceful compared to physical suffering or even physical pleasures. The fact is that even the state of the Jhanas are themselves impermanent and subject to dependent origination. It is of course better to be in meditative Jhana rather than indulging in immoral pleasures because negative consequences result from the latter.
However if you are attached to the pleasures of Jhana you will experience suffering when you are out of that state. Ultimate you must be detached to them all and that detachment is Nirvana. That is also the realization that all conditioned existence is suffering.
Edit
So I got side tracked with some of the claims regarding suffering here including the claims of Thich Nhat Hanh. As some posters pointed out, the error is in the 'scope' of 'all'.
Here is the Four Dharma Seals:

All compounded things are impermanent
All conditioned phenomena and experiences are unsatisfactory
All phenomena are non-self
Nirvana is true peace

A Chinese translation:

一切行無常印 - All 'conditioned experience' (sankhara) are impermanent
一切行苦印 - All conditioned experience are suffering
一切法無我印 - All dharmas are not self
涅槃寂滅印 - Nirvana is the end (of suffering)

The Three Suffering

Dukkha-dukkha, the dukkha of painful experiences.
Viparinama-dukkha, the dukkha of the changing nature of all things.
Sankhara-dukkha, the dukkha of conditioned experience.

Chinese:
三苦

苦苦 "Suffering of Suffering"
壞苦 "Suffering of (Pleasures) becoming broken"
行苦 "Suffering of Sankhara - mental formation"

In the Three Realms, the Desire Realm - that is the realm of sensuality suffers from all three types including pain, loss of pleasure, and impermanent conditioned mental formations.
The Form Realm - corresponding to the Four Jhanas do not suffer from pain, but from losing what is pleasurable through impermanence, and conditioned mental formations.
The Formless Realm - corresponding to the Formless Jhanas suffer from neither pain nor pleasure but continue to suffer from the impermanence of mental formations. So the Chinese translation does not include the word 'pervasive'. However suffering is pretty pervasive from an experiential basis in any of the three realms...
But as some posters point out there is a case where there is the end of suffering, as long we are talking about Nirvana, the detachment from your pain, pleasure and mental formations, outside of the scope above.

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does the first noble truth associate dukkha with each of the five skandhas?
I'm looking at this definition of dukkha:

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha;
sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha;
association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
separation from the loved is dukkha;
not getting what is wanted is dukkha.

In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.

Taking this definition of the five skandhas,

The first of the above (birth aging and death) might I suppose relate to "form":

"form" or "matter"[e] (Skt., Pāli रूप rūpa; Tib. gzugs): external and internal matter. Externally, rupa is the physical world. Internally, rupa includes the material body and the physical sense organs

The second of the above might relate to sensation:

"sensation" or "feeling" (Skt., Pāli वेदना vedanā; Tib. tshor-ba): sensing an object as either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral

Do the next three parts of the definition of dukkha relate to the next three skandhas? If so can you please explain how they're related (i.e. how each of the other three skandha are dukkha)? Are "association", "separation" and "not getting what is wanted" each associated with three different skandhas? Or is that all skandhas are equally able to be a type of "clinging" or attachment?

i don't think making such association is warranted, in his "How Buddhism Began" Richard Gombrich eloquently addressed this overly abhidhammistic approach to the word of Buddha, where phrases consisting of mere synonyms whos redundancy in the Pali Canon is meant to better illustrate and convey an idea and help the bhanakas memorize the texts would be ad nauseum dissected and anatomized by exegetes into separate terms with special meanings... i think the original Dhamma is much simpler and straightforward

and if i may make a correction, dukkha is inherent not to just aggregates but to clinging aggregates, just as the sutta text says, arahants too are made up of aggregates but their dukkha is disposed of

@БаянКупи-ка Ok. But please post that as an answer not as a comment.

but it doesn't add anything to the discussion, much less answers your question, it's a meta-post, a comment on the question, i don't feel it's worth a place among the answers proper

It seemed like an answer to me: it's saying that the answer is, "No, that is not meant to be and cannot be read as a one-to-one mapping with the 5 skandhas."

They are related to all aggregates.

Birth is the arising of aggregates. Death is the disappearing of that which arose. Ageing is the changing in between.
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are all Dukkhas caused by clinging to the five aggregates.
Association with unbeloved is the association with painful experiences(five aggregates).
Separation from the loved is the separation from pleasurable/neutral experiences(five aggregates).
Not getting what is wanted means not being able to control the five aggregates at will: Not being able to retain pleasurable/neutral experiences. Not being able to keep away painful experiences.

The five skandhas are the five attributes which constitutes a living being. The five Skandhas are: form (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (samjna), mental formation (samskara), and finally consciousness (vijnana).
Form or rupa is attributed to the six physical realms. It is anything that can be sensed or touched by the being. This even includes the beings body. The problem with separating the definition of the Dukkha's with the Skandhas is that you can't. They are all inter-related.

The Five Skandhas are a fundamental Buddhist concept and play an important part in Buddhist doctrine. For it is through the Five Skandhas that the world (Samsara) is experienced, and nothing is experienced apart from the Five Skandhas.

So let us look at the first definition of Dukkha and attempt to break it down.

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha

This sentence is explaining the pains of a finite existing body that is imperfect. This can be categorized as "form". Form also referring to the basic building blocks meaning the "four elements" or Mahābhūta. In order for a form to exist it requires consciousness, the second Skandha. Once form and consciousness makes contact (phassa), it is translated into sensation (vedana), the third Skandha. This is where the two skandhas arise known as perception (samjna) and mental formation (samskara) which reacts to the form. Without the five skandhas you would never know how birth, aging and death is dukkha.

Suffering is result of ignorance of karmic of skandhas, 5 aggrrgates in creation of ego. Ego has tendancy to cling and create 'self', 'I', or 'me' based on in dependent relation with  5 skandhas.

If for example I take my young, healthy, hygienic form as favorable, and an old, sick, unhygienic form as unfavorable. Then, there is suffering when you grow old, sick or dirty.
If I perceive someone as a loved one, and another a foe, then these perceptions can be misery: when you part with a loved one and have to be with a unloved person.
When you are conscious of the touch of a soft cushion you get a pleasant feeling, and in an uncomfortable seat you get unpleasant feeling. If you get an uncomfortable seat and when your body comes in contact with it you feel unpleasant sensation.
Also any pleasantness that you experience, which can change or come to an end, will give displeasure: for example when you are with someone you like (perceive positively) and you have to part.
Likewise if you analyse every aspect of the 5 aggregates it leads to suffering if there is craving. In absence of craving there is not suffering.
E.g. I do not distinguish someone as a person you do not like then this perception does not lead to suffering.

It's just that I noticed that the first two parts of the definition of dukkha correspond to two different skandhas. I was wondering whether the next three parts of the definition separately each correspond to the other three different skandhas (but I didn't see how).

It is consciousness and feeling in combination with a combination of the other 3 (injured body, body consciousness gives unpleasant feelings) or consciousness and feeling on its own (pricked by a pin - though here the body feels the pin the feeling is just consciousness and feeling). Say the prick creates and injury and you get afraid it will get infected then it is perception, consciousness (your mind sense door is consciousness of the perception) and feeling.

The 1st noble truth summarises all suffering as clinging (upadana). The five aggregrates are irrelevant. Birth, death, etc, are only suffering when clung to. Read these suttas:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html

authors: Баян Купи-ка

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


text:
What's the difference between perception and consciousness?
Having read descriptions of perception and consciousness (two of the five skandhas), I still don't understand the difference.
Is there an important difference? What is the difference and why is it important?

are you asking the difference between sañña vs. viññāṇa?

yes ("feeling" being vedanā); I guess it will be answered by Suminda's references to the dharmafarer articles.

The definitions given in the texts are not so clear. Here's a translation for a sutta defining sañña and viññāṇa:

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it sañña? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called sañña. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called sañña.
[...]
“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it viññāṇa? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called viññāṇa. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called viññāṇa.
-- SN 22.79

These alone are not very helpful, though. This is how the Visuddhimagga puts it:

For though the state of knowing (janana-bhava) is equally present in perception (sanna) , in consciousness (vinnana) and in understanding (panna), nevertheless, perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say, 'blue' or 'yellow'; it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent, painful and not-self. Consciousness knows the object as blue or yellow and it brings about the penetrating of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the [supramundane] path.

On the other hand, in her analysis, Sue Hamilton1 presents saññakhandha as, roughly, the aspect of the mind that recognizes, discriminates, conceptualizes and identifies (e.g. naming) something. Conversely, viññāṇakhandha is the awareness of or consciousness of. Furthermore, we know from the suttas that viññāṇakhandha is six-fold (paired to the 6 senses) and it is one of three things necessary for contact (the others being the presence of a functioning organ and a corresponding object). We also know from the suttas that contact seems to be defined as the first event that triggers a sequence of mental activities. Thus, viññāṇakhandha seems to refer to the bare awareness of "something", or more generally, to the sequential awareness of each stimulus brought by the senses that the mind inclines to, or becomes aware of (manifesting contact). From then on, vedana follows, along with a proliferation of mental activities (including more sophisticated recognition activities performed by sañña).

1: Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism

In relation to the five aggregates, the consciousness aggregate solely refers to main minds, such as the eye-consciousness, the ear-consciousness, and so forth. This excludes mental factors. Mental factors are consciousnesses but they are not included within the category of consciousness aggregate. Except feelings and perception (or 'discrimination', etc.) mental factors are included in the category of compositional factors.
Because perception is a consciousness, it is clear and knowing. It means that it has the capacity of taking the aspect of the object it apprehends, and it knows/apprehends its object.
According to Mahayana Abhidharma, perception is one of the five omnipresent mental factors. It means that perception accompanies every single main mind. Here is an example: an eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the aspect of blue, and that aspect is apprehended by the perception factor that is in the retinue of the eye-consciousness as well. A main mind and its concomitant mental factors share five similarities that are explained by Yeshe Gyaltsen in his Necklace for Those of Clear Awareness Clearly Revealing the Modes of Minds and Mental Factors.
Regarding the entity of perception, the Compendium of Knowledge says:

QUESTION: What is the defining characteristic of discrimination
  [Tib. 'du shes, literally, aggregation-knowing]?
RESPONSE: It has the characteristic of knowing upon aggregation. It has the entity of
  apprehending the sign and apprehending the mark, through which one
  designates an expression to objects of perceptions, hearing,
  differentiation and knowledge.

Yeshe Gyaltsen explains further:

Just as it has been said above, it is a knower that, upon the
  aggregation of the three – object, sense power, and primary
  consciousness – apprehends the uncommon sign of an object. Also, A
  Discussion of the Five Aggregates says:

Later in the text, he explains two division:

The apprehension of a sign with regard to an object means to
  apprehend it through individually distinguishing the object's
  particularities, such as blue, yellow, and so forth.
The
  apprehension of a sign with regard to a convention means to apprehend
  it through individually distinguishing the convention's
  particularities, as when one thinks, "This is a man; that is a woman."

Consciousness - knows what is felt and results in pleasant, unpleasant or neutral sensation as a reflexive mechanism. Say in the past you had a bitter experience with X and you see him the 1st reaction would be unpleasant sensation. This is a reflex or knee jerk reaction even before you fully recognise the person. See: Viññāṇa (Consciousness)
Perception - Analyses what has some to your consciousness further and names, rebers and recognises the object. Now you recognise and name the person, this is Mr. X, he has these looks, he was a bully at school, etc. or even perhaps this is another person who looks like Mr X. See: Saññā (Perception)

Thank you. How or where did you find those references on the dharmafarer web site?

Yes. They are in http://dharmafarer.org/

Yes, but where or how did you find them on the site? I don't find them using Search (what term did you search for?) and/or I don't find them clicking on the links to pages in the header and in the right-hand column of the Home page (which section/chapter of the web site contains and links to them?).

There are only 5 pages under SUTTA DISCOVERY (SD) SD 1 - 9, SD 10 - 19, etc. to look at.


text:
Explain this Theravada Wheel of Life?
Wikipedia's Bhavacakra (Within the Theravada tradition) article includes this picture of the wheel:

From inner to outer, it has four rings:

Past, Present, Future
Active and Passive
?
Twelve Nidanas

My question is, what's the third ring? Assuming I know approximately what each word in the third ring means, why are those words in particular placed in those segment of the third ring? What's the relation between the third ring and the other rings? What is the lesson or advice, how is understanding this ring useful/usable towards enlightenment?

Craving, attachment in the present lead to becoming and fabrication due to ignorance. Ignorance is included and if it is not present there is no craving and clinging to feelings hence no fabrication.
What is subjected to birth decay and death (in the future) is a being composed of the 5 aggregates due to fabrication and ignorance in the present.
Craving, clinging in the past due to ignorance hence leading to becoming and fabrication creates the rebirth, mind and matter, 6 sense bases, contact and feeling in the present.

Is the answer that the 3rd ring is the condition in which the 4th ring can progress? E.g., "If there is craving, attachent, and becoming, then ignorance can become fabrication"? And "If there is ignorance and fabrication, then craving can become attachment can become becoming"? And "If there are the five skandhas then birth can become decay and death"?

Not necessarily. E.g. if there is craving and clinging (due to ignorance) there is becoming and fabrication now. The new fabrication now lead the 5 aggregates later. Due to craving and clinging due to ignorance creates becoming and fabrication in the past which leads to consciousness  ...... This is just a parallel with other related concepts.

It's not to be looked at ring by ring but slice by slice so that the components in the inner rings can be combined with those in the outer to complete the picture. According to the Pali exegetical tradition, Dependent Orginination can be looked at in 2 ways (ref: "Connected Discourses" - NidanaSamyutta - Bhikkhu Bodhi):

3 Periods/12 Factors: 3 slices - 1st, 2nd, and 4th rings
Ex: Past life slice: 1st ring: Past; 2nd ring: Active side; 4th ring: Avijja and Sankhara
   Present life slice: 1st ring: Present; 2nd ring: Active+Passive sides; 4th ring: Vinnana, NamaRupa, Salayatana, Phassa, Vedana, Tanha, Upadana, and Bhava;
   Future life slice: 1st ring: Future; 2nd ring: Passive side; 4th ring: Jati and Jara-Marana;
20 Modes/4 Groups: 5 past causes, 5 present effects, 5 present causes, 5 future effects - 4 slices - all rings combined.
Ex: 5 past causes: 1st ring: Past; 2nd ring: Active side; 3rd + 4th rings: Avijja, Sankhara, Tanha, Upadana, and Bhava.
   5 present effects: 1st ring: Present; 2nd ring: Passive;3rd ring is empty; 4th righ: Vinnana, NamaRupa, Salyatana, Phassa, and Vedana
   etc...

The third ring appears to be stating: (a) the five aggregates are 'passive' or 'neutral' (per the Khandha Sutta, which describes neutral/mere/pure aggregates versus defiled aggregates subjected to clinging) & (b) it is the activity of ignorance, sankhara, craving, attachment & becoming that actively keep the 'wheel of life' spinning.
This two-fold distinction of the illustrator is based on the premise that 'birth' & 'aging-&-death' refer to physical birth & aging-&-death (rather than psychological 'birth' & 'aging-&-death').
It is also based on the premise than 'sankhara' refers to 'volitional formations' (rather than the kaya, vaci & citta sankhara as described in MN 44).
It also appears to infer the 3rd to 7th links are not 'activated' or 'disturbed' by ignorance.

Thanks for answering. I think I understand your first and maybe your last paragraph, but not the middle two: 1) how can you tell (or what is the evidence) that the illustration is based on the premise of a specific (physical rather than psychological) interpretation of birth and aging and death? 2) Are you saying that "volitional formations" is a wrong premise or wrong translation and is not what's described in MN 44? I thought that, or am I wrong, that "formations" were also known as "volitional formations" and that this includes mental and verbal formations?

Birth & death are obviously 'physical' because they are 'passive'. The illustrator appears to be inferring 'active becoming' predetermines a physical birth in a future life over which there is no control. Where as 'birth' as 'self-identity' is something 'active'; that can be changed.

I believe 'sankhara' here is almost universally mistranslated. 'Sankhara' is defined in SN 12.2 as kaya, vaci & cita sankhara (also found at Anapanasati steps 4, 7, & 8), defined in MN 44 as the breathing in & out; applied & sustained thought; and perception & feeling. The term 'sankhara' here means 'conditioner' or 'fabricator' rather than 'condition' or 'fabrication'. MN 44 states thought is the verbal sankhara because by 1st thinking, one (2nd) breaks out into speech. Thus the sankhara is a cause rather than an effect. Thanisarro describes it well in examples in PDF 'Shape of Suffering'.


text:
How to get rid of "Ego"
I have a Girlfriend that I met few years back. She loves me a lot,she is quite brilliant from her childhood, and now she is working in a big firm. I am working in a smaller firm than her. When we were in college, it seems we will not fight ever, but after we got passed and she got placed we are having a lot of fight. She sometimes says some bad words to me, that i can't handle.But i don't want to fight anymore, but I think I've ego problem. Every time i think not to fight but finally we ended up with big fight. What are the practical measures in Buddhism to get rid of such ego inside one's inside. Thank you.

Are you saying that your girlfriend thinks lowly of you? Have you thought about counselling?  In a relationship one party working on understanding and effacing his or her ego alone while the other does not is not helpful for the relationship, although it's helpful for the former.

More than ego, it could be the high level of stress involved in working for a big company.
In any case, Marananussati meditation would be a good start for both of you.

"The disciple who devotes himself to this contemplation of death is
  always vigilant, takes no delight in any form of existence, gives up
  hankering after life, censures evil doing, is free from craving as
  regards the requisites of life, his perception of impermanence becomes
  established, he realizes the painful and soulless nature of existence
  and at the moment of death he is devoid of fear, and remains mindful
  and self-possessed. Finally, if in this present life he fails to
  attain to Nibbana, upon the dissolution of the body he is bound for a
  happy destiny."   -Visuddhimagga

Another reason could be the wanting to control each other. Have a cordial discussion with her and come to a solid understanding of each other's expectations. As long as you two don't exceed that framework, don't try to control each other too much.
Come to an agreement on how to resolve issues. Make a determination with her to always use kind words and wisdom to find a solution rather than disrespectful words and emotional thoughts.

You could practice the The Buddha's Eight-Fold Path.

Right Understanding (Samma ditthi)

Right Thought (Samma sankappa)

Right Speech (Samma vaca)

Right Action (Samma kammanta)

Right Livelihood (Samma ajiva)

Right Effort (Samma vayama)

Right Mindfulness (Samma sati)

Right Concentration (Samma samadhi)
I suppose you don't have to practice all 8 if you  only seek temporary results.

The correct practice of samatha  meditation can temporarly bring peace and lessen the ego delusion. Metta is a samatha practice that can be very effective in greatly lessening anger temporarily and the ego delusion temporarily.
The practice of vipassana will lessen the ego delusion slowly towards a permanent end to the ego delusion, over a long period of practice that can take a lifetime or lifetimes depending on the person practicing.
There are many approaches and interpretations to the practice of samatha and vipassana.
The best way to learn is with a good teacher.

the root of all our problems is wrong view. Once we correct our view and start on the Eightfold Noble Path, we start coming out of suffering.
Here is what Ven S.N. Goenka has to say about our view, our ego, and how it is formed and cultivated.
Here is what Ven Yuttadhammo has to say about Right View.
When one listens to this Dhamma, Cintanmayi Pannya (wisdom gained through analysis) will arise. But this wisdom is not sufficient to release one from suffering. For that one needs to have Bhavanamayi Pannya (wisdom gained through experience). This can be acquired by attending a meditation retreat near you. Registration for a 10 day retreat under Ven S.N. Goenka can be done here

With regards to your situation,
You are thinking that you are working for small firm while your girlfriend works for big firm. That causes trouble.
So do not make trouble for yourself.
Ask yourself why you are with your girl friend.
Focus on the feeling you had back in while you were in the university days.
Treat her just like you did back in those days without prejudices.
With regards to getting rid of ego,
Don't seek then it will come.
It's there within you always.
You just don't know.
Sit with legs folded crossed on the floor. Face wall or mountainside. Close your eyes. Put hands naturally on the knees or at the center of body as described in buddha's sitting form.
Question yourself where you came from?
Where you go when you die?
Keep do that every minute, everyday when you have time.

From what you say I think she also might having a ego problem. This arises in conceiving:

I (X) am better than Y
I (X) am equal to Y
I (X) am lower than Y

when in general it can be perceived by majority of people as an external impartial observer that:

X is better than Y
X is equal to Y
X is lower than Y

There are 9 combination of the above 2 which form different shades of ego.
Now when ego sets in what happens is that you think your view or take in the matter is more superior and discount that the other party has to say. Also your ego makes you attached to your viewpoint. The conflicts happen due to one-sidedness of thinking and emotional attachment to one's view. Best is work on how you can approach and viewpoint or argument more logically than emotionally.
Also see:

Atammayatā by Piya Tan
Is There a Soul? by Piya Tan
Sakkāya Sutta
Nadī Sutta

... which have discussion on ego.
To get rid of ego you have to get rid of craving or attachment of one's views and attachment to be better than someone else in a given aspect. To do that it is best to do meditation. You can try http://dhamma.org or http://internationalmeditationcentre.org. Since both you and your girlfriend seems to have some form of superiority it might be a idea for both of you to go to a course.


text:
How to deal with people giving reviews to the teaching?
I recently asked a question here and like always some good friends helped me, Their references were right on point and they referred the correct Sutras and i'm forever thankful for that. But when i kept on reading i found it very hard to forgive the author of this particular article on Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta.
I do not know who that person is but he has written a review on the teaching on a site that most of us use as a reference source. The only question was that he had taken the teaching and given historic definitions of his own to certain parts of that sutra. He somehow say that "King Alexander the great" is the person that Buddhists took inspiration to form a story on Devas and the great king who make earth his empire.
Here is some....

Discourses such as the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (D 16) and the Mahā Sudassana Sutta (D 17) allude to “the celestial city of the devas,” Āḷakamandā,28 which could be Alexandria on the Indus, founded by Alexander the Great in 325 BCE, or Alexandria-of-the-Caucasus,29 some 150 km north of today’s Kabul in Afghanistan. Possibly, the stories about Alexander (the prototype of the world conqueror) and the subsequent presence of the Indo-Greeks,30 inspired the ancient Buddhists to formulate the “great man” ideology.

So according to this person Sutra pitaka of tipitaka is a work of fiction. I want to be honest, i was real angry when i saw someone quoting the teaching and telling the world that it is a work of fiction, i was very ashamed of the fact that one of his own references was from a man from my own country.I would also like to request our good friends here to read the whole article before posting as an answer,because someone might get caught up in the wrong side of the isle after reading some person's foolish efforts to review Lord Buddha's realization.
Please give me some good advice on how to deal with such people. (I would love an answer from Ven.Samana Johann)

FYI I think that Piya Tan wrote everything (all the articles) posted on the dharmafarer.org web site.

Reflect on the simile of the saw

please let the community know what Mr. Piya Tan's response is

someone might get caught up in the wrong side of the isle after
  reading some person's foolish efforts

There will always be reviews coming from writers who are not comfortable with things like heavens and divine beings. People with materialistic views will be drawn to such articles naturally. If you get angry at them, you might be clinging to the Dhamma as "my religion" or "my belief".
Having everybody to believe in the same thing is not the goal and wanting that to happen will only frustrate you. The goal is to use the Dhamma to attain Nibbana. You can certainly help others to stay away from misinformation while doing that, but it should come from compassion, not clinging or aversion.

In the suttas, we see the Buddha regarding a wise person one who reflects that grasping and insisting firmly on a view would create clashes and disputes with those who hold a different view. "Where there is a dispute, quarreling. Where there is quarreling, annoyance. Where there is annoyance, frustration.' Envisioning for himself clash, dispute, quarreling, annoyance, frustration, he both abandons that view and does not cling to another view. Thus there is the abandoning of these views; thus there is the relinquishing of these views." (MN I 500)
He also sets an example when saying:

“Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.
-- SN 22.94

Also, as a side note, the language used in the article, it's propositions are that of hypothesis. In other words, the author is speculating about it, conducting an inquiry (e.g. note the use of "possibly") and drawing parallels -- like any historian would do. So, he does not seem to be defending or promoting any position as a fact. And because he is just offering alternatives, he is not really leading or misleading. After all, as a matter of principle, when an author offers alternative possibilities (e.g. "it's possible that a person is guilty of certain crime"), he/she is not accounted for readers who decide to remove the provisory character of the statement without reflection and simply believe the possibility to be true (e.g. "the person is certainly guilty of certain crime"). In this way, readers can mislead themselves but the author is not responsible for it.

so weird these things need to be spelled out in a conversation of adults ))))

You make a valid point Thiago, It is just that we are not used to looking for alternative explanations to dhamma here (My country). We take it as an offence to the Lord's wisdom. I guess this is what happens when traditions and values collide. I'll do better next time. Thank you.

the concept of taking offence is alien to the Buddha and his Dhamma, it almost is an insult to the purity and sublimity of the Dhamma and everything it stands for, it's like the Buddha's entire ministry was in vain

It's typical human nature why forum like this or chiritinity or religion exists and consequently their misunderstandings.
That's why some buddhist sectors keep in very hermited to preserve authority and the jewel intact.
Buddha's teaching knowledge alone can be a hinderance to seeing what he realized.
It's not knowledge building.
You have to meditate and experience.
When you build a knowledge while have a strong ego, which ironically it means it can be a danger and might better off not studying at all.
Buddha said everything in simple terms 2500 years ago. That's all you need to know. Wisdom and whaever written in sutras as knowledge, interpretation, findings, they all come at once without studying them just when one see the glimpse of the truth.

Please email Mr. Piya Tan for clarification.
TheMindingCentre @ Gmail.com or
Dharmafarer @ Gmail.com
That's the best way to deal with it.

Any commentary on the Suttas by anyone is a personal opinion or explanation on that Sutta. If your opinion differs than just leave aside what you do not find agreeable.

Any commentary on the Suttas by anyone is a personal opinion. For example, I personally rarely agree with the commentaries of Piya Tan. Similarly, often other people do not agree with my personal views of the suttas.
In Buddhism, we can only deal with this using non-attachment because, in reality, there is not much consensus in Buddhism. My impression is many Buddhist groups & sects have idiosyncratic & worldly agendas.
It is only by letting go of craving & attachment can the true reality of Buddha-Dhamma be known.

I mean no disrespect to Piya tan,  but he was the reason for the question. And i do think you are right Dhammadhatu

Piya Tan is a renown and respectable Buddhist scholar and lay Dhamma teacher
to some it may come as a surprise but Tipitaka is not a literal Buddhavacana, it's a man's creation, especially the mythical motifs, based on the teachings of the historical Buddha
just as the Bible is not the literal word of God but a creation of men, as has been demonstrated by the extensive biblical research on many levels
consequently Mahaparinibbana sutta was not composed or narrated by the Buddha, but is a result of literary efforts of subsequent generations of Buddhists
nevertheless this fact doesn't devaluate and doesn't invalidate this corpus of texts
on how to deal with such people my advice is to apply towards them all four brahmaviharas

Dear friend Tipitaka was written in my country and it is not a work of fiction or a made up story. If Tipitaka is man made story what is left as genuine Buddhism?

maybe it was written in your country but composed it had been long before that in India and passed down through generations as oral tradition... genuine are ideas, the actual Dhamma, of course some historical facts did survive but we hardly can securely separate them from the fictitious, at the very least we can disavow mythical motives as historical facts

please don't forget there're translations of the Tipitaka into Sanskrit and Chinese which are independent of the Pali Canon because they belong to ancient schools other than Theravada and so although the wording, text structure, plots and even facts may vary, it's been established that the core ideas are shared by all extant versions of the Tipitaka

First of all i'm sorry for giving an statement that is incomplete. Forgive me, i was talking about the Theravada' Tipitaka. Here in my country we do not take any part of the teaching as a fiction so it was a bit uncomfortable seeing it treated that way. While i respect your discretion i feel like leaving a few questions if you kindly take the time to answer. As none of us are an Arahat or ever seen a real Arahat, what realization do we have to pick fiction from reality? & Looking at tipitaka i have not seen a single note that is either harmful to me or another, so if i openly practice.....

......all of it without any discrimination ii see no harm coming from that, But if i count a real teaching out thinking that it is fake or fiction more and more harm might come from that so isn't it better to take it as a whole than trying to pick good from fake when i don't have all the facts straight?   Namo Buddhaya!

i like your approach and difference of the opinions must be coming from a difference in a cultural background, your question is valid if we assume that everything said in the Canon is the word of the Buddha and/or of the Arahants, but i don't believe it to be necessarily so.

In the West everything is measured by the actual experience, and since i for example have never encountered any deity or ghost in my life it's difficult to take stories about their appearances as facts plausible in the real world, the Dhamma on the other hand for practice luckily doesn't require belief in possibility of interaction with deities, neither it is a requirement for the Right View

Yes, like you said the culture matters. But i would like to give my opinion on this if you don't mind. Once the verification of a thing happens only through experience. It can easily come very close to something like scientism. Lord Buddha directly said one thing in the teaching that we all Buddhists believe without a difference between all schools of Buddhism. And that is that there are things that a noble one has understood and currently unavailable for a normal person, But once that person reach that higher state of mind he or she will also experience....

....Until a person reaches the necessary state these knowledge and experiences is unavailable. And because of this one must accept the teaching's word on that. Also i would like to point that the essentials mentioned By Lord Buddha as the utmost requirements for a Buddhist. They are - Believing in Karma and it's outcomes, There is birth in certain parts of the universe (Realms) in which a mother or father does not take part, Belief that there are special people who deserve more respect and care (Like parents), And that the mind can be developed....

Lord Buddha said this and explained why. If a person does not believe that there can't be a birth without the participation of parents (Like in Deva/ Brahma higher realms and Lower realms of pain) that person will not see the danger of samsara. Because obviously there is nothing huge to fear about living a human life, Lord Buddha directly pointed out that the biggest threat to the beings is the lower Hellish realms of pain. But one can never see these with eyes unless the mind is more developed. For example if one only believes in what he or she can experience there is.....

..... no reason to for him or her to believe in Karma,Realms, Cause and effect. The sad fact is that this kind of a person even does not have a reason to Believe inn Lord Buddha's realization being right. After this ideology, what is left is a bunch of logics and theories that is presented in the teaching that has no meaning without their supporting teachings. For example if a person does not believe in higher realms how could he or she believe in Lord Buddha?After all that is the last birthplace of all the Bodhisattvas.This is a good dialog that we have,hope to hear your reply. Namo Buddhaya!

Wise words my friend

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Why do we believe it?
When we attend a meeting; just right after we leave the meeting room, every one understands the conclusions of the meeting differently. Even if it is written, every one interprets the message of the written message differently.
In politic, people distort messages for their favor, even when the message is recorded, the interpretation can be quiet different.
How do we believe in the ancient Tipitaka whether it is genuine or altered. We don't know the real teaching of lord Buddha. We believe what we believe as we interpret things on our own favor. We have our own versions of Buddhism that fit ourselves. Each of us has our own version of religion.

Hello and Welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Resource tab and a Guide for new users that you might like.

It should be verified through pratice by what you experience at the experiential level. If you experience something you know for a fact it is true.
Normal you should:

Learn the theory (Pariyatti)
Practice what you learned (Patipatti)
Experience what you learned why which you verify the teachings (Pativedha)

When you reach 3 your doubts will be cleared as you know for yourself.

Tripitaks especially those first two ones Sutra Pitaka and Vinaya Pitakas they are written after the tradition of oral trasmission of the teaching of Buddha.
Even in these days in certain asian buddihst tradition, written transmission is not conducted because an individual practicionals awareness is all different to person to person. They are guided individually.
It applies to Buddhas teaching when he was alive the Dharma was trasmitted oral only, and the 10 deciples memorized all those and were written in Pitakas from their perfecrt recollections after the first council. You can highly rely on their recollections. They are telling the truth in simple terms.
With regards to how do you know?
Once you see the glimpse of the truth
And your world changes upside down with shedding of tears you just know there is no difference in writings of Dharma. Buddha nature or Buddha seeds are same regardless of who, when, where realizes.
Tripitakas are diamond jewel where direct descriptipns of Buddha are found.

This question cannot be "answered" because I believe it hits us humans, straight at the core of our faith and understanding of everything in general.
Buddhism is just one of the routes to enlightenment. It is not a religion. But unfortunately some people take it as such because they are skewed to "faith". It gives them a false sense of "hope". A hope that says there is a "savior" among us in our hearts. What we don't understand is that spirituality is actually subjective. How we realize the ultimate, is up to us.
I don't wish to go through a whole load of drivel just to make you understand that belief and faith works everywhere in our world. It happens with all religions, politicians, social media, advertising, add your own list here. Belief and blind faith seeps through our very roots in society.
There may be a point in questioning beliefs but ultimately that is just to ground yourself in reality and see things as they are. You cannot really, totally change what's around you. I'd suggest using common sense and questioning for yourself at best along with practice.

But Lord Buddha said directly that Nirvana is the only permanent enlightenment. Also said that others show paths that can give temporary freedom that is not the same with Nirvana. Lord Buddha confirmed Buddhism's teaching as the only path, not as another path.

According to your logic, only true "Buddhists" can be enlightened. If I look at history, this isn't true about these so called enlightened people.

Well it depends on what you call enlightenment.For example for Hindu people a birth among Brahmas is enlightenment, and there they have some comfort because of the extremely long life. But Lord Buddha said that it is not an enlightenment as the birth there is impermanent just like being human. And they have not escaped from Samsara. Once the question was asked from Lord Buddha......

......The answer was... "I have looked Back an extremely long time into the past, i saw no one who reached Nirvana without the presence of the path. Only one has ever reached a heavenly realm without the help of the path, even he believed in Karma."  To say that there is enlightenment beyond the path is giving a personal view. What others call enlightenment is not up to me to define. What i meant was Nirvana, our enlightenment can't be achieved by any other path. Namo Buddhaya!

I just proved how we can go on and on with stories and so called quotes of what somebody may have said by ascribing to faith. I can quote a few deathless saints here but that's all I'll be doing really, quoting those deathless saints and I'll never truly know. Unless I become deathless myself.

Also, what is that thing about Hindus you said? I need sources or experience. I need not buy whatever you say just because you seem to be so "faithful" and comparative, my friend. And just so you know, I am born in a Brahmin family. I am obviously not enlightened. Did you just pull that out of your you-know-what...or faith?

I did not mean a Brahmin family, I meant the incidents like the one Lord Buddha encountered when Lord Buddha saw  a Brahama thinking that he is the beginning. This Brahma thought that he is the creator because he did not saw anyone else being born there. Lord Buddha personally visited him to explain his misunderstanding. The brahma thought he is immortal and in realization of all because he lived very long and no one was born there.   Also in another incident, Other teachers who lived in Lord Buddha's time taught....

..... how to reach the Brahma realm through meditation. They considered this as the prime achievement and the salvation. I have heard that this practice still exits in India. What i meant by Brahmas was that, not the human caste called Brahmin. Learn the Suttra Pitaka of Tipitaka and you will see what's right. Hope i did not got you angry. Lord Buddha said something that i repeated on my answer, i do not give my opinions here and if i do i mention it first. Namo Buddhaya!

Here's how and why it all happened if that helps you....
After Lord Buddha the teaching was kept alive by the monks who learned and kept it by heart, they did it in few different ways. Some individuals kept it all while some learned chapters.
Time to time they would come together for a reciting. This would be called a Council, It is essentially a global gathering of monks who have the teaching by  heart. Here they would each recite the teaching that they have kept. This was done to clear any doubts and clean the error as all the other are listening and chanting too.

In Sri Lanka the same tradition went on until an all island drought came. Some monks went to india and some stayed in the island. They hardly saved themselves but a lot of Arahats passed away because of the drought. They decided that the Oral tradition is not reassuring as they saw it first hand. So they did another Gathering or a "Council" and this time they wrote teaching. This Became the "Tipitaka" of Theravada.
So the whole process was done right and transparently.

This is how it happened. I should remind you that if one chooses to put away the tipitaka he or she ends up with nothing else but his or her own version of things that his or her mind construct to benefit. Without the tipitaka there is no Buddhism left to follow.
I must say that one thing you said is wrong. It is not a Buddhist thing to make our own version. I agree that we all interpret the teaching in our own way, but one should not make personal beliefs. But the teaching is open to different interpretations as we all are with different wisdom and intelligence.
Namo Buddhaya!


text:
If sex is prohibited, how do we survive?
Sex can lead us to suffering in many ways; however, if all of us are just like Lord Buddha according to his story, wouldn't humanity become extinct?

" if all of us are just like the Buddha according to his story"
Can you be more specific about what you mean here?
Which part of his story?
Good question, welcome to the SE

"If all of us are just like the Buddha" how wonderful would that be. :)

The Buddha had a son, so must have had sex as well - I don't see the problem.

Sex is prohibited for monks and nuns
If you are not observing higher precept like 8 or 10 precepts sex is not prohibited for lay person. Lay person has only to adhere to 5 Precepts. This prohibits wrongful sexual acts, i.e., sex with someone under another's protection... and other acts.
As you said sex is craving and can lead to suffering. But not very body or householder is in the stage to eradicate higher stages of craving for sensual pleasure than the rudimentary level which might lead to misconduct. At the basic level this is what is required. As you progress in the path you have to remove sexual urge.
Also Vipassana Meditation can help reduce sexual urge. There are Samatha techniques also but if you take the insight root you kill 2 birds with one stone. You can try http://dhamma.org or http://internationalmeditationcentre.org which has centres in many cities and faily large outreach.
You loose complete sensual desire is when you become a non-returner where by you eliminate the fetter of sexual desire. If you take human world number of being achieving this state is small. Hence there is no risk of extinction. Also a stream enter will have lust and a lay follower may engage in sex as long as it is lawful (a stream enter does not engage in sexual misconduct).

However, the ultimate goal of buddism is to end suffering, thus we need to adhere the precepts just like lord Buddha to achieve that goal which cannot be achieve by adhering just 5 precepts.

Yes. You have to adhere to the 5 Precepts. In this you have only Sexual Misconduct which is basically cheating, adultery, rape, etc.

So the real question is what a person needs. It's either the continuance of the Human Race or being free from personal Suffering. Before anything else let's look at what Lord Buddha said about Humans.
Lord Buddha said that there is only one Human realm. But Lord Buddha never said that there is only one Human world. People often misunderstand Earth for the world realm. According to Buddhism there are numerous planets like earth which includes Humans in them. Some experts suggest that Lord Buddha means Parallel worlds, but that is not up to us to decide. So even if a disaster kills all of us here it would not be the end of the human race.
Is sex forbidden?
The simple answer is NO. But if someone wants to take and advanced step while living a Lay person's life he or she can refrain from SEX. So it is a personal choice not a necessity or mandatory.
But we as Buddhists consider sex as a low and worldly joy, As what we seek is a much better one.

A Buddhist does not need the continuance of the world, A Buddhist has one goal and that is Nirvana. But Lord Buddha directly said that Buddhism is only for the wise and others will not understand. So we as Buddhists do not share that view a lot of religions have of a world with only one religion.
We know that there will always be a huge amount of people who are not Buddhists and we will always be outnumbered. Lord Buddha taught this as a nature of beings. So there will never be a chance of Humans race meeting it's end because of Buddhism.

In most Buddhists cosmologies worlds and civilizations come and go...
Whole worlds go extinct. Hell Realms come and go... as do biological species... buildings... yada yada... Heaven Realms... human and animal lives, the whole nine yards.
This process is larger than a lifetime though in scale,  worlds of beings raise and fall out of existence, our lifetimes do not extend the duration required for observing these events.
All that being said, sex in itself is not an inherently bad thing. You are correct that if sex was never engaged in humanity would go extinct.  Since all current medical technology can't end age...
As pointed out in the other answer it is certain behaviors that are to be avoided for lay people concerned about karma. The majority of these things involve things like consent, respect.

Sex is an outcome of heat - one of the four elements which this world is made of. If there is no body heat, body dies. Therefore its wrong to say that enlightened ones cannot have sex. In fact in majority of all major religions prophets were married and had children. Prophet Moses was married. Prophet Mohammed was married. Ram and Krishna of Hinduism were married.
But yes they never hankered for it. It is the need of the others they were fulfilling not their own needs. The pleasure enlightened ones get in sex is nothing compared to bliss of Nirvana.
Until and unless one is enlightened sex will play a dominant role in one's life. Some honest ones will acknowledge it and others will be evasive of it. In India there was a practise in the past to see if one has transcended sex. People will feed the person who claims enlightenment to heart's content with food which is laced with aphrodisiac (Viagra kind of substances). After that a prostitute will be sent to his chamber in night to seduce him. If somebody claims that he has transcended sex I suggest to use this technique on himself. Ofcourse this technique is only for men but this works and takes away delusions. And this technique is religion independent.


text:
Is it a lie to not report income in taxes?
Facing a situation where if I report cash income, a lot of people would get in trouble. Would it be a lie to report income as zero when filing taxes?
Is abstaining from declaring income on paper a lie?
Thank you

As a lay practitioner you should make the fivefold offering (pañca,balī) out of which offering to the king [the government] (rāja,balī) which is akin to tax filing in the modern day. [Adiya Sutta, Patta Kamma Sutta]
Since taxes are legally owned by the government and not paying them would be misappropriating something belonging to the government which is similar to stealing. If you add false information in your tax return to get away with taxes then it is both lying and stealing. Also withholding information with the intent to mislead is also like lying.
Having said this by all means use tax planning / tax avoidance (legal) but not tax evasion (illegal). If what you are doing is illegal and there are sums owed to the tax authorities then it is stealing as iterated above.

"Since taxes are legally owned by the government..." What is your basis for this statement?

I believe so.  It's breaking 4th precept thru and thru.  One of the anisong (good karma) of holding precepts is troubles dont come to you (or staying out of trouble).  Being accurate on ur tax form would def help keep you from getting into trouble with IRS.  I feel your pain.  I waited tables when I was in school.  For $30K cash earned, you could owe IRS as much as $7K.   Holding 5 precepts is a quality of an Ariyan.  $7+k is a more than a fair trade to become one.  If this year is too late, perhaps planning for next year?

How do you think it's breaking the 4th?

telling a lie, when one puts zero in the tax form. Saying (reporting) things that are untrue.

That's what I figured too. Thank you for the perspective.

OP: Facing a situation where if I report cash income, a lot of people would get in trouble.

Why would this happen? Is it because the income came from illegal sources?
If so, then this is your main problem to solve.

OP: Would it be a lie to report income as zero when filing taxes?

Tax evasion can be considered lying and stealing.
However, legal avoidance of tax is perfectly ok. For e.g. maximize the use of tax deductions and if you're in business, make sure your profit is calculated after considering all possible costs. In some countries, rental income is only considered after deducting property taxes and maintenance expenses.

OP: Is abstaining from declaring income on paper a lie?

If it's tax evasion, then yes.
If it's legal tax avoidance, then no.

I know that the western buddhist monastics at Sravasti Abbey consider it a lie and stealing when not reporting income in taxes. But if it's a situation where you're lying to save someone's life, that's a different matter.
It sounds like you were in a tricky situation. What did you end up doing and how did you come to your decision on the matter?

Dear Sydney, you're warmly welcome to Buddhism.StackExchange! Thank you for your answer and I just need a little clarification regarding your answer, "But if it's a situation where you're lying to save someone's life, that's a different matter." Is this your personal opinion or is it mentioned in Tipitaka? If it's mentioned in Tipitaka you may give reference. Otherwise you may edit your answer to something like "My personal opinion is ...."

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


text:
Does hell exist in Buddhism?
I understand that hell is being used for keeping the order of our society. Does hell really exist in Buddhism?  As it creates fears instead of freeing one's mind from suffering. It also creates a mechanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.
If it is written in Tipitaka, how do we know that it wasn't added later by someone that wanted to use it as a  rule for making people behave themselves?

Once a person has attained at least Stream Entry one is said to be completely free from being reborn in hell.

Does hell exist in Buddism?

Yes it does. It is a destination in which you mental state is painful and also painful mental states are sometimes called hell. Hell is mentioned in Bala Pandita Sutta. Painful mental states are compared to hell in Patala Sutta

It also creats a machanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.

Buddhism is universal hence there is no notion of punishment. If a Hindu, Muslim, Christian does good then good results follow.
But having said that holding into wrong views does have consequences regardless if you consider yourself a Buddhist or not.

For one with wrong view, Lohicca, there is either of two destinies, I say, that is, hell or the animal womb.

Source: (Sāla,vatikā) Lohicca Sutta

It also creats a machanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.

If you look at the Abhidhamma associated the right view is belief in Karmic repercussions. Even Hindus can have it. Also to a certain extent people of other faiths if you believe an action has repercussions. This is not aimed at keeping you believing. Also right view does have shades and purity. The ultimate would be the experiential understanding but at a conceptual level the best understanding you can get is by reading Samma,ditthi Sutta.
Also Buddhism is not about any belief but experiencing the realities pertaining to our existance hence understanding the arising of stress and sorrow through whereby you can find a way out of it. You have to have some faith in the techniques as you would have to have in a doctor and his treatment to follow through with it.

If it is written in Tipitaka, how do we know that it wasn't added later by someone that wanted to use it as a rule for making people behave themselves?

Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu was preached to make people understand reciprocation of Karma hence behave themselves. This also is not to keep someone tied to believe in the teaching. Also I do not believe this was added later.

Yes. But readers must understand that this is not the Immortal Hell or the Damned hell some religions preach. What Buddhism teach is a realm / world which is full of pain. And the birth there has an expiration date just like here.

I always felt "Hell" was not the best word to use for this realm. It can be confusing for most non-Buddhist. "Purgatory" I think leaves a less confusing image while also giving people an idea that it's a cleansing cycle and not an eternal state.

I have to ask, when there can have punishment; then who punish one who found itself in hell? Also when Buddhism is only about forgiveness, Buddha or Buddhists never punish someone or curse someone . I think so it must punish  through that person's karma, would  turn back as boomerang.  Isn't it?

Yes, hell exists in Buddhism as a literal real place as real as this world we live in, but there many hellish worlds and they are temporary (though many can last for extremely long time-periods).
In reality the concept of hell might have originated in Buddhism because early Hinduism does not seem to have the concept nor does early Judaism or the majority of pre-Buddhist religions, they have only vague ideas and concepts.
Buddhism is among the only religion where hell is central concept, described in high graphic details, highlighted and emphasized all the time. Most certainly it was not added in because it is found everywhere in earliest scriptures.
This makes me wonder if NT Christian writers had copied the concept of hell from Buddhism since there were many Greco-Buddhists. The Greek concept of hell is vague and only somewhat like the NT Christian version which seems to more resemble Buddhist hell. It would be much more reasonable to argue that hell was added into NT Christianity than added into Buddhism, because the evidence shows Buddhism as the probable originator of the hell concept.
Which other recorded figure had ever described hell in such high graphic details before The Buddha?
The Buddha says:

"In the same manner bhikkhus, the unpleasantness and displeasure
  experienced on account of six thousand whips three times a day
  cannot be reckoned as a comparison, not even as a quarter, nor even
  as a sign for the unpleasantness and displeasure experienced in hell.
  The warders of hell give him the fivefold binding." (Balapandita
  Sutta, MN 129)

"And then later on, with the divine eye, which is purified and
  surpasses the human, I see that on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he has reappeared in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy
  destination, in perdition, in hell, and is experiencing extremely
  painful, racking, piercing feelings.
Suppose there were a charcoal pit deeper than a man's height full of
  glowing coals without flame or smoke; and then a man scorched and
  exhausted by hot weather, weary, parched and thirsty, came by a path
  going in one way only and directed to that same charcoal pit.
Then a man with good sight on seeing him would say: 'This person so
  behaves, so conducts himself, has taken such a path, that he will come
  to this same charcoal pit'; and then later on he sees that he has
  fallen into that charcoal pit and is experiencing extremely painful,
  racking, piercing feelings. So too, by encompassing mind with mind...
  piercing feelings." (Maha-sihanada Sutta, MN 12)

You said:

"As it creates fears instead of freeing one's mind from suffering. It
  also creates a mechanism of punishment for not believing in the
  religion as well."

I don't know, lots of things create fear, but the belief in hell can create positive fear and motivation to act. The Buddha states the truth not what people necessarily want to hear.
My personal belief is that hellish worlds are really physically real and that it would be proven in the future, it's only a matter of time. I already have a hunch on how it could be proven, but who wants to witness or go to hell?

Yes, according to Buddhism, hell exists. Individuals who have accumulated bad karma may be reborn in hell, the animal realm, as ghosts, or even in the human world but with great difficulties. Hell is regarded as a realm of extreme suffering, surpassing any other. Those who have committed very grave karma may be reborn in hell to pay for their actions. Hell can be further divided into realms like "avīci," "raurava," "maha raurava," etc. In Buddhism, the human world, gods, and the Brahma realm are considered "sugati," while the animal realm, demons/ghosts, and hell are considered "duggati."

Hell exists in Buddhism but not the kind of you normally you think of as hell (examples would be hell in conventional Christianity. *Ancient Christianity/Gnosis is different story)
In fact, you are in hell right now.
Heaven and hell exists within you at the same time but you just don't realize.
If your life is guided by something imaginary and not own your own and chasing for something imaginary you think is real and suffering by them,
wouldn't it be reasonable to call that hell?

How would hell be completely existent in every school of Buddhism if it was a tool added to control society? If something was added not everyone would accept it resulting in various schools as we see now but this hasn't occurred with Hell so it isn't a later addition.

In Buddhism, the word translated as "hell" is 'niraya'.

BSk. niraya, nis + aya of i = to go asunder, to go to destruction, to
die,

SN 35.135 contains the Buddha's description of 'niraya' occurring at the six senses bases, similar to the 'Fire Sermon.
MN 130 appears to contain King Yama's description of 'niraya', which appears often mistakenly attributed to the Buddha.

I understand that hell is being used for keeping the order of our
  society

Order of the society is not the goal of Buddhism. The goal is to attain Nibbana -in other words, to end suffering.

Does hell really exist in Buddhism

There are many hells, not one. They are actual realms where beings are born into, due to unwholesome Kamma. Hell-beings experience both physical pain and mental suffering. Hells are categorized into 4 types:

Asuras
Petas(Ghosts)
Tiracchana(Animals)
Niraya(Hells of great suffering)

it creates fears instead of freeing one's mind from suffering. It also
  creates a mechanism of punishment for not believing in the religion

Whether you believe in Buddhism or not, if the Kamma that comes forward to give your next life is unwholesome, it will cause birth in one of the above mentioned hells.
If a doctor advises a patient not to smoke, warning that he could get lung cancer as a consequence, is it a mechanism of punishment for not believing in the doctor?

If it is written in Tipitaka, how do we know that it wasn't added
  later by someone that wanted to use it as a rule for making people
  behave themselves?

When you commit an unwholesome act, you can notice how the nature of your mind changes. A part of this Kamma you have to face in this life. It is called Dittadhammavedaniya. If you pay wise attention, you can notice how your life changes according to the Kamma you do. With that understanding, it is not hard to believe that a birth caused by an unwholesome kamma will lead to a bad destination.
If you need visual proof of the actual hells, you have to do Samatha meditation and attain the divine-eye faculty.

Does hell exist in Buddhism?

Yes it does.

how do we know that it wasn't added later by someone that wanted to use it as a rule for making people behave themselves?

No one added it later.
Now I will give my answer.
Even Lord Buddha as mentioned about hell in several suthras. You have to know that Buddhism doesn't accept "the hell" concept. Because according to the preaching there are many hells. Lord Buddha has clearly mentioned about each of the hell including its life span, size of it and the pain creature are suffering. If someone goes to hell after the death, which hell he should be born is decided by the sins he has done. (not only in this life). But Lord Buddha clearly mention that if someone born in hell it's really hard to get out from there.
Please note that there is a good explanation for heavens also.
So my personal idea is try to do good deed as much as you can. If you can to do good deeds at least try to stay away from committing sins.

Please note that in hell, who ever born in there gets a physical body too

Yes. Heaven and Hell exists… But both are impermanent and therefore source of suffering…and therefore one should develop the habit of not clinging to any of these.


text:
Is Buddhism hell falsely claimed on wikipedia?
Thank you all for your kind answers to my questions. I feel that this community is really different from the others. If I asked the questions I made here in my country, I would be condemned heavily by now.
Back to the question, as Buddhist hell only exists in one's mind, therefore the information on wikipedia must be wrong.
Naraka
Or is it correct? Why does no one change it?

"Buddhist hell only exists in one's mind" - This is a false assertion

Please help me clarify this.

Answered here. It makes this question redundant unless if you are asking if wikipedia got the list right.

On Wikipedia everyone can create a profile and write new entries or edit existing entries. The consequence of this, is that the validity is highly uncertain.

@Ook how i think of these sorts of questions is that 1. all buddhists claim that whoever experiences the karmic result is not separate (or the same) from who did it, and 2. you couldn't really claim that every result is experienced in one life. as to your exact question: personally i imagine the description of hells is metaphorical, but perhaps not their (illusory) existence per se, after this life. but that's likely heterodox cos, e.g. as below, of the divine eye

In the mind ...

Buddhist hell only exists in one's mind

Here's an interesting story:
The Gates of Paradise
To me that story implies that:

Heaven and hell can be experienced (or seen) now (or just a moment away)
They exist as a consequence of (as result of) speech (by the monk) and action (by the soldier)
They manifest in real life (including "physically") and not "only in one's mind"

Some people do have a view that the world can seem like hell, depending on your state of mind.
If hell were defined as "continuous suffering", according to that definition some people might see the current world as a state of woe.

... but not 'only' in the mind
But even if "hell" does exist in (or is perceived or experienced by) one's present mind (as illustrated above), it might be a mistake to assume that it only exists in the mind.
The suttas do describe hell realms -- for example Devaduta Sutta (MN 130) was referenced in the Wikipedia article.
I see nothing in that text which shows that the Buddha must have been talking metaphorically.
Theoretically I see three possibilities:

The Buddha was speaking metaphorically (e.g. to persuade people to behave well)
The Buddha was speaking literally (there is literally a realm like that)
Something else

In any case, that sutta certainly appears to be referring to a state which may happen in the future, and is not just a state which is "only in one's mind" (in the present) -- it says,

I — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — see beings passing away & re-appearing ...
... Or how these beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.'

In summary
In summary you might find it useful to think of "hell" as something which "exists in one's mind", and which is taught to be a realm experienced "with the break-up of the body, after death", or seen "with the divine eye".
By analogy, if you see a photograph of something then it does "exist in the photograph": but it would be odd to say that it exists only in the photograph (the thing photographed may also still exist in real life).

In Wikipedia
FYI according to Wikipedia the Narakas are also described in Hinduism.
Within Buddhism (the article you referenced in the OP),

There are several schemes for enumerating these Narakas and describing their torments. The Abhidharma-kosa (Treasure House of Higher Knowledge) is the root text that describes the most common scheme, the Eight Cold Narakas and Eight Hot Narakas.

You're asking whether Wikipedia is wrong and why no-one changes it: but it doesn't seem to be "wrong" i.e. it is reporting or summarizing what's written in Buddhist literature.
The emphasis or people's interpretation of the Wikipedia article may be wrong, but so far as I know its content is more or less OK for an article that's titled "Naraka (Buddhism)".

There are instances where painful mental states or experiances are called hell. [Patala Sutta] E.g. If I do something that might ripen in being born in hell you also get the hellish feeling here and now, [Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta, Cūla Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta] and in case you are born in the human world  similar pains will be experienced. [Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta, Cūla Kamma Vibhaṅga Sutta]
A more vivid description of hell is found in Bala Pandita Sutta, (Yama) Deva,dūta Sutta and Deva,dūta Sutta. Neyy’attha Nīt’attha Sutta mentions that the Buddha uses direct and indirect languages. Though these destinations may exist some of the descriptions maybe parables so you can draw an analogy of what is there to a concept that you might be familiar with as Arana Vibhanga Sutta mentions that when teaching Dhamma you should use common and familiar language giving allowance to the audience or region they are from. This does not mean that the destination are only exist in the mind or they are parables to experiences in this world.
Also the Wikipedia articles seams mix and match from multiple schools. Also it would be an idea to keep these descriptions as per the wording of the Buddha and let the reader infer its meaning.
With regard to the descriptions in the Suttas many of the experiences in hell will not have a description in common language as language is developed to describe what we come across in this world. What is mentioned would most likely give the best idea of the suffering involved in these worlds.