text:
Is it possible to believe (incorrectly) that one is on the path?
Can one work one's way through the whole path as it is described in the Mahayana literature, and then realize: Even though you were being sincere, and the "right" experiences in the literature describe your work, you were actually not on the Buddhist path at all, but merely on an intellectual path without genuine actualization; without "direct seeing".
Can this nevertheless be preparation for the true Mahayana path?

When you say "work one's way through the whole Buddhist path"  in this question, I suppose you don't mean "become an Arhat". So what does "work one's way through the whole Buddhist path" mean, in this question? And what is "genuine actualization" (what does that mean)?

Please think of some actual title for the question. Every other question has a title ...

er, ok.... i will edit it, the best i can anyway !

better ?????????

Unfortunately I still don't understand the question: because to me, "the whole path" means "all the way to complete/permanent enlightenment", which seems incompatible with "actually not on the Buddhist path at all". Perhaps instead of "(actually) work one's way along the whole path" you mean "(try to) work one's way along (the start of) the path"?

i can't believe you are confused about this! that's exactly what i'm asking,so leave a comment saying 'no' and / or answer the question pls

Isn't there a story in the commentaries about a monk who had very advanced intellectual understanding of the Buddhist path, and was even a very good teacher of others, and brought many of them to enlightenment, but was not himself enlightened. The story goes that eventually something happened to make that problem clear to him, then he did some stuff -- lived in a cave and meditated or something -- and finally was enlightened. Maybe someone can remember who the guy was; IIRC it's a pretty mainline Buddhist story.
The suggestion is that, yes, it's absolutely possible to seem to be very advanced on the path but to be far less so than one thinks. And the second suggestion I take from the story is that if the intention is good, then even if one isn't as advanced as one might think, one may still be better off than having ignored the path completely.

The story of Asangha and his brother! Great story by the way for his question. I read like 20 pages about it in "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization"

Absolutely, it is possible to be incorrect about the notion that one was on the Buddhist path. I have had plenty of this sort of experience in my own meditation practice.
Very frequently I would have unusual experiences in meditation, such as seeing lights, being filled with joy, a sense of time coming to a stop, etc. And I would ask my teacher what these experiences meant, hoping for this kind of answer or that kind of answer. Each time, he would tell me that these experiences don't mean anything and that I should focus on seeing these experiences as they are.
While I wanted these experiences to return quite badly, I failed to recognize the fact that I wanted them to return. Entire meditation sessions were wasted waiting for the lights, or time stopping, etc. It is in this sense that I "thought I was on the path" but now know that I was somewhat stubbornly misleading myself. Well, try and try again.
Although this example is from practice in a Theravadan context, the general principle should still translate to Mahayana practice or any kind of practiced skill: Sometimes it takes a lot of mistakes to realize you need a different approach. This is definitely the case for me.

Yes and ... yes.
One can be wrong about the foundation, the method one chooses, one can be wrong about anything! This is why it is important to study the Buddhadharma first and understand its foundational teachings (any introductory book will do) and to continue to study it outside of practice sessions. Practice is very important because there is a lot you will sort out through the extremely simple practice and heart of Buddhism: vipassana meditation aka self-observation.
The thing I believe you are talking about though is can one be wrong about one's own experiences? One can do this, dangerously generating what Master Huai-Chin Nan calls "false gong-fu", things that you learn from somewhere and you want that experience so strongly that your subconscious mind (which is very powerful in creating entire experiences such as dreams) replicates the experience, oftentimes as a precursor and obstacle to the real phenomenon.
For example, this can happen with kundalini in your body, chi rotations, mental phenomena, and even great peace and ease that occur when you practice Buddhist meditation (or any meditation) correctly.
(See the end of the first chapter of Tao & Longevity of Master Huai-Chin Nan for excellent discussion of this.)
This is why the Buddha never talked about chi, chakras, and various things. All of those things he labelled "fire element" (which is absolutely correct). Thus, his monks did not create mental obstacles for themselves and rapidly progressed to the heart of understanding of non-self and interdependent origination.
That is the answer to the first question.
As for your second question, a master would say "no, you are wasting your time, you can lose your life and opportunity to Awaken any day, any hour.. why waste your breath with false phenomena?"
And that master would be right by saying "no" to your second question.
Nonetheless, I would append my own answer:
I would argue though that some of these false phenomena, although they can confuse and betray a person for years and make a person lose decades of lifetime... they can serve as very specific lessons about oneself in the future towards Buddhahood cultivation, (whether one is almost a bodhisattva or whether one is already a bodhisattva and working towards Buddhahood) where the smallest hairline of an error can cause drastic errors.
This lesson-about-lessons has a thousand Buddhist parallels and parables (e.g. cosmological time in being stuck in the higher absorptions, wrongs when committed in higher realms, deadly result of losing your essence when in a higher stage of physiological cultivation).
This is similar to how overcoming small past failures (e.g. overeating, drug addiction, tv addiction, etc.) can give you the edge you need (discipline, focus, sorrow, memory) to succeed in later challenges, the failing of which can end your career or cripple or kill you.
So yeah, if you stumbled over something and ran in circles, contemplate the lesson you learned, be grateful you had the lesson to learn something valuable about yourself for such a relatively small cost, write an essay, swear to reform and move forward!


text:
Wheel turning king runs the country without stick or sword, what does it mean?
In Nikaya, it is said that wheel turning king runs the country without using stick or sword, since that term is quite abstract, what does it mean?
Some of my interpretations:
1/ Without waging war, since stick and sword are the symbol of weapon. But then what is the role of military, or how can he protect his people when needed?
2/ Runs the country without punishment. I don't see this as an realistic option, as even the sangha has offenses for monks, and managing the world without punishment is impossible.
3/ Without violent punishment. For example, jail is not violent but torture, beating or cutting hand of robber are violence. I see this as the most realistic interpretation, but I am not sure.
So what does it mean? Reference in Nikaya is appreciated.

FWIW I think the text might say, "He dwells having conquered this sea-girt land without stick or sword, by the law."

I believe "wheel" refers to tradition (in the broadest sense) and "turning" refers to establishing and/or continuing the tradition.
The wheel turning king (or, in modern terms, leader) rules by setting up a way of doing things that (most of) people find compelling enough to follow, without being forced to -- this is what I feel is referred to as "without stick or sword".

It is still not clear, setting up thing is easy, but I don't see a society without punishment is realistic. Does he conquer land by law, without "stick or sword", i.e. EU style, or does he rule the land without "stick or sword". The later is not realistic if it means, i.e. ruling by talk only without any way to prevent bad things, i.e. punishment, because even in sangha there were/ are bad monks

@user2174870, having a method of ruling the general population that is compelling enough to encourage most to comply without being beaten into submission does not imply that actual wrong doers would not be dealt with accordingly. But what does this have to do with Buddhism? :)

That is extracted from Buddhist text, so what does this have to do with Buddhism?

@user2174870, the original question is on topic. But your continued questions in comments regarding speculation about society without punishments would seem to be off topic particularly since the answer provided didn't refer to society without punishments. That is Sociology not Buddhism, no?

@user2174870, perhaps consider asking a new question about the Buddhist view of punishment? Not trying to give you a hard time, but I believe the format set up encourages a single question format as opposed to an ongoing thread that incorporates additional questions.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The Mahayana faith and wisdom
I have a few questions about "wisdom", which I would personally define as it appears in Zhiyi's book the Great Calming and Contemplation, in the section on the six identities

If one is endowed with both wisdom and faith, then upon hearing that a
  single thought-moment is identical with the positive [aspect that are
  conducive to bodhicitta], faith will keep one from denigrating [what
  one does not understand], and wisdom will keep one from being
  apprehensive [about one’s inability to attain enlightenment]. [In this
  case,] both the beginning and later [stages] are positive. If one does
  not have faith, then [one despairs i] the exalted levels of the
  sage are not part of one’s own wisdom, 344 and if one does not have
  wisdom, one becomes arrogant and thinks that one is already equal to a
  Buddha.

IIs it possible to be on the path without wisdom? Is it possible to advance along it, even to attain complete, and perfect enlightenment, without wisdom?
And if the latter is in any way the case, then how so, and why would the practitioner have to fall "back" into complete ignorance in order have any semblance of enlightenment?
Forgive me if I speak crazily :) !!

To me this comes up like a question "can you ever learn walking without having balance/poise? - So can a child learn to walk without having already the ability to balance physically?" Well - most of us have learned to walk, and even missed the ability to have physical balance before...

Is it possible? Yes but IMO it's only for those that suffer from a mental or physical defect barring them from a deep understanding of the Dharma and enlightenment. One should always seek knowledge, wisdom and faith.

"IIs it possible to be on the path without wisdom? Is it possible to advance  >along it, even to attain complete, and perfect enlightenment, without wisdom?"

From mindfulness, clear comprehension arise, from clear comprehension, insight arise, from insight, wisdom arise.
Without wisdom one would not know skilful from unskilful action, appropriate from inappropriate body, speech and mind cultivation. How then can one purify oneself?

"And if the latter is in any way the case, then how so, and why would the  >practitioner have to fall "back" into complete ignorance in order have any  >semblance of enlightenment?"

It is not the case that one can obtained enlightenment without wisdom. The word enlightenment itself also means wisdom. To be enlighten means to be wise.

Wisdom is formed from the combination of knowledge and experience. Meditation can boost the cognitive processes forming wisdom, but even without meditation you can form wisdom.
As you move along the path, you will form wisdom.

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


text:
What role does zen or zazen play in Tendai?
I would like to know how Tendai or indeed Tiantai, views its use of zazen or zen.
I would provisionally assume it serves a different role than it does or is in Soto and Rinzai and contemporary Chan.

perhaps as an antidote to zen sickness ?

The Tendai school has its own system of meditation based on the writings of the founder of the school, the great Chinese monk Zhiyi, who wrote a classic meditation book called the Mohe Zhiguan which means The Great Shamatha Vipashyana. This meditation style in Japanese is simply called Shikan, which is the Japanese pronunciation of the last half of the name of the book meaning Shamatha Vipashyana.
I don't know too much about it but it is a different system of meditation than Soto Shikantaza or Rinzai Koan practice. I think that it is a more structured and explicit system of meditation but I don't have much direct knowledge on this point.


text:
Does any school seriously believe Maitreya might appear in my lifetime
Say, the next 30 years?
The world is going to undergo great turmoil IMO, as technology outstrips not just need but the reality we live in.
Is there much or indeed any chance that Maitreya will appear to help humanity through these changes?

Well, things have to get really really bad and then it'll have to get really really good in order for Metteyya Buddha to appear:

"And the sons of these sons will come to live eighty years; their sons to 160 years; their sons to 320 years; their sons to 640 years; their sons to 2,000 years; their sons to 4,000 years; their sons to 8,000 years; their sons to 20,000 years; their sons to 40,000 years; and the sons of those that lived 40,000 years will come to live 80,000 years.
Among humans living 80,000 years, brethren, maidens are marriageable at 500 years of age.
Among such humans there will be only three kinds of disease—appetite, non-assimilation and old age."
At that period, brethren, there will arise in the world an Exalted One named Metteyya, Arahant, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, an, Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now. ~ DN 26 ~

Simple accurate answer. To know more about the "really, really bad" read the Surangama sutra preface.

Most of the commentaries say that this Buddha Sasana will last for 5000 years...So there are around 2400+ years still left for the Gotama Sasana to disappear...This link gives a detailed explanation of the way in which the first the attainments will disappear, then the method, then the learning, then the symbols and finally the relics.
http://www.lawsofthenature.com/GotamaSasana.aspx

i can't accept this answer because lots of buddhists give a different date

I don't think so, how can anyone believe that Maitreya would appear in this lifetime?
The main sign of Maitreya's arrival is the life span being around 80,000 years. During The Buddha's time He said:

"At present, monks, one who lives a long time is 100 years old or a
  little bit more" (Arakenanusasani Sutta, AN 7.70)

Which is basically the same as now in modern times. The life expectancy among people that had food has been like nearly the same since ancient times.
But arahants and paccekabuddhas still can arise during the time-period in between the appearance of a Sammasambuddha.
The distinction between paccekabuddhas and sammasambuddhas is that sammasambuddhas are considered as Supreme Teachers but paccekabuddhas can still teach just not as well.

Wikipedia claims that there are non-Buddhist schools or religions, who say variously that Maitreya will arrive soon or did arrive recently (e.g. in the 19th century): see Maitreya - Non-Buddhist views
Although they're non-Buddhist, I mention that in case it has been causing some confusion.

lol. It's going to be a lot more amazing than that when Maitreya comes. I believe there are some signs listed in the Surgangama Sutra or somewhere of the exact signs, but his coming is said to signal the shoring of billions to Awakening..

I think there are some modern alternative religious movements, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, that claim that Maitreya's rebirth is imminent, or that he is even amongst us now, but neither the suttas nor the sutras support this view. The most ancient texts concerning Maitreya clearly state that he will not appear for many tens of thousands of years, when human civilization is enjoying a super-industrial golden age. The earliest scriptural date I've seen for Maitreya is his association with the appearance of Shambhala in the 25th century, according to the Kalachakra. Many sutras suggest that he will not appear for millions of years. Bahais belive that Baha'u'llah was Maitreya. Followers of Adidam believe that Adi Da was Maitreya. The Nepalese "Buddha Boy" appears to believe that he is Maitreya. Other recent claimants include Peter Deunov, Samael Aun Weor, and Claude Vorilhon. Annie Besant and Leadbeater , leaders of the Theosophical movement, made this claim for Krishnamurti but he repudiated it. There have been many people who have claimed to be Maitreya since the seventh century.

I submit that the prophecies of the end times in all religions and cultures are being fulfilled around us, and therefore we should be expecting the imminent coming of Maitreya, or the Prophet expected by all religions and cultures to come at the end times/ending of an age (Messiah, return of Christ, Mahdi, He Whom God Shall Make Manifest, Kalki Avatar, Blue Kachina, True White Brother from the East, Satrio Piningit, etc).
In fact I submit that Maitreya is already here.  He has fulfilled Prophecies from all world religions and cultures, and brought a teaching that unifies all the religions of the world and for the first time shows clearly how all are from the same, One God, each sent as part of an overall Plan which is now coming to fruition.  Maitreya's teaching also unifies the West and the East, science and spirit, and shows how the two are not contradictory but complementary.
Do not take my word for it - I challenge you to study Maitreya's literature, prophecies fulfilled, etc. and prove it to yourself that he is indeed the True Maitreya, the Prophet of God: www.maitreya.org

(-1) I think the question "is any school believing (...)" is obviously asking for buddhist schools and not for personal opinion. You see, "buddhism.stackexchange" was intended to have a Q&A-site for questions concerning buddhism (as roughly described in the FAQ)


text:
What is the term for not believing in cause and effect after death?
Is it just "annihilationism"? Whatever it is called, has is always been a heresy or wrong view?
I can't see how it must be annihilationism, because the budha answers that this dogma is wrong on the grounds that we already lack a self. Unless, that is, there is no empirical self.

Annihilationism - Ucchedavada - Taught by Ajita Kesakambali
This is considered a wrong view. Here is no heresy in Buddhism but any view or notion which you have not verified empirically at the experiential level but cling onto causes misery psychologically as in Buddhism.
Also see my answer in: The "empirical self" in Buddhism

ah but how can you verify that cause and effect lasts after death? at least, how can you do so and be rational ? please do add to your question :)

i added a little more to the question, thanks for any reply


text:
The "empirical self" in Buddhism
Is it right to say that all Buddhists both do and don't believe in the "empirical self", as in the conscious mind and its concomitants?
And in order I might make sense of your answer, can the latter "not self" be thought of as an absence of any conscious mind from reality itself?
Finally, does that reality include or consist of the Buddha and how can we unenlightened beings confirm that, besides confirming suchness, when it seems we cannot confirm suchness is known?

Peter Harvey in the selfless mind says:

an empirical self strictly speaking neither exists nor does not exist

the empirical self, the bundle of sensation etc. ?

Since the actual beliefs of Buddhists vary wildly, do you mean to ask what is taught in various traditions?

How did any buddhist ever challenge the evidence of "empirical self"? Don't we assign even Names to each other? And didn't the Buddha give help, even individually shaped for each of the "empirical selves" around him, having names like "Sariputta" or "Udali" or "Ananda"...? So I think something in your premises might be somehow uneven and it might be better to do a quest for what the Buddha meant instead when the concept "self" was discussed. In the Brahmanism around him in India was the concept of an "atman" - this is that "self"-concept the Buddha was critical about

ok so you should answer, saying that no buddhist would say that the skandhas do in some sense not exist. which is wrong IMHO, but it'd be more helpful to leave an answer in this instance IMO

I'm not sure why this question has been down voted so much. Seems like a good question to me.

I am trying to understand it, but it is tough sledding. I think a worthwhile question is still buried in the current awkward wording. The answer seems quite likely to be: "This is considered one of the Vexing Questions", though.

well awkwardness is subjective; tho i'm sorry it doesn't work for you - etc. suggest an edit if you like, and it will be more useful

In advance stages of Buddhist mediation the exercise is to reduce non conducive notions (see: Girimananda Sutta for such notions). The notion of self or not self is a notion, and it is these preconceived notion you should eliminate as clinging to them causes misery when reality does not match with you notion.
If you have a self image that I am so and so and when this gets shattered it causes pain. If you do not hold into such notion then there is no pin.

Is it right to say that all Buddhists both do and don't believe in the empirical self?

I think it's more accurate to say that Buddhists ought to avoid having fixed/specific beliefs, or fixed views, about the self: see for example What are examples of identity-view?

And in order I might make sense of your answer, can the latter "not self" be thought of as an absence of any conscious mind from reality itself?

The "not-self" concept is called Anatta.
Buddhism doesn't deny consciousness, but it says that consciousness too is conditioned and impermanent and non-self.

Finally, does that reality include or consist of the Buddha and how can we unenlightened beings confirm that, besides confirming suchness, when it seems we cannot confirm suchness is known?

What "reality" are you talking about?
Still, if you're asking about "reality including the Buddha" then perhaps you want to find out about the doctrines of Buddha nature.

In summary you seem to be saying that the skandhas (including sensation/perception, and consciousness) are "the self", even though (as Wikipedia says),

All of the aggregates are to be seen as empty of self-nature; that is, they arise dependent on causes (hetu) and conditions (paticca). In this scheme, the cause for the arising of consciousness (viññāṇa) is the arising of one of the other aggregates (physical or mental); and, the arising of consciousness in turn gives rise to one or more of the mental (nāma) aggregates. In this way, the chain of causation identified in the aggregate (khandha) model overlaps the chain of conditioning in the Dependent Origination (paticcasamuppāda) model, described more fully below.

I think "have self-nature" means "have independent existence" and "have no self-nature" means "has dependent existence" and therefore temporary and unsatisfactory.
Buddhism suggests that instead of identifying the self with such things ("I am my body! I am my feelings! I am my thoughts!") it's better to not identify yourself in such a way with such things.
This description of right view warns that the following can be called "a thicket of wrong views":

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

If I understand they way in which you're using words, I suspect you shouldn't say that there's "an absence of any conscious mind from reality itself" because that would be saying "there are no sentient beings, sentient beings do not exist": which might be self-evidently untrue :-)
I'm not sure about whether all of reality is conscious. Apparently some schools of Buddhism teach that,

Furthermore, and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, all beings (including plant life and even inanimate objects or entities considered "spiritual" or "metaphysical" by conventional Western thought) are or may be considered sentient beings.

As I mentioned earlier I think this sort of doctrine is later (i.e. post-Theravada) teachings about 'Buddha-nature'.

by reality, i p much just mean whatever is outside my mind.
i found that your answer doesn't quite answer my question, e.g. don't some buddhists say that all fixeed views must be done away with. anyway... p sure u misunderstood my question but i don't know how to improve it :////

whatever is outside my mind I think that Western philosophy tries to distinguish subjective reality (our perceptions) with objective reality (stuff which our perceptions are perceiving), but Buddhism doesn't. Instead of 'subjective' and 'objective', Buddhism describes reality as 'conditioned' (i.e. it can be perceived only on condition that you're present to perceive it) and therefore 'empty'.

I've just been answering another question about "self" here https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10850/5715.  Getting the background to such questions right is imperative. Self/selfless is so often misunderstood! The initial question here is:

Is it right to say that all Buddhists both do and don't believe in the "empirical self", as in the conscious mind and its concomitants?

It is never right to say that all Buddhists believe anything. Buddhism is very pluralistic. One has to take a point of view and then work outwards and look at the contrasts in other approaches. Some Buddhists accept the notion of an empirical self and others do not. Personally I don't see how we can understand our experience without some kind of acknowledgement that we at least have a first person perspective  - what I see through my eyes is not the same as what you see. But others are adamant that there is no self of any kind. The unfortunate influence of the Two truths Doctrine can be seen far and wide leading Buddhists to illogical conclusions.

Finally, does that reality include or consist of the Buddha and how can we unenlightened beings confirm that, besides confirming suchness, when it seems we cannot confirm suchness is known?

And again Buddhists disagree on the possibility of saying anything about "reality". After many years of studying Buddhist texts I have yet to find a word in Pāḷi, Sanskrit or Chinese that directly corresponds to the European notion of "reality". Indeed the early Buddhist epistemology, which is the point of view that I take as a matter of course, guarantees that we could not say anything about reality anyway. When it comes to knowledge, the only source we have is experience (and Kant says much the same thing in the opening pages of his Critique of Pure reason). Experience is acknowledged by most Buddhists to consist of, at a minimum, a sense object, a working sense faculty, and sense cognition. Since the faculty and the cognition are conditioning factors, experience is always irreducible subjective. I tend to describe experience as being the events that happen when object and subject overlap.
Early Mainstream Buddhists and early Prajñāpāramitā Buddhists argued that though we have experiences, the experience itself is neither existent (astitā) nor non-existent (nāstitā) - it is like soap bubble, like a dream, like a flash of lightening, like an illusion. There is experience, but beyond that we cannot say anything. This is spelled out in the Kaccānagotta Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 12.15) and picked up in the 8000 Perfection of Wisdom text and by Nāgārjuna. In other words "real" and "unreal" are not terms that can be applied to experience. And experience is all we have to go on (Sabba Sutta SN 35.23).
Crucially the first person perspective is also an experience. The feeling that "I am someone" or that "this is my thought" is also an experience. And like all experiences neither real nor unreal. Nor indicative of any noumenal reality (as far as Buddhists are concerned). So "reality" doesn't really come into it. Nothing about experience could help us to understand reality, though it can help us to understand experience!
From this Buddhist point of view, therefore, your questions are not well formed. However, I still think of them as interesting questions because they highlight the kinds of assumptions we make when trying to think like a Buddhist. We have to keep asking these questions in this way until we become much more familiar with thinking like Buddhists.
Now Peter Harvey made a good contribution to the field of Buddhist studies, but one must always read his work with a critical eye. He is not without his biases and presuppositions. As encyclopedic as his work tends to be, particularly his book on Self, he never quite thinks like a Buddhist in the way I've outlined. He collects all the relevant quotes from suttas, which is very useful, but he doesn't get them in the way that say, Sue Hamilton, did. Her books on the Khandhas and Early Buddhism are revelatory (and every bit as difficult to read as Harvey unfortunately). Early Buddhism a New Approach ought to be on every Buddhist intellectual's reading list.
By examining experience we can understand the nature of experience. And this is all that suchness and other terms refer to in my view. We have no faculty that would give us access to other kinds of knowledge and certainly not knowledge of "reality".

Just to pick up on - It is never right to say that all Buddhists believe anything. Buddhism is very pluralistic. There must be some kind of commonality in Buddhist thought. Is it true to say that all Buddhists go to refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha or can't we even say that. Or it that just jargon really? Thanks

In my experience if one Buddhist asserts that something is absolutely the case in "Buddhism", another Buddhist will deny this. Zen Buddhists for example will sometimes argue that rather than going for refuge to the Buddha, that one ought to kill him instead.

I very much like the description / distinction of "reality" and "experience". In my picture of "reality", there are only two real things: The Void, and Experience. People, places, etc are not separately real. But saying that we cannot "get to" reality in any case, only our experiences, is the crucial point. I am also glad that you said that First Person experiences are not real either. This is the answer to this question, as far as I can tell.

Some answers have said that the empirical self is best not believed in the sense of identifying or obsessing with it.
Also, it does not exist because the empirical self is not substantial. Contrary to my question, it is atman proper, the Self, which does not exist in Reality, as something outside the empirical self.

IMO nobody says that the skandhas (etc.) "do not exist". Instead, they "do not have independent, unconditioned existence" and they "do only have dependent, conditioned existence".

so the OP, long story short u both misread my answer are wrong heh

You seem to be having an argument with your empirical self over its existence?

i like the idea, but it's not clear how to apply it


text:
Panpsychism and philosophical interpretations of buddhism
I got wondering, idly it's not part of any practice or effort, that everything has something like empathy, but of one thing, empathy for the buddha.
Can that be read into buddhism, or panpsychism at all?
Might the answer to this fall under the terms "empathy" and "response", as drawn from the lotus sutra?
I promise this will be my last question, sorry for starting so many :)

I don't think asking many questions is an issue, provided the questions are detailed, show some effort and you accept answers that satisfy your question.  I'll try an answer, but if you could flesh out your question, that would probably help in the quality of your responses.

Question not clear, please clarify.

what isn't clear about t ?

It's all pretty unclear I'm afraid. For example: in your first sentence, what do you mean by "...but of one thing, empathy for the buddha"; second sentence, what does "that" refer to, what is meant by "read into", and why are you asking if "that" (whatever it is) can be "read into" (whatever that means) into panpsychism since this is a Buddhism group, not a group about philosophy of consciousness; finally, third sentence, what do you mean by an answer "falling under" terms? I'll take a (very) wild swing at an alternate version, but correct/delete it as you like.

(-1) because I don't like such "wild swings" without recognizable relation to serious attempts to penetrate the difficulties of the dharma which occur by practizing - at least here in stack-exchange.

i've read like 100s of academic books @GottfriedHelms

All is consciousness and all is not consciousness and neither of the preceding is true. This is the kind of logic that Zen sees the world in ways that at best are uncertain.
In one sense you are asking does a table have Buddha nature?
This has been answered in this post Does a dog have Buddha nature?
The Buddha-nature of a dog
I have only found one thing that helps me, when I find empathy and compassion for all beings. What their nature is does not seem to affect me. My own acts in consciousness do affect me directly.

EMPATHY
empathy
• n : understanding and entering into another's feelings
.
I don't if i am upto a satisfying answer or not but the empathy that i have got after getting your question is that 'it is within'. If you think that everything about buddha ends up as an empathy than its not wrong. But the empathy (may be very-2 important question to everybody) is just a milestone where one can relax at his doings (karma) , only if that one's practicing it right. Buddha left his body long years ago, but not his will ( a will that can benefit many of us and our inner know it somewhere somehow). That is strange. Thats concern. Thumbs up for you. You are on right path. You are picking up stones but not making yourself or your pocket heavy. It is all within. You are the nearest to it for you, not for becoming a buddha. Regards for coming up.

I agree with the criticism about the lack of polish in the articulation of the question, but I try to see if there is any there there, no matter how inarticulate the questioner may be(could be a second language issue). So...... I will try to keep my answer simple and easy to understand but hopefully of some depth in spite of all that. First, consciousness has a very large amount to do with Buddhism. There are the five skandhas ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha )of which consciousness is one of the skandhas.
The subject of consciousness was considered so important that it became the point of a split off from Madhyamika Buddhism into Yogacara Buddhism with the assertion of the existence of alaya consciousness ( What is storehouse consciousness? ). Recently (january 17 to 22, 2013) there was a Mind and Life Conference where a prominent Cal Tech scientist (Christof Koch) had a dialog with the Dalai Lama where both Koch & the Dalai Lama agreed that panpsychism was a virtual sine qua non for forming a foundational understanding of consciousness and Buddhism.
So my answer is that the relation between panpsychism and Buddhism is of absolutely central importance.
   The question of empathy is more difficult. I can't quote any Buddhist sutras on this subject but if there is empathy as an inherent aspect of consciousness, then it does not seem to manifest until the relevant organism has the ability to have a theory of mind ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind ). It may be possible that there may be some form of subconscious or unconscious drive to include the consequences of one's own actions on other living beings (especially with respect to kinship factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection ).
I suspect that(altruistic behavior) may be evidence for the possibility for empathy being part of basic panpsychic consciousness. For most people, however, there is an assumption of awareness of the emotional impact on the consciousness of the other that becomes an important consideration in karmic choices(volition, one of he five skandhas). I think the question is extremely interesting and wish more people had chosen to weigh in with informed responses.


text:
Is the Chinese/Lunar New Year a Buddhist religious holiday?
In the New Jersey State Board of Education's List of Religious Holidays Permitting Student Absence from School, the Chinese/Lunar New Year (Feb 19, 2015) is listed as a "Confucian/Daoist/Buddhist" holiday.
I didn't think there was any connection with Buddhism. So is there?

It's probably a coincidence, or the school board made the designation for bureaucratic convenience.

Celebration of the "Buddhist" New Year varies by both geographic region and ethnicity in the predominantly Buddhist countries of Asia.
From http://www.buddhanet.net/festival.htm:

Buddhist New Year -
  In Theravadin countries, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Lao, the new year is celebrated for three days from the first full moon day in April. In Mahayana countries the new year starts on the first full moon day in January. However, the Buddhist New Year depends on the country of origin or ethnic background of the people. As for example, Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese celebrate late January or early February according to the lunar calendar, whilst the Tibetans usually celebrate about one month later.

Perhaps in New Jersey there is a sizable population of Chinese students who might be celebrating Chinese Lunar New Year and this was designated as an allowable "religious" day off as a practical matter? In any case, it seems to carry more ethnic significance than religious significance. (Can't imagine that ethnic Chinese students who are Christian, for example, would be any less interested in the celebrations! :)

Thank you robin for expressing so clearly what I wasn't sure how to express.

Thanks @qweilun. I'm finding figuring out which Buddhist holidays have actual religious significance as opposed to cultural significance has been challenging. From what I've read it seems to be the Buddha's birthday/enlightenment day/parinibbana day (which is 3 separate occasions in Japan but one day in most other places), plus the day commemorating the first sermon and the day commemorating the establishment of the monastic order. If there are others, let me know. It's a learning process. :)


text:
The noble truths and eight fold path aren't holy than a learner. when a learner becomes a teacher?
I want to accept the Noble Eightfold Path (somewhere it is 10). I know what I can do. I know how many positive possibilities are surging inside me to come out. I know I am all alone to mark my words by adapting everything that I say. By breathing and watching my beloved resting I feel so relaxed. I want to share this feeling with everyone.
Do I really need to devote my life to the Noble Eightfold Path? Life as it seems is not that bad, even without the Eightfold Path. Is it necessary to adapt whatever I read in Buddhism? Can one reciprocrate what he/she has never read before? (My English isn't much good, I am learning. I welcome you (especially Andrei with his best guess and Crab Bucket) if they can improve the question.

The 'Noble' in the "Noble eight-fold path" is that you become a Noble one (Arya) by following it.

All of The nobel prize winners weren't following the eight fold path. They did exceptional good for world, many of them are really awesome. Why the followers of buddism are bound to eight fold path ? Why rules !

You are not bound and the Noble 8 Fold Path is not all about doing good. It is the way to get out of misery or stress. A Nobel prize winner may do good but he is not free from stress.

Ah, thats true.


text:
What is the essential difference between citta and vinnana?
What is the essential difference between citta and vinnana?
I refer to this text of Ajaan Nanasampajanno in his book 'Arahatthaphala-The Path to Arahantship' p. 53:
'The citta is the essential knowing nature at the core of our being. It consists of pure and simple awareness: the citta simply knows. Awareness of good and bad, and the critical judgments that result, are merely conditions of the citta. Et times, their activities may manifest as mindfulness; at othet times, as wisdom. But the true citta does not exhibit any activities or manifest any conditions at all. It is simply a state of knowing. The activities that arise in the citta, such as awareness of good and bad, or happiness and suffering, or praise and blame, are all conditions of the consciousness that flow out from the citta. Since they represent activities and conditions of the citta that are, by their nature, constantly arising and fading, this sort of conscious awareness is always unstable and always unreliable. Understood in this way, sanna, sankhara and vinnana are all conditions of the citta.'
Is this citta—pure and simple awareness—the same as what is mentioned in Bahiya's teaching (Udana 1.10): ‘In seeing there is mere seeing, in hearing mere hearing, in smelling mere smelling, in tasting mere tasting, in touching mere touching, and in cognising only cognising.'

More info. from the wiki page here, in the 'Overlapping Pali terms for mind' section..


text:
Does Kwan Yin hold a place in Theravada Buddhism?
Kwan Yin (a.k.a. Guanyin, Avalokiteśvara) is an important figure in Mahayana Buddhism. But I recently noticed a statue of Kwan Yin on the grounds of a local Theravada monastery. I looked up Kwan Yin on Wikipedia and a connection to Theravada Buddhism wasn't clear, but the article did list translations of her name in Thai and Sinhalese; both areas where Theravada Buddhism is predominant. I also saw mention of a statue of Avalokiteśvara listed in a very old guide to Bodhgaya. Is this figure part of early Buddhism? Or simply beloved by many?

from my adventures on wikipedia, i found that Thailand and much of Southeast Asia was Mahayana until about 900 to 1100 AD. Not sure how true it is.

I've also read much more interesting claims that Mahayana scriptures were taught within many Theravada lineages until their suppression for various reasons. Again, grain of salt as I can't source it but would like to explore the history.

@qweilun, interesting as a scholarly topic plus a good reminder to not get too attached to what ya think ya know. Hoping someone can point to a reference. :)

Kwan Yin wasn't taught by the Buddha in the Pali suttas and I'm certain Kwan Yin isn't mentioned in the Pali commentaries. Usually the teachers in the Theravada tradition strictly base how they teach on the Pali Canon but a lot of times they aren't so strict. There are Theravada teachers that are more like Mahayana teachers and Mahayana teachers that are more like Theravada teachers. In the end, the tradition one chooses isn't as important as the teacher one chooses.


text:
Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman?
Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman, the Self of buddha nature?
Assuming a resounding "no", may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything, or is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self, like death is for philosophically enlightened atheists?
It is not true that qualia are substances, not only in Western philosophy, but in Buddhism too, because otherwise the skandhas, being insubstantial, would not be like anything!
Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities !

I see, so I guess you're talking about This "true Self" is the Buddha-nature, which is present in all sentient beings, and realized by the awakened ones. or something like that. The people who answered your other question in a way that you didn't expect (or didn't like) were all using ...

... a different understanding, i.e. they were saying something like, "Atman" in early Buddhism may simply refer to the sense of "I am", similar to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism, which link the feeling "I am" to a permanent "Self". Contrary to this the Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything

I think that:

'Atman' is more commonly used in Hinduism
Buddhism usually denies that 'Atman' exists ... the more usual Buddhist doctine is 'anatman': according to Buddhism, 'anatman' is a better description of the world
Anatman is a word whose definition is a negative (negation) of Atman.
'Atman' is a word but not necessarily a reality (the mere fact that a word exists doesn't imply that what it's describing exists: see for example "unicorn").

So Atman is a word with a meaning, which other schools (not Buddhism) claimed had existence.
When some schools of Buddhism were trying to describe something (i.e. 'Buddha-nature') they re-used an existing word (i.e. 'Atman') for that description.
I think it's less confusing to view/use 'Atman' as an adjective instead of as a noun.
For example, this says,

Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self ? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ’the Self ’ [atman].

I (perhaps incorrectly) understand that as saying that 'atman' can be used like an adjective to describe anything/whatever is "true, real, and eternal".
When you ask, "ia atman 'like' anything?" IMO that's as if you're saying, "assuming that atman is a substance or a thing, can I understand it as being 'like' some other substance or thing which I already understand or have a word for?"
It might be better to say, Atman means "true, real, and eternal" and you can use it describe that which is true, real, and eternal.

is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self

If a dog is (immediately/already) not a cat, or if the moon is not a finger (or if a chariot is not an axle and an axle is not a chariot), then I think you can say that "it is not" -- without trying to say, "a dog is like the eventual non existence, annihilation of a cat" (but maybe whether or not you call it "eventual" depends on whether you believe in "sudden enlightenment").

Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities

The Buddha warned about the 'thicket of views' you get into by trying to understand 'self', so I don't understand why you (IMO) persist along these lines of enquiry.
The Buddha specifically said that instead of asking "what is self? what is the Buddha? etc.?", he wanted to teach people about the four noble truths (i.e. dukkha and the way to end dukkha).

Beware that although I tried to answer this I know even less about Mahayana doctrines and terminology than I do about the Pali suttas, i.e. this is my opinion and liable to be ignorant.

When you ask, "ia atman 'like' anything?" IMO that's as if you're saying, "assuming that atman is a substance or a thing, can I understand it as being 'like' some other substance or thing which I already understand or have a word for?"
not quite hat i meant, i was asking about qualia, i'll edit the question :

if you say that only substances can have quale, then sure ? i don't know if that's true tho !!!

In Paul Williams book on the Mahāyana Buddhism he notes that "According to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: 'self [i.e. ātman] is the meaning of tathāgatgarbha.'"  (p.98) and "One thing is clear: the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra teaches a really existing, permanent element in sentient beings" (p.99) (I'm quoting from the first edition, 1989. There is a revised edition).
I take this to mean that the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra has become infected with Vedantic ideas similar to the ātman. Certainly the basic teaching on anātman has been lost sight of. Williams plausibly links this to the problem of how the unenlightened can escape from greed, hatred and delusion. This is a perennial problem in Buddhism. We keep losing sight of the possibility and having to reinvent it. Unfortunately some of the reinventions are better than others. As time goes on they tend to become more and more eternalistic.
so the answer is not a resounding "no". It is a definite "yes".


text:
Do we sense the mental stream (santāna)
Do we sense the 'mindstream' (citta-santāna)?
Or is it inferred?
I think it is inferred, and that this means we cannot say "I will die", except as a fictionalized explanation.
But, is it inferred? And anyway, what do Buddhists say about explanations ?

Is santana the same as dharma? Can you provide a definition or a link to a definition - I'm struggling to understand the question to be honest and maybe others would appreciate some clarification too. Thanks

Hmmm this is where psychiatry start picking drugs for us... Keep in mind that is is purely theoretical until the Haldon Collider find evidence of other dimensions...
Mind and brain are not the same, but connected like two wheels learning against each others edges. So one might call it two different species. The Buddha spoke of 31 planes of existence, which could be understood as 31 universes. Universes would then also move and overlap each other. If overlapping, a nexus is created in which reactions happen. Now imagine that somehow that because of the nexus, the brain has an attraction on another species and this other species attached itself to the brain like a parasite... It would mean that if we are Citta, then we are the aliens from another universe experiencing this universe through the senses of a body...
But we lack so much data on so much to actually make technical descriptions on how it works... Much right now is just thesis stage. Nothing more.
It is said that you will get this experience in the ninth Jhana...

If you are talking about the particleaccelerator in CERN its called "Large Hadron Collider" or short LHC.

Argh! Yes - Thank you for the correction :)


text:
What can be done about fake monks?
in the city where i live (Toronto, although this is an issue in many cities around the world), there are people dressed as monks soliciting others on the street for donations. In return, various good luck charms are offered.
The fake monks speak little English, and will try to justify their begging with the claim that donations are for building a temple back home.
Is there anything I can or should do about this?
Are these fake monks giving Buddhism a bad name, or at least obscuring Buddhism's true message?
Are the fake monks doing an ironic good by giving people the chance to practice generosity?

It might possibly be a story that would interest the Toronto Sun. For example, they chose to publish an expose of 'the shaky lady' beggar about 10 years ago, and that Globe and Mail blog (from 2005) alleges they have (or had) a "ceaseless quest for 'bogus beggars'".

Possibly. Although, news outlets have picked up this story before; it doesn't make the front page.

What can be done about real monks?

Maybe help them become true monks?

This situation is getting some media exposure in New York http://www.myfoxny.com/story/29345917/panhandlers-posing-as-monks and http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/347772-new-yorkers-worried-citys-panhandlers-posing-fool-tourists/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign= (same video being shared on each story).

I have some suggestions.
Guard yourself against any possibility of Wrong Speech by not saying anything about these persons, their motives, or actions that you don't personally know to be true; even if it seems extremely likely that they are being deceptive. If you want to warn family & friends, stick only with what you know to be true such as "In the tradition I study, monastic rules don't allow monks to ask for money or sell good luck charms."
Guard yourself against the arising or continuing of any negative states by not identifying with this issue. This is not personal. Cities have always been magnets for people inclined to do "creative fund raising". ;-) City dwellers are pretty savvy about this type of thing and it's unlikely the media will downplay it indefinitely. It's too quirky of a story for them to ignore forever.
Guard yourself against the attachment of "me and my" Buddhism getting a bad name. Truly awful things have happened in the contexts of other religions; bloody wars, sexual exploitation, financial scandal.
The teachings of the Buddha shine on. A little thing like this can't tarnish it. :)

Interesting. It's not quirky here though, it's near Chinatown and much weirder things are common. Plus, these "monks" make a lot of money through their "strategy".

Understood. But if it happens around the world, as you mentioned, it will become known over time; like all other "strategies". :)

This is the best answer I’ve seen in this site so far. Awesome!

The idea of Karma, in both Buddhism and Hinduism, means anything we do, in the name of "justice", etc., will be nothing compared to what that person will experience due to those actions (assuming that person never purifies/confesses/etc.) "Compassion" is always the best thing to do. Indeed, feel sorry for that "evil" person as the karma will be "reaped" in the future. (Indeed, I would argue, and have, that "Justice" probably brings just quite similar bad karma (and bad results) as the actual selfish acts.  Motivation/Intention would be, I think, the key.)

Judging others can never help. If somebody's fake then it's his/her loss. The word 'monk' or 'bikkhu/bikkhuni' contains a set of rules, obedience and sometime with automatically added vows of poverty and chastity in association with religions. All the rules that any monk adapt are for himself only.
Suppose i am a monk. I know that i am committed to some routine (as per the buddhism), say. And beyond all of this i am having some hindrences and worldly level curiousity (stress). so i am doing it wrong (on me, for me, by myself). You came across to me and told me that where i am wrong (in a very appreciable manner) and then just you left.
Now i see two ways. 1. Follow your words and your right intention. 2. Follow my own understanding behind the meeting, with you.
Choice will always be mine. Maximum you could do, you did (the flow of right intention).
This is all what can be done about fake monks like me. There's nothing like one should follow buddha or teach others to follow buddhism. Let us see the sight turning into insight.

If those monks are ‘not really funding for building a temple’, and ‘they don’t know anything about Buddhism’, and ‘it’s clearly apparent that they are fake monks’, then yes, their behavior is not good for Buddhism.”
even if monks raise funds for a good purpose, it can be done proper manner. not like common street beggar's way.

It's maybe good to distinguish between a "monk not sticking with his rules" or a "monk - 'living by theft'" and a recluse/brahman of other traditions.
If serious to understand more, feel free to read extended answer and to ask: [Q&A] What can (should) be done about fake monks?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

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


text:
What distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"?
What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"?
I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness.
However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness.

Here is a short passage from What the Buddha Taught by Dr. Walpola Rahula that discusses how consciousness is different than perception. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I found the example given helpful to my own understanding of consciousness.

It should be clearly understood that consciousness does not recognize an
  object. It is only a sort of awareness-awareness of the presence of an object. When
  the eye comes in contact with a colour, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises
  which simply is awareness of the presence of a colour: but it does not recognize that
  it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception (the third Aggregate
  discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue. The term 'visual consciousness' is a
  philosophical expression denoting the same idea as is conveyed by the ordinary
  word 'seeing'. Seeing does not mean recognizing. So are the other forms of
  consciousness.

This passage seems to differentiate between consciousness and conception (rather than perception).

Nonetheless, good choice of a passage.. I think it goes something like this:
Consciousness is the bare naked awareness of something existing.
Perception is the full recognizing of that object before a name has been given to it..
Conception is the delineation of that object as a thought (this is blue).

Per Dr. Rahula in the above quote, "It is perception (the third Aggregate discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue."

Before differentiating between Consciousness and Awareness we'd first have to define what Consciousness is and what Awareness is on its own.Try to answer these questions How do you know that your aware? What's the evidence?Where do you find your awareness,your knowing?Not What you know but what's it like to be knowing?What's it like to be aware?
Can you sense how some experiences goes beyond words,concepts and intellectualised ideas.
And can only be described by our relationship or attachments to it.
So what is awareness?Maybe Awareness is A, Maybe Awareness is B, Maybe Awareness just IS.
I have to add that consciousness is an aggregate and is biased.It may well be the result of clinging to awareness.Seeing it as My awareness.But i still think its difficult to pin down.

It's difficult to translate "buddhist terms" that refer to aspects and functions of the mind to western equivalents. Moreover, since buddhist psychology is quite sophisticated and detailed, it would be hard to draw distinction over loosely defined concepts (such as "consciousness", "awareness" and "mindfulness" under quotes).
For example, there are many terms that carry some form of awareness used in the suttas, but with different nuances. One of them is viññāṇa (which is actually sixfold). Another, which may overlap with our understandings of "consciousness" or "awareness" is sañña. Sati, which is usually translated as "mindfulness" is also a very technical term in buddhism.
Generally, these 3 terms (there are a few others) not only refer to distinct processes of the mind, but also may have different meanings across the suttas themselves. Furthermore, they also appear to overlap in some cases.
A few questions (eg. this and this) have been asked here about the definitions of some of these terms and differences. One book that explores this subject in depth is Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism.

"Awareness" is an English word used by Westerners that (to my knowledge) does not really exist in the terminology of Pali Buddhism.
I agree with the view that "mindfulness" ('sati') is a purposeful application of awareness or consciousness. 'Sati' means to 'remember' or 'bring to/keep in mind'.
The Pali uses the word 'anupassi' ('continous seeing') when referring to being aware of meditation objects or uses the word 'sampajjana' ('ready wisdom') when referring to knowing clearly what is going on in meditation.
Westerners like using the word 'awareness' but I do not know a Pali equivalent.

You could think it like this. Consciousness means cognizing something. Or become aware of. In other words Vinyana. So Awareness and Cognizing is somewhat the same in terms of terminology. Mindfulness is knowing that you know something. In other words knowing that you cognize or knowing that you are aware of.

Awareness is simply consciousness without any engagement. Consciousness when it engages in senses results in mind and emotional activities. Awareness can also be stated as mindfulness but I find this defintion has mind in it therefore confusing. If you are in your natural state i.e. without thoughts and emotions you are aware or conscious.


text:
Is it always beneficial to meditate?
If one has a regular meditation practice and has no particular mental health issues or physical health issues - is it always beneficial to meditate? Or are there circumstances or points in time where it might be better to stop or cut back?
I ask because there are points where in my practice it just seems impossible to meditate and I have stopped for a dew days or a bit longer. Is that a mistake? Should you just grit your teeth and meditate anyway even if the meditation session is pretty unpleasant?

I've seen meditators of many different schools talking about the importance of not walking away from a "bad" sitting. All books I've read reflect this commitment. All monks I've heard too. Conversely, I never heard or read a single meditator to take this issue lightly as in "well, if you are not much up to it, sure, maybe some other day".
There are certainly a number of reasons for abandoning a specific practice. A big one, is that we might be doing it in some improper way, or in a way that increases unwholesome states, hindrances and/or decreases faculties associated to meditation.

"As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I considered thus: 'Excessive meditation upon forms arose in me, and because of excessive meditation upon forms my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt, nor inattention, ..., nor perception of diversity, nor excessive meditation upon forms will arise in me again."
-- MN 128 (Bodhi Trans.)

On a personal note, this is how I worked with this issue: if I identify the unwillingness to meditate as a hindrance, I do not make concession. Otherwise, I stop, or do not meditate  -- at least formally, sitting. (I'll make an adendum to this at the end of the post).
For example, in an individual sitting, if it's just hard, I'm in discomfort, or I wish to be doing something else, I make all the effort necessary to continue until my clock tells me to get up.
If I'm in "unbearable" pain, I stop -- I had to discover what is "unbearable" pain for myself, so today I'm roughly aware of how much I can push making progress (and without turning the meditation into a nightmare; been there, done that, a lot!).
Similarly, if I start a meditation carelessly and then feel very hungry, I prefer to stop, have my lunch and then do a proper sitting -- no need for unnecessary suffering. But only as long as this is the real reason, and not a hindrance. I remember a few times when I had to interrupt a sitting, but two reasons compelled me to do so simultaneously. One was very reasonable, the other was a hindrance. At one time, I only interrupted once the hindrance subsided. Another time, I wasn't able to do so, and I got up. And I could tell I got up because of the hindrance, not because of the counterpart. I blamed my inattentive mind and this compelled me to be more careful and practice more.
I've observed that this -- not giving to hindrances -- is extremely important for two reasons:

Giving away to hindrances may hurt future sittings considerably.
Personally, I know all I need is one single "walk away" followed by some half-baked excuse in my mind to make the future sittings much harder -- as it will be much easier to stop.
The difficult sittings (the ones in discomfort, with a strained, confused, non-concentrated and noisy mind, in "non-ideal" places or circumstances, etc), may be instrumental for upcoming progress.
I've personally had experiences with periods (days, months) of meditation that seemed like walking in the desert, going nowhere, and individual sittings that felt just terrible, but were so very important.
Years later, I noticed the "desert" was due to me not knowing some basics of meditation (for instance, what to do with hindrances...as a zen trainee, unfortunately, I was never introduced to these basic concepts and what to do about them). In other words, I'd say I was unskillful.
But when skills are in place, that's the whole point of meditating when hindrances are present, however strong: we're supposed to master them. And, I guess, that is what makes these difficult sittings feel so special; when we sit again later and it's....something else entirely.
So, I think once one develops, for example, some minimum skills with hindrances and is able to roughly replicate a "deeper state", these terrible sittings are seen just like the first week at the gym: a warm up (or simply actual work: even though we are displeased, muscles grow stronger -- I've observed the same happening with mind). Provided one is exercising correctly, otherwise it is just painful and possibly damaging.

So, revising (and concluding) from what I stated earlier: I would continue the sittings if (a) I'm seduced to not meditate because of a hindrance; and (b) this is the n-th sitting (for some small n, like 4) that is not good / without progress; otherwise it probably means I'm doing something wrong, and I better figure that out, perhaps, by other means, like studying.

It is always beneficial to meditate with a sight. Meditation is related to enlightment and insight by looking into something with clarity & precision, seeing each component as distinct and seperate, piercing all the way throught so as to percieve the most fundamental reality of that something (what is your current sight). In simple it is about clarity of a mind (your mind) that in a relaxed mode (a mind that don't fall into rush).
Perheps there's impermanence (as per satipatthana.. Sutta) which lead to impermanence of the self-view.
The meditator first explor his body than his mind. Then the 4 characters of himself come forward.
1. Appearing & ceasing.
2. Disappearance of effort and point 1. Even.
3. Joy also disappears, there's only happiness and concentration.
4. The forth jhana arises characterised by purity of mindfulness due to equanimity (only on the part of meditator or translator).
By Summerising all these points and accepting the effect i get that the possibility of evenness of mind come into existence. But soon that all get disappeared, may be because of lack of the stream/flow.
Then i tried to understand the characters of my mind. One is i lost the steadiness of my mind towards my sight. Second is i had lost the stream/flow.
Then By putting more effort and concentration i came to know that it is very necessary to keep alive or to stay adhered to my sight (point of sight). Only then my mind can be under no stress (just by putting all my efforts in a sight).
Keep the purpose/reason/sight alive in your meditation until unless you forgot it or you get yourself out of that pre fixed sight in wholesome. If wholesome isn't achieved you'll keep on thinking of that (it is the only way you can know if you doing it write or wrong).
Tranquility (samatha), insight (vipassana), mindfulness (sati), concentration (samadhi) and supermundane powers (supernormal knowledge) all can be achieved in the presence of knowledge of impermanence of all the phenomena that lead to a permanent liberation (mukthi).

When you receive guests.in your house you make sure your house.is.clean.In this way you make sure your life is in order before you.meditate.if you have trouble meditating to such an extent that you have to stop then its.time to get off the mat and make.amends with your past, make right what.was wrong.do Dana.focus.on sila.make merits.Maybe visit someone you owe an apology.Meditation can be obstructed by karma that may have been repressed.for.so.long but has now just came up to the surface.and you cannot.meditate your problems away.sooner or later you have to face it.Then when you sit again you will find your karma has allowed you to resume.you can see the.problem clearly.see it arise and fall.but if you have trouble getting there in the first place then you have to clean the house.its all about balance.that will.lead peace.of.mind.to.concentration and to wisdom.
It is.always beneficial.to.meditate.so beneficial that.sometimes you.have to get off the mat.and remove the obstacle that is.keeping you.from.meditating

It's always beneficial to meditate properly. Meditation goes wrong when we don't have the right ideas and attitude.

from my experience, I dont make meditation more difficult than what it has to be..  i would watch my breathing like a curious scientist watches things on his slide via microscope. it is quite pleasant for me


text:
Drunk monks and the 5th precept
I have heard that the 5th precept was not a core of Buddhism, it was created later by the Buddha after some monks returned drunk from alms because they had something with alcohol (accidently I believe)
My first question is: Is this story true?
Many Buddhist school claim that the problem with alcohol is that it can cloud the mind and make it easier for breaking the other (more important) precepts. Based on that some schools are ok with lay people drinking in moderation, with the commitment of not getting to a point of losing control of their acts or doing something they will regret.
So, is drinking with moderation (socially) breaking the 5th precept?

I think that the second part of your question is an exact duplicate of Is moderate drinking acceptable in Buddhism? therefore only the first question (about monks) is on-topic.

Also if it's about monks then isn't it more to with the vinaya, than with the 'five precepts'?

Yes ChrisW, The 2nd question is kind of a duplication. I suggest we keep it open to see the answers regarding how this precept was created! :)

How about deleting the last three paragraphs of the question and replacing them with, "Is this story true? And/or is there a canonical/scriptural description of when and why this precept was given to laypeople?" and adding the [tag:reference-request] tag (and maybe the [tag:theravada] tag)?

I believe this is the story you are referring to. It's a great story explaining the origin of the monks' rule to avoid alcohol. It also shows a bit of the Buddha's sense of humor.
This is from "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html

"The drinking of alcohol or fermented liquors is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 51; BMC p.402)
The origin-story concerns Ven. Saagata who conquered a fierce naaga — a type of serpent with magical powers — by his meditation-developed psychic powers. The townspeople heard about this feat and wanted to make some sort of offering to him, upon which the 'group-of-six' bhikkhus impudently suggested that they all should give him alcohol. When he arrived on his almsround every household offered alcohol and he finally collapsed, drunk, at the town gate and had to be carried back to the monastery. He was laid down in a stupor with his head towards the Buddha but in his drunkenness he turned around so that his feet pointed at the Buddha.[97] The Buddha called attention to his changed behavior, remarking that he certainly could not oppose "even a salamander" in such a state.
The Buddha also said:
"Bhikkhus,... there are these four stains because of which samanas and brahmans glow not, shine not, blaze not. What are these four? Drinking alcoholic beverages... indulging in sexual intercourse... accepting gold and money... obtaining requisites through a wrong mode of livelihood." (A.II,53) (AB)

Again, this explains the monks' rule regarding alcohol. Regarding laypeople and the 5th precept, I'm not sure I understand your meaning of the significance of something having been created "later by the Buddha". Perhaps a Buddhist scholar could identify the timeline of the 5 precepts; but my simple way of thinking of it is that they were created by the Buddha during his lifetime and whether it was in the first years of his teachings or the last; it was a valuable teaching to help lay people make their lives simpler (less suffering) by avoiding bad deeds. And avoiding alcohol is helpful for many people to stay mindful enough to observe the other 4 precepts.
Whether observing the 5th precept means avoiding even a drop of alcohol or just avoiding drunkenness or "heedlessness" by laypeople varies by tradition.

We have a couple of related questions regarding alcohol consumption by Buddhists. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2512/is-moderate-drinking-acceptable-in-buddhism?lq=1 and http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1344/do-all-buddhists-abstain-from-alcohol and http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3573/is-it-useful-to-practice-intoxicated

Nice comment and the link was really worth reading. I'll be bookmarking that one. Thank you for the lesson. Namo Buddhaya.

The precepts were not created all at one time but instead they were created every time a problem arose like "monks drinking" for example. The precepts aren't commandments but instead they are simply  statements that say: "If one behaves like X then Y will happen".
  In other words, drinking alcohol will lead to one's suffering. If one doesn't want to suffer then one can follow the 5th precept. Lay or monastic, if one drinks alcohol in moderation then one will suffer in moderation and if one drinks socially then one will suffer socially.

The precepts aren't commandments, but they are more than simple statements of cause and effect.  They are rules.  I recommend that Buddhist householders read the Vinaya, in order to dispel the misconception that the Buddha was averse to laying down rules.

Saying they are absolute rules that can never be inappropriate in certain situations is needlessly superficial. No need to understand any more about the situation, just let the rule think for you.

Of course The Buddha laid down rules, who said he didn't?

"The precepts aren't commandments but instead they are simply statements that say: "If one behaves like X then Y will happen" logically implied that he didn't.  Speaking the truth is not "needlessly superficial", it is simply accurate.

If you ever actually practiced his teaching in any way that Isn't superficial then maybe you would know what I was saying and I never said that what I said is what the Buddha said, seriously? Are we just resaying what was written or are we interpreting what was written? We are interpreting what is written not just repeating words with no curiosity to the meaning! We find the meaning when we practice the Eightfold Practice and I don't see how you could possibly be doing that correctly. Maybe you should ponder that.

The truth of words only is accurate only in worldly terms. Logic can't touch that. Did the Buddha ever teach logic?

Having a hard time parsing your first two sentences.  The Buddha did not formally discuss logic, he simply manifested it.  He was never illogical.  The illogic that some people associate with Buddhism didn't arise until much later.

Intoxication is prohibited but sometimes don't we drink medicine and thus HAVE to get intoxicated?
I remember reading somewhere in Buddhist sutra that it is OK to be intoxicated for medicine. Common sense would agree. If one is ill, taking care of the body--one's vehicle for Awakening--is the highest priority.
For example I remember my teacher Master Nan saying that when past masters had "Zen sickness" (a feverish state of intense, overwhelming, unstoppable creativity) their teachers often got them drunk to help them fall asleep and snap out of it. When they woke up, they had progressed past the stage safely.
Thus, the next question is how much is OK if not sick and trying to walk the fine line of intoxication and still be "Buddhist"?
Scientifically speaking, reversatrol is most potent in red wine. There is research that says that it reverses aging and is neo-cardiac in nature (builds and repairs heart cells!)!!
There is plenty of scientifically verified evidence about this, look it up.
I believe that taking it with such an aim is medicinal because one's intent is to heal the body--not to become intoxicated.
Thus, what does it come down to? The 2nd part of the Eightfold path: Right Intention.
Remember that the Buddha forbids intoxication NOT medication.
But if you find that you are using alcohol "medically" or "socially" and have become reliant on it for sleep, etc. ... then recognize that as a form of chronic intoxication! There is no independently valid reason for it.
You gotta think about it and decide what is going on... if you're doing it merely for pleasure or if there is some benefit.
Despite all this, I myself do not do ANY sort of intoxication, drinking or smoking and try to eat only what is necessary and specifically nutritional (foods can be considered an intoxicant as well!), keenly aware of the things that I am putting in myself and why.
At the worst, I use herbal tea to refreshen myself and warm my hands.
Proper meditation and yoga are powerful techniques as well which obviate the need for most worldly addictions including TV, weed, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I say this with experience because I used to be heavily involved in such a year ago when I did not have stable practices.
Summary: So use your thinking muscles and remember that the Buddha forbid intoxication but also forbid self-harm and upholds taking care of your body and mind (but not babying it or getting it addicted, which is intoxication).

"And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not
  playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for
  beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this
  body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life,
  thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) & not create new
  feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating." --
  AN 3.16

If drinking alcohol is for the survival/continuance of your body (e.g. red wine) then it is OK. If it is to intoxicate, then it is not.

I'm sorry but we are talking about the Buddha's teachings and in those teachings booze is certainly  not medicinal for the mind. Using  alcohol to dull some creative imbalance or any problem in the mind or body is what is called running from the problem rather than facing it. Turning to alcohol is seriously incorrect practice in any meditation tradition or religion. Monks and serious mediators have been known to die before running from their problems or breaking precepts.

I suggest you read my answer again. Of course the general rule is true for almost all exceptions. Alcohol as medicine for Zen sickness (back then they didnt have sleeping pills) was common though. This exception will not be faced by most practitioners anyway. Running away from certain problems, in this case Zen sickness, can be a solution--Hakuins solution being another--rather than tunning into the problem and making hyperactivity worse than it already is..

"And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) & not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating." -- AN 3.16

If drinking alcohol is for the survival/continuance of your body (e.g. red wine) then it is OK. If it is to intoxicate, then it is not.

Right intentions. +1

"Study into the cardioprotective effects of resveratrol is based on the research of Dipak K. Das. However, he has been found guilty of scientific fraud, and many of his publications related to resveratrol have been retracted." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Cardioprotective_effects .  Alcohol is a hard drug that kills 60k per year in the US (CDC). When you buy alcohol you support an industry built on suffering. IMO alcohol robs one of compassion. If your PCP (primary care provider) says you need a drink a day that's between you and her but few MDs would recommend it.

Ahmed, you are entitled to your opinion as to the acceptability of drinking red wine, but it has nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha was clear:  A disciple of his does not drink fermented or distilled beverages (i.e. alcohol).


text:
What is the exact meaning of catuparisa (catu-parisa)?
The Buddha mentioned catuparisa (catu-parisa). What did he exactly meant with this word?

It's the fourfold assembly consisting of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen.

Is it correct to say that 'catuparisa' is a synonym of the sangha?

@Guy Well, AFAIK the meaning of pali word 'sangha' in general is group or assembly. But in Theravada specifically, only the ordained monks and nuns are considered as sangha. So I think it's not appropriate to call catuparisa as sangha.


text:
What is the exact difference between samatha and passadha?
What is the exact difference between samatha and passadha?

Do you happen to have a quote of passadha illustrating its usage in context?

Passadha is the 5th of the 7 factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga). Ledi Sayadaw 'The Requisites of Enlightenment' p. 86: 'The process of becoming calm and tranquil in both body and mind when the mental distractions, reflections and thoughts abate, is called "passadhi sambojjhanga", the enlightenment factor "tranquillity". It is the mental factor (cetasika) of tranquillity of body and of mind (kaya-passadhi, citta-passadhi).'

This article actually has some good information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaddhi

samatha is a term frequently used. No problem defining that.
Passadha is not easily defined by web search. It appears and Portuguese and greek.
here is a link referring to passadha referring to the eye center.
http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/msg/125kd.txt
Perhaps there are other terms for passadha that are more widely used.


text:
What is the authority of the Kathavatthu (points of Controversy) and the 3rd counsil?
I'm slowly collecting Buddhist books and started with the Khuddaka-Nikaya, and am researching if I want the rest as well of Theravada Canon. So I was curious about the the place and authority of the Kathavatthu?
Is it considered canon by all or most of Theravadan schools?
How did the post-theravadan schools regard the texts?

I think you picked the wrong book to start with... it's canonical to the orthodox Theravada, but it deals with points of controversy that would be incomprehensible to a neophyte.

I thought so, thanks for your response. I became curious reading about that time-period with its schisms and a 3rd counsel, but the material and the logic used goes right over my head.

"Is it considered canon by all or most of Theravadan schools?"
 A few Evidences on the Age of the Kathavatthu showed that an examination  of some of the materials  of
        the  K.  V.  and the Asokan  edicts  shows  that  the
        compilation of the K. V.  was made, at least in part,
        somewhere in the reign of king Asoka.
Kathavatthu‘The Book of Disputed Points’, being a canonical book belonging to the Abhidharma Piṭaka of the Pāli Canon.
"How did the post-theravadan schools regard the texts?"
Below are quotes on the Kathavatthu from wiki: (*I added bold to show emphasis)

Each chapter contains questions and answers by means of which the most diverse views are presented, refuted and rejected. The form of the debates gives no identification of the participants, and does not step outside the debate to state explicitly which side is right.
The debates are understood by the tradition, followed by many scholars, as disputes between different schools of Buddhism.
However, L. S. Cousins, described by Professor Gombrich as the West's leading abhidhamma scholar,[6] says:
"In spiritual traditions the world over, instructors have frequently employed apparent contradictions as part of their teaching method – perhaps to induce greater awareness in the pupil or to bring about a deeper and wider view of the subject in hand. The Pali Canon contains many explicit examples of such methods. (Indeed much of the Kathāvatthu makes better sense in these terms than as sectarian controversy.)"[7]
  See also

Seen in this light it is not a book on points of controversies but a teaching manual!