text:
Difference between Buddhism and Aristotelian "middle-way"?
This thought occurred to me after reading the following question and top answer:
How to refute the idea that Buddhism might be actually "too extreme"?
The questioner thinks the logical conclusion of Buddhism is to abandon all worldly goods, including the family, resulting in the elimination of the human race.

Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the
  world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not
  have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children,
  then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people
  pass away). I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is
  no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other
  animals remain on earth.

The answerer stated this is taking Buddhism to the extreme, and rather Buddhism is to avoid extremes and to take the middle path.

Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by
  looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others
  we look after ourselves.

However, this is exactly what Aristotle said in his definition of virtue.  He defines virtue as the mean between extremes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)#Aristotle

His constant phrase is, "… is the Middle state between …". His
  psychology of the soul and its virtues is based on the golden mean
  between the extremes

Is there any essential difference between Aristotle's definition of virtue and what Buddhism teaches?  It seems there is only a difference in details, how specifically Buddhism teaches to seek the middle way, but the overarching principle is the same.  Or are there extremes in Buddhism's teaching?

That Wikipedia page is a peculiar mish mash of not clearly connected ideas. For example, as far as I'm aware, Aristotle never used the word "golden" in the context of the mean. It certainly doesn't show up in one of the more popular translations of Nichomachean Ethics. Given that the page has that simple thing wrong, along with the general ramming together of things unconnected, I'd hesitate to trust it on very much.

I've read the Nichomachean Ethics.  The page's description is accurate as far as my question is concerned.

just out of interest, where in NE is the adjective "golden" used in the context of the mean?

It's not used it NE as far as I know.

However, this is exactly what Aristotle said in his definition of virtue.

Yes the ancient Greeks did have "nothing in excess" as part of their cultural heritage.
Buddhists might agree with some of the other 'wise' sayings on the page linked above, especially for example, "You should not desire the impossible".
But the ethics are not the same. Greek ethics are typically about being a good citizen, for example:

A "middle way" between cowardice and recklessness, so, being prudent and brave as a soldier
Being a just (justice) member of the jury
Being a political hero; etc.

The Greeks are into aesthetics too: they talk about "the beautiful".

Is there any essential difference between Aristotle's definition of virtue and what Buddhism teaches?

You would do yourself a disservice to assume that, having read Aristotle, you have a handle on Buddhist Dhamma too.
Some essential differences include that they don't have the same goal, nor the same method/mechanism, not at all the same logic, nor the same experimental proof, nor the same practitioners.

Or are there extremes in Buddhism's teaching?

Yes, I think there are many; so many that I cannot hope to pick "the best" example, so let me instead pick one example more-or-less at random.
The Itivuttaka starts with, "This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. Which one quality? Abandon greed as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return.""
In several ways, this is an "extreme":

It's said by "the Blessed One"
It's "abandon" one quality, not "see if you can't try to live without it quite a lot  of the time"
It's "I guarantee you", not "I'm pretty sure"
It's "greed", not "thinking about it"
It's "non-return", not "not too much of a return"

I'm not sure of the definition of the "middle way" you quoted (not sure whether it's a good definition: maybe you're quoting out of context).
Some more canonical definitions of the Buddhist "middle way" are as follows:
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

Cutting Off the Causes of Suffering:

The Buddha calls this path the middle way (majjhima patipada). It is the middle way because it steers clear of two extremes, two misguided attempts to gain release from suffering. One is the extreme of indulgence in sense pleasures, the attempt to extinguish dissatisfaction by gratifying desire. This approach gives pleasure, but the enjoyment won is gross, transitory, and devoid of deep contentment. The Buddha recognized that sensual desire can exercise a tight grip over the minds of human beings, and he was keenly aware of how ardently attached people become to the pleasures of the senses. But he also knew that this pleasure is far inferior to the happiness that arises from renunciation, and therefore he repeatedly taught that the way to the Ultimate eventually requires the relinquishment of sensual desire. Thus the Buddha describes the indulgence in sense pleasures as "low, common, worldly, ignoble, not leading to the goal."
The other extreme is the practice of self-mortification, the attempt to gain liberation by afflicting the body. This approach may stem from a genuine aspiration for deliverance, but it works within the compass of a wrong assumption that renders the energy expended barren of results. The error is taking the body to be the cause of bondage, when the real source of trouble lies in the mind — the mind obsessed by greed, aversion, and delusion. To rid the mind of these defilements the affliction of the body is not only useless but self-defeating, for it is the impairment of a necessary instrument. Thus the Buddha describes this second extreme as "painful, ignoble, not leading to the goal."[2]
Aloof from these two extreme approaches is the Noble Eightfold Path, called the middle way, not in the sense that it effects a compromise between the extremes, but in the sense that it transcends them both by avoiding the errors that each involves. The path avoids the extreme of sense indulgence by its recognition of the futility of desire and its stress on renunciation. Desire and sensuality, far from being means to happiness, are springs of suffering to be abandoned as the requisite of deliverance. But the practice of renunciation does not entail the tormenting of the body. It consists in mental training, and for this the body must be fit, a sturdy support for the inward work. Thus the body is to be looked after well, kept in good health, while the mental faculties are trained to generate the liberating wisdom. That is the middle way, the Noble Eightfold Path, which "gives rise to vision, gives rise to knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana."

Glossary

paṭipadā: Road, path, way; the means of reaching a goal or destination. The "Middle way" (majjhima-paṭipadā) taught by the Buddha; the path of practice described in the fourth noble truth (dukkhanirodhagāminī-paṭīpadā).

Wikipedia adds that "In Mahayana Buddhism, the Middle Way refers to the insight into emptiness that transcends opposite statements about existence." Wikipedia's footnote to this sentence references the Kaccayanagotta Sutta.

Archie Bahm's Philosophy of the Buddha takes a different approach.  Here's a blog article that covers this.
A key paragraph from the article (itself a quote from Bahm):

His historical [...] insight, that happiness can be found only in the middle way, appears to agree with other [...] Golden Mean philosophies in advising avoidance of extremes.  [...] however, Gotama’s insight focused upon one kind of mean, one which, if achieved, would automatically resolve the difficulties relative to all other pairs of extremes: his middle way is a way between desiring too much and desiring too much stopping of such desiring.

So pain is caused by our tendency to desire, and this tendency can attach to anything, including attempts to overcome desire! So desire often wins not because it resits us, but because it corrupts our attempts from within.
This may explain Buddhism's iconoclastic tendencies.  If desire is the problem, and Buddhism can become an object of desire, then to this extent, Buddhism itself must be fought.  This may also explain attitudes towards the self...
The Middle Way navigates between this tendency, and since the opposite of desire (wanting things to be other than the way they are) is acceptance of all -- including our failures to accept -- The Middle Way can be equated with acceptance.  The key is to grok what "Middle" implies.  Thinking of backing off an extreme when you catch yourself clinging to one pole of a duality (desire/no-desire, spiritual/material, religious/profane, philosophical/worldly) is a good way to think of The Middle Way/Acceptance.
And of course, it's all about your INNER attitude and not surface acts.
This differs from the way I understood Aristotle and other "Golden Mean" philosophers.

As much as I love Plato/Socrates, I have never acquired taste for Aristotle. It's difficult to judge Aristotle's perspective based on one sentence which is not even a quote.
I have read that Aristotle's ethics is considered "virtue ethics", which supposedly means he thought the right action to come from a set of "virtues" a person needs to develop, the moderation being one of them.
If this accurately describes Aristotle's position, then Buddhist ethic is different, perhaps being closer to what's known as Consequentialism or Teleological ethics, that is ethics based on results, not on "virtues" predefined upfront.
In other words, in Buddhism the middle way is a characteristic of the path, not its method. Buddha did not teach us to do all things half-way, but rather to pay attention to all factors and all effects of an action, not just the primary one. When one does this, the factors necessarily have to be balanced against each other, which usually results in a best compromise solution, which is what's referred to as "the middle way".
While Aristotle seems to define his golden mean as the middle between the extremes, which seems a bit simplistic, although I will give a benefit of doubt to a brilliant guy whose doctrine I did not have a chance to study.
Let's not forget that Buddhism goes far beyond ethics. While most ethical theories assume person's value system to be static, Buddhism sets one on a path of personal transformation, which involves development of what in modern discourse can be called "emotional intelligence" as well as reevaluation of one's preconceptions, all the way to the most fundamental ones like e.g. "entity". This can be seen as an extreme in Buddhist teaching, extreme commitment to go all the way until Enlightenment, not holding back any valuables that ego is made of.

Aristotle was a student of Plato; IMO they would both agree with, "be a good person in order to have a good life". Saying "the middle between the extremes" would be simplistic; instead I expect they'd agree with "in proper proportion". IMO he didn't like to try to predefine it, saying that 'right' is rather what well-educated gentlemen would agree it is. And something of an aesthetic judgement, equating 'the good' with 'the beautiful'. You could try to say more about what Buddhism (unlike Aristotleianism) is, but they might have little in common, except that they were both men.

Somehow I happen to like Robert Pirsig's opinion that Aristotle took Plato's teaching and turned it upside down. Plato would indeed start with "the good" as an ideal principle and leave the embodiment up to an individual, while Aristotle's heresy would be to reify "the right" as something objective that can be discovered through study. These are two different perspectives. And the Buddha's is third, to look at consequences, because (as was later shown by Madhyamikas) the acts in and of themselves are not inherently good or bad.

I like Pirsig's book: including his "monkey trap" description of attachment, "value rigidity". Phaedrus' contempt of Aristotle is risible, his eventual catatonia I find sad. Phaedrus disliked Aristotle for making analytic/academic lists: I fear the same could be said against Buddhism. Instead of such analysis it's tempting to pursue a monad like "ἀρετή", as Phaedrus did; but one result of that was semi-inscrutable, i.e. "the way that can be named is not the eternal way..."; let's acknowledge that the Buddha did a good job at naming his way, in detail: his doctrine is not very "like Aristotle".

A difference between Aristoles definition of virtue as the middle between two extreme attitudes (Ethic. Nic. II,1) and Buddhas teaching the middle way between indulgence and asceticism (First teaching at Sarnath):
Aristotle speaks about Ethics, Buddha recommends a way of personal life. The ethics of Aristotle aims at virtues necessary for living in a polity and participating in public affairs. The way of live recommended by Buddha aims at improving the personal situation of individuals by a radical change of view.
But from a more general point of view both the definition of Aristotle and the advice of Buddha recommend avoiding the extremes: Look out for the middle course in between Scylla and Charybdis. However, this advice is not far from what everyday common sense of the parent generation teaches the young generation from time immemorial.
Later on, Buddha used the principle of the middle way as a heuristics to deal with more general philosophical alternatives. But to the best of my knowledge, he did not apply it to ethics. That's specific to Aristotle.

IMO, to contrast ethics with personal life is a characteristically western approach. Why is the West so bent on seeking objective laws, I suppose it's a Christian bias? Ethics in its broad sense is a question of right action, "what should I do?", "what would be the right thing to do?", "what principle should I base my choices on?". In this sense Buddhism is all about ethics.

@andrei: Yes, ethics deals with questions of right action and right attitude. Ethics presupposes at least two persons: You and me. Because the subject of ethics are principles as well as rules for living together. In my opinion, early Buddhism instead has a strong focus on acquiring knowledge, teaching how things "really" are and how I can improve my personal life. - In Europe speculating and pondering about general rules of natural phaenomena is already the subject of Ionian philosophers of nature like Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, who lived long before the period of christianity.

The words are indeed an expression of middle path. Just cause Aristotle wasn't a Buddhist doesn't change that. Do not however, mistake them to be equivalent.


text:
What does "heard" mean in "I allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen, heard, or suspected..."
In Vinaya, there is this rule (copied from Buddhist Monastic Code II):

"One should not knowingly consume meat killed on purpose (for a
  bhikkhu). Whoever should consume it: an offense of wrong doing. I
  allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen,
  heard, or suspected (that it was killed on purpose for a bhikkhu)." —
  Mv.VI.31.14

How should we interpret "heard"? I can think of some possibilities:

Heard from someone that it was killed for me, i.e., someone told me that it was killed for me.
Heard the sound of killing, e.g. sound of the animal or action of killing
Both of the above.

This translation says,

If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him, he may not eat it.

This commentary says,

Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the
  bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the
  purpose of feeding bhikkhus.

Both of these imply only the first of your two possibilities.

I would say hear = hear the sound of the animal being killed/ screaming (not for fish or course)
This is based on the interpretation of Dhammavvuddho Thero, he has written a book that contains this subject and also he has given many Dhamma Talks about meat eating. You can google it maybe you will find more details.
He says you should not eat if you see the animal being killed, hear it or suspect it was killed intentionally killed for you, of course you cannot kill or ask someone to do it as well.
There's also another detail: Not all types of meats are allowed, some animals and human flesh should not be consumed for many reasons.
More details here (from Theravada monk Dhammavvuddho Thero):
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/07/the-buddha’s-real-views-on-meat-eating/

The hyperlinked reference you gave says, No Direct Kamma of Killing: The Buddha said: “Fish and meat are completely pure (parisuddha) of killing if the animal was not seen, heard, or suspected to have been killed specifically for oneself. Without these three conditions, unwholesome kamma is involved and, therefore, that type of meat is not allowable. IMO the punctuation would be different if it had the meaning you ascribe: it would say, "if the animal was not seen or heard, and not suspected to have been killed specifically for oneself."

Hi, my answer was based on his Dhamma talk, the link was just additional info I have just found, but I don't think the link contradicts it, in the way I understand it, by "hear" he means hear the sound of the animal and not "hear someone telling that the animal was killed", that would go with the suspect part in my opinion

In this PDF he writes, However, if you  do not want to become a vegetarian, you should know  when meat cannot be eaten. The type of meat allowed to  be eaten has three conditions: when you do not (1) see,  (2) hear, and (3) suspect, that the animal was specifically  killed for you. The specific example at the end of a paragraph is that you can buy already-slaughtered meat at a market, but not select a specific live animal for slaughter.

Yes and this is why I think you should not hear (the sound), hearing it is just liking seeing it but using other door, that is why in some Buddhist Countries all the slaughters house are far away from the cities, they dont wanna see or hear it. Suspecting can be thought hearing someone telling you or by using your perception. Again, this is my interpretation.

He is saying that you can only eat meat if someone happens to just put it in your alms bowl randomly from their own food and you have no reason to suspect that the animal was killed specifically for you or monks in general.  Remember that these rules were for mendicant monks.  They should not be used to justify modern day lay person behaviours.  He did not want the monks to encourage or condone the killing of sentient beings but he also did not want to jeopardise the opportunities for giving the teachings by alienating donors by rejecting their food outright.
To bring it up to date and current - if you buy meat or fish in a shop as a customer you can be sure that those animals were killed in order to be sold to customers, therefore you should not buy and eat the meat as this encourages more killing of animals.  Nobody cares about alienating butchers and fishmongers by refusing to buy their wares - if anything, say enough people refused to buy their wares then that would be a good teaching for them and they might find a more "right livelihood" and improve their karma.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
According to Buddha's characteristics and teaching in Pali Canon, could he have taught Vajrayana (and Karmamudra)?
One of the characteristics of Vajrayana is its secret transmission (esoteric tranmission) of certain teachings. The other one is the controversial   karmamudra (sexual practice to reach spiritual attainment).
So the question is, according to the characteristics and teaching of Buddha in Pali Canon, could he have taught Vajrayana and karmamudra?

According to the early texts the Buddha didn't have any secret teachings. Somewhere in the Digha Nikaya (I think it's in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, but it's a very long Sutta and I can't quite locate it) the Buddha said: "I do not have the closed fist of the teacher who holds anything back" and in AN 1.283 the Buddha said: "Three things shine openly, not in secret. What three? The orb of the moon, the orb of the sun and the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathàgata"
One thing to note though is that the Tantras mostly don't claim to have been spoken by the historical Buddha Sidhartha Gautama, or Shakyamuni Buddha, but by Vajradhara, a different Buddha that is often understood to be Shakyamuni appearing in Tantric form. They say that Vajradhara appeared to the various Mahasiddhas in visions and revealed to them the various Tantras that became the basis of the tantric teachings.
Also, just to clarify for readers who may not be aware, Karmamudra is a high level tantric practice in which one engages in sexual intercourse with a special consort in order to destroy the knots around the Heart Chakra and thus allow the attainment of enlightenment. It is a very high level practice and isn't done lightly. Monks are not allowed to do it (at least in the Gelugpa school) because of their vows of celibacy. It's a very rare practice.

Yes, DN 16  ‘But, Ananda, what does the order of monks expect of me? I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, making no “inner” and ʺouter; the Tathagata has no “teacher’s fist” in respect of doctrines. (Bodhi)

but in Simsapa sutta Buddha says, 'there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to you. What I have revealed to you is only a little.'

No, the canon doesn't approve of that at all.

Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge. -- AN 4.159

While Buddha did say "I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, making no inner and outer", he was known to adapt his message to the audience. It is rather apparent from the suttas that Buddha did not teach lay people his more advanced doctrines e.g. Pratityasamutpada.
Similarly in Vajrayana, the elements of Dharma are introduced in a progression, not skipping to advanced teaching until student gets a firm grasp of the basics. Just as Buddha rightly considered Pratityasamutpada too advanced for untrained lay people, in Vajrayana advanced teaching such as Madhyamaka, Lower Tantra, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen is rightly considered too much for most beginners. In fact, advanced levels of Vajrayana (esp. Dzogchen) are often characterized as "self-secret" because they are simply incomprehensible to an unprepared student.
The way Vajrayana sees itself (if I can be as arrogant as to speak on its behalf) is as a natural elaboration of principles implicit in Buddha's teaching, similarly to how Theravada's Visuddhimagga introduces hundreds of concepts Buddha never spoke about in suttas. Think modern mathematics, which can be seen as development of principles laid down by Pythagoras, or modern western scientific method as an extension of Aristotle's work. The fact that Pythagoras did not teach calculus does not mean it's not real mathematics.
As I said in How do taboo acts work in tantra if people don't see the acts as taboo?, Kamamudra is a very small part of Vajrayana and much of it is about solving emotional issues that are unique to the current society dominated by abstract concepts rather than by natural relationships as was back in Buddha's times.

If "secret transmission" (i.e. unwritten tradition) is a claim, then the question in the OP might be, "Could Pythagoras have taught calculus?"

The Buddha didn't teach karmamudra. Read the Pali canon, in which the whole doctrine is laid out.

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


text:
Questions from 21-st century's Milinda
The Lotus Sutra’s parable of the burning house imagines inhabitants of a house in fire. They do not register the dangerous situation and therefore  “the thought of getting out does not occur to them”.
Later on, the Lotus Sutra ascribes the following comment to Buddha: “Even there, in that threefold universe that is like a burning house, they enjoy themselves and run about. For though they are being afflicted by a great deal of suffering, the thought that they are suffering does not occur to them.”
I imagine a 21-st century Milinda brought up in critical thinking. He is alike to the elder Milinda in his attitude of questioning, but - different from him – today’s Milinda is not willing to accept a bunch of metaphors as a sufficent answer.
21-st century Milinda has no remembrance of past lifes. He does not expect a future life. In addition, he has learned to accept: Present life is not arranged to primarily satisfy human wishes. He asks his modern "Nagasena":

If I do not suffer from rebirth: Why worry about rebirth?
If I do not remember any actions in past lifes: Why worry about karma?
If I expect that death - quite naturally - ends the life of all beings: Why worry about nirvana?
I distinguish between questions with answer and questions without: Why strive for enlightenment due to meditation?

This question seems to be steering to a debate (with "21-century milinda" developing further lines of inquiry on the answers). Is there a "modern nagasena" answer that would be an acceptable answer to the quartet above (and this site is useful for that), or are these just a starting point for philosophical discussions (case where this site is ill suited for)?

I'd hazard a guess that if the Ven. Nagasena were around today he might respond with something as follows:
1) Just because you don't know that you have a problem doesn't mean there isn't one.
2) One cannot conclude that something in the past didn't happen just because you don't remember it. For example, I don't have any memories of being an infant or being born but that doesn't mean that I never was.
3) One should be concerned about Nirvana because it is not some sort of prize after death, but a reality that is fully realizable in the here and now.
4) One should strive for enlightenment through meditation because meditation is a necessary part of the spiritual practice. Without it one cannot expect to attain anything.

ad 1: Milindas point are not problems in general but suffering. Suffering is a feeling, hence a subjective quality. Nagasena should not convert Milinda into suffering from the external viewpont of a 3rd person. ad 2. I do not consider it the task of Milinda to refresh his memory. It's Nagasena's task to support his claim about past lifes by positive indications or arguments. Otherwise he could ascribe quite arbitrary events to the biography of Milinda. ad 3: Milinda replies to Nagasena: Have you ever realized Nirvana in your here and now? If yes, please describe and explain your experience.

ad 4: Milinda replies to Nagasena: Do you seriously mean I did not attain anything - experience of life, knowledge, my family and friends - due to my lack of spiritual practice?

@jowehler In Buddhism Dukkha as a feeling is only one kind of Dukkha. All arisen things are Dukkha in the sense of being conditional formations, and thus do not provide a final satisfaction. When clinging is overcome, one is finally satisfied.

@jowehler Nirvana cannot be given a complete description. Even with worldly things, it is not possible to capture experiences meaningfully in words. What can be done however is to explain the means of attaining it, and to let a person try it out for themselves.

@jowehler One's experience of life does lead to a kind of attainment. It leads to a worldly kind of happiness. Buddhism categorizes happiness into three kinds. Worldly happiness, the happiness from cultivating the mind, and the happiness of Nirvana. All of these are indeed kinds of happiness, but they are not equivalent. Without spiritual practice the second two kinds of happiness cannot be attained.

According to my understanding dukkhas are not the facts you name but somebodys feelings - e.g., sufffering - with respect to these facts. Do you agree? ad 3: Milinda asks Nagasena whether he knows nirvana from his own experience. A general statement about the problems of langugage would not meet Milindas point. ad 4: Possibly Milinda considers happiness of mind part of worldly happiness. Every person who likes to investigate the phenomena of our world and to find out explanations feels and knows the happiness of mind. In my opinion this kind of happiness can be attained without any meditation.

@jowehler The term Dukkha has many different layers of meanings. Dukkha as a feeling (Dukkha-vedana, meaning painful feeling) is only one such meaning. Dukkha as a characteristic (dukkha-lakkhana) applies to all realities that arise and cease, including pleasurable ones, so it obviously doesn't mean that all things are painful. Rather the characteristic of dukkha means that all arisen things cannot give a truly satisfying happiness.

@jowehler Happiness of mind is quite distinct from worldly happiness. It is the happiness of a mind that is well concentrated and free from the five hindrances at the very least. Anyone who has touched on it even briefly can tell you that it outstrips even the very highest of worldly pleasures. I know of one monk who encourages people to meditate by saying "It's even better than sex". And it's not that difficult to attain this if you practice meditation seriously.

@jowehler Dukkha-dukkha is pretty much the same as dukkha vedana, correct. But Dukkha-lakhana corresponds with samkhara-dukkha, not with viparinama-dukkha. All arisen things are fabricated (sankhata) from causes and conditions, and the happiness they give is in some way coarse, even with pleasant objects.

Due to your explanation I deleted my last comment. I learn from Walpula that understanding samkhara-dukkha presupposes to understand the whole Buddhist anthropology. This needs some time :-)

1. If I do not suffer from rebirth: Why worry about rebirth?
To think that goal of Buddhism is to stop rebirth is a beginner-level ("hinayana") understanding. The goal of Buddhism is liberation in this very life, liberation by wisdom. Liberation from what? From dukkha, from the three poisons, from the limits of life and death.
2. If I do not remember any actions in past lives: Why worry about karma?
To think that the method of Buddhism is to improve or to get rid of karma is a beginner-level ("hinayana") understanding. The method of Buddhism is removal of mental and emotional obscurations, preconceptions, obsessions, impulses, aversions, irrational expectations, illusions.
3. If I expect that death - quite naturally - ends the life of all beings: Why worry about nirvana?
To think that nirvana is equivalent to non-existence of death is a misunderstanding. Nirvana is the loss of form, which means both an apparent attainment in this very life (either sudden or a result of gradual cultivation), as well as the natural state of things as they are.
4. I distinguish between questions with answer and questions without: Why strive for enlightenment due to meditation?
Because our lives are presumably targeted at happiness (that seems to be the thinking behind our daily choices and efforts) but in the absence of clear understanding of the Big Picture (=Enlightenment) we keep going in circles until we die.

I'm astonished to learn that you, a practitioner of Mahayana, classify Mainstream Buddhism (vulgo Hinayana) a beginner level of Buddhism. ad 1: Most of the goals you describe meet with the goals of enlightenment according to Western philosophical tradition like Hume or Kant, but already Greek enlightenment like Xenophanes or the Sophists. They meet with the goal of psychotherapy. More general, with the goal of education as a means to self-determination. But in a secular context nobody attempts to liberate from the limits of life and death. That's unique to religions like Mahayana.

Andrei: ad 2: Also these goals meet with secular goals. To me the problem seems as follows: Because what some consider deep insights or the way things really are, others consider irrational expectations or an illusion. How to find agreement about the criteria to distinguish one from the other? ad 3: I do not understand (a language problem?) your use of the word attainment: Attainment of what? I also do not understand how the phrase "as well as ... are" is embedded into your last sentence. Could you please repeat your last sentence in a different phrasing? Thank you.

@jowehler, re: entry-level folk Buddhism, this is my understanding of the traditional perspective of Tibetan Buddhism. Re: 2, the proof is in the pudding. Re: 3, attainment of nirvana with remainder, becoming a personal embodiment of emptiness. But also awakening to the eternal fact that nirvana is self-existing emptiness of all forms. Also added an answer to #4.

Andrei, in your first answer ad 2 you write "The method ... is removal of ... irrational expectations, illusions." If that's the message, then the goal is pretty clear. Why mixing it up with a term like karma, which since 2.500 years evokes a lot of conceptual discussion even under followers and scholars of Buddhism? - 'The proof is in the pudding' argues for an evaluation of the Buddhist method: To which degree does it acquire the aforementioned goal? In Europe such an evaluation is required in case the psychotherapeutic method shall be paid by a health insurance coverage.

Andrei, ad 3: Please accept that Milinda, not being a Buddhist practitioner, does not capture the meaning of technical terms like "becoming a personal embodiment of emptiness" or "self-existing emptiness of all forms". Of course, Milinda is able to look up such terms, but he suspects to find several disparate answers. Example: W. Rahula (What the Buddha taught, 1959) explains Nirvana in length. His student R. Gombrich (What the Buddha thought, 2009) writes - referring to Rahula's book - "but even on one topic, nirvana, [I] venture to clarify what I fear is a somewhat muddled presentation."

Karma is a nice heuristical model to explain behavior in terms of its non-obvious results. Are you familiar with the term "technical debt"? It's very difficult to explain how small choices accumulate and lead to systemic issues, hence the need for a metaphor like karma, or technical debt. Same principle is used in physics -- "potential energy" does not really exist, but is a useful concept. But also, form is emptiness and emptiness is form, so it's not like materialistic narrative is real, it's merely yet another schema.

Andrei, I know what is meant by technical debt from my job in software engineering. I never heard the name before - I named the attitude short-term thinking instead of medium-term investement. - Probably one of the best examples from physics, to show how small choices accumulate and lead to systemic issues, are phase transitions. E.g., water freezes and lines up all molecules as ice needlees. - I do not understand why you consider potential energy not really existing. Potential energy is equally important in the Lagrange formalism like any other mechanical energy.

Great. So karma exists in the same sense as technical debt or potential energy.

Andrei, that seems a bold assertion to me! How do you support your thesis? - Existence of potential energy as a technical term means that you enter into the Lagrange formalism the potential energy of the system under consideration as one of your input parameter. Then you solve the Lagrangian equations and get a full description of the mechanical system in question. You can compute a forecast of the system behaviour and compare it with experience. Each step during the application of the term is intersubjectively comprehensible.

Ok I think we are done with this conversation. Until next time. Was my pleasure.

If I do not suffer from rebirth: Why worry about rebirth?
Answer: Everyone suffer here and now. Nobody seems happy. So real end is to end unhapiness!
If I do not remember any actions in past lifes: Why worry about karma?
Answer: You dont have to remember past karma, but the effects you will see now. And because of that you have to worry to do good action here and now to produce good result and ultimate happiness!
If I expect that death - quite naturally - ends the life of all beings: Why worry about nirvana?
Answer: In death fear exist. Fear is great unhapiness. So he die in unhapiness and again reappear in unhappy world. Nirvana is cessation of unhappiness. A state of no death, birth, old age or feeling of separation.

ad 1: Please note, the question is not about suffering in general, but about  worrying about rebirth. ad 2 (that seems to me the main issue): Where do you know from that fortune and misfortune of present life result from a former life?  ad 3: If death ends the life of all beings, then fear of death happens at most once for each being.

1: Exactely. Even if someone not worry about rebirth, stil he is suffering. In a process he try to eliminate suffering, he eventually knows rebirth exist came as surprise. But know that its not rebirth of you, not other, nor both. Rebirth is another name for becoming. Like pant from seed. 2: From our ignorance! 3: Death is wonderful thing for the awakened and equally opposite for other.

Annihilationism
One reason to worry is that annihilationism (the belief that death ends all) leads to materialism (the belief that 'physics and chemistry' are all there is) leads to hedonism (the belief that it's right to take pleasure in the here-and-now because that's all there is -- 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die'").
Or (less likely), materialism might lead to asceticism: 'what's the point of enjoying this life etc.?'
The problem is that either extreme (hedonism or asceticism) leads to suffering; whereas, to end suffering (even in this life), what you should look for is e.g. restraint, equanimity, love, wisdom, honesty, and so on.
Suffering
The first Noble Truth is that "suffering exists." What are you going to to about it?

Deny it exists? (naive optimism)
Passive resignation and acceptance? (pessimism)
Seek to justify it? (rationalization)
Make some effort to end it, to overcome it? (3rd and 4th noble truths)

IMO Buddhism is supposed to help you in this life: when you and your friends and family are poor, sick, and dying.
Self
Another reason to worry, is that statements like "I do not suffer from rebirth" implies that you think there is an "I", i.e. a "self". Saying that the "I" is destroyed at death might imply that the "I" exists before death, which may be an example of a wrong view.
Fruits
In the Samaññaphala Sutta the King listed to the description of Annihilationism given by Ajita Kesakambali, but did not find it satisfying ... found it fruitless.

good answer, why deleted?

I wasn't sure it was a good answer. It doesn't answer jo's specific questions, e.g. "why care about kamma?" It tries to answer a more general question, e.g. "what's wrong with a materialist/annihilationist view?" and e.g. "why care to practice Buddhism?" And it's IMO quite a theoretical answer. And I'm not sure that I answer any follow-on questions jo might ask me. But, ok, I undeleted it so feel free to criticize this answer now.

@Chris. I agree with you that your answers do not always address the specific question of Milinda. But I also agree with Andrei: This should not be a reason to delete your answers :-) In my opinion "materialism" is a fighting word from 19. century. Also hedonism and ascetisms are labels rather to end a discussion than to exchange arguments. Of course I agree that your list comprises desirable properties of a human person. My own stance concerning your alternatives to cope with suffering: A selection from alternatives 2-4, depending on the circumstances and the kind of suffering.

@Chris. I assume that you too use the word and the concept of "I"; see the beginning of your reply to Andrei :-) My understanding of anatta: 'anatta' meaning self-is-not-an-essence-or-entity is misunderstood as self-does-not-exists-at-all. (See "Galin, David: The concept of 'self' and 'person' in Buddhims and Western psychology (2001)". You can google the author) That's what Buddha wanted to emphasize. Of course the "I" of a person changes during life. But there is an enduring identity, my personal memory. It is the memory which explains both change and identity.

:-) Hedonism and asceticism are words which the Buddha used to introduce the Middle Way (between extremes), immediately/even before he began to first explain the Four Noble Truths. If your question were only "Why worry about the past and future?" that would remind me of this story about the Sermon on the Mount. But a converse, a thing to worry about, a reply to an over-optimistic "There's nothing, never anything, to worry about", might be this story.

The "desirable properties of a human person" might not follow from a view that "nothing matters because we're all going to die" (extinctionism), nor that "nothing matters because we're never going going to die" (eternalism). The desirable properties aren't incompatible with your "why worry?" view but also not necessarily implied by that view. Like a doctor must deal with gross injury (a gaping wound) before going on to promote further health, perhaps the Buddha needed to start with some basics like, "Look, guys, there's 'cause and effect' exists in the world" and "What you do matters" etc.

@jowehler Ah, the view that "the enduring identity is my personal memory". I remember someone who had several tragic, traumatic experiences when she was young. Those experiences affected her memories (e.g. PTSD flashback), and her "view" (of other people, of her relationship with the world). I wanted to say to her, "those tragic events are finished, past" ... grieve, but 20 or 30 years afterwards your memories shouldn't be continuing to make you suffer like that, shouldn't consume you: live in the present, see the new reality...

... I wanted to say, "you are not your memories" in the same way you might say to someone, "you are not your bank account." The view that "identity is memory" might see "I" as past, passive, imperfect narrative ('my story'), more than as a present agent ('my view/intention/effort' etc.) with a finished past.

@Chris: I agree that Buddha emphasized the rule of cause and effect which I consider one of our most important heuristics. But in my opinion Buddha spoiled a lot of this insight when he mixed it with the conception of karma and rebirth. The latter are Brahmin and Jain conceptions of Buddhas time and society which he overtook without questioning. For a historical evaluation, please see "Gombrich, Richard: What the Buddha thought. Chap. 3 and 4".

@Chris: I hold the view that our memory determines our present state of mind to a high degree. Does not your example support this view? It is hard work to release a client from her traumatic experience. In general, you need the help of an expert in psychotherapy. Today's question in the context of neuroscience and philosophy of mind is the relation free will - determinism. A possible solution is complicated by the fact that the origin of our decisions are unconscious. Only the final conscious part of the decision is sensed as my free decision: I sense myself as the agent of my decision.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Do you maintain that there is no suffering that comes from being born?
If actions are going to hit back, would you not care about choices you're making here & now out of responsible goodwill towards yourself in the future? Even here & now you should already be well aware of the fact that good things often come from restraint and responsibility.
If you maintain that death is the end of experience, you're not going to worry about nirvana. But the doctrine says that this view is wrong.
You strive for awakening to the deathless because it is said to be the end of all suffering.

I'm afraid, Sadhana, for not responding to your examples 2 and 3. That's not the level I want to discuss Milinda's questions. ad 1: All human experiences are a consequence of being born. You focus on one, but blend all others out. ad 4. Sorry, I do not understand your sentence. My death will end all my life. In particular it ends any suffering. But that's a trivial conclusion.

@jowehler I didn't mean 2 and 3 in any negative or derogatory way. Hopefully by the time you read this, I'll have edited with more a acceptable analogy so you could ask your questions. Regarding 1, yes, the focus is on this one thing indeed. Also, considering birth is not necessarily human, it may be the case that it's the dominant result. Regarding 4, it's a trivial conclusion only if you assume that death is the end of your experience, which the Buddha said isn't the case.

@jowehler Any more questions?

ad 3: Milinda asks about Buddhism from an external stance. Hence he is not quite happy with a confirmation like "But the doctrine says". He reminds Nagasena to the Kalama Sutta (AN IV,65): "You know that you can’t place complete trust in the traditions that have been handed down to you, or in this or that particular lineage, or in what you hear from others, or in one or another collection of texts." ad 4: And he is not happy with the confirmation "the Buddha said". He reminds Nagasena to Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47). It is often considered a request to examine by oneself the teachings of Buddha.

@jowehler Indeed. As in the Kalama sutta, not only scriptures are to be viewed this way, but also going by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability... Given that you are presented with something which may be valuable to you, it's your responsibility to test it out. Now what would make someone believe that death is not the end rather than believe that it is? A Safe Bet, for instance.

@jowehler If one believes that death is the end, there is no worrying about it. But that's one's belief, and if one is to get advice from the Buddha, he would say that their belief is mistaken. From that point on, the ball's in their court as to their wager.

The point of 'The safe bet' has a parallel in Christian philosophy: Blaise Pascal's bet on the existence of god. But I reject to decide questions about facts by an attitude of opportunism. - A Nagasena adhering to all(!) prescriptions of Kalama Sutta cannot even trust on logical inference. This ends every discussion. Nagasena were free to make any claim and to request his dialogue partner to confirm or refute by himself the statement. That's not exchanging arguments.

@jowehler The words directed at the Kalamas in that paragraph describe a solid method of knowing, not a method for finding out what's worth trying to learn. In that sutta, he then talks about greed, anger, and delusion, as things which are best avoided in the search for freedom, based on the listeners' own personal experience. The Safe Bet here, unlike other "safe bets," is one that doesn't contradict reason.

I did not claim that the safe bet contradicts reason. I claim: It recommends an attitude of opportunism.

@jowehler From the dictionary entry of opportunism: the taking of opportunities as and when they arise, regardless of planning or principle. But isn't this exactly the opposite? Planning in case optimism doesn't come along?

Opportunism means to me to hold that view which promises the most benefit. - I do not see a relation between opportunism and optimism. - What about to return to Milinda's quartet of questions? In my opinion we now have touched all four.

@jowehler Indeed the promises of the Dhamma & Vinaya are to be seen in just this way: a promise that, if followed through, will give the most benefit. What else is on Millinda's mind? :) Or was he not satisfied with one of the answers?

21-st century Milinda will not ask Nagasena to accept him as a “true convert from today onwards”. He prefers a naturalistic world view. A model which clearly defines its scope. He prefers testable theories. He distrusts theories where the experts mainly discuss the fundamental concepts. Instead of applying the theory for explanation and creating new ideas . 21-st century Milinda trusts in logic, but starts explanation from experience.

He claims that we never know how things really are. He even denies that this is a meaningful claim. He does not strive for certainty, but adheres to ‘let’s content ourselves with hypotheses’: 21-st Milinda is convinced by Popper’s method of critical rationalism.

@jowehler My humble opinion is that 21st century's Milinda is right on point on this one.What things "really are" or whether they exist or not is even categorized in the canon as a writhing of views, a fetter of views.Though I also hope Milinda recognizes that his well-being is a subject of much greater importance than any contemporary mathematical theory of the universe, and hence learn to separate the two out, with clear preference for the former.Also, I hope that he recognizes that the Dhamma exclusively offers testable theories; which, unfortunately, one can only verify for him/her self.

tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue. -- DN 11

OP: If I do not suffer from rebirth: Why worry about rebirth?

It's not about your rebirth into another womb that you should be worried about in the near future. Rather, it's the rebirth of your personhood that happens everyday, that you should consider. The person that experienced some suffering yesterday, today and will continue to experience suffering in the future, for the course of his or her natural life.

OP: If I do not remember any actions in past lifes: Why worry about karma?

You're absolutely right. You don't have to worry about what you did in a previous life. Rather, you have to worry about what you're doing today and tomorrow. If you don't take care of your health, you become ill. If you lie and deceive others, people will not trust you in future. If you break the law, you will be punished by law enforcers. What you think, speak and do today, reflects what effects you will experience tomorrow. That's karma.

OP: If I expect that death - quite naturally - ends the life of all beings:
Why worry about nirvana?

It's suffering that you experience everyday and into the future that you should consider. Nirvana is freedom from this suffering.
Death may end life, but it doesn't end suffering. Suffering continues, for as long as ignorance continues. It's not my suffering or your suffering. It's just suffering.

OP: I distinguish between questions with answer and questions without:
Why strive for enlightenment due to meditation?

Why? To end suffering, of course. If you're physically sick, you may see the doctor, consume medicine and, rest and recuperate. If you're spiritually suffering, you may see the Buddha, consume his medicine of the Noble Eightfold Path, including meditation, then relax and learn to let go of your suffering, clinging, craving and ignorance.

This reminds me a bit of that old joke about the guy who falls off the observation deck of a skyscraper. As he goes down past the 30th floor someone leans out a window and asks him how he's doing, to which he replies: "So far, so good..."
It's easy to live in a bubble where we ignore or dismiss cause and effect; one might even say it's natural. Someone can climb into their Tesla supercar, crank up the music, and boom down the road at twice the speed limit sealed up in their own technological ego-space. They will never hear the squealing tires and crunching fenders of freaked-out drivers they've left in their wake, and never see the hapless pedestrian or unexpected delivery van they will eventually crash into. Inside that little bubble all is right with the world, at least until the outside world intervenes.
You can dismiss future lives and past lives if you like — they  are not part of my worldview either — but you cannot dismiss continuation itself. The past bleeds into and through you by genetics, culture, upbringing, social conditioning, etc; you bleed into and through the future by imposing your self on others the way you were imposed on by other selves. Any limits you want to put on that continuous flow — even birth and death — are arbitrary constructions: the edges of an imagined bubble your ego finds comfortable.
Asserting that some questions have (definitive) answers and other don't, and assumedly clinging to the first while ignoring the second... That's another edge of that bubble.
The Buddhist paradigm effaces the edges of that bubble, and effaces the imagined self that bubble defines. What happens then is a question you won't get a definitive answer to.

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


text:
Anapanasati Buddhist meditation
So I thought I really need to ask this question about Buddhist meditation specifically, Anapanasati. Basically I sit cross legged and count breaths for 15 minutes as advised on the Internet for beginners. Correct me if I am wrong but I think I might be overdoing my breathing towards probably the last 5 minutes. The breathing becomes heavy and I work harder to take deeper breaths . And I feel some sort of stiffness in my mouth and neck. And at the end of 15 minutes, I wake? Or get up all giddy (probably due to the heavy breaths) and feeling something out of this world for a while like say a minute.
Is this the way you're supposed to feel after doing a Anapanasati? Because it feels so odd probably due to the processes the brain undergoes during heavy breathing or rather forced heavy breathing. Would like some insights from meditation practitioners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5CJLKTn47k
A small video explaining Anapansati by Late Ven S N Goenka...also may be inspiration to go for Vipassana meditation

It is more gentle than that. Consider the first tetrad of anapanasati:

Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long';
or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'
Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short';
or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

And the second:

He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.'

Emphasis are mine. These are strong hints.
From my understanding, stiffness, rigidity, force should be absent -- only the minimum should be allowed so one doesn't fall on the ground, or sleep; any small amount of extra effort disturbs the mind.

Cripes!  Don't do that!  Anapanasati isn't controlled breathing as in yoga or some forms of Taoist meditation.  All you are supposed to be doing is watching the breath.  Notice short breaths as short breaths, long breaths as long breaths.  Experience breathing in and out.  But by no means should you try to control your breath.  Mindfulness is the exact opposite of control!  Let breathing just be breathing.

Just breath naturally. Controlling the breath is a different practice all together called Pranayama, and that is generally a Hindu practice. In Anapanasati, the breath shouldn't be controlled or forced but will slowly calm down all on its own. Eventually breathing becomes very slow and shallow, but in order to get there you have to learn to let go and let the breath 'do its own thing' and just watch.
Also, make sure that you are keeping your attention on the breathing rather than the counting. I personally recommend only using counting at the beginning of a meditation session and when the mind becomes distracted, but not the whole time.

The idea of using counting just as a focal starting point when beginning and when focus is lost and then letting the counting drift away is a really helpful tool - thank you Bakmoon for this suggestion.

All these experiences you get are due to fabrications.
You should actively calm the fabrication. To do that:

If you have a pleasant / unpleasant sensation somewhere bring it to your attention for a while - initially just bringing it to your attention will not make it go away but later stages it will just pass away
When you mind wanders a way just before brining it to the subject asses the sensations around your head and body
When focused on the breath focus on all aspects of the breathing. Duration and start to stop
Focus on particular bodily sensation (expansion / contraction and oxygenating) with no imagination or verbalisation of sensations related to the breathing
Focus on the mind wondering and thinking and try to focus on the breath exclusively to reduce verbal fabrication
Focus on sensations resulting from metal states or content and sensations resulting from perception and outlook of the world you have. Note biggest source of misery is the perception of oneself.
Initially you will have gross solidified sensation in your body. By bringing them to your attention they will pass away. Then you will have pleasant sensations. By being attentive to them without missing any part of the body they also will pass away leaving neutral sensation.

Also note meditating 15 minutes may be inadequate. At least do 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening / night. If possible more.

This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. Meditate one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. This regular, daily practice is essential. At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.
...
When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful.
...
Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

Okay I will try some more and pay attention. Thank you.

I apologize for making an answer that should be a comment but I don't have enough rep to comment. My teacher always says that, in general, you should feel good after practicing meditation. His rule of thumb is that if you feel good, clear-minded, and refreshed, you are probably doing it right. If you feel dull, sluggish, or worse than when you started, you are probably doing it wrong and may be causing insidious harm. It sounds to me like you need to work on following the three golden rules. Best of luck!

I'm not sure about insidious harm; about the worse that will happen is that you will over practice bad technique and maybe over oxygenate your blood.  And while it is true that you will usually feel good afterwards, that is not always the rule.  All the same, that is fairly sound advice.

Given the link to those "three golden rule", perhaps the "may be causing insidious harm" is from the perspective of Qigong beliefs/practice.

@ChrisW Yes, that is correct. There is much overlap between qigong and meditation as they are both a training of energy and mind. Practicing them incorrectly can cause insidious harm to these systems. If you do not believe in energy or mind, please feel free to ignore this.

I like to practice a Tai Chi form, and I like breathing. And I liked your answer, that if the practice makes you feel worse then maybe you're doing it wrong. But I did want to mention that "insidious harm" is, really, something of a Qigong belief -- I learned a bit of what Wikipedia describes as "Chinese Medical Qigong" or "Daoist Qigong", and at least according to that IMO Qigong's focusing on benefit to the body needn't be confused with the OP's asking "about Buddhist meditation specifically".


text:
Is Buddha a Man or Woman?
Was Buddha a Man or Woman?
Was he/she sometimes know as a man and sometimes as a woman?
Why was he/she sometimes know as a man and sometimes as a woman?
What was his/her real gender?
Give proof please.

He was a guy. What makes you think anyone thinks differently? Are you referring to celestial Buddhas or the historical Buddha? Are you confounding God (other religions) with the Buddha (a religion rather divergent from Christianity)?

May be a duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3322/can-the-buddha-ever-be-a-woman

You said "is Buddha" (using the present tense, not "was"), so does that mean you are not asking about the historical Buddha? It's difficult to be sure of what you are asking about. Is your question related to Why does the Buddha appear androgynous in some depictions? Or to Andrei's answer about gender?

The answer to this question has a lot of things that change the answer, depending on whom you ask. It would depend on which Buddha we're talking about, which lineage, which region, which culture, and which set of histories we're willing to accept as historical fact. As such, there is no singular answer which could possibly suffice.
The Buddha, historically, was male: his name was Siddhartha Gautama and his title was Shakyamuni because he was a prince and later king of his tribe in Nepal. He called himself "Buddha" because it connotes being awakened by light. As such, anyone who has reached this level of personal and spiritual evolution is considered to be "a Buddha".
In some lineages, female Buddhas exist; in most, all Buddhas are required to be male.
In some cultures, the mere idea of a female Buddha is offensive; in others, the idea is acceptable; and in still others, the idea that anyone has a problem with that at all is offensive.
In some histories, there is acceptance of the story of Guanyin (also called Kwan Yin), who is sometimes called the "Medicine Buddha". But she is also considered a goddess of healing and a Taoist immortal, among a few other highly-regarded titles.
One of the teachings of the Buddha is to overcome preconceptions. If we're bound to the idea that only men can become Buddha, it would make sense that the Buddha might reincarnate as a female to try to teach this idea, perhaps after being a male who seeds the idea.
Again, there are so many, many ideas out there about this that there is no singular correct answer. And so to answer, I would just write: "it's not outside of the realm of possibilities, either way".

Well, of course, we are talking about the old Buddhism.

"Old Buddhism" meaning the original Buddha? Actually, there was no "Buddhism" until more than a century after the Buddha's death... it was merely a branch of Hindu philosophy, and the Buddha was a highly-regarded swami and a guru. There was never an intent for separation on the part of Gautama.

Sounds like a koan. Are you a hidden Zen master? ;) "Is Buddha a man or woman?" -- "Buddha is awesome!" :)
Seriously, Buddha is your own true nature, how can it be limited to gender?

A vote that this be the accepted answer :)

I like it better than my own answer, as well. Mine explained a lot of intellectual garbage, but this one is far more to the point.

Guys, it's really ok to make your own religion. However, while the original teachings of a person is still available, isn't it rather peculiar to modify it in weird ways and call it his teachings? This is similar to gossip which change from mouth to mouth. Good luck with that kind of following!

Buddha is not a man or a woman. Those are aggregates. Buddha is beyond words or descriptions.
https://www.facebook.com/suzukiroshi

Just to sit is much better than to see all the buddha in the world
  [laughs].

The only proof is experience. There is no convincing anyone.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/shunryu_suzuki.html

If you cannot bow to Buddha, you cannot be a Buddha. It is arrogance.
  Shunryu Suzuki

When you preach something, it is better to call it your own and give it your own name if it deviates from what the original source says, especially when there is written evidence. Falling short, one might appear to lack any originality or understanding.

Buddha is a title for any being who after much compassionate work as a bodhisattva, achieves Buddahood. (This begs the important, approachable question what is a bodhisattva? Not meant to be asked, but researched.)
A Buddha does not enter Nirvana until all beings are saved.
The original Buddha of our little planet Earth was Shakyamuni Buddha, male inheritor of the Shakya kingdom. He was also known as Gautama, especially by the Hindus.

Why is this answer up-voted if the question is down-voted? I think if the answer is as logical as this, then the question is logical too, and therefore a good one and doesn't deserve to be so harshly received.

Because it is just a definition question

And there are many times where a question is ill formed but the answerer fills the need. There is also the opposite, a brilliant question which is far more beautiful than any answer..

I think I understand.

One has to understand this: "Buddha" because it connotes being awakened by light. The word Buddha doesn't even makes mention of male or female. Both may become enlightened and both can be awakened by Light. Such is the writings and mantras and such are as if like alien from the higher consciousness we must reach and to go through all those prayers, rituals, etc to reach that higher consciousness or just accept of which there is a lot within the writings of such the word 'acceptance'. Remember, just like many beings throughout history had many encounters and raised up a religion or as they say, enlightened. taught by Beings from the days of Egypt and so on. The Encounter brought about a great deal of information and if you notice, they speak about the goddess not a male. The male, the Buddha reach a higher consciousness by the contact with this female or so if it was, from another world/your alien is and has always been here. saved many documentations of the past and shared it with beings on this earth or to whom they considered they like to share. Namaste. "Know Thyself"

Though is modern times this might seem controversial Bahu Dhātuka Sutta mentions certain things a woman cannot achieve:

He understands that it is impossible, there is no chance, that a woman would become a worthy
  fully self awakened one—this is not possible.
And he understands that it is possible, there is the chance, that a man would become a worthy fully
  self-awakened—this is possible.
He understands that it is impossible, there is no chance, that a woman would become a universal
  monarch—this is not possible.
And he understands that it is possible, there is the chance, that only a man would become a universal
  monarch —this is possible.
He understands that it is impossible, there is no chance, that a woman would attain the state
  of Sakra—this is not possible
...

For more comparative discussion on this matter see: On Women’s Inabilities by Piya Tan and The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels On Women’s Inabilities by Ven. Anālayo

The Buddha was a man. I have no idea why everyone is trying to dodge obvious conceptual truth. I don't need an argument for this just like I don't need an argument for the fact that the Earth is round.

I would like to answer your question with a quote on the Buddha. The quote is from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 32-33:

"... So special was He and so electrifying His message, that many people asked Him ‘What (not so much Who) He was’. The question of ‘Who He was’ would be with respect to His name, origin, ancestry, etc., while ‘What He was’ referred to the order of beings to which He belonged. So ‘godly’ and inspiring was He that even during His time, there were numerous attempts by others to turn Him into a god or a reincarnation of a god. He never agreed to be regarded as such. In the Anguttara Nikaya, He said: ‘I am indeed not a deva nor any other form of divine being; neither am I an ordinary human being. Know ye that I am the Buddha, the Awakened One.’ After Enlightenment, the Buddha could no longer be classified even as a
  ‘manusya’ or an ordinary human being. He belonged to the Buddha wangsa, a special class of enlightened beings, all of whom are Buddhas.
Buddhas appear in this world from time to time. But some people have the mistaken idea that it is the same Buddha who is reincarnated or appears in the world over and over again. Actually, they are not the same person, because then there would be no scope for others to attain to Buddhahood. Buddhists believe that anyone can become a Buddha if he develops his qualities to perfection and is able to remove his ignorance completely through his own efforts. After Enlightenment, however, all Buddhas become identical in their attainment and experience of Nirvana."

So you see that "Man or Woman" do not really apply here. They are just a variation of the 1st aggregate of material form. They belong to conventional reality which deals with concepts.

i think buddha is peace and harmony. something all men and women in the world should strive to be

Hello David and welcome to Buddhism.SE. Answers with more detail will generally be more helpful. We've put together some tips on how to get started here

This is just an opinion. I believe a that a Buddha does not have a gender and I say this because of what I have learnt from the Agganna Sutta where the brahmas did not have a gender and their mental deterioration caused humans to come to being. A Buddha is someone who is beyond the brahmas in terms of intelligence and so on. So I think a Buddha does not have a gender

Only a male person can become a Lord Buddha. Even when fulfilling Paramitha in Bodhisattva state, Lord Buddhas give Niyatha wiwarana to the Bodhisattva. To give the Niyatha Viwarana also, Bodhisattva must be a male. If female wish to become Buddha, first she has to wish to be a male and start completing Paramitha. (Any female can become male in next life with pathi Bakthi(do not break 3rd precept) and with the wish to become a male).

Why even go there?

Given that the Dhamma lacks Absolute distinction, where can a definitive line between 'woman' and 'man' be drawn, in such a way as to forbid one from the attainments of the other?

This is what is an example of eastern absurdity. You just heard about it never gave it a thought before writing it. Male attributes are required to be a Buddha because a Buddha is a preacher. A woman cannot preach because of introversion. Modern woman is an extrovert therefore has male attributes to be a Buddha.

@Shashank Khare. I don't write anything just because I have seen it. I write things what Load Buddha has said. I think you are in angry with Eastern Philosophy. Before blame on someones teachings first learn it. otherwise you show your foolishness to the world.

I was born and brought up with Eastern ethos and absurdity. One such absurdity is the authority by which Eastern people speak. Word "Buddha" does not represent a person. It represents a path to know the ultimate. "Lord Buddha" means nothing if you are using it as a noun to put a stamp on your words. Only fanatics go by words not by essence. You are a prime example of what is wrong with all religions of the world. Religious people debate not discuss because they memorize words not actualize them.

@Shashank Khare, Knowing basics of Physics doesn't make you good at everything. as I said previously just learn Buddhism, then put answers. Word "Buddha" is not represent path to know ultimate, it is state of Ultimate that a person can have.

Why should I learn Buddhism? It is a religion for people who have not experienced the state. I am not good at even basic Physics. But I have experienced what you have not. All Buddhists do is to learn like parrot Buddha's Sutta, never actualizing it. Buddhahood is the state I guess you are talking about. I am talking about understanding Buddha to experience the spiritual aspect of your being. Be silent for a day and you will know it. Do not write, discuss, debate Buddhism for few days and live like a person who does not know anything. You will experience something beyond words.Hope this help.

authors: ʇolɐǝz ǝɥʇ qoq


text:
How do taboo acts work in tantra if people don't see the acts as taboo?
Tantric rituals harness the power/engergy of taboo acts by including either actual or visualizations of alcohol, meat and sex into the ritual.
In that system, does it still work if people don't actually believe that there is anything wrong with drinking alcohol, eating meat or sex?  Also, maybe I just am not familiar with tantra, but this list is 3 out of five of the five precepts. Do tantric rituals also harness the power of theft and killing?

are you counting eating meat as breaking one of the 5 precepts?

True, as discussed elsewhere, most sects don't make meat a 1st precept violation. Maybe they have to track down some meat that was specifically slaughtered for them, while they watched and listened to it happen.

Tantric symbolism is always multifaceted. Although a lot of the imagery in Tantra is very taboo, there's more to it than just shock value. For example, the five nectars of urine, feces, menses, semen, and bone marrow aren't visualized in a skull-cup as an offering because they are transgressive, but because they represent the five aggregates, and refering to them as nectar represents that for an enlightened being they are innately pure. Even if someone doesn't find any particular part of Tantra to be taboo, they still would make sense in terms of their other symbolic aspects.

I don't see tantra as "harnessing the power/energy of taboo acts". First, working with controversial subjects like alcohol, meat, sex, theft, lying, and killing is a relatively small part of tantra, I would say no more than 1/10th or even 1/20th, people just tend to exaggerate it. Second, I don't believe these subjects are worked in order to harness their taboo energy, but rather to help the practitioner go beyond some of the deeper-lying preconceptions that may be hiding in the dark corners of psyche easily accessible through controversial means.
For example, if someone has residual anxiety of emotional intimacy and openness, sex may be prescribed as a practice that involves direct open contact with another person. Same with drinking feasts, which may be prescribed as a practice of sincere communication etc.
There is also symbolic/metaphorical component to tantra as @Bakmoon said. In this line of thinking, "having sex with everything that moves" symbolizes "naked" (open, sincere) engagement with the world and "killing one's father" symbolizes abandoning the tendency to self-judge and watch oneself in favor of trusting one's fundamental sanity.


text:
Who were the wise in the Buddha's discourses?
When the Buddha said: "Censured or praised by the wise?" In a few suttas, when talking about right actions, who exactly were those wise?

just regular wise people, why?

I thought he could be referring to the Sangha only, or the Bhramins only, I don't know, but you can be right...

According to the commentaries:

buddhādīhi viññūhi pasatthattā viññuppasatthāni

"The state of being praised by the wise, starting with the Buddha, [makes them] praised-by-the-wise."
In general, the word viññū just means someone with wisdom. The idea here is that the wiser the person is, the more likely they are to praise that which is worthy of praise and censure that which is worthy of censure.

That phrase is found in, for example, the Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas.
The introduction, to that sutta, talks about having wise friends:

[...] Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16-17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice. For further thoughts on how to test a belief in practice, see MN 61, MN 95, AN 7.79, and AN 8.53. For thoughts on how to judge whether another person is wise, see MN 110, AN 4.192, and AN 8.54.

An example of that phrase being used, in the sutta, is,

When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

So perhaps we should see the phrase in three or four ways:

As an abstraction -- "Praised by the wise" is synonym of "wise", "criticized by the wise" is a synonym of "unwise" (e.g. "these properties are unskillful, blameworthy, unwise").
I also read it as being, possibly, a rhetorical device (e.g. "the wise criticize it, and you want to be with or like the wise, so you should criticize it too").

As companions -- "The wise" are ... well I think you're supposed to know who the wise are, within your community. If you don't know, maybe your parents or teacher or best friend can tell you who they are, or the introduction suggests how to judge whether a person is wise.

As self -- "We" are supposed to be wise. The sutta says, "When you know for yourselves that..."

As Buddha -- In context, "the wise" are (by definition) whoever agrees with (and practices) what the Buddha is saying.


text:
How does one become victim of one's own Karma?
I understand Karma as describing habitual mind patterns which cause one to behave impulsively according to certain mental predispositions conditioned by previous actions and intentions.
My question is how does Karma work in situations of violence/abuse. I understand how a perpetrator of violence or abuser is more likely to commit violence or abuse towards another person later in this life or in the next life.  However, I do not understand how the abuser would through this violent behavior be more vulnerable to become a victim of this type of violence.
In short, how does the Karma (habit energy) one builds up as a perpetrator cause one to fall on the other side of the equation (to become a victim)?

Karma is facilitated by emptiness. Because we are empty of essence, each choice and action you make leaves an imprint on your mind that, like all things, decays over time. So, if you make a negative action, you leave a negative imprint on your mind. Now, since we are empty of essence, you are more likely to perform actions with similar characteristics to the ones you have performed before. The more negative actions you choose to make, the more negative and troubled you become. This is why mindfulness and all the right stuff (view, speech, etc) is crucial. You have no nature other than what you choose and what you surround yourself with. If you let all that negativity build up by not being mindful of your actions and choosing rightly, you're going to have a lot of work to do towards purification.
Now, how does that relate to others in the way you're asking? Well it turns out that everything is empty of essence. Therefore beyond your mind, you leave an imprint on the world with similar characteristics as your actions, thus encouraging others to act in a similar way. And since you're inseparable from this gloriously intertwined existence, you are likely to reap what you've sewn.

good clear answer, +1

Karma literally means action or causality. The Buddha's doctrine of karma is that your own intentional actions determine your own results, and thus when you look for refuge you should look at your own intentional actions right here & now.
It is said that the outcome of your actions do not necessarily entail the same exact thing happening to you, but that skillful karma leads to pleasant results while unskillful karma leads to unpleasant results, down the line.

While I don't dispute your post, I wanted to point out that another translation of the word karma to English is the word causality ... the idea that competent action brings desirable results while incompetent action brings undesirable results.

The answer to your question boils down to the answer to the following question: Is it me or someone else paying karma for my sins?
Essentially, individual karma is a simplified model, useful to beginners but somewhat misleading. Karma is simply action and its resulting circles on the water of experience, with not-yet-manifested result "stored" in the form of intermediate already-manifested result. Some of that is "stored" as effect on the so-called "mind", and some as effect on the so-called "objective" world. If we discount the delineation of independent agents (which too is a simplified model), what remains is action and its experienced result, both the action and the experience usually appropriated as "mine". To ask whether it is the same "me" or a different "me" is meaningless because this "me" does not exist in the first place.
More practically, one becomes victim of one's own karma (e.g. violence) by shaping the circumstances that tend to be conducive to the same karma being repeated. Because karma and its circumstances are two sides of the same coin, one produces the other. For example, by making violence part of one's life one shapes circumstances in which violence is more likely to occur, which increases the chances of one becoming its victim.

I hope you read this answer first
How Karma is get paid

When person is doing a Karma it is done among 17 Naama (karma Ruupa). Energy to transmit to next Ruupa is generated by 7 Jawan Naamas created in karma Ruupa(Ruupa that consist of Karma).
Then when appropriate environment is there for get punished (Punishment can be good or bad due to the chethana(Intention) chithasika(Aspect, attribute of Nama) in the Karma Ruupa).
It will generate Karma wipaka(Result) Ruupa according to the chethana chithasika that consist of feelings to the creature appropriate to chethana.
So it matters only time to generate Karma wipaka when Karma is done.

Karma is a concept older than Buddhism, however Buddha changed it a little bit.
In Hinduism for example, Karma is the action and you will suffer the consequences of your actions, the change Buddha did is that he said Karma is created by the mind, so thoughts can create bad Karma and bad actions (without intention) do not create bad Karma, so the focus changed from the real action to the mind/intentions.
The Vipaka (consequences) have nothing to do with habits, the more you do the more you will face consequences, however Karma is not created only because of repetition.
In your example, who does the bad action you suffer the bad consequences, not the victim that is probably paying/purifying a past Karma.


text:
Is it me or someone else paying karma for my sins?
According to Buddhism, is it me who is getting punished or rewarded in next life for my deeds in this life?

It works exactly like today, you may be paying for something you (your mindstream) did in a previous life. If you don't like it, don't do bad things

But it's not really exactly like today at all, is it. If I, today, suffer the negative consequences of an action I performed last month, then today's "I" feels like the same thing as last month's "I" (whether they are the same is irrelevant -- they feel the same). By contrast, if I, today, suffer the negative consequences of an action I performed in a past life, then the action and consequence do not even feel like the same thing. So much so that it is reasonable to ask if the "I" in the past life is the same thing as the current "I". I think that's what the OP is asking about.

Neither You nor Anyone else.
It is not you, because you are dying and reborning with very very short time period all the time we live in Sansara. It is not anyone else because the result taker is a anyway a  part of the series of dying and reborning cycle.
To understand this you have to understand components of a creature.
maximum number of components that a creature can have are two. They are body and mind.
minimum number of components that a creature can have is one. That is mind.(Aruupa Brahmas)
(So now at that moment you must realize that there is no soul to a creature.)
In descriptive Abhidhamma, mind is categorized to 4 components as  Vedanā,  Saṃjñā, Saṅkhāra,  Vijñāna.

This image shows the components of the creature without considering time.

Mind is continues flow of born, existence, dying of Naama (Mindlet). mindlet or Naama is the smallest sub component of the mind. 17 mindlets make a mindlet group called Ruupa.

This image shows how Naamas are born, exist and die with transmitting energy to the next Naama.

This image shows the time intervals of one Naama. Naama's born time=exist time= dying time= t1.
 Time interval between Dead Naama and Born start of Naama = t2. So at that very little time there is no visible mind. At that moment only body is exist. This is the thing called as anathma/anatta.

There can be one mindlet in the mind at once.
For a time of blink, trillions of mindlets born, exist and die (So one Naama exist less than nanoseconds).
If creature consists of body and mind combination, it must be considered both to call that as a creature. (At creatures point of view I, my point of view me).
If creature consists of only mind , it must be considered mind to call that as a creature. (At creatures point of view I, my point of view me).
When consider a wheel, engine, chase individually cannot be called as CAR. Likewise, body or mind (When both are there) individually cannot be called as me or I.
This rapid born, existance and deth of Naama can be seen in high meditation levels of vidhardhana meditation.
Now you realize there is no soul or thing that can be called as me because even before a person say me or I there are trillions of born, existence, dying of Naama.
When someone do a Karma, karma is completed in one Ruupa (consecutive 17 Naamas).
After doing the karma that Ruupa is dead. but energy transmitted to next Ruupas.
If creature made karma those Ruupas are dead at 17 Naama's time. So the creature did the karma is dead with Ruupa (But Body didn't dead so actual dead is not visible).
When Karma get punished at proper time the creature's body also can be dead.
When body dies we call it as real death.
When Karma get punished the Ruupas did the karma is dead and body also can be dead.
Karma is also get punished to Ruupas. Ruupas feels the senses according to the Karma.
When Karma is get punished, punished Ruupas are not the Ruupas that done the Karma but Those Ruupas are generated from the same stream of Naama cycle. So Load Buddha have said that the Punished person is Neither You nor Anyone else.

Thank you, for adding all that extra detail! If you copied that from one or sources, would you please say where you copied it from? Partly because it's polite (or perhaps 'fair use') to attribute the source, and partly so that people who are interested can read more from that source.

I haven't copied this from anywhere else my friend.  I have created all these images by my self and wrote this answer by my self. It took 5 hours to put this answer with creating images with graphing tools.

Yes; well done! I went looking for more background information on the technical terms you used. I think it's Wedhana = Vedanā ... Sanskara = Saṅkhāra ... Wignnana = Vijñāna ... and Saggna = Saṃjñā ... i.e. these are four of The five skandhas.

I'm impressed about your enthusiasm towards the Buddhism Chris. The article for five skandas will be very helpful to people who are looking for more information. Thank u so much.

:-) I have improved the article and Images with adding your valuable information.

Thank you. Also "descriptive abidhamma" is maybe the Abhidhamma Pitaka ... naama and ruupa are Namarupa (although I don't know why you say "17" ... maybe it's because "17" is what it says in the Abhidhamma Pitaka) ... and "vidhardhana meditation" is probably vidarshana meditation.

Ah. It's interesting that time t2 is what you identify as anatta/anatman as described here and here.

Thanks for the detailed response. I will let the community decide the proper answer to the question as I am not sure.

@jorel This Preface to the Abhidhamma says, "That consciousness flows like a stream ... becomes extremely clear to one who understands the Abhidhamma. It must be added that an Abhidhamma student can fully comprehend the Anattā (No-soul) doctrine, the crux of Buddhism, which is important both from a philosophical and an ethical standpoint.
The advent of death, process of rebirth in various planes without anything to pass from one life to another, the evidently verifiable doctrine of Kamma and Rebirth are fully explained."

@Chris Descriptive Abhidhamma is Helping books written to describe Abhidhamma. In Sri Lanka there are books in Sinhalese as Abidharma sangrahaya, atuwa and Tiika. They are not available in any other languages.
Naama and Ruupa are two different names. But sometimes they take together to describe other terms. Then they called as NaamaRuupa.
When Naama is creating Ruupa, 17 Naama is capable of perform lest simple task in mind. That's why they are seperated and Named as Ruupa.

Yes.
And No.
Yes as it affects what you then will perceive as 'I'.[1]
No in the sense that a 'you' or 'I' never really existed. [2]
And No in the sense that you are not punished or rewarded. [3]

'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' -- AN 5.57

Yes, according to Buddhism, it's you.

The answer comes in the Acela Sutta (although this quote comes from here). Basically we cannot say that you are paying for your sins, nor that nobody is paying for the sins, as both views take the extreme ends of annihilationism and eternalism. Instead, we should approach it from the perspective of dependent origination.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)"
  (S. XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

so many make it seem like some moral judgment ... and it's not.
karma is NOT some cosmic sense of moral retribution. it is merely the effects of cosmic momentum amidst the gazillions of intertwined cogs and wheels and gears. you do something with negative consequences then gear 2 goes CW driving shaft 4 parallel to cog 3 which turns CCW which affects 1,204,302,750 other cogs to turn CW and 2,340,369 gears to turn CW at 45 degrees et al. THAT is karma.

The Buddha did not teach what the questioner is inferring.
The Buddha kept mundane dhamma & supramundane dhamma distinctly separate, as explained in MN 117 about the two sorts of right view.
The ideas in the question are ideas created by others at later time.
In other words, what is 'reborn' is a 'self' rather than something 'not-self' ('anatta').
'Rebirth' means the re-arising of self-view.
Therefore, what is re-born is always the idea of 'self'.
Please read the suttas, accurately. The suttas always state 'a being' ('satta') or person ('puriso') is subject to rebirth due to their own kamma.

This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am (ahaṃ) not the only one who is the owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
  origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
  the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings (sattā)
  that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
  their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
  kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
  whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’
Upajjhatthana Sutta