text:
What is the Buddhist approach of admitting a mistake?
I just did a mistake while commuting. I told sorry to the person and wished him well in my mind. This brought me to think,

Are there any suttas staring how to go about a mistake done which resulted in hurting another person?

Related: Can bad kammas be eased by apologizing?

Confessing and pardon are very importand matter, as for monks there are even many formal ways to do, which can be appopted by good other communities patly as well.
Generally the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone might be useful.
And in regard of the added related question by Chris, no, addmitting and apologize will not easen or even make deeds and their results undone but it straightens your view and thoughts and allows you to walk on, aside the fact that such is nessesary for any good relation or community.
Something people seldom practice any more, caught in wrong views of having primaly rights and feeling independent.
How ever, it is needed to know what is a wrong deed. If somebody is hurt does not mean that you made something wrong. Such a desire for apologise is then merely founded in ones desire to be liked or in certain ways estimated by others.
So admit should be not used for politics, since such causes confusion of what is right and wrong in communities and relations in long therms.
Feel free to ask more here

Ravindranath Akila in addition:
  I just read the sutta. It is useful to reflect ones own mistake. I'm looking at how I can apologize and make amends. Is there such a way?

Not always. And as told, sometimes its merely a desire in regard of relation to a person. Such desire is human, of coures, but not nessesary skillful. Sometimes beings are no more interested at all. There aversion is theirs. For you it good then to practice good will, not love or desire. A good talk on: Reconciliation, Right & Wrong
While most believe that unity is the highers, Buddhas account was not so. Nothing is worthy to give up real benefical things and he told clearly its better to loses relations, wealth and even health for such things as right view and withdraw from anything else. Why? With the break apart of the body, one would not fall into low existences. The lose of others will come anyway, sooner or later.
We can say that there are three kinds of desire for reconciliation:
Unskilfull: connected with (wrong) fear, desire (for wodlily gain), aversion (caused by desire), not-knowing (that a reconciliation is urgend, for example)
Skillful: connected with (right) fear of wrongdoing, desire (for skillfulness), aversion (of unclear situations and hindrences to walk on), knowing (of what is skilfull and unskilfull)
Beyound: no more desire for any lose or gain and therefore no more seek for reconciiation actively, but accepting apologize.
The skillful can be divided into:
Wordly: to maintain one world an relations
Contuctive for the path to liberation: to maintain a good relation in regard of those worthy to associate.
Of course, in each case, one should always confess mistakes and accept the "punishment" accordingly, and of course one should always investigate ones own actions first and propably seek for advices from admirable friends for certain cases (See talk to Rahula) and Bala-pandita Sutta: Fools & Wise People
Wothy to note! (Since often overseen) There is no need of confessing or reconciliation for mental deeds. Here being ashamed for yourself and lso determination to do not again is enought (is't not part of Sila/Vinaya).
(Good for now, there is no reconciliation with the team here as well as no such as an invitation to share Dhamma, so its just an short fly by.)
An extended and modified answer, builded up on this, can be found here: What is the Buddhas approach of admitting a mistake?
Seeing the necessarity: One may fight lifetimes, spend lifetimes to justify ones deeds, will win and lose for lifetimes again and again, as long there is no real admiting one will not realky progress and do it again and again. Think of how long Devatata and his fellow still turns around and will "win" for many lifetimes birth again and again, and Verdrängen ist nicht Verzeihen (German, you may translate it if you feel inspired)
Requesting Forgiveness
Usually chanted after having made merits:

Kāyena vācāya va cetasā vā, Buddhe kukammaṃ pakataṃ mayā yaṃ,
  Buddho paṭiggaṇhatu accayantaṃ,
  Kālantare saṃvarituṃ va buddhe.
  Whatever bad kamma I have done to the Buddha
  by body, by speech, or by mind,
  may the Buddha accept my admission of it,
  so that in the future I may show restraint toward the Buddha. (Same for Dhamma and Sangha)

I just read the sutta. It is useful to reflect ones own mistake. I'm looking at how I can apologize and make amends. Is there such a way?

Not always. And as told, sometimes its merely a desire in regard of relation to a person. Such desire is human, of coures, but not nessesary skillful. Sometimes beings are no more interested at all. There aversion is theirs. For you it good then to practice good will, not love or desire. A good talk on: Reconciliation, Right & Wrong

Mistakes or misdeeds are so important that the Indian Buddhist monk and scholar Śāntideva (8th century CE) said in his śāstra (treatise) Śikṣāsamuccaya (Compendium of Teachings): "One law serves to summarize the whole of the Mahāyāna: The protection of all beings is accomplished through examination of one's own mistakes."
In the Tibetan traditions, the proper response to mistakes has been summarized in four steps called the four powers at least since the time of Tsongkhapa (14th century CE). The four powers are: (1) confessing or exposing one's misdeed before a witness or support, (2) feeling remorse for having committed the misdeed, (3) vowing not to repeat the misdeed in the future, and (4) taking action to remedy the effects of the misdeed. Exactly which actions should be taken to remedy the effects of the misdeed depends on the particular misdeed and the situation. There are many Tibetan commentaries that discuss these four steps.
Of course, the four powers are completely in accord with what Śākyamuni Buddha taught in the discourses. In the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2), the Buddha says to King Ajātasattu:

Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father—a righteous man, a righteous king—for the sake of sovereign rulership. But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma and Discipline of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.

In the Ambalaṭṭhikārāhulovāda Sutta (MN 61), which another answer already cited, the Buddha says to Rāhula:

Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: "This bodily action I have done—did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?" If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it, you should exercise restraint in the future.

And:

Rāhula, all those brahmans and contemplatives in the course of the past who purified their bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions, did it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions in just this way.

In a book titled Being Upright, the North American Zen teacher Reb Anderson quoted Śāntideva ("The protection of all beings is accomplished through examination of one's own mistakes") and commented:

Confession completely purifies our bodies and minds. Practicing it alone or together with others reawakens the heart of compassion and the appreciation of others' virtues. [...] To me, the word confession means "the admission of our actions." It is a literal and formal acknowledgment of our deliberate actions, or karma, in terms of body, speech, and thought. [...] Formal confession can be done alone, within your own heart, and that is certainly of great merit. However, in order to realize the complete and inconceivable function of formal confession, you must practice confession in the presence of another. When nonvirtue is brought forward out of the dark, you are more able to fully recognize and therefore confess it. Such confession before the face of another can be practiced in front of a statue of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, in front of a teacher, or in the presence of community members within a ritual context. There are an infinite number of possible ways of practicing formal confession. The essential point is that you honestly, sincerely, and thoroughly reveal your unwholesome actions.
The realization of the full, liberating function of formal confession must entail elements of regret and remorse. By "regret" I mean that you feel that you have made a mistake, wish that you had not committed the action, and sincerely intend to refrain from doing so again. Such regret and steadfast intention to refrain from nonvirtuous action is supported by feelings of remorse. Etymologically, remorse means "to bite again." The complete, purifying power of confession involves tasting again the bitterness of your nonvirtue. It may be useful to distinguish between remorse and disgust about your actions. Disgust is a feeling of "rejecting or loathing what you have done" and may undermine a steadfast sense of responsibility for your actions, whereas remorse has more the feeling of revisiting the scene of the crime and deepening your sense of responsibility.
  [...]
Bodhisattvas continuously confess their nonvirtue. Because delusion occurs moment after moment, confession must also be moment after moment. Bodhisattvas continuously see and admit their own delusions and nonvirtuous deeds. Less enlightened people confess less often. The most unenlightened and dangerous people are those who think that they never do any nonvirtuous deeds at all. The greatest darkness for the human mind is to believe that you never do anything wrong or hurtful or stupid. Conversely, continuous confession of nonvirtue opens the gate to great light. Confession of wrongdoing is an act of awakening.

In the excerpt from the book Being Upright that I just quoted above, Reb Anderson is talking about formal confession. But a little later in the book he notes that the Sōtō Zen tradition distinguishes between formal confession and formless confession:

The practice of formless or ultimate confession is based on formal confession but goes beyond it. In formal confession we fully recognize and acknowledge our karmic deeds. In formless confession, according to Dōgen, we "quietly explore the furthest reaches of the causes and conditions" of these actions. Formal confession refreshes and purifies us from the consequences of our self-centered actions of body, speech, and thought. Formless confession reaches to and removes the roots of these actions. Formal confession prepares us for meditation. Formless confession is the meditation process itself. It is being upright.

Formal confession is very important. And after formal confession there is the deeper process of formless confession, the process of exploring the furthest reaches of causes and conditions and consequences of all our activity. This process is also called vipassanā or vipaśyanā.

You must understand the karma and its result. It depends on the intention one make to do the karma and on what person one did this karma. It is not like in front of the jury plea guilty or not giving excuses. If you would like to apologize, directly do it to that person explaining and admitting sincerely with all your heart. If that person is no more, you can do it through an Arya (and/or Triple gems). Only thing is not to do bad karma, if done it apologize sincerely, even then it is not enough so that to achieve more good karma, work hard at insight meditation because good karma will make bad one less and less as the dew disappear as the sun shine. The stone that sink under water could be carried in the boat big enough to carry it.


text:
Benefits of Vipassana Meditation
I've decided to do I'm thinking if meditation would help me to concentrate my study(academic). Also would it help me to feel Buddha and Dhamma? Will my memory sharp? Currently I feel little bit depressed so would this be cured if I'll attend ten days of Vipassana meditation?

See also Want a new tag, e.g. for office work and academic work?

I've decided to do I'm thinking if meditation would help me to
  concentrate my study(academic).

Vipassana meditation will help in studies. Since vipassana meditation focuses on removing craving, anger and illusion, you will notice your mind clear of when you study.

Also would it help me to feel Buddha and Dhamma?

Just before Buddha reached parinibbhäna, he stated, at his absence Dhamma would be our teacher. Dhamma was Buddhas teacher too. Buddha also has said, the person who sees dhamma sees him.

Will my memory sharp?

Even with a clear mind, you have to follow memory basics to remember.

To improve short term memory: Repeat to remember
To improve long term memory: Remember to repeat

This is from the book Brain Rules. It's a well researched and accepted book so grab a copy if you can. By Melina.

Currently I feel little bit depressed so would this be cured if I'll
  attend ten days of Vipassana meditation?

Unlikely. You need a slightly longer commitment. Start with a three month plan with an excellent diet, good sleep, ample exercise. Visit a doctor about this if you haven't. Use vipassana meditation for the purpose it was intended for, not depression. Read the book "Spark" by Ratey, if you feel you can do something additional to what a doctor asks you, to get over depression.

I had to psychiatrist but it couldn't help me. He had doubt I'm lying about my problems. Anyway this way is always better than psychiatrist. Thank you. I'll refer books you suggested. Thanks a lot.

Whatever Buddha taught was aimed at attaining nirvana. Vipassana meditation is to achieve nirvana. If you go through this journey, you can pick up something you want on the way. If you do so, there will be the delay and even you may lose bearing. What you mention are just like the stations you have to pass on the journey by train. If you are waiting one by one you will get it but slowly and not all at the same time. If you target at nirvana, you will get these all in a short time definitely.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where did Buddha state "Mother is the Buddha of the home?"
I grew up in Sri Lanka where we often hear

Gedara budun amma

Which translates to

Buddha of the house is mother

I also learned that this was to reinstate the lost value of a mother in the country back then due to discrimination of women.
I'm positive there are proper references for this but I would like to know where in Tipitaka or other historical books this is documented.

So far I've not come across this in the scriptures, but I'm very interested to find out as to how ths came to be. Even  THIS article dedicated to the mother makes no mention of it.

I am only aware of the suttas stating:

Mother and father are called
  "Brahma," "early teachers"
  And "worthy of veneration,"
  Being compassionate towards
  Their family of children.
Iti 109

A wife as the West be ministered to by a husband by...handing over authority to her...
DN 31

DN 31 also states:

(iv) she protects what he brings, (v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

The wife has authority in the home when she is financially prudent, like my mother. But many women of the current 'feminist sexual liberal era' lack financial prudence. Instead of saving money, they spend money. Only individuals with morality can be the authority of the home.

I believe this was the case, which later got interpreted differently.

"Mother is the Buddha of the home", might also refer to the Mother as the first source from which to learn selfless, compassionate love.
http://www.dailymirror.lk/109260/Mother-the-Buddha-at-home-Gedara-Budun-

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


text:
What is the exact Age Limit that Buddha can live?
Does any one know what is the exact Age Limit that Buddha can live? i heard that one of previous Buddha lives His Life for 40,000 year.

How does this question help you? :-)

A Buddha can live as long as he wants – even an aeon, as the Buddha potentially have the age or lifespan of an aeon.  – but this decision depends on the others. If an arahant that is closest to a Buddha makes a formal convincing request for a Buddha to live for many thousands of years, he will do so. But always the Mara gets in the way, and asks the Buddha to attain Parinibbhana, no sooner His Dispensation is fully established. In our Gautama Buddha’s time, this happened when he was 85 years of age.
Buddha once said that anyone who had developed the Four Bases to Success (iddhi-pada), and is firmly rooted in these four bases, if he wishes, could live until ones full age - in our times until 100 - 120 years. Four bases to success (iddhi-pada) are Chanda Iddhipada (great desire to practice); Citta Iddhipada (Will); Viriya Iddhipada (effort or perseverance -repeatedly applying the mind); Vimansa Iddhipada (examination leading to insight).
The Buddha asked one of his ten chief disciples, Ananda, about this, once He knew that He has achieved the goal of fully establishing his dispensation. He asked not once or twice, but sixteen times. But every time Mara got in the way. Mara had power over Ananda, as he had not yet fully purified himself. So Ananda never heard what Buddha said, as he was not himself. And it was Mara who asked the Buddha, not Ananda. If Mara had not intervened, Ananda would have asked the Buddha to live a prolonged life, out of compassion for the world.
Mara appeared before the Buddha and reminded him of a promise the Buddha made to him forty-five years before, immediately after the enlightenment. At that time, Buddha said that he would not attain Parinibbhana until he had established and well taught the Doctrine. Now that had been accomplished, Mara said that it it was time to fulfill the promise. In reply The Buddha said that he would attain Parinibbhana in three months. A Buddha sees that this mortal body, with its six sense faculties, as belonging to Mara. This shows the detachment of an Arahant to the ways of this world. Buddha kept this body until the Dhamma was fully established, and as promised, and as invited by another, left this earth  than live a prolonged life.

Some sources claim fantastic ages that even the Dalai Lama questions in Becoming Enlightened.
The 16th chapter of the Lotus sutra readable at https://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/text/chap16.html discusses the question more thoroughly than I care to here.


text:
Is it the EARTH only Place that can give birth to a Buddha?
is it the EARTH only Place that can give birth to a Buddha? isn't their any other Universes or worlds  beside than Earth that Previously born Buddha or in the Future?

Earth is not the only place. Buddhist cosmology mainly divided the cosmos into four: north south east west. Earth is incl. in the south: Jambudvīpa, except the north Uttarakuru, all the rest three have Buddhas, but Buddha must be born in the human realm to attain his final enlightenment for Buddha-hood. Before this last life he dwelt in the heavenly realm, in the Inner Garden of Tusita as the Great Bodhisattva.

The plane humans live on, is the lowest of the higher realms of existence where one has the ability to comprehend the Dhamma. The Ābhāsvara worlds form the upper limits of existence. The scriptures talk about four tiers of existence or planes of consciousness. At the lowest level are the realms of Hell, and the worlds of Animal, hungry ghosts, & Asura / Titans. Above our world of Humans, there are the seven worlds of desire (Kama-lokas / Kamavacara). Above them are sixteen worlds of forms known as Ripa-lokas / Rupavacara. Above them are the four formless worlds (Arupa-lokas / Arupavacara).
Even on Earth, Buddhas are ALWAYS born in the middle kingdom. The following is what Buddha said of this region:

"Even if one escapes from the evil creations, it is one's rare fortune to be born as a human being. Even if one is born as a human, it is one's rare fortune to be born as a man and not a woman. Even if one is born as a man, it is one's rare fortune to be perfected in all the six senses. Even if he is perfected in all the six senses, it is his rare fortune to be born in the middle kingdom. Even if he is born in the middle kingdom, it is rare fortune to be born in the time of a Buddha. Even if he is born in the time of a Buddha, it is rare fortunate to see the Enlightened One. Even if he is able to see the Enlightened One, it is his rare fortune to have his heart awakened in faith. Even if he has faith, it is his rare fortune to awaken the heart of wisdom. Even if he awakens the heart of wisdom, it is his rare fortune to realise a spiritual state which is above discipline and attainment."

A Buddha’s  birth, His Supreme Buddha-hood, His first Dhamma discourse, and His pass away (Parinibbāna) - all happen within this Middle Kingdom. We know of these details because of Buddha’s Ten Extra Ordinary Powers. One of the ten powers is that a Buddha is…

capable of seeing how He spent His past lives in many ways. He has the capability to remember His past lives in terms of one life, two lives, three lives, four lives, five lives, ten lives, twenty lives, thirty lives, forty lives, fifty lives, hundred lives, thousand lives, or even hundred thousand lives. In fact, He can remember the past up to infinite time such as many Sanvatta Kalpa, Vivatta Kalpa, and Sanvatta Vivatta Kalpa.
He is capable of remembering all the past lives with all related information in a manner as follows: “I lived in that particular place, in that name, and in that family name. My skin color was this. I ate these kinds of foods and felt these and these happiness and sorrow. I died in these ways and got born in that other place. I got that particular name in that life. I had this family name. My skin color was this. I ate these kinds of foods and felt these and these happiness and sorrow. I died in these ways and got born in that other place.”

Not an offend, China (中華/ 中國) was and is called Middle Kingdom, 中 is middle, as you can see graphically even don't understand Chinese. "...it is his rare fortune to be born in the middle kingdom" refers to the seekers of truth, not Buddha's own birth. I encourage your contemplating your "Mahayanist Sutras are unauthentic according to Western scholars" this notion in your meditation, hopefully gain your own insight, instead of believing in any authority such as 'scholars'. By discrediting the Chinese Tripitaka, it is destroying the main pillar of the Dharma Pagoda. Metta.

Saptha, what are you quoting: what are the sources of these quotes?

I am sorry for not getting back to you before. I will give below the sources for the two quotes...  The Buddha with Ten Extraordinary Powers is the first source. The Zen Site - The Sayings of the Buddha in Forty-Two Sections is the other. The quoted part is in section #36.

All Buddhas are born in dhambadhiva.


text:
Niànfó (念佛, nenbustu) & Morality
I would like to pose a question to practitioners of the various diverse sects of Pure Land Buddhism and to those substantially knowledgable of the writings of Pure Land masters.
There exists the notion that Pure Land style buddhānusmṛti, namely invoking the name of Amitābha in the interest of entrance into Sukhāvatī, absolves practitioners from moral obligations and removes morality from the Buddhadharma. I do not agree with this notion, but it does exist, and this in spite of the obvious and apparent reality that Pure Land practitioners are not any more immoral than any other group of people.
Some Pure Land masters are popularly quoted as saying that even the unrepentant and evil gain access to Sukhāvatī via niànfó in this very life in which they are criminals or evil men. Does anyone have any context to offer for this and how it impacts morality in the dispensation of these masters, who clearly did not advocate for immoral behaviour?
Where does morality and virtue sit contextualized within the Dharma in niànfó-centric practices of Pure Land schools, wherein salvation is potentially available to all through niànfó alone?
Thank you all for your time.

I will provide a hint to your question grossly, since I'm running out of time. Provided chance, I shall attend to this question if needed.

Some Pure Land masters are popularly quoted as saying that even the unrepentant and evil gain access to Sukhāvatī via niànfó in this very life in which they are criminals or evil men.

If you understood the Pureland doctrines thoroughly, you should learn that there are 9 grades for entering Sukhāvatī, called 九品蓮花 (Nine Platforms of the Lotus [transportation vehicles?!]): best, better, good x 3 = 9). The lowest of these 9, i.e., the good of the good (下品下生), is that when a practitioner who's committed incl. the Five Grave Sins (五逆罪) such as killing the parent, by the time of dying is able to remember/ think of (憶念) Amitābha he will be born in Sukhāvatī. However, the Lotus Platform that carried him takes 12 Great Kalpas to open, i.e., he will arrive in Sukhāvatī after 1612800 million years(?) [161.28 亿年]. The Best of the Best takes a blink of eyes. The criteria must be met is that he should be able to remember/ think of Amitabha - top importance; he repents/laments his wrong deed (懺悔) though he couldn't mend it; he himself has the full confidence of being able to be born in Sukhāvatī.
If any teacher just stating that Niànfó is the one-fix-all, without explaining the above, he is misleading and that's why Pureland to outsiders, even insiders, are sometimes criticized rigorously. I knew there is one very popular and famous Pureland School's Bhikkhu living in Singapore migrated from Mainland China who's teaching an abridged version of the doctrine [his own doctrine?]. He is also called into question by Buddhists of if his meeting the qualification of being ordained as a Bhikkhu because in one occasion in defending himself he revealed that he was born incompetent (黃門), this video with his voice is circulating in the internet. I hope you are not the students following his teaching ;).
If you want to learn properly, I suggest you read the original Classical Chinese       《佛說無量壽經》 《佛說觀無量壽經》, 《佛說阿彌陀經》 is translated by Kumarajiva; or letters of 印光大師. They are not that hard to read, if you know Chinese.
Also, for Pureland practice, Niànfó is just one of the many methods. Such as above Sutras, it is in fact in it recorded the visualization method, the 《佛說觀無量壽經》 there are in total 16 visualizations one of it is visualizing the setting sun as described in the Sutra.
But the sad thing is, practitioners just follow the teachers, and the methods reduced to one single Niànfó, it is not sure the teachers if they studied the Sutras, or just busy writing articles giving talks to invoke more audiences to recognize their names/fames. No one care to learn from the original Sutras, from directly the Buddha himself.

"If any teacher just stating that Niànfó is the one-fix-all, without explaining the above, he is misleading and that's why Pureland to outsiders, even insiders, are sometimes criticized rigorously." ---Thank you for the context. I suspected such was the case. It is just like in other schools of Buddhism, where people bandy about the discourse of "Everyone is already a Buddha" without context, and then are criticized.

Agree. Whilst "upāya" being rendered the same meaning referring to, sorry, "toilet". I recommend learning from directly the Sutras in this last period of the Dharma time, instead of from anyone or anywhere 2nd handed. By Sutras I mean Chinese Classical the original, not English translated. Not sure about Japanese since I don't read, but avoid the modern works, especially after 1800AD. It started to get corrupted since the Western world enforcing their seize with means penetrating into the cultural-intellectual, not just material resources.

"By Sutras I mean Chinese Classical the original, not English translated." <-- that is what I am trying to do, but it is no easy task! A lot of people also do not know that the Classical Chinese versions of many sutras is actually older and more reliable than the Sanskrit, because the Sanskrit versions are usually "back-translations" (i.e. translated from Chinese into Sanskrit). Its all very interesting.

Sanskrit versions are usually "back-translations"... for this i'm dealing with the Heart Sutra... it really got me so upset those stupid writings of scholars

Nianfo "Mindfulness of the Buddha", is a skillful means utilizing the chanting of the name of Amitabha to reach the Pure Land of Supreme Bliss. The Pure Land is of course the blissful clarity of Jhana/ Chan/ Zen. Chanting is a powerful effective way to utilize Right Effort, to enter Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, while speaking Right Speech, especially when one focus one's mind on a sacred object of meditation such as the Buddha. There are criminals and even murderers who were able to experience blissful meditative states after being placed in intensive meditation programs.
"Some Pure Land masters are popularly quoted as saying that even the unrepentant and evil gain access to Sukhāvatī via niànfó in this very life in which they are criminals or evil men. "
In essence, we can enter the Pure Land in this very life, provided we practice Buddhism with discipline, for example by single mindedly chanting the name of the Buddha and purifying one's mind in the process. Even Angulimala, the serial killer from the time of the Buddha, became an Arahant. Of course this does not absolve us of our personal moral responsibility, but we will enter the stream of the Dharma.


text:
What is the difference between intelligence and wisdom in the Buddha's teaching?
What is the Pali/Sanskrit term(s) for 'intelligence'? Is there another word(s) in Pali/Sanskrit for 'wisdom'? I hear 'intellect', 'intelligence' and 'wisdom' used interchangeably, is this correct? What is the relationship between intelligence and wisdom in Buddhism? Are they really the same thing or can they be the same thing or what? :)

I find this question quite useful.

In Mahayana, intelligence and wisdom are not used interchangeably. Wisdom has various meanings, depending on the context. The issue is that different Tibetan words are translated 'wisdom.' I assume these Tibetan words correspond to different Sanskrit words as well.
In the Abhidharma, it says:

QUESTION: What is wisdom (shes rab)?
RESPONSE: It strongly
  differentiates the qualities of things that are to be examined. It has
  the function of overcoming doubt. Just as it has been said above,
  wisdom is a knower that individually differentiates the faults and
  good qualities of things that are to be examined.

However, wisdom (yeshe) refers to the cognizer realizing emptiness. There are also three types of wisdoms:

There are three types of wisdom: the wisdom arisen from hearing, the
  wisdom arisen from thinking, and the wisdom arisen from meditation.

The wisdom arisen from analytical meditation on emptiness is yeshe. It is the one we refer to when we speak of the higher training in wisdom. Or when we speak of cultivating the perfection of wisdom.
Intelligence refers to a mental factor that a student must have. It resembles shes rab.
In the Middle Length Lam Rim, Tsongkhapa says:

Someone to whom good ways of explaining appear as faulty ones, due to
  not having the intelligence to distinguish them, is not a suitable
  vessel. Therefore one needs to have the intelligence that understands
  [what is to be abandoned, and what is to be adopted].

In Buddhism, 'wisdom' is something that cuts through & eradicates mental defilements (of greed, hatred & delusion), leading to the ending of suffering. Where as other types of knowledge do not.
To quote:

And what is the faculty of wisdom (paññā)? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is wise, endowed with wisdom of
  arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to the right
  ending of suffering.
SN 48.10

The Kalama Sutta may help here since it lists other kinds of knowledge that are not wisdom:

So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for
  yourselves that, 'Certain mental 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.

The Buddha taught them, and us, not to accept or believe anything immediately just because it fits with any of a number of criteria. He
  listed ten such criteria for them to be wary of, so they could avoid
  becoming anyone’s intellectual slave, even of the Buddha Himself. This
  principle enables us to choose for ourselves the teachings that are
  truly capable of quenching suffering (dukkha). The ten examples the
  Buddha gave in the Kalama Sutta follow.
1. Ma anussavena:
Don’t accept and believe something to be true just because it has been passed along and retold for many years. Such credulity is a
  characteristic of brainless people, of "sawdust brains," such as those
  in Bangkok who once believed that disasters would befall people born
  in the "ma" years. (The years of the small snake, big snake, horse,
  and goat — five through eight in the old twelve-year Thai cycle — all
  begin with "ma.")
2. Ma paramparaya:
Don’t believe in something merely because it has become a traditional
  practice. People tend to imitate what others do and then pass the
  habit along, as in the story of the rabbit that was terrified by a
  fallen mango (like Chicken Little’s falling sky). When the other
  animals saw the rabbit running at top speed, they were frightened too
  and ran after it. Most of them ended up tripping and tumbling off a
  cliff to their deaths. Any vipassana (insight) practice that merely
  imitates others, that just follows traditions, will bring similar
  results.
3. Ma itikiraya:
Don’t accept and believe something simply because of reports and news of it spreading far and wide, whether through one’s village or
  throughout the whole world. Only fools are susceptible to such rumors,
  for they refuse to exercise their own powers of intelligence and
  discrimination.
4. Ma Pitakasampadanena:
Don’t accept and believe something just because it is cited in a pitaka (text). The word "pitaka," although most commonly used for
  Buddhist scriptures, can mean anything written or inscribed on a
  suitable writing material. The teachings memorized and passed on
  orally should not be confused with pitaka. A pitaka is a certain kind
  of conditioned thing made and controlled by human beings, which can be
  improved or changed by human hands. Thus, we cannot trust every letter
  and word we read in them. We need to use our powers of discrimination
  to see how these words can be applied to the quenching of suffering.
  There are discrepancies among the pitaka of the various Buddhist
  schools, so care is called for.
5. Ma takkahetu:
Don’t believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning
  (takka). Logic is merely one branch of knowledge that people use to
  try to figure out the truth. Takka or Logic is not infallible. If its
  data or inferences are incorrect, it can go wrong.
6. Ma nayahetu:
Don’t believe or accept something merely because it appears correct on the grounds of Naya or what is now called "philosophy." In
  Thailand, we translate the Western term philosophy as prajna. Our
  Indian friends cannot accept this because "naya" is just a point of
  view or opinion; it isn’t the supreme understanding properly referred
  to as panya or prajna. Naya or nayaya is merely a method of deductive
  reasoning based on hypotheses or assumptions. Such reasoning can err
  when the method or hypothesis is inappropriate.
7. Ma akaraparivitakkena:
Don’t believe or accept something simply because of superficial thinking, that is, because it appeals to what we nowadays call "common
  sense," which is merely snap judgments based on one’s tendencies of
  thought. We like to use this approach so much that it becomes
  habitual. Some careless and boastful philosophers rely on such common
  sense a great deal and consider themselves clever.
8. Ma ditthinijjhanakkhantiya:
Don’t believe accept something to be true merely because it agrees or fits with one’s preconceived opinions and theories. Personal views can be wrong and our methods of experiment and verification may be inadequate, neither of which lead us to the truth. This approach may seem similar to the scientific method, but can never actually be scientific, as its proofs and experiments are inadequate.
9. Ma bhabbarupataya:
Don’t believe something just because the speaker appears believable, perhaps due to creditability or prestige. Outside appearances and the actual knowledge inside a person can never be identical. We often find that speakers who appear creditable outwardly turn out to say incorrect and foolish things. Nowadays, we must be wary of computers because the programmers who feed them data and manipulate them may put in the wrong information, make programming errors, or use them incorrectly. Don’t worship computers so much, for doing so goes against this principle of the Kalama Sutta.
10. Ma samano no garu ti:
Don’t believe something simply because the monk (more broadly, any speaker) is "my teacher." The Buddha’s purpose regarding this important point is that nobody should be the intellectual slave of anybody else, not even the Buddha Himself. The Buddha emphasized this point often, and there were disciples, such as the Venerable Sariputta, who confirmed it in practice. They didn’t believe the Buddha’s words immediately upon hearing them; they only did so after reasoned reflection and the test of practice. See for yourselves whether there is any other religious teacher in the world who has given this highest freedom to his disciples and listeners! In Buddhism there is no dogmatic system that pressures us to believe without the right to examine and decide for ourselves. This is the greatest uniqueness of Buddhism that keeps its practitioners from being anybody’s intellectual slave. We Thais should never volunteer to follow the West as slavishly as we are doing now. Intellectual and spiritual freedom is best.
Help! The Kalama Sutta, Help!

Knowledge  = bahussutha,
intelligence  = panna,
wisdom  = knanam.

This only addresses part of OP's questions. Please also address the rest of the question; "What is the difference between intelligence and wisdom in the Buddha's teaching?" and "What is the relationship between intelligence and wisdom in Buddhism?".

Sometimes short answers are good, nevertheless

Please bless us with more elaboration on an important topic for meditators  imho.


text:
How does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from "realisation of Anatta"?
In what ways does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from the experience of "realisation of Anatta", for the practitioner?
The two aims are apparently non confirming, as far as I know, at least that is what their respective schools believe.
So in what ways does choosing one ideal over the other lead to a  difference in experience for the practitioner?

What does "non confirming" mean?

One aim does not include the other @ChrisW

I think I'd call that "non-congruent", or just "different".

Or "mutually exclusive".

The question seems to ask for a description of (and comparison of) "the experience of realization" -- which, could perhaps be difficult to describe. Instead of asking about "the experience of realization", I wonder if it would be easier to ask and answer a question simply about the "definition": i.e. "how does the definition of Anatta differ from the definition of Sunyata". Would that be a good, a simpler way to rephrase the question ... or would that kind of simplification lose something important that you want to ask?

@ChrisW I seek a comparison  of the experiances. The definitions of each per se is available in the  canons and may be even a comparisom, I seek an answer from purely a practitioners veiwpoint. Any referances in this regard are of course welcome.

@ARi Answers from the practical point of view are also in texts. For instance http://www.glensvensson.org/uploads/7/5/6/1/7561348/presentation_of_tenets.pdf

@ChrisW I like this question, and 'non-confirming' is a useful if unfamiliar term, like 'connected causes'. I think that the question asks if there are two distinct "faces" of realization, and I find that question useful.

@nocomprende Another word for "one aim does not include the other" could be "orthogonal", which implies they're two different aims and that you might have either without the other ... perhaps unlike Andrei's answer which says that one is a subset of or precursor to the other.

@ChrisW I think that understanding can be in either order, and interspersed, but people tend to have one or the other primarily. The nice thing about 'non-confirming' is that one view does not relate to the other, and so the two approaches will seem very different or even wrong, to someone using the other, yet both are right. People seem to miss this small fact, because religion. Because dogma. Because limited perspective. Etc. "Non-confirming" has my vote as most useful new term I have heard this year. Svaha!

There is no difference between anatta & sunnata in terms of realisation. If there was a difference then the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta would be a lie & false because the five arahants in that sutta would not really be arahants (fully enlightened). They would only be partially enlightened.
The definitions of anatta & sunnata in the Pali suttas are basically identical, namely:

Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta

And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.'
MN 43

In terms of the teachings, anatta & sunnata are different because anatta was taught 1st, in the 2nd sermon of the Buddha, where a gradual sermon was given that associated anatta with anicca (impermanence). Here, it was reasoned because something is impermanent & subject to disease, it cannot be a 'self' or regard as 'mine' ('belonging to self'). When the minds of the listeners penetrated this reality, the self-views in the mind dissolved, which was enlightenment. (In addition, the teaching of 'dukkha' also helped extinguished the defilements, such as craving).
As for sunnata, it does not rely on impermanence because it simply, correctly & directly asserts there is no self within the five aggregates. This is easily observed in meditation. For example, observing the breathing itself or a body part or observing sense consciousness itself, in can be seen easily there is no 'self' in the breathing or in a finger or in sense consciousness; just as it can be seen easily there is no 'self' in a rock, tree or cloud.
In conclusion, anatta was a gradual teaching for beginners that used impermanence (anicca) to assist in the realisation. However, when the realisation itself occurs, there is no difference from sunnata.

Yes, I think this is what the OP wants to know. It is like two distinct faces of a mountain, very different approaches and experiences, which both get one to the same summit. Anatta says what is not, it is a "negative" teaching (don't believe in this thing) and sunnata says what is. This is like the difference between rangtong and shentong. Different approaches for two very different kinds of practitioners, One result.

... and when you interact with the practitioners say  monks of the two 'approaches', one finds a perceptible difference in the   mental make up or psyche  of the two.  This can Only come through a difference in experience  along the path, including the conditioning. @nocomprende

@ARi so, your question is about this difference in experience, yes? If you have not yet read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", I strongly suggest that you do. The entire point of the book is in his phrase "a non-coalescence of reason and feeling", which is precisely what your term 'non-confirming' points at, as best I can see. I think that the difference is inherent in people's nature, not so much acquired. People have a predisposition in their perception and thought process, and they are compelled to follow that, until they can gain understanding of the other. (my theory)

The School chooses the practitioner. Some are 'born' Hinayana, others Mahayana. They are unable to make a different choice.
Hopefully, both types grow to fully understand both perspectives, both realizations / experiences. It is said that when the Arhats who had realized Anatta heard the teaching of Sunyata (in the Heart Sutra) some of them had heart attacks and died on the spot.
Clearly, the two realizations are different, yet they are two sides of one thing. Samsara is Nibbana, there is just emptiness of thing, and emptiness. That is a stretch for most people. (ironic understatement) The realization of Anatta probably feels to most people like "completed understanding" of something they have thought through. The realization of Sunyata feels more like a direct, unmediated experience, with no thoughts or concepts. It seems impossible to fully describe an experiential state, especially generalized to many people. Hopefully this hint answers your question.

"The School chooses the practitioner." I like this your phrase :), it's indeed resonating with something I read in the Chinese Sutras. If I remember it correct, it is in the Lotus Sutra that the Buddha said, some who's not ready heard about the optimal of the teaching will be too fearful that all their hairs stood up: 汗毛皆豎, 恐怖畏懼. If anyone really got the  Anatta/ Sunyata one definitely couldn't sit sipping the coffee fondling the keyboard to insert them carelessly anywhere as a hobby and pleasure :\

@Bhumishu米殊 yes and no

Good answer. I see @nocomprende your understanding have advanced far since the last time I checked :P

@AndreiVolkov you should check more often, that would probably move me along faster :-) I have been appreciating your answers also.

I guess I'm in a position to answer this one.
From my perspective, the experience of realization of Anatta is simpler and less profound. At some point in meditation or in the middle of some other activity accompanied by contemplation of the Twelve Nidanas, or the conditioned nature of all dharmas (the truth of impermanence) etc., one may realize that:

the thoughts follow a cyclic pattern of free association and do not come from an "I",
identification with an individual living organism is pretty arbitrary and relies on a rather conventional delineation of boundaries,
the universe is fully deterministic,
an immortal soul cannot exist unless it exists in absolute isolation from all interactions with anything else, which is nonsense,

As these conceptual understandings all come together and connect with first-hand meditation experience, there comes a moment when the notion of "I" no longer applies as anything but a designation, a convenient label. That's Anatta.
Then there is an intermediate stage, at least in my experience, when the notion of Anatta of sentient beings is generalized along the lines of the following realizations:

all entities are mind-made abstractions.
as times goes by and things transform, in any object there is no identity that stays the same through all stages of transformation. Any such identity is a mind-made overlay.

the above realizations arrive at a point when all inanimate objects and not just sentient beings are perceived as lacking any substance, or empty of any identity, and are mere conceptual designations.
And then... and then... there is the actual experience of Shunyata, which goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond anything like the above. The experience of Shunyata comes only from very consistent and thorough research into all topics of Dharma, diligent application of Dharma in real life, and very sincere and truthful meditation.
The experience of Shunyata is the experience of loss of existential ground. It changes everything without really changing anything. It shatters one into a million pieces, then assembles back into a sentient being and abandons. From this moment on, the worst has happened and nothing can hurt you anymore. The world will never be the same.
Naturally, as I belong to a Mahayana school, I see Anatta as incomplete realization and Shunyata as fully matured. The two are really just phases of the same realization as it deepens through study and practice. From this standpoint, if you were to stop at Anatta and never go to Shunyata (never jump off the cliff) you would still have a ground under your feet, which would A) make you still be a jerk to people who disagree, since you'd still have an attachment, and B) due to the same attachment, make you vulnerable to conditions, hence no Nirvana for you.

Valuable insight.

Not sure why any essentialism, like determinism, arises with anatta - for me at least, arriving at anatta stopped my mind grasping for a self-complete description of the world - multiverse, fractal... Surely anatta is the understanding that the individual building blocks of experience are empty of conditional constructs in and of themselves, an endless list of refutal of conceptual constructions aimed at describing 'I', as in MN1. Shunyata is the understanding of the unconditionality of experience, a single positive affirmation of the 'total' abscence of conceptual construction. Mirror images?

Anatta doesn't sit well with determinism - building blocks abscent of valid self-referential descriptions can't build a totality that self-describes itself.

It was posted: "all entities are mind-made abstractions" (SN 12.2) & "mere conceptual designations" (MN 98). Indeed, this is what the Pali suttas explain. I encourage you to research the language used in the definition of 'jati' ('birth') in SN 12.2, which refers to the production of 'beings' ('satta'),which SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 classify as merely 'views' or mind-made abstractions. SN 5.10 states there is no "being" ("satta") to be found, apart from "view" & "convention". Regards

The two kinds of understanding can occur in either order, and even be interleaved over time. Some people get "shattered" by a realization that they are completely unprepared for and have no conception of. These people need some "theory" (anatta) to avoid becoming New Age exponents! People tend towards one or the other kind of understanding, but eventually need both. I loved your "And then..."

An analysis of experience using anatta is one of continuous denial - the denial of 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self', with regards to individually presented constructs, each and every one. Non-self is the end conclusion.
An analysis of experience using shunyata is one of a quick-step positive affirmation of such a list of denials. Kinda like a sum to a series in maths. Emptiness of self is the end conclusion.
Personally, shunyata still eludes me. Its seemingly somewhat positive description of actuality makes me weary, as I'm not comfortable with ultimate truth getting a definiton with any positive characteristic.
The difference is mostly a linguistic one though imo. Both lead to insight, but from different frames of reference.. In fact, i think its probably for the best if people examined experience using both concepts.

shunyata is found in the Pali suttas. Based on this, it did not arise after the Buddha

Thank you - deleted the first bit.. Mahayana seems to have caught on to shunyata to a greater extent than anatta, of what I have read, hence my misconception (and a worse memory for the suttas for now!)

I try for a short hint, your demand is high for you're asking the "experience"! If the practitioner experienced authentic, discretionary, either Anatta even Sunyata, we have likely an Arhat walking among us! Anatta is for the Self, I, the subject of experience, Sunyata is for the world, the phenomena, the object to be experienced. Realization of Sunyata can only happened after Anatta. Realization of Anatta, one is indestructible, physically and mentally; realization of Sunyata, one is able to change the phenomenal world; either realization of Anatta or Sunyata, one can be invisible if wished ;).
Sunyata intrinsically implied Anatta, I wonder what your The two aims are apparently non confirming, as far as I know, at least that is what their respective schools believe. referred regarding non-conforming?
It is not the practitioner chose the ideal, it has to follow the procedure, like one must 1st break down the wall, then to tackle for all-encompassing visual field.

in what ways does choosing one ideal over the other lead to a difference in experience for the practitioner?* not only the experience of these two (which Will be an accomplishment) , but even experiences on the path which lead to them; what you call the procedure.  Thanks


text:
What is the Karmic Effect of Harsh Speech?
What are the karmic fruits/consequences of speaking harshly to others?

The mind & body is disturbed, with agitation & stress ('hell').
Friends may be lost or social status (such as a job) may be lost, which results in deficiency & need ('hungry ghost').
Shame & regret will eventually arise internally  (if the mind returns to a normal or 'human' state).

Pharusā, bhikkhave, vācā āsevitā bhāvitā bahulīkatā nirayasaṃvattanikā tiracchānayonisaṃvattanikā
  pettivisayasaṃvattanikā. Yo sabbalahuso pharusāya vācāya vipāko,
  manussabhūtassa amanāpasaddasaṃvattaniko hoti
Harsh speech — when indulged in, developed & pursued — is something that leads to (saṃvattanika) hell (niraya), leads to the animal birth (tiracchānayoni), leads to the
  realm (visaya) of the hungry shades (petti). The slightest of all the results coming
  from harsh speech is that, when one becomes human (manussa), it leads to
  unappealing (amanāpa) sounds.
AN 8.40 Vipaka Sutta

"There is the case, where a woman or man is ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, he/she grows offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; shows annoyance, aversion, & bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is ugly wherever reborn. This is the way leading to ugliness: to be ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, to grow offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; to show annoyance, aversion, & bitterness.
"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not ill-tempered or easily upset; even when heavily criticized, he/she doesn't grow offended, provoked, malicious, or resentful; doesn't show annoyance, aversion, or bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is beautiful wherever reborn. This is the way leading to beauty: not to be ill-tempered or easily upset; even when heavily criticized, not to be offended, provoked, malicious, or resentful; nor to show annoyance, aversion, & bitterness.
Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta: The Shorter Analysis of Action
(this is a gift of Dhamma, it's not given to be sold or for any wordly gains. d-gift)


text:
What would be a secular interpretation of animal rebirth
For people who don't believe in literal rebirth as animals,(secular or non)  how would they describe the mental state associated  with rebirth in the animal realm?  E.g, if stress is associated with hell rebirth, what mental state is associated with animal rebirth .

I recommend your elaborating your question, what mental state, the animal, the people?

Greed (貪), Anger (嗔), Ignorant (癡), Arrogant (慢), Distrust (疑) lead to rebirth in the Six Realms, they all get a hint of each but depended on inclination these mental states manifested as forms. Animal Realm is heavy with Ignorant, Asura with Arrogant, Greed the Hungry Ghost, Anger for Hell beings. For a human to be reborn as human again is a challenging task. Animal could be prevously human whilst human could be from other realms too, such as animal. Those have long history of believing in a soul or God-made-man, they rather believe it's mental state, not real animal form, that is wrong.

'Animal birth' is described in many places in the suttas. It refers to ignorance (stupidity), lacking reflective reasoning (ayoniso manasikara), immorality & the merciless devouring of other beings, including mutual devouring.
Animals merely blindly follow & act upon instinctual drives & desires without having the capacity to reflect upon the consequences. This is the meaning of 'animal birth'.
Below are some quotes.

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. SN 56.47

Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

The follow quote is important because it shows 'animals' can realise the Four Noble Truths, which also show this quote cannot refer to real animals but to people:

Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm (tiracchānayoniyā) are 'reborn' (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous are reborn in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

This video might help understand, which shows Angulimala, the mass-murderer, as a 'animal', being reformed or changed into a 'human' by the Buddha:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNzrKAzxipY

THE FIRST OF the Four Woeful States is hell. Hell is anxiety (in Thai, literally “a hot heart”). Whenever one experiences anxiety,
  burning, and scorching, one is simultaneously reborn as a creature of
  hell. It is a spontaneous rebirth, a mental rebirth. Although the body
  physically inhabits the human realm, as soon as anxiety arises the
  mind falls into hell. Anxiety about possible loss of prestige and
  fame, anxiety of any sort — that is hell.
Now rebirth in the realm of beasts is stupidity. Whenever one is inexcusably stupid about something: stupid in not knowing that Dhamma
  and nibbāna are desirable, stupid in not daring to come into contact
  with or get close to Buddhism, stupid in believing that if one became
  interested in Dhamma or Buddhism it would make one old-fashioned and
  odd. That is how children see it, and their parents too. They try to
  pull back and move far away from Dhamma and religion. This is
  stupidity. Regardless of what sort of stupidity it is, it amounts to
  rebirth as an animal. As soon as stupidity arises and overwhelms one,
  one becomes an animal. One is a beast by spontaneous rebirth, by
  mental rebirth. This is the second Woeful State.
The third Woeful State is the condition of a peta...
Buddha-Dhamma For Students

Please note: this is not a 'secular interpretation' but, instead, the true meaning of the suttas.

So the animal, ghost, and hell realms correspond to ignorance, desire, and aversion (anxiety), respectively?

I doubt "anxiety" (at least in modern understanding) is the right word to use in your context, nor do I see any connection to a "hot heart". Maybe some other descriptive words would be better?

Not keeping precepts, following the nose (mood), incapable of doing merits, lying around like a pig, eating like a dog, stngy like a mouse, dwelling in equanimity like an ox, such is called manussa-tiracchano, a human body but a behavior like an animal. If the question was about how to recognize such, this would be the answer.
Behaving like an animal leads to rebirth as such.
What leads to and rebirth as animal according the canon:

·Ten unwholesome actions (MN 41)
· Lack of virtue, holding to wrong views. If one is generous to monks and nuns, however, one may be reborn as an "ornamented" animal (i.e., a bird with bright plumage; a horse with attractive markings, etc.; AN 10.177).
· Behaving like an animal (MN 57)
from: The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

I marked your answer down because, while I thought some parts of it were useful, particularly the 1st paragraph, it does not explain a 'secular interpretation' of AN 10.177, which the translation refers to "rebirth" as an "elephant", "cattle" or "chicken". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.177.than.html

No Problem @Dhammadhuta , maybe you like to add:
Please note: this is not a 'secular interpretation' but, instead, the "true" meaning of the suttas.


text:
Are feelings (vedana) always caused by ignorance?
The Pali suttas often refer to feelings or 'vedana', as follows:

There are these three kinds of feeling: a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. MN 74
There are these six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling
  born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of
  mind-contact. MN 9

Are such feelings always caused by ignorance?

Pubescent could how ever lead also to become adult. What feeling arises when reading such?

Are you asking about the "Supporting Conditions" idea of the Upanisa Sutta, of which Ignorance is the lowest level, the support for everything else?

I am closing in on what this question could mean. On one level the scriptures are clear: ignorance underlies all that exists. Perhaps that is too literal. Are you asking if enlightened people still have feelings in the sense of pleasant or painful? No, not if they are not attached. Are you asking if they still have sense-perception due to senses reporting contacts? I would have to say yes, unless they become unaware of everything. So the answer to your question is, I think: the removal of ignorance cures one of reacting to or clinging to whatever the sense organs report, unmoved. Yes?

Ignorance underlies suffering. Ignorance does not underlie a Buddha. Enlightened people still have feelings, as quoted in my answer. Regards

Feelings are not always caused by ignorance because the Pali suttas state arahants & Buddhas experience feelings:

Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the
  burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely
  released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties
  remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbāna-element... Iti 44

Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering
  to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he
  fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he
  fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether
  pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides
  contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings,
  contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing)
  cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go).
  Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling (think about) to
  anything in the world. When he does not cling (think about), he is not
  agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is
  destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to
  any state of being.’ Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a
  bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has
  reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the
  ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods
  and humans. MN 37

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering. MN 38

28. But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon
  him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending
  and unperturbed. DN 16

You could say that not knowing is the pre-condition for knowing. If I already "knew" everything, it would not be necessary to feel. You can't have a universe except that "what happens next" is not yet known / experienced. Ignorance in this sense is built in to the fabric of reality.

Passa Pacchaya Vedana ~
  Paticca Samuppada

Feeling is caused by contact

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

By touch (phassa) of the certain sense-base, certain recognition (viññāṇa) is caused or vici versa. If there is ground, meaning that mind takes it a object (ārammaṇa), as a whole or in detail, it leads to feeling (vedanā). If there is no ground, surface, having release as Object, such as suffering does not appear.
The meeting of ground here, the touch of ignorance (avijjāsamphasso, SN 22.81), should be understood.
A good, even it merely motivated to discuss about a certain teacher, Dhamma lesson can be found here: Phassa
People love philosophy since it does not require to let go of thought of "me, myself and I".

I marked your question down because it does not answer the question or is otherwise wrong. Also, your answer ends with a 'conceit' about "people", which is a defilement, self-view & a fetter. I will answer the question according to the Buddha-Dhamma of the Lord Buddha.

No problem. Maybe you write wished answeres to select under your question. And if the last sentence had touched you and caused suffering, their might be good reason for it. Does saying "what a fool" for example nessesary reqires conceit? Yes please, answer your question for me.

The last sentence of your answer was untrue because it is your own answer that is "philosophy" since it was untrue & not real. You wrote an answer inferring you do not engage in philosophy yet your answer was philosophy.

The last sentence is required to let people know that there is Dhamma their, but its pupose is to entertain, render something around ignorance, philosophy, and one would waste preciouse time enjoying such mind stimulations back and for, like children playing with sand carstells.

The last sentence as unrelated to the question, a stain & papanca. The
answer was incorrect, which shows it is your mind rather than the mind of other people that play like children with sand castles.

Sure? Really for sure?

@Dhammadhatu please remind me, how was the Buddha's body disposed of after he died?

Dhammadhatu and Samana Johann - Comment section is not for discussion. I suggest you both adhere to the rules of this site and take your discussion/arguments elsewhere. Buddhism SE is not the place for this.


text:
Which aggregate (khandha) is or generates 'suffering'?
When the mind or person experiences 'suffering' ('dukkha'), which 'aggregate' ('khandha') is producing this suffering or which aggregate does this suffering fall into?

Good question, and where does the afflictions (anger, delusion, craving) fit in on the aggregate? Mental formation perhaps? Perhaps the consciousness is the resulting angry mind.

Yes, defilements are mental formations. Why don't you kindly post an answer. Thanks

That is a improper question. Neither "is" a aggregat, nor does it "generate" anything. And in regard of the detail: mind is already an aggregat. Namarupa (e.g. the five, "four"...aggregates) causes suffering.

Please post an answer according to the practise of this chatsite. Thanks

Good question. I don't know the answer, but I have another question. How does knowing which one it is stop the suffering?

It is very important because trying to practise to end the body, feelings, perception or consciousness will not end suffering. Suffering arises from craving & self-thinking, which are sankhara aggregate. The goal is to stop craving & self-view rather than feeling, consciousness or the body.

Ok, thanks. I don't think this is the Mahayana understanding at all, but each to his own :)

This is not a Mahayana thread.

Suffering is described in many suttas, such as SN 22.1 & MN 140, which state:

This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind. There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person
  — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined
  in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body)
  to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the
  self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress & despair over its change & alteration.
And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has
  regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma;
  who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in
  their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as
  possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is
  not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is
  not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does
  not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its
  change & alteration. SN 22.1

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
  does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
  be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
  die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
  he yearn? MN 140

This fabricating or conceiving 'self-view', which is suffering, is described in SN 22.81:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication (sankhara). Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that.

Therefore, the aggregate that fabricates suffering is the fabrication (sankhara) aggregate.

But is there a sutta which explicity states the skandha must be eliminated, rather than a set of canonical statements from which such a statement can be implied?

Which sutta? Thanks

I don't know, that's why I asked you. "Is there a sutta which explicity states the skandha [i.e. sankhara] must be eliminated?"

Its not the whole khandha that must be eliminated but only certain fabrications of that khandha such as craving, attachment, self-view & ignorance. When a Buddha thinks & speaks, a Buddha is using sankhara khandha but it is a purified sankhara khandha. Regards

I don't have the complete meditative experience or knowledge of the Dhamma to be able to fully comprehend the intents behind the teachings of the Five Aggregates and Twelve Nidanas, but I think I have some insights. I suspect that they are observable abstracted analysis of the complex working of the mind rather than actual entities within the mind itself - just as the body is only labeled 'form', but can be further analyzed in it's components such as the organs, or states of solidity, liquidity, gas and heat (earth, water, wind, and fire in ancient terminology). In this sense I believe the mental aggregates overlap in functions.
For example, the mind and mental activities in normal daily linguistic usage can be divided into feelings/sensation, thoughts, emotions, memories. Psychologists can probably further divide them according to various theories.
So Vedanā - commonly translated as sensations, is the observable feeling of pleasant, unpleasant, neutral when our internal sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the associated consciousness.
Sañña - typically translated as "perception" or "cognition." Interestingly in Chinese this is translated as 想 - "thoughts". So this is our thinking mind
Saṅkhāra - 'volitional formations' mental formation etc. I think this generally the emotional response. The Chinese translation 行 has a meaning of 'action'/'execution'.
And finally the Viññāṇa 'consciousness' seems to be the catch all bucket for the general 'state' of the mind. You can have a pure consciousness, defiled consciousness and so forth.
As we can see, some functions of this overlaps, but the division help us focus our attention of where to comprehend things from.
In the Satipatthana.
The four domains are:
mindfulness of the body
mindfulness of feelings or sensations
mindfulness of mind or consciousness
mindfulness of dhammās.

Satipaṭṭhāna  Ānāpānasati

Contemplation of the body

Breathing long (Knowing Breath)
Breathing short (Knowing Breath)
Experiencing the whole body
Tranquillising the bodily activities

Contemplation of feelings

Experiencing rapture
Experiencing bliss
Experiencing mental activities
Tranquillising mental activities

Contemplation of the mind

Experiencing the mind
Gladdening the mind
Centering the mind in samadhi
Releasing the mind

Contemplation of Dhammas

Contemplating impermanence
Contemplating fading of lust
Contemplating cessation
Contemplating relinquishment

The last one contemplation of the Dhamma is essentially a contemplation of all phenomena and of Truth.
The division of the mind into the four aggregates allow you to focus and observe the phenomena of impermanence, suffering and selflessness within them.
This is useful because we commonly suffer due to attachment to our feelings, thoughts, emotions, memories, consciousness.
The Buddha reminds us that all the aggregates are impermanent and hence subject to cessation, and hence attachment to all of them is suffering. They are not self because we don't have full control of them. But a positive way to look at it would also be that each of them is caused and conditioned, and we can try to create good causes to have good results. For example having good thoughts and enjoying the pleasant emotions and sensations resulting from that, without being attached to the loss of those sensations when the conditions ends.

This answer appears to have identified attachment as related to suffering. Which aggregate would attachment be? Thank you

Maybe the answer is it doesn't matter, all of them aka 'the mind'? Since they can't be clearly separated, as said by ChrisW.

ChrisW's post only refers to Vedanā Saññā and Viññāṇa. Where MN 43 discusses Vedanā Saññā and Viññāṇa, it is referring to how these three aggregates are cojoined with wisdom rather than with suffering. MN 43 states: "Discernment (panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

It reminds me of a Chan story:
Bodhidharma faced the wall. The Second Ancestor, having cut off his arm, stood there in the snow and said, "Your disciple's mind is not at peace yet. I beg you, Master, please put it to rest."
Bodhidharma said, "Bring me your mind, and I will put it to rest."
I think the point is that you can't extract out the suffering from your mind like you were to cut off a limb.

Respectfully, I think it can be difficult using Mahayana to answer this Theravada question because Mahayana often regards consciousness as the "storehouse" of defilements, which is contrary to Theravada. In Theravada, consciousness is only six kinds of sense awareness. This said, I liked your answer. Regards

Thanks, what if it's only a simplified model rather than the actual description of what's going on inside our mind, I mean dividing the mind into only 4 parts seems insufficient to describe the whole complexity of our mind. Then subdividing further parts would be completely reasonable.

A precise answer can be found in Samyutta Nikaya, Khandha Samyutta, Bhära vagga - Asamula Sutta
The aggregates(panchakkandha) are: Rupa, Vedanä, Sangna, Sankhara, Vinñana.
By definition, the liking (upadäna) toward these aggregates (panchakkandha) is suffering (panchaupädänakkhanda).

This last sentence means,

Concisely, the grasping of aggregates, is suffering.

Grasping is more of being ensnared.
So, what causes suffering? Birth, i.e. The formation of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind. What causes birth? Conditioning of karma for fruition. What causes conditioning of karma for fruition? Craving. What causes craving? Feeling. What causes feeling? Contact. What causes contact? The six senses. What causes the six senses? Five Aggregates. What causes the five aggregates? Vinñana. What causes Vinñana? Consecutive activities. What causes constructive activities? Incomprehension (Ignorance is barely a fit to describe avijja)

So again we see that "Ignorance" (or however you signify the base term) is "at the root of all our troubles." Several recent questions have asked about this. What's up with that?

@nocomprende one could see ignorance as the opposite of Sammä Ditti (Right View). Then once you go about exploring what Sammä Ditti is, you can see clearly what ignorance is. It's something like not knowing math. Once you start knowing math you see the problems in a world without math.

It appears that your answer most directly and concisely addresses this question. But I have only one upvote to give.

@nocomprende glad I got it right. Thanks!! Your comments help

The formation of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind do not cause suffering. This is evident in so many suttas.

SN 56.11 says upādānakkhandha explained here as follows:

Here a being is viewed as the collection of five aggregates of phenomena, to which untrained beings are deeply attached out of ignorance, considering them - without discerning them - as constituents of their attā, which is described as the ultimate nature of dukkha by the formula 'saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā': see for example SN 56.11.
They are defined at SN 22.79. It is stated at MN 43 that vedanā, Saññā and Viññāṇa are deeply associated and that it is impossible to clearly separate one from another to show their difference.

The bit of MN 43 which is quoted by the above is,

Friend, as to Vedanā Saññā and Viññāṇa: are these dhammas conjoined or disjoined? And is it possible, having separated them one from another to point out the difference between them?

Friend, as to Vedanā Saññā and Viññāṇa: these dhammas are conjoined, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to point out the difference between them. For whatever one feels, friend, that one perceives, and whatever one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these dhammas are conjoined, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to point out the difference between them.

I marked this answer down because I did not agree with it. Regards.

I would have asked you, but I see you already explained in your comments to Yinxu's answer.

I upvoted because I think it is useful. If someone asks "which one...", it is possible that the question is wrongly put, so a reply that says "can't be separated" is worth considering.


text:
Has a teacher referred to sleep as a form of 'lazy nirvana'?
The other night at a group meditation meeting, I mentioned to another practitioner that sleep is a 'lazy form of Nirvana'.
My memory tells me that Tara Brach or another teacher jokingly referred to sleep in that way, but after looking on Google, I can't find the reference :\
I would feel a little guilty if my reference was false, but I know that Nirvana is in a lot of ways the opposite of sleep and I'm sure she did too.
I ask this as a joke, but has anyone heard of sleep referred as a 'lazy form of Nirvana?' If so, which teacher made that reference?

I thank everyone for their clear and concise definitions of Nirvana and its obvious difference from the state of sleep. But the intent of my question was simply to ask if someone had heard of a monk or nun mentioning the phrase, 'lazy Nirvana' in a Dharma talk. If you have, please leave a note below.

Deep sleep is said to be a fourth state of consciousness by many teachers, at which time one would be in communion with Self but in an ignorant state. I can see why this might be called 'lazy Nirvana'.

Sleep is not really Nibbana because Nibbana is defined as the "uprooting" & "destruction" of the mental defilments, as follows:

To whatever extent there are phenomena conditioned or unconditioned, dispassion is declared the foremost among them, that is, the crushing
  of pride, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the
  termination of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion,
  cessation, nibbāna.
AN 4.34

In sleep, the mental defilements of an non-fully-enlightened mind remain dormant as "underlying tendencies". Therefore, sleep cannot be Nibbana.
However, the teacher Bhikkhu Buddhadasa make some comments about how the 'Nibbana element' operates in everyday life, here: Nibbana for Everyone. which includes 'sleep'.

Nibbāna is one of the dhātus (natural elements). It is the coolness that remains when the defilements – greed, anger, fear, delusion –
  have ended.
Any reactive emotion that arises ceases when its causes and conditions cease. Although it may be a temporary quenching,
  merely a temporary coolness, it is still Nibbāna, even if only
  temporarily. Thus, there’s a temporary Nibbāna for those who can’t yet
  avoid some defilements. It is this temporary Nibbāna that sustains the
  lives of beings who continue hanging onto defilement. Anyone can see
  that if the egoistic emotions existed night and day without any pause
  or rest, no life could endure it. If such life didn’t die, it would go
  crazy and then die in the end. You ought to consider carefully the
  fact that life can survive only because there are periods when the
  defilements don’t roast it. These periods outnumber the times when the
  defilements blaze.
These periodic Nibbānas sustain life for all of us, without excepting even animals, which have their levels of Nibbāna, too. We are able to
  survive because this kind of Nibbāna nurtures us, until it becomes the
  most ordinary habit of life and of mind. Whenever there is freedom
  from defilement, then there is the value and meaning of Nibbāna. This
  must occur fairly often for living things to survive. That we have
  some time to relax both bodily and mentally provides us with the
  freshness and vitality needed to live.

I've heard Jack Kornfield make this reference in one or more audiobooks. Might have been in "A Wise Heart" or "The Roots of Buddhist Psychology". Not sure exactly where though. He speaks of hard working busy middle aged business people coming to a retreat center for the first time, and realizing how tired and worn out they are. He goes on to say that if students are sleepy the first couple of days at retreat, it doesn't bother him. He knows people need to rest up in order to get the most out of the retreat. And he jokes that sleep is the lazy man's nirvana. He might have even attributed this joke to HIS teacher Ajahn Chah.

Sleep is mentioned as an impotent state of life, by Buddha.
Nirvana requires the growth of Saptha Bojjang which will not take place while asleep.
More details on Bojjanga is available here: Bojjanga Samyuttaya

There are some Zen koans that allegorically refer to this. The most famous one is:
Blue Cliff Record, Case 89

Yunyan asked Daowu, “How does the Bodhisattva of Great Compassion use
  so many hands and eyes?”
Daowu said, “It’s just like a person in the middle of the night
  reaching in search of a pillow.”
Yunyan said, “I understand.”
Daowu said, “How do you understand it?
Yunyan said, “All over the body are hands and eyes.”
Daowu said, “What you said is all right, but it’s only eighty percent
  of it.”
Yunyan said, “I’m like this, elder brother. How do you understand it?”
Daowu said, “Throughout the body are hands and eyes.”

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


text:
If everyting comes from emptyness than what is energy
Buddha tells that everything originates from nothingness, emptyness, sunyata. but how can that be possible. how can something come from nothing. what is logical meaning of this? he says that space, time and matter/energy is just and illusion because everything originates from sunyata by our conciousness, what is that?

When you write, "Buddha tells that everything originates from nothingness etc." and "he says that space, time and matter/energy is just an illusion", what are you referring you, what are you quoting?

Ok, from now i'll put the reference also.

Please do. What kind of text are you quoting or paraphrasing, from where did you get that understanding or statement? That seems to be the subject of the question, so I think it would be better if you'd identify it.

@Krishna, what was really said was... when the mind becomes empty of greed (raga), hate (dosa), and ignorance (moha) it becomes empty of those defilements. That is emptiness, sunyata with respect to defilements. Check Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness. I would love to reply to your OP, but I do not have the time.

I never ever heard about 'energy' in a traditional context. I suspect your source i new age.

@Krishna. This post needs a clear reference to where the Buddha has said that "... everything originates from nothingness ...".

this video is one of the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

Emptiness is the best but not the accurate translation of Sunyata, Chinese translated it to 空. It appears you are from Indian origin, why don't you understand it as the Sanskrit term instead of confusing with emptiness is nothingness?

Emptiness doesn't mean 'vacuum' or 'nothingness' (this view is refered to as nihilism sometimes in Buddhism). It means empty of self, or 'self-existence'.
In other words things are what they appear to be, and nothing else. The names you give to things, the thoughts, opinions you have about them, woven by your desires, fears, speculations etc. are transitory fabrications of your mind.
These fabrications are useful for remembering where you left your car keys, but become troublesome if you begin to believe in them as reality. So the Buddha reminds us that everything is in fact empty.

The Buddha did not say that 'everything' comes from 'nothing'. Specifically, the Buddha stated that Essential concepts - like 'Everything' and 'Nothing' are mere conceptual constructions, that the notion of independent entities, embodied by the term Self within his argument, are not evident within experience. It's not that everything comes from nothing, it's that neither everything nor nothing are evident as constructs.

This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the
notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who
sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom,
there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one
who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct
wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world. SN 12.15

The above seems like a decent parallel to your question.
Madhyamaka tackles this issue in a more philosophical way though, look into Nagarjuna:

Neither from itself,
Nor from another,
Nor from both, nor without a cause,
Does anything, anywhere, whatsoever, arise.
Mulamadhyamakakarika

In addition, for energy specifically, Noether's theorem shows that energy is conserved, or more famously that:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms.

Emptiness with impermanence!

Buddha tells that everything originates from nothingness, emptiness,
  sunyata.

First, emptiness is not nothingness. Depending on the school of Tenets, emptiness refers to the absence of true existence, or to the absence of inherent existence, or to the absence of self-sufficient substantial existence, or to the absence of external establishment.
Second, emptiness cannot be a cause because a cause must preceed its effect, while emptiness and its basis (i.e. the object that is empty) arise, abide, cease simultaneously.
Third, emptiness cannot be a cause because emptiness is permanent and permanent phenomena do not perform a function.
The only context I know of where we find the expression, "phenomena arise from emptiness" is Tantra. In such a context, emptiness does not refer to emptiness itself, but to the mind realizing emptiness. This mind arises in this or that aspect.

How can something come from nothing.

It does not. Whatever is a product is produced by another [existent] phenomena.

Space, time and matter/energy is just and illusion.

Usually, we say that phenomena are "like an illusion", not that they are illusions. If you happen to read a traditional text that says that "phenomena are illusions", it means that they are "like an illusion." What we mean by this is that they do not exist the way they appear.
'Energy' is a word I never came across in any traditional text. However, we speak of 'matter' or 'form'. All objects that are apprehended by sense consciousnesses are 'matter'. This include smell, sound, taste, etc.

For a lucid, readable commentary on emptiness, take a look at Guy Newland's Introduction to Emptiness.  Therein you will find a clarification of the difference between nothingness and dependent origination, which is another way of referring to emptiness. Jay Garfield's The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way is an exceptional work and most germane when the question of sunyata arises. Another comprehensive tome on the subject is Jeffrey Hopkins' Meditation on Emptiness.  Any one of these presentations will address your question as to the origin of illusion like everyday phenomena. On the topic of energy, it is humbling to recall Richard Feynman's remark, that "it is important in physics today to realize that we have no knowledge of what energy is". - https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Energy

I have heard the logic system of Jains holds a logical category called "unfathomable".

adjective

not able to be fathomed, or completely understood; incomprehensible: heroism in the face of unfathomable conflict.
not able to be measured with a sounding line, or fathomed: unfathomable depths of the ocean.

Source: Dictionary.com

That means that transcendental phenomena are beyong the mind, uncomprehensable by the mind, unfathomable.