text:
Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual?
Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual? Are all persons' realities joined in a seamless whole, or is each person a window onto nothingness that can never be seen by anyone else? I am not finding easy words for my question which seems clear to me...
I see two real things (only), that are one: the Void, and Experience. So for me, everything in Experience is one thing, whether I perceive that or not. Yet each is also unique. Are we all connected like fingers on one hand, or more like ants in a colony: each distinct and un-mergeable with the others?
Please provide a reference that I can read. Thank you!
EDIT: I have this well-known quote attributed to the Buddha: "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the World." So, my question is:
The word "We" - does it mean collectively, as a plenary (not by assent but in fact), or does it mean each of us individually? The word "The" World - does it mean the common reality, or each of our individual "realities"? Simple, yet subtle.

Please note that I am not asking for an answer, I am asking how Buddhism would answer this question.

I think you are looking for a word other than "consensual", since this word means "with consent" (i.e. the opposite of against one's will)

Consensus reality

Here is a definition of consensual that I like: "If something is consensual, all parties are in agreement that they approve of it." I mean, approve in the sense of participating, not in deciding something with the mind. Consensual would include all beings and manifestations.

The quote is fake though. To quote Bodhipaksa, the expert on fakebuddhaquotes.com - "The Buddha certainly didn’t teach that we make the world with our thoughts, that all we are arises from our thoughts, or that we are what we think."

Apparently that's Thomas Byrom's translation of the beginning of the Dhammapada, which is on accesstoinsight as, "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox." As Andrei said, this link suggests you use a more literal (and less poetic) translation.

Perhaps my question arises from the perspective of "I" and is therefore pointless. I found the quote very powerful and helpful for a while. But now I cannot make sense of it anymore. Trying to recover the sense behind my question before it got tangled up... Thank you for your contributions.

This reminds me of Donald Hoffman's interesting hypotheses that reality is the result of entangled conscious agents. Find a TED'ified summary of his work here - Do we see reality as it is?

@Devindra: or Bohm's Implicate Order (sounds like Egyptian Ma'at) or Prigogine's Self Organizing Complexity, or "That which is, is that which is" - Zukav... I say that everything is aware to some degree, that is why the 2 slit experiment comes out the way it does.

From Buddhist perspective, phenomenal (experiential) reality is dependently co-arisen phenomena. In other words, experience depends on convergence of a number of factors. Some of those factors are common across multiple cases of perception, and some are specific to an individual case of perception. To the extent that some factors are shared, realities are similar. To the extent that some factors are unique, realities are dissimilar.
This topic is discussed in depth in a very advanced work of 19th century Buddhist philosopher Mipham, called Beacon of Certainty (topic #6). For a more casual read, check out The Prayer of Kuntuzangpo. Also see Lamp of Mahamudra section one, "Ground Mahamudra".
P.S.
The objects (and subjects!) appearing in each of the realities are not truly existing. But there is only one ground underlying them all. To realize the true meaning of this ground is to be Buddha.
There is an infinite number of valid, internally not inconsistent, but not necessarily compatible with each other, ways to cognize this ground. Although all cognitions (including cognition of the true meaning of the ground!) are construed on the basis of temporarily combined elements (so in this sense no one cognition is fundamentally better than any other), however, since there's a case of being aware (vs. being unaware) of dependently-coarisen nature of objects (and subjects!) of perception, there's a sense in which we can speak of an awakened cognition. Or as Master Dogen said in Genjo-Koan:

When all dharmas are [seen as] the Buddha-Dharma, then there is delusion and realization, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings. When the myriad dharmas are each not of the self, there is no delusion and no realization, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.

With regard to the ground underlying it all, it's a tricky subject, because there is this passage from MN1 which says this: He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

@Sadhana very true, thank you! But with this we hit the limit of words and all we can do is speak in approximations.

regardless of subject/object differentiation, would you describe that ground you speak of as reality?

in a manner of speaking, it is the only reality, other realities being mere Umwelten.

Reality is neither consensual or an individual perception. Of course when one practices Vipassana and realize what reality actually is, then your individual perception of reality coincides with the actual reality. Until then there is a divergence. Practice of Vipassana is to close this divergence where you move from gross reality to the subtlest realities until you have realized the ultimate reality. Also if we see reality as it is then your would be enlightened or as an individual an Arahath, which is achieved through Vipassana. As many individuals are not enlightened their perception of reality in different from the actual. Also note, consensus view on any things is cultural and time wearying and definitely will not coincide with reality. Even science is in a flux of change with new theories and old being dispelled. So scientific understanding is not reality per say through it is and approximation of reality.
E.g. When you play doctor in kindergarten then you are not a doctor but when you actually become one then this is the reality. Many are in the kindergarten stage of understanding of reality but have not progressed. Similar to a person not going to school. Once you learn and then go to medical school then you only become a proper doctor. Similarly when you practice Vipassana only you progress to higher stages of understanding of reality.
Also see: Reality in Buddhism

When people distinguish "actual reality" from what we see each moment, then I don't follow. I am just asking: what we see each moment - is it common or individual? For everyone, even people who have no idea of Buddhism or spiritual growth. Even animals, plants, everything. Does the same sun shine on every plant? Or does each plant "make" a sun? How does Buddhism describe this universality? Calling it error or deception misses the point, for me. It would be like a PhD student calling kindergarten an error. No, just less awareness and experience. It must be there or what are we talking about?

What is the "reality" in your question?
Are you asking about Sacca,

Sacca (Pāli; Sanskrit Satya) word meaning "real" or "true".[1] In early Buddhist literature, sacca is often found in the context of the "Four Noble Truths", a crystallization of Buddhist wisdom. In addition, sacca is one of the ten pāramitās or "perfections" a bodhisatta must develop in order to become a Buddha.

In the context of the "four noble truths" I guess Buddhists see (that kind of description of) "reality" as "applicable to everyone" or "general".
Pāramitā suggests that insight (into reality) and ability to speak truth (about reality) is Buddhist: i.e. it is something which the Buddha can do.
This may be another question-and-answer about that topic (i.e. "sacca" or "satya") here: What is Sat-Dharma?
If you're asking about "physical reality" then I don't think so -- I think that Buddhism describes a reality that's more complicated than merely 'physical' reality.
If you're asking about conscious or experiential realities then, well, I won't try to answer that. Maybe that's getting into material in the Abhidhamma.

By "reality" I mean what you see you when you open your eyes each morning. Is it one for all, or a separate instance for each? This is not about perfection or practice, it is about what is there, unbidden.

Perhaps you're looking for Rūpa then.

OK, Rupa: is it individual or collective? Where is the distinction spelled out?

Rūpa is Anattā isn't it?

Anatta - No self - no thing or being has a self. But does "all thing" have one, or many, or does
Anatta mean that "all thing" is zero? What do I see when I open my eyes? 0, 1, many?

It sounds like you are asking about "self" more than about reality. You seem to be asking, "Am I the same as other people, or similar, or different? Are we one, or separate? Are we connected somehow?"

Perhaps the word "I" is the source of my question. Maybe the question makes no sense?

In the early suttas, this sort of question is deemed irrelevant for the practice; that is, as long as there's a problem, and you can do something about it, then any time wasted on wondering whose problem is it, what constitutes a problem, does it have an inherent existence shared by all beings, etc, is categorized as falling victim to Mara. [1]
That being said, here are a few things to consider:

The Buddha said that each being is the heir of their own actions - not others' actions. And that we experience rebirth from life to life, i.e. death isn't the end of our heritage. [2]
He suggested developing equanimity for people who are hopeless, so that implies that there isn't any inherent dependency on others' states of mind. [3]
When the Buddha and his noble disciples gained awakening, nobody but them was awakened. It's an individual accomplishment.
There are documented cases in the canon of arahants synchronously experiencing things which ordinary people don't. [4]

I wondered if my question falls under the category of "Vexing". I was not so much concerned with problems or selves, but simply what Buddhism says about what I call "Experience." Thank you for the reply.

@nocomprende I understand, and maybe the relation of my answer to this question isn't clear. Maybe you can help: when asking your question, would you say that if reality were strictly individual, or conversely existing inherently by itself (e.g. if there were at least 2 beings, their experiences would necessarily intersect at some level), and that claim would have any practicality in and of itself, then it would have to entail corollaries which would also have to be true for the sake of that practicality?

That is supposing, by the way, that I understood you correctly in that you weren't talking about qualia (i.e. is your blue the same as my blue).

E.g. if reality were inherently completely consensual, as you put it, then we'd have no individual control over it. Because reality encompasses all forms, feelings, perceptions, etc, we'd have no way to just decide for everyone how our experience is going to be like.This is in fact the view of determinism, which is one of the grossest forms of wrong view.If it were strictly individual, then why can't we all attain awakening by snapping out fingers? And why would other people manage to be obstacles in our path, if they wanted to (which is part of the reason Buddhists focus so much on morality).

Thus, the question which you ask, either this or that, is framed such that it leads to an endless discussion and zero utility for purposes of the path. Sticking to it, seeing it as of any relevance, is an obstacle.

What I was trying to say in my answer was that there's a certain theoretical minimum you need in order to go on, in order to latch onto something while you make your way forward. At the very least: that your individuality matters for the sake of the path, however it's ultimately defined.

Thank you for your comments. I think you came down to it when you said that the question is inherently divisive of view, and so not helpful. Also, the "theoretical minimum" idea: that we have to start with some kind of view and just push forward from there, because it is necessarily wrong anyhow. Why can't we be enlightened so easily? Wel, why can't we make art so easily? Whether individual or consensual, there is growing skill and expanding awareness, yes? (I love the word 'sadhana' by the way).

Speaking as one who has practiced several forms of art, I can say that at many stages of the path I actually was an artist, until I got to hear the opinions of others, or just see others' works. :) So even there one is still constrained by the world, and again that experience is not only limited only by individual wishes. At the same time, an unenlightened person can also think they're enlightened until they see someone more accomplished.

Regarding our present knowledge being necessarily wrong: I've heard several people, who were said to be arahants, maintain that after awakening the world remains just the same, but then there's also the dhamma, and they're separate, each with its own level of truth. Specifically, I've read this from transcriptions of Ajaan Lee and Ajaan Maha Boowa.

The use of the word delusion in Western circles often implies that when one reaches awakening, one is supposed to realize that "everything is a delusion." However, in the canon, delusion is spoken of in terms of "I think that by doing this I'm going to get that," when that isn't the case.

I thought I had reached the shore, but with your next-to-last comment, I dreamed that I was drowning again : ) Julia Cameron says: "Artists love other artists." I think that un-vexes my question, and your answer. Thank you.


text:
Are there research based or scientific explanation on the working of Abhiññā / Iddhi?
The following touches on the ability to know other people's thoughts at a much grosser level than developed through meditation: How we read each other's minds.
What are the research based or scientific explanation on the working of Abhiññā / Iddhi? What kind of cues do Jhāna help pick up?

This is two questions, and your second question doesn't make any sense to me...

Re scientific studies, I hope this could help a bit as a starting point. And this could help you to understand vast of abilities and psychic powers.

I've always liked this PDF for understanding and cross-referential (mostly ancient, some modern) guidance and proof on "gong-fu"/iddhi. Enjoy.

Gathering of knowledge for attaining supernatural powers?
There has been a lot of research on this. During the '60's many universities in the US did various forms of paranormal research. Test subjects were collected and some filled with various kinds of experimental drugs to get results of different kinds. Some of these studies has been published for public viewing and some not. Also the Russians did research on this, but it is not known how far they got and nothing has ever been published. There are some rumors saying that they are still very active in this field.
There is an article on the subject here
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393521/obo-9780195393521-0112.xml

If "based on science" means 'possible to do/follow/reproduce in real life', the answer appeared in Abhidhamma (as follows).
A person's mind arises and immediately vanishes more than trillions of times per second. And one person per one mind per time.
There are 2 types of mind by job:

mind which arises for life saving (sleeping mind; know only rebirth-kamma's object) and
mind which arises for knowing new object from a sense of 6 senses.

This 2 types arise switch each other whole life, from the rebirth to death. For example, while you reading this answer, these 2 types, included sleeping mind, still arise and vanish uncountable. And this  sleeping mind drops human abilities, such as abhiññā.
There are 2 types of mind which knowing new object by job, too:

wholesome mind (kusala)
unwholesome mind (akusala)

Only unwholesome mind drops human abilities, such as abhiññā.
The trick of Abhiññā / Iddhi
The trick of jhāna is very simple and powerful: it is "how to pause sleeping mind and unwholesome mind", then "how to rising up wholesome mind continuously, development" (as much as sleeping mind/unwholesome mind  can't arise, between the long period of wholesome minds arising).
Then the trick of abhiññā is very simple and powerful as well: it is "how to be professional of jhāna enough to get abhiññā which can adapting jhāna affects daily life more than the pure jhāna without abhiññā".
It's something like the professors of science/history/business/etc. They can see the future of their expertise and control it like what they want it be. But someone who never practice like them can't understand many of their speech. Similarly, the Abhiñño people can control their expert minds to do what they want, such as seeing the other minds, seeing the future, etc.
See citta-visuddhi-niddesa in  path of purification.

Please don't try to read another person's mind,( Wrong conclusions derived can lead to serious misunderstanding of, even good intentions)
Okay, I'll tell you something based on my personal research over the years (still incomplete).
manomaya iddhi
'Penetration of others' minds'
I think it is possible to read a persons mind, but i doubt if you can read it like a book. it is possible to grasp other persons intentions to a great extent.
Who can do it ..?, a person who has achieved above normal consciousness.
How ..?, We humans have certain patterns of thinking & people with higher consciousness have certain special abilities (e.g.: high observation skills, insight, etc.) and they are able to cultivate their mind,(Yeah really like cultivating an agriculture field, their mind is constantly growing at above normal rate).
It is also possible to connect with a person standing a few feet away mentally (especially teenage lovers:) , Some people have experience of suddenly turning their head in one direction (as if somebody forcibly pushed their head to the left or right),and seeing the special somebody staring at them from a distance).
some other super normal powers possible (may be :)).
the power of transformation

Invisibility
I think this invisibility is not vanishing into thin air, it is more like camouflage without military clothing. It is like distracting a person's senses using the power of mind (along with or without any body movement).
The experience of entering into a room and not noticing somebody who has been standing still (intentionally to scare you) may be closer to this). I think even the shadow of another person could be used effectively for distraction.
Prediction of future (ESP)
I also believe it is also possible to predict future to some extent, just like the financial analysts predicting about economy.
Walking on water (Not on top of water)
May be somebody with light weight body ( may be possible for somebody capable of starving or controlling their diet and intentionally reduce their body weight) having perfect control over  body muscles (to avoid swaying back or forth, left or right ,Possible for somebody who achieved control over mind and body)
If the surface of an object touching water is greater in area than the portion above,the object on top of water may not sink and combined with thrusting motion of the foot like a piston (just like walking in the swamp) it may be possible.

From my experience, prediction of future is based on ability to read Akashic records. Invisibility is possible (either injecting images into other mind) or increasing your vibratory field, so your body can be less dense. Walking on water is possible by producing Chi energy underneath to walk on, or based on levitation. For some studies around these topics, check this post.

There are researches and explanation on psychic abilities (ESP) and how the mind works, but they're not yet accepted by the West mainstream science.
The main contradictions between religion and science are how our reality is perceived by our senses.
The main assumptions by science about our universe are thatNatural News:

The universe is mechanical
So there is no consciousness, spirit, mind and nothing other than mechanical and chemical components.
All matter is unconscious
Despite some recent researches by theoretical physicist Max Tegmark which says that consciousness might be a state of matter, which he calls perceptronium (life force).
The total amount of matter and energy is always a constant
The laws of nature are fixed
Nature is purposeless, with no goal or direction
All biological inheritance is material, carried in DNA
There is no such thing as a "mind" other than an artifact of brain function
Memories are stored chemically in the brain and disappear at death
Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works

etc.
Based on above you really can't expect any scientific explanation on such supernormal/psychic powers, because they contradict science, despite many occurrences (Pyrokinesis on AGT, Qi Gong, Psi).
The reason for that is that a scientific theory must make testable or refutable predictions of what should happen or be seen under a given set of new, independent, observing or analysis circumstances from the particular problem or observation the theory was originally designed to explain. And you can't do that with paranormal experiences, because it's occurrence of an event or perception beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.
Secondly the current scientific model consist only five major companies which control more than half of academic publishing, therefore to defy above assumption it's to defy the science it-self.
See also:

Is there any proof of the existence of the soul?

I'm a secular Buddhist, I accept science as an sufficiently accurate, evolving model of reality. I see the Siddhi's as interesting tricks you can do you shape your experience, but don't shape or interact with the world as flat out magic.
So, on to mind reading. Yes, there is a scientific basis for mind reading in the sense of mirror neurons. They create a simulation of other animals and people in your own brain. It has been evolutionarily useful to know when a predator is going to try to eat you, when prey is about to run, when your primate troop is about to kick you out of the group.
These mirror neurons fire when you see someone move their arm, the same as if you had moved your own arm. I don't think we have the data to explain how it works, my arm chair explanation is that the brain just creates models for as much of the other person as seems useful.
I think that mirror neurons are also the foundation of karuna/compassion in the sense of the ability to feel other people's pain.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Can meditation help students in exams?
Came across this interesting research paper: Harvard Unveils MRI Study Proving Meditation Literally Rebuilds The Brain’s Gray Matter In 8 Weeks
If above is the case, is there any research showing that meditation makes better students or make people fair well at exams? Does it boost your IQ / EQ?

Perhaps related: stackexchange.com/questions/...

Here are references to some studies on this.  I don't know how rigorous they are!
An abstract of a study:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/27/0956797612459659.abstract
Two articles in the Huffington Post that reference studies.  I imagine trying to google the universities and professors involved might get you some abstracts or summaries of results:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/meditation-better-grades_n_3053719.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/mindfulness-testing-focus-reading-comprehension_n_2957146.html

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


text:
Is Enlightenment a misleading ideal?
Is Enlightenment a misleading goal? Is it more of a thought-form than just an experience? I am asking because there is a lot of discussion of awakening, enlightenment, satori, differences, levels, etc. and I think that this distracts from the simple truth of growing in awareness, which is both individual and collective.
In other words, is it better to stop thinking about "how to get to 'it' " and just get on with life? In any field, we don't try to attain a specific goal, because - then what? Artists don't try to reach a level, they just make more art. So I would say, is it more helpful to not talk about enlightenment and talk instead about simply becoming more aware?
My prompt for this question comes from what I read (long ago) about how people asked the Buddha after his enlightenment something like: "What are you? Are you an angel? Are you a devil? What?" and he said "I am awake." So, his answer was about a condition of being, not an endpoint. Like how a rainbow is an arrangement of circumstances, not a thing that you can touch. This is not coming out right... I think that the word "enlightenment" focuses on a rainbow - something that does not exist. Talking about it prolongs ignorance, perhaps?
Is this addressed specifically in the Buddhist literature? Thank you.

Just my 2 cents: it's going to be very hard to practice if you don't consider the path as the path to the end of suffering, which is exactly how the Buddha put it. You start getting entangled in "when will I finally know how everything works and why," and you might never get out. It's not part of the path. You work to get out of the cycle. That's what the Buddha taught. After that, it's your business.

Now,if you look at the path the way he taught, then you don't need to feel overshadowed by a goal defined as "knowing everything."Because that only gets you asking the wrong questions,e.g."What's the underlying nature of this very moment?" everywhere you go.You can go crazy like that.However,if you have faith in the Buddha,then your job is noticing "Is there any stress here?" and working to alleviate it,in whatever way you can,within the framework of morality.Develop your morality;be persistent with your practice and your appropriate attention to how you're feeling.Work your way on from there.

Watch the movie "Lucy". I like that better than my old favorite of "The Matrix". I can relate to it better, because it is less thought-oriented, and more experience-oriented. A rainbow is an experience.

It's not just enlightenment. It may be 'misleading' to think in terms of any goal. I feel you might be misunderstanding what it means to be 'Awake'. As much as a 'condition of being' this is a condition of not-being' and it is not a 'thing' like a rainbow. Rather it would be the realisation that all things are like rainbows.

I'd like to add one phrase from Larry Rosenberg in his book Breath by Breath. The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation (2012), p.45:

Finally, enlightenment is the experience of intimacy with the entire universe. There is no separation whatsoever. You totally disappear in the process of uniting with the raw content of the present moment. And because you do, you have never been more alive.

When you see it this way, enlightenment can never be a misleading ideal.

Thank you, very succinct description. Perhaps no one should say more than that. My experience of explaining this to people is that they cannot take it in or align with it. Either they have already felt the possibility on an intuitive level, or it is never going to get in.

@nocomprende - the only thing we've to do is: going beyond...gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha..

beyond what? Even that is a mystery.

@soulsings - beyond our ego; beyond our senses...

This is a very well know paradox, perhaps the main paradox of Buddhism. On one hand, there is no Enlightenment -- on the other hand, Enlightenment truly occurs! Most of Zen lore revolves around this very pivot point.
You are right in your intuition that thinking and talking of Enlightenment is counterproductive. At the same time, to simply go on with life is not Enlightenment either.
Enlightenment requires getting to the very bottom of things. Once you get to the bottom of things, you're no longer fooled with words such as "Enlightenment" -- instead, you directly see what is being referred to. And then in the practical sense, Enlightenment means mastery of skillful action rooted in the right understanding.
When such a master acts, the skill is quite obvious to everyone. Because the master is in harmony with all things, her action is very efficient. Needless to say, the master knows how to act as to avoid hurting herself or others.

Thank you. I liked your definition at the end of 3rd paragraph. 4th paragraph reminds me of my Guru. I have not seen her in a long time.

Enlightenment is an experience, which you get here and now, when you practice Vipassana.
Like an artist, if you do not take some effort to paint, there will be no art; likewise, if you do not do Vipassana, there will be no enlightenment. This cannot be achieved with by tying too hard, craving for it, thinking about it, etc. It is the natural realization from the practice of Vipassana.
Enlightenment is not a conditioned existence, but when you have achieved something beyond conditioning, or an unconditioned state. When you achieve this state, you are no longer creating new fabrications. This is because you have understood the law of cause and effect and 4 noble truths with regard to our mind matter phenomena.

Thank you. If I understand you, I think you are saying that the word enlightenment means something like "what is happening now", a verb rather than a noun? I thought that the conventional meaning is of something like a state, which is perhaps my misunderstanding. Maybe that is a common misunderstanding?

You stop creating new fabrication

That is a nice way to look at it, thank you. I love hearing all these excellent ways of looking at things, sometimes one will come to mind at just the right time.

In Zen, Shunryu Suzuki talks about enlightenment as beginner's mind in his book, Zen Mind, Begginer's Mind.
Over and over he says enlightenment is not something we attain, but when we stop trusting in false senses of self, then who we are and always have been and already will be apparent.
It is necessary to stop trying to achieve or attain, but we must keep practicing or the goal slips further away. It is not easy to talk about, read the book linked to or a hard copy. Roshi Suzuki's words will do far more for helping you drop the mask and see what is here right now than I can possibly hope to.

Thank you. Some people cannot seem to conceive of not "trusting in false senses of self" as a goal. To them, it is just a non-sequitur. Like the advice to fly: "throw yourself at the ground and miss."

Or throw yourself at the ground and not miss. There is no logic in beginner's mind. It is a world of mystery. When asked a question a master replies "uncertain." That may be all we can say.

If Enlightenment is taken as an all or nothing thing that must be achieved to be "successful" at Buddhism, then it is a bad idea.
If it's taken as an ideal to strive towards to ensure maximum gains, then it's a good idea.
What one gains from practicing can be achieved in degrees and the pseudo-paradoxes of Enlightenment vanish once one abandons this all or nothing view.  If perfect Enlightenment is not possible, so what?  Isn't it worthwhile to have a life that's better than what you have now, even if it's not perfect?

Thank you, I like what you are saying. "Achieved in degrees", and "so what?"

In any field, we don't try to attain a specific goal, because - then what?

I don't think that "no specific goal" is true of medicine, for example. If I go to my doctor with any complaint (for example, a complaint about my shoulder), then there is a specific goal.
Similarly I suspect that Buddhism has a specific goal: its goal is the third noble truth i.e. cessation.

I think that the word "enlightenment" focuses on a rainbow - something that does not exist.

To an extent that's true, but maybe that's a good thing.
I.e. everything which exists is "conditioned": for example a feeling, a person, a table, a mountain "exist because of" (or "dependently co-arise with") this and that, and will cease to exist when those conditions change (all things are conditioned and impermanent and unsatisfactory).
Whereas "enlightenment" is supposed to be none of the above: i.e. it's unconditioned, timeless, and satisfactory.

In other words, is it better to stop thinking about "how to get to 'it' " and just get on with life?

I think that at least some elementary Buddhist doctrine is helpful with its generic advice about "how".
You wouldn't tell doctors just to get on with treating patients, without teaching doctors "how" to do that.
You teach them skills ("wash your hands") and useful theories or views (for example, about "germs").

If I understand you, I think you are saying that the word enlightenment means something like "what is happening now", a verb rather than a noun?

Hmm, grammar. Do you know the word "reify"? I suspect that grammar encourages us to do that: "enlightenment", "love", "pain", "I" and so on are nouns and pronouns.
You're thinking maybe it should be seen as a verb?
How about seeing it as an adjective instead?
Instead of seeing "a dog" see "a location or a being with dog-nature" or "dog-like properties" or "dogginess".
Instead of seeing "enlightenment" (noun) or "enlightening" (verb) how about seeing "enlightened" (adjective)?
Note that enlightenment is characterized as an absence or negative:

Not conditioned, not unsatisfactory, not impermanent
Not ignoble (nor base, vulgar, common, or unprofitable)
Out-blown, extinguished (like a blown-out candle)
Cessation or liberation (from suffering)
Dis-identification (contrast with Hindu nirvana which is 'identification with God')
Absence of defilements (kleshas)

Talking about it prolongs ignorance, perhaps?

Maybe you're right.
Going back to the doctor-and-medicine analogy, maybe "health" can be defined as "absence of any disease" (like "enlightenment" is "absence of any defilement").
I don't go to the doctor to talk about "health"; instead I only go to:

Talk about specific disease
Talk about lifestyle habits/skills (e.g. diet and exercise) to avoid disease

The doctor has (in my experience) nothing much to say about health itself. For example I would go for a yearly check-up and once the doctor said (part-jokingly), "You're very healthy. Go away: I don't want to see you again for another two or three years."

Excellent. If I may add to Chris's answer... let us rely on the Truths and learn to attain the Emptiness of the Prajnaparamita.. let us not give up hope for We shall never attain Awakening by either wanting it strongly nor by not wanting it strongly!

"Dogginess" - ha ha! "It's a doggie-dog world." I don't see health as absence of disease, but I will consider your metaphor of enlightenment as empty. Still, difficult to make "no thing" a goal. I agree about the noun-ification problem. I think that is what my question is really about. When has a doctor learned "enough"?

'Enlightenment is ego's ultimate disappointment.' Chogyam Trungpa

Yeah, I love that quote. Is it from "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism"? I read that about 15 years ago.

Not sure. I've been listening to these audio lectures.
http://www.chronicleproject.com/CTRlibrary/index_CTRlibrary.html

I upvoted to cancel the downvote. I like this answer. Thank you, Barry. A little nutshell like this gets stuck in the mind and wont back down, like the sand grain that makes a pearl. That is why we have Masters.

I think you are at it with your idea, it just needs more accuracy.
Enlightenment is the way and the goal. If we go deep into samsara, then enlightenment is our goal. If we are enlightened, then enlightenment is our way.

Thank you, I agree, I think it just quite missed the nail somehow. Can't explain.

Contemporary literature is enough for you? There is a Dzogchen text from Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche called "The Mirror: Advice on the Presence of Awareness":
http://www.fudomouth.net/thinktank/now_nnawareness.htm
He starts saying:

A practitioner of Dzogchen must have precise presence and awareness. Until one really and truly knows one's own mind and can govern it with awareness, even if very many explanations of reality are given, they remain nothing more than ink on paper or matters for debate among intellectuals, without the possibility of the birth of any understanding of the real meaning.

Certainly the subject of enlightenment or The Dharma can become hindrances. But we need guidance to achieve the proposed states of mind. Saying that we should "just become more aware" sometimes isn't enough, usually we need some insight.
He makes the following metaphor:

If a sick person knows perfectly well the properties and functions of a medicine and is also expert in giving explanations about it, but doesn't ever take the medicine, he or she can never get well.

He says that we can get lost in the theory, but he never says we shouldn't study it. The point is that theoretical knowledge alone can't produce any enlightenment.

So, without chattering about it, or getting caught up in trying to hide behind an elegant facade, one should try really and truly to cause the presence of awareness actually to arise in oneself, and then carry it into practice. This is the most important point of the practice of Dzogchen.

There is a handful of words, ink and pixels pointing us to the right direction. It is a two edged sword.

Thank you. You quoted: "... without the possibility of the birth of any understanding of the real meaning." Yes, that is what I find when talking, such as with friends. But what of the people who do not relate at all? No kind of fishing lure will catch a bird.

You are right, people unrelated to Buddhism needs to learn the Dhamma, if they seek enlightenment of course. But point of the text is that Buddhist people sometimes get lost in Dhamma. They talk and discuss about it, but they don't put it in practice.

All excellent answers to an excellent question. I wish to add my two cents.
The literal meaning of nibbana is "quenching", or "blowing out" like a candle that has been snuffed out. Since it is impossible to define the sublime because it happens at a level inaccessible to words, a negative definition is the only possible metaphor. Thus, it is not something that one achieves, but something that one can create conditions for it to happen.
When you plant a seed, you cannot force it to grow: you just can provide water, fertiliser, care and protection until, in due time, it offers its fruits.

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


text:
Do flying monks described in Buddhist texts contradict with physics?
So the Buddhist texts must be stating something incorrectly since we now know that we can't fly without the help of technology. How could they fly then?

Yes it does. This sounds close to an "Am I right or am I right?" sort of question. It would be more neutral if you had asked, "What is the in-world/in-myth explanation for flying?" Stories of miracles crept into Buddhism, but their truth value is sort of irrelevant to the main message, unlike certain other religions where the miracles are exhibit one for proof of the remainder of the religion's doctrine.

This apparent conundrum also serves to highlight modern society's obsession with what is possible and what is not possible in the physical world.

I believe it! There are things that made me believe in those things.

One of the main pieces of advice in the Buddha Dhamma is verification by trying it yourself (Ehipassiko) and to be open to scientific scrutiny (Sandiṭṭhiko). Hence you can develop the Jhanas and see for your self if this is possible or not. Self-verification and experience is more convincing than people arguing in-favor or against something like this.
Having said this, there is much research in these areas under Parapsychology though this might be view as pseudoscience.

"So the Buddhist texts must be stating something incorrectly since we now know that we can't fly without the help of technology. How could they fly then?"

What text are you referring to?
Also, what is meant by "flying"? Is it an actual body? Or, perhaps, just the mind?

"since we now know that we can't fly without the help of technology"

I don't think the above can be inferred from physics. Not much because I am a physicist, but because natural laws have a way of refusing to be subsumed by assertions like these. In other words, it seems to be another instance of the old induction trap. For example, seeing 100 black cats is enough to assert "all cats are black" without incurring in mistake?
The Buddha himself seemed to be acutely aware of this problem when he says he does not discern a beginning [of the world], instead of relapsing his reasoning and declaring "the world is eternal" (see  Brahmajāla Sutta).

If I'm not mistaken, it is the actual body

The Buddhist texts claim that many things are possible that many people think are not possible. As Suminda said, the claim is that once one properly develops the four bases of power, i.e., profound concentration founded on (1) desire & effort, (2) persistence, (3) intent, and (4) discrimination, then one will be capable of gaining 'supranormal powers,' as described in this passage from the Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta:

When a monk has thus developed & pursued the four bases of power, he
  experiences manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes
  many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He
  goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through
  space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on
  water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he
  flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches &
  strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises
  influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.

These appear, at least at first glance, to be literal, bodily powers; i.e., he bodily walks on water without sinking, although perhaps one could claim that the 'body' referred to in this passage refers to the 'mind-made body.' This is at least prima facie plausible since, in the Samaññaphala Sutta, the passage on the aformentioned powers occurs exactly as above but immediately follows a section on the 'mind-made body.' In either case, there are other powers mentioned in this sutta such as reading others' minds, recollecting past lives, and personally seeing how beings fare according to their kamma that contradict mainstream scientific views.
So, yes, there seems to be a contradiction between a worldview, perhaps a materialist scientific view, that holds that it is impossible to fly without technology and what is proclaimed in the suttas. Even if we interpret the suttas to be saying that one can physcially fly, I don't know that the Buddhist view conflicts with physics per se; to borrow from author Sam Harris on this point, it would be a discovery for physics if human flight based on concentration were shown to be possible.
Again, even if we allow that the suttas are talking about physical flight, built into the details is an explanation of why this contradiction should occur; namely, (1) the degree of concentration required for the development of these powers is not attained by the average person (hence, supranormal) and (2) Whatever Buddhist monks do attain these powers are forbidden by the monastic code from displaying these powers. Based on these factors, it would make sense that mainstream scientists or your average layperson would have no knowledge of these possibilities.
On the other hand, if the suttas are talking about the mind-made body (astral body), then although I think the details will still reveal a conflict with mainstream physics, it will not be as gross a contradiction. In any case, there certainly is a contradiction between the physicalist view that death is annihilation and the view that 'there is another world'--i.e., rebirth (cf. Apannaka sutta). So, ultimately Buddhism is at odds with mainstream views of physics.

Buddhism denies the existence of an objective universe. There is only the "packets" of sensation which if experienced un analysed contain no name nor form, and thus are chaos or void. We fudge-stitch our experiences together, assuming that things that are similar are the same. There never was any space to fly through nor up nor down. When you experience that purity, when you shake the other from your back, then at least it feels like you are flying, and other people who can see the fire in your eyes will feel like you are flying too.
Nietzsche is about the only Western philosopher who associates states of mind with freedom from gravity, which he expresses in the following way in Zarathustra
And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!
I learned to walk; since then have I let myself run. I learned to fly; since then I do not need pushing in order to move from a spot. Now am I light, now do I fly; now do I see myself under myself. Now there dances a God in me.-"
But perhaps Einstien himself experienced that rapture too. He explained "The happiest thought of my life" in the following way.
The gravitational field has only a relative existence... Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house - at least in his immediate surroundings - there exists no gravitational field.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13359/einsteins-happiest-thought

Plato wrote about a winged chariot. Do you think that might have been a metaphor, not physics?

I think that Plato may be talking about the same thing as Neitzche's , which is part metaphor and part physical. Physics as argued also by people like Wheeler and Bohm
In 1975 David Bohr and Basil Hiley wrote
Its (science's) role is not to give an analysis into constituent parts, but rather to serve as a basis of description, which does not imply the independent existence of the "elements" that are distinguished in this description p102


text:
Central idea of Buddhism
Is the central idea of Buddhism about being totally objective, see things as what they are and don't have a preference or judgement? If that is correct, then why we should prefer the ideas in Buddhism to any other ideas. Isn't that already making a judgement? Am I misunderstanding anything?

The Central Idea of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering.  Everything else is a means to that end.
The goal is not to be objective, but rather, being objective can serve or be a milestone along that goal.  Here's how it works out.
We suffer because we are attached to desire.  Therefore, we let go of desire to stop suffering.  Since desire permeates our experience, when we let go of desire, we transform our experience.  This experience may still have desire, but we are not attached to it -- we see the desire as part of our experience and are not wrapped up in it.  This is "seeing things as they are" or "objectivity".  The subjectivity is there, but we're more aware of the subjective layer as something we add rather than part of the thing itself.
Judgments, preferences, and so on can still be there; after all, if the Buddha didn't have them, he would have just sat around until he starved to death.  However, we are not attached to these preferences and so on.  We don't get bent out of shape over them.
Why prefer this way?  Well, because you want to cease suffering.  If you don't care about suffering, there's no point in Buddhism.

"Is the central idea of Buddhism about being totally objective, see things as what they are"

Without elaborating on "objectivity", I think it might be somewhat fair to say that. Though there are many "central ideas" of Buddhism, and "central ideas" that are very particular to Buddhism (and being objective is not exclusive to Buddhism). I'd say it is a kind of attitude, stretching a little, maybe a method, that permeates it.

" [...] and don't have a preference or judgement?"

I hardly think so. I don't think it is possible to not establish preferences. And, if you understand judgement to be "discernment", I also don't think that is possible either. Or beneficial.
On the other hand, it is another "central idea" to watch and understand how these "preferences" and "judgements" unfolds in their minutia.
With that practice, then, another process (which is often referred to as "judgement") would hopefully be clearer: that of allowing our minds to fill in details about something (from our fears, or fantasies) and reacting to this mixture, instead of seeing the actual thing. And that seems much more the process behind something we know by another name: pre-judgement (prejudice, preconception, preconceived idea, etc).

If that is correct, then why we should prefer the ideas in Buddhism to any other ideas.

[Following the style of the arguments in the suttas], the same reason the Buddha preferred a certain practice over another: whether it leads to Nibanna or not.

I would say to the OP: choose the ideas that seem most likely to help you succeed in whatever your goal is. If you want to permanently end suffering for yourself and not cause it in your interactions with others, Buddhism is the most clearly designed path for doing that. Choose effectiveness.

You talk of Buddhist ideas...they can be referred to as Dhamma. Now the Dhamma is 'Ehipassiko' which means to come and see for ourself.
A human being is not born enlightened but has to work for getting even the simplest of knowledge let alone some profound wisdom. Consider for e.g. the stone age man...he had the knowledge of the base needs like food, clothing, shelter, sex etc. But he probably had no resources to learn about the workings of internal organs of  his/her body. This doesn't mean that the internal organs didn't work according to their laws, s/he was just oblivious about it.
Now this Dhamma is universal and existed even before the Buddha but it took a Buddha, a perfectly enlightened one to compress this Dhamma into compact teachings. So we have these teachings, as propounded by the Buddha, before us. We would gain nothing by just preferring it or discarding it. It is for us to see if impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and non-self (anatta) are really the three marks of existence.
Now we believe in Newton's law of gravity because it can be verified. Similarly these Buddhist teachings/ideas are verifiable. Take for e.g. impermanence...I think even beginner meditators can easily verify impermanence for themselves. But verifying suffering and non-self may take time. Important thing is to be patient.
So basically we should not prefer or discard Buddhist teachings/ideas but cultivate the wisdom through meditative practice and verify them for ourselves.

"Is the central idea of Buddhism about being totally objective, see things as what they are and don't have a preference or judgement? If that is correct, then why we should prefer the ideas in Buddhism to any other ideas. Isn't that already making a judgement?

Sure, but in order for an un-enlightened worldling to attain that state of seeing things as they really are without preference or judgement, some wholesome preference and good judgement are required. One would need to make clear preference and judgement when facing the 3 poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. Ven. Ananda in SN 51.15 explains to Unnabha that the path of Dhamma is one with a definite goal: the abandoning of desire, which can only be attained by developing a strong desire to end desire:

""In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
  "Yes, sir."
  "Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"
  "Yes, sir."
  "Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
  "Yes, sir."
  "Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
  "Yes, sir."

Is the central idea of Buddhism about being totally objective, see things as what they are and don't have a preference or judgement?

Yes that does sounds fairly correct (although "objective" might not be correct).
I think that the "central idea of Buddhism" is what the Buddha preached in what was historically his first sermon, i.e. The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma.
That sermon included the "four noble truths", which include:

Suffering exists
Suffering is caused by desire
Suffering can be ended

So yes, it's our preferences (or "desires") which cause suffering.
"Our preferences" can be called "desire": but also desire's opposite, i.e. "aversion"; and, "ignorance", which together are known as the "three poisons".

If that is correct, then why we should prefer the ideas in Buddhism to any other ideas.

We should prefer the ideas in Buddhism because they are a Way which (if followed) will lead to the end of suffering.

Isn't that already making a judgement? Am I misunderstanding anything?

I would guess so, that it is making a judgement: it's a judgement about what true and false, about whether Buddhism is practicable, whether we understand it, whether it's skillful, whether it's effective, whether it's "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end", etc.
Perhaps what matters is that some judgements lead to (i.e. cause) suffering, whereas some lead away from suffering.  So it's not that all judgements are bad.

The central idea in Buddhism is to understand the law of cause and effect (Pratītyasamutpāda) with regard to mental and physical phenomena (Nama Rupa), thus also gain understanding of the 4 Noble Truths and 3 marks of existence.
This can be achived through the 3 fold practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Training) or the Noble 8 fold path by developing the qualities / factors of enlightenment. The main ingredients of the path is the practice of morality and Vipassana.
NB: Realizing the 4 Noble Truths and Cause and Effect essentially equal as the results are the same. 4 Noble Truths essentially encompass the cause and effect regarding suffering. When you identify the cause and eliminate it suffering ceases. (A concise description on what is the Buddhist teaching is given in: “Ye dhamma hetuppabhava—tesam hetum tathagato aha, tesam ca yo nirodho—evamvadi mahasamano.” “Whatever from a cause proceeds, thereof The Tathagatha has explained the cause, Its cessation too he has explained. This is the teaching of the Supreme Sage.”)
Also see:

The Wheel Publication No. 15 - Dependent Origination by Piyadassi Thera
Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Significance of Dependent Origination
http://www.samathavipassana.org/documents/dependent_origination.htm
On Dependent Origination by Ryuei Michael McCormick (Discuss interconnection of 4 Noble Truths and Cause and Effect - "The first two of the four noble truths explains the origin of suffering dependent on selfish craving for its cause. The third and fourth of the four noble truths describe the cessation of suffering by eradicating the causes upon which it depends.")
Maha Nidana Sutta (Source of: "He who sees the Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) he who sees the Dhamma sees the Dependent Origination.")

??? Didn't the buddha say:"this is what I'm teaching: the dukkha, the reason for the dukkha, the remedy for the dukkha and the noble path how to end dukkha" (paraphrased)? And also, the final (in DN16 and thus with much weight central) remark: "things are impermanent - that's how you should practice"? He said also (if I recall right from the Palicanon, isn't it in DN1) we should not try to understand the law of Karma, because it can only be grasped appropriately by a buddha?

Yes. That is the 4 Noble Truths.

Well, but how can we then say, "the central idea... is to understand ... law of cause and effect...". This is just a philosophical consideration, like Plato and Aristoteles (and many others) did: this is the central idea in their teachings.

It is said some one who sees the Pratītyasamutpāda sees the Dhamma, hence this is one off the most central teachings. "Ye dhamma hetuppabhava, tesum hetum tathagatho aha; tesam ca yo nirodho, evam vadi mahasamano" (of things that proceed from a cause, their cause the Tathagatha has told;and also their cessation. Thus teaches the great ascetic)

Also see: http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh015-p.html

Introduction to Buddhism in very few words:Upatissa’s question was: “What is your teacher’s doctrine? What does he proclaim?”
And this was the answer:
“Ye dhamma hetuppabhava—tesam hetum tathagato aha,
tesam ca yo nirodho—evamvadi mahasamano.”
“Whatever from a cause proceeds, thereof
The Tathagatha has explained the cause,
Its cessation too he has explained.
This is the teaching of the Supreme Sage.”

Maybe the issue here is "dharma", which has lots of different meanings, one of which is something like, "how things really are" another is "the principles of one mental model explaining how things really are propounded by Buddhists".  An analogy would be heaven and heavens (getting your soul to heaven is religion, but explaining the heavens (meaning planets and stars in this case) is in the realm of science.)  The former sense of the Dhamma is objective. If Buddhist confound them, is a sign of confidence.
In the pali texts, the historical Buddha had a story about seeing Buddhism as sort of a raft to get across a river, and once you reach the other side, you put it down.
ref: http://www.buddhapadipa.org/dhamma-corner/the-dhamma-is-a-raft/
Overtime though, Buddhism becomes an institutionalize religion and you begin see things like the 8th Minor Precept (this is from the Brahma Net Sutra, which is precepts for east Asian Buddhism):

On Turning Away from the Mahayana

If a disciple of the Buddha disavows the eternal Mahayana sutras and moral codes,
  declaring that they were not actually taught by the
  Buddha, and instead follows and observes those of the Two Vehicles and
  deluded externalists, he commits a secondary offense.

This isn't to imply that Mahayanaists went down the wrong path... I think in just about all Buddhisms, enlightenment turned into an ideal that you never are expected to reach, at least not on human scales of time. In other words, hold onto that metaphorical raft forever, because you aren't enlightened.
Personally I'm optimistic about the prospects of enlightenment in this life, optimistic about finding parallels in science and Buddhism (of the calm, not so revolutionary sort, no the breathless claims of finding quantum physics being forseen by any buddhist writer), and I'm pessimistic about finding different religions to be saying the same thing (other than maybe hinduism and jainism, since they all drew on the same pool of ideas as Buddhism).
In short, science, Christianity, Buddhism, the man in the street all share the same universe (same objective dhrama in front of them), but only over have some overlap in the dharmas they "preach".

Deal with the paradox. Emptiness is form; form is emptiness.
But I think when they say to not have preferences or to not judge it means to not attach yourself to phenomena, to what is right or to what is good. Likewise don't refuse or avoid what is wrong or bad. Learn the Dharma but don't blind yourself with it.


text:
Is our mind faster than light?
Here is what I have been told by some Thai followers:
The sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth, but our mind can think of the sun or even of distant stars instantly. That is to say, our mind is faster than the speed of light. They claim science is a subset of Buddhism.
Is this true or false?

They are talking total gibberish.  Never let philosophers try to make claims involving actual physics.  Alan Sokal's tired of dealing with that.

For a proper comparison ask how long it takes the sun's light to think of Earth, or how long it takes your mind to physically travel to the sun.

I think such phrases are metaphors.

Gosh, I read something a few years back in sci amer mind maybe? Anyway, researchers had shown that either some thoughts

Are faster than real time, or that there is a signal in the brain that must travel ftl. Ill try to find it

Maybe this falls in the category of useless things to ponder, or vexing things. Not every question that you can think of is worth pursuing.

The key point here is that the concept of speed is dependent on space (speed = distance/time, distance = spatial position B - spatial position A), which in turn is a derived product of matter.
Mind, being immaterial (and moreover momentary), does not "move", per se. It arises based on one of the six senses and ceases in the next moment. It never takes up space, nor can it be said to "move" in ultimate reality.

Bhante, there's a semi-famous story about 'mind moving', i.e. Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving. But I suppose that might be some metaphorical movement.

Also I read on Wikipedia that Rūpa doesn't distinguish between an object's external-material-thingness and its internal-sensorial-thingness; I don't know whether there is a word or system-of-knowledge that does: whether anyone tries to distinguish between objective and subjective.

If the mind is an infinite space and phenomena occurs in fractions of a second we could say that speed approaches infinite. But when we say about the space or the movement of the mind, it isn't like space or movement in physics.

well i can write sun on paper faster than 8 minutes that does not mean my hands are faster than light ! this things are misinterpretation. Real Buddhism is about 'Nirvana' and about becoming free from the self, think about yourself without you ever existing ..

If you don't mind, perhaps this is of some relevance here as well: Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives... -- MN 22

Demonstrably false.  Before getting to thinking about the sun, let's consider seeing the sun as an example:  When photons from the sun, a visual object, make contact with the eye, there is eye-contact.  With eye-contact arises eye-consciousness, that is the pattern of electrochemical impulses in the visual cortex of the brain.  However, it still took 8 minutes for those photons to reach the eye from the surface of the sun.  When thinking about the sun, there is a mental object, the idea of the sun, which makes mind-contact with the mind, causing idea-consciousness to arise.  However, the mental object and the visual object of the sun are still two different dhammas, two different phenomena.  Your idea of the sun as a mental object has no dependence on the continued existence of the sun as a visual object.  No information travels from the visual object of the sun as part of the process of the mind making mind-contact with the mental object of the sun.

Furthermore, the sun might not even exist when you're thinking about it, and you wouldn't know for 8 minutes. An huge alien spacecraft could swoop in, scoop up the Sun and run away with it while you're calmly thinking about the sun, enjoying the remaining few minutes of warm sunlight on your face, blissfully unaware that the sun has already been taken away.

If you think about the sun the thought of it arise instantly. Hence your mind is much faster than the speed of light which takes 8 minutes to reach earth. Thoughts and memories of distant objects can arise instantly in your mind. Hence why the mind is called it is faster than the speed of light. This is not to be confused with the literal meaning where here is actual travel from one place to the other other than when rebirth is happening. (When there is rebirth you die in one place and the conscientiousness instantly arises  somewhere else where there is a ready womb.) This is similar to a simply used in Milinda Panha though this is discussed in the context of rebirth.
Science is always a model or approximation of reality, hence always changing with new research and discovery. The Dhamma is Akāliko (timeless). Hence Buddhism teachers an absolute reality where as science is and approximation.

What absolute nonsense.

The fact that a thought arises doesn't mean it actually reaches the sun or traverses the space; it only reaches the image or memory of the sun we have in our minds. That's way closer than the actual sun.

You are making a lot of mistakes about what happens when the mind "moves" to the Sun or someplace else.
One is that the Sun you're thinking of is not the Sun, it is an image of the Sun. The Sun is not in your mind. Your mind is inside your skull, or certainly inside your body (including your whole nervous system, not just your brain) which would take light far less than 8 minutes to travel through.
Another mistake is that thinking of the Sun is instantaneous. It takes the chemical, electrical and other changes in your brain and body actual time to think of the Sun. Since none of those parts of your body move anywhere near the speed of light, even the short distance among them takes milliseconds for the interacting parts to move through. But it's still not the Sun.
Still another mistake is that science is a subset of Buddhism. While there might indeed be interpretations of existence that (some) science and Buddhism could agree are accurate, most notably the fundamentally subjective nature of events requiring an observer to have any definite state or condition, there is not a hierarchical relationship. There is a common philosophical attitude derived from making experience the basis of existence, while noting that there is more to existence than to experience.
So while there is interesting food for thought in comparing the speed of thought to the speed of objects, trying to find Buddhism superior to science by contradicting it is really just a self indulgent sophism. Which both Buddhism and science would agree is a waste of time or worse.

it is an image of the Sun is precisely the key here. Good answer.

I would debate that the mind is inside the skull, or anywhere in space whatsoever, but still +1 for a concise answer.

A pretty amusing question. :)
The canon is full of descriptions such as:

Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in Ven. Anuruddha's awareness — just as a strong man might extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm — disappeared from among the Bhaggas in the Deer Park at Bhesakala Grove, near Crocodile Haunt, and re-appeared among the Cetis in the Eastern Bamboo Park, right in front of Ven. Anuruddha.

Who ever stand against the words of lord buddha,I have only one thing to say that its the truth. Our mind is so much faster than the speed of light and no one to prove and find that except a buddha.
According to buddha, there is a smallest unit of time which is called "Chiththakshana" and no one can even think about it. Our mind has a life time of 1 Chiththakshana. So Birth,Life Time And Death of our mind has this 1 smallest unit.
So our mind is birthing,living and dying trillions and trillions times(Can't even think about it) during our life time. That's why it says the mind is more and more speeder than the light. Most of the people can't understand this because of the theories they have learnt. Finally I would like to say there are trillions (Even more) of earths which people live, in this universe. And the end of the universe is inside our own body.
For more information refer Abhidhamma Pitaka

Hello tarzanbappa and welcome to Buddhism.SE! Can you kindly link the specific references for the information contained in your answer? Thank you.

For that you need to refer the Abhidamma Pitaka of three Pitaka

Yes. According to Tibetan Buddhism and also non-denominational anecdotes from people that died and came back they went through a "tunnel" traveling what they felt was faster than the speed of light.
Also, mind-only school of consciousness in Buddhism would also confirm that mind is beyond the laws and bounds of space-and-time including the light constant which limits other material phenomena.

Light is made of photons; it is material : the photons move in the air or in the emptiness like in space for example; the thinking is in our soul; it is not material.

Photons are not "material".

@LightnessRacesinOrbit he is referring to "material" in the sense "not the mind or spirit," not to "matter."

@rightføld: That's immaterial.

Your mind is not faster than light for two reasons. First, you are just imagining the sun not producing light from the body itself. Two, your mind works through the use of neurons. Neurons communicate to each other by sending electrical impulses, electrical impulses are electrons moving through atoms that have dislocated electrons. Just saying this is far from the speed of light, but I get the idea why people believe this because the electrical impulses don't have to travel far to the next neuron since its on a cellular level compared to the large distances we use electricity for, this is considerably fast so it kinda seems like the speed of light.
P.S. As another example, mainly psychologically. It could be you think as that the speed of the mind is equal to the speed of light since we got the idea that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible. And your speed of thought is the fastest you can think, since you can't imagine anything faster because you have a limit you think that your speed of thought is the fastest speed possible. Since your thinking process is basically 'you'. So you have nothing to compare it to literally since as I said you 'thinking', is the fastest you can 'think', because 'thought' is the base layer of you 'thinking'. And because of this, you make the connection that the fastest speed possible in the universe is isn't/as fast as your thought process. Of course this isn't the only reason why you think that thought is faster than light. If this is hard to understand sorry, its because this is quite hard to put into words.

When you're thinking about the Sun, your consciousness isn't actually traveling to the Sun itself; rather, your mind is simply reproducing a mental image of the Sun. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to say that when you think of the Sun, the "movement" is from some part of the brain to another (not a neurologist, sorry).
The light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach Earth, but in doing so it travels an immense 92,960,000 miles. (yes, I know it's not speed of light through a vacuum, but the difference is insignificant here)
However, when you think of the Sun, the information travels some amount of inches in what, a couple milliseconds?
From this, we can easily see that light is faster than our mind.

I think that the use of the word "mind" connected with how the brain works is misleading. They are different levels, like how what I am writing here is different from the software in use, or my computer hardware. This same CPU lets me write any thing I want. So are CPUs intelligent? Where are my words written here, actually? Same kind of mixup.

Mind is not but it's thinking. Sun is not but is rays. Light is not but it's vision. In your context your thinking is right but it can never go abnormal until unless you had percieved something abnormal to you. Only then your mind has started sending thinking/rays in response to that.


text:
Do Buddhists think other religions are wrong?
I appreciate that religion can be many things but I want to consider the more soteriological aspects of religion. If we can take as a premise that religions including Buddhism have a strong concern about salvation - this would mean that Buddhism and other religions have competing views on this matter. Do Buddhist texts and Buddhist teachers think that other religions are wholly wrong in this regard or maybe partially right or even perhaps everyone is correct in some sense?
I'm particularly interested in references for reasonable authoritative texts or quotes from teachers either ancient or contemporary. Also are certain schools of Buddhism more open to other religious views and perhaps other ones more exclusive in their views?

Personally, I am a Truth-seeker first then a Buddhist. Buddhism is the only religion that allows me to come closest to understanding reality without blind faith other than the need to understand the framework, terminologies and reasonings adopted by the Buddha. So, I would rephase the question as “How wrong was Buddhism (or the other religions) with regards to reality?”. Ultimately, if we are on the right side of reality, we are a winner even if others disagree. Likewise, when we are on the wrong side, we are goners. No deceptive, coercive or manipulative tactics will change this fact.

Do Buddhist texts and Buddhist teachers think that other religions are wholly wrong in this regard or maybe partially right or even perhaps everyone is correct in some sense?

I would put the following as context:

The sixty-two kinds of wrong views (DN 1)
The Buddha relating strongly the perfect understanding of the four noble truths [FNT] and conditioned arising with Nibanna (*)
The Buddha saying he does not see any alternative to Nibanna (*)

From these lines, if the alternative salvation is said to be everlasting, then it must be unconditioned, otherwise it is wrong [view], subjected to be inspected and recognized as impermanent. If indeed it is everlasting, I guess we are left with the following:

(1) The alternative salvation proclaimed is actually Nibanna [requiring the perfect understanding of the FNT,etc]; or
(2) There is, indeed, "something else" (which is not Nibanna) that escaped the Buddha's eye. But that "something" should not be conditioned [which would denounce its impermanence]. And that seems hard to conceive, and not quite at sight (to a Buddha, as testified by him, let alone to a layperson).

On the other hand, if by "salvation" something else is understood (eg. joining the company of a being or group of beings at a heaven, or receiving an endorsement of another kind of being, reaching a specific kind of bliss, etc), something carrying the sign of impermanence, but not declared to be permanent, than I don't think it should necessarily be regarded as wrong [view], nor should be thought to be "wrong". It is clearly a different goal. Though a goal unfit to be a permanent escape from suffering.
However, if Nibanna is declared to be the salvation, discourses like the sixty-two kinds of wrong views denounce explicitly some wrong grasps.
(*) sorry, I don't remember the suttas, I'd edit later if I find

In Buddhism you have to straighten your views. In this process there may be times where you new views might start contradicting your previous beliefs or that of established religions. There are 3 stages to straightening your view:

You learn the Dhamma and see that this sounds right
You see it is logical
You practice and empirically verify and see that it is in fact true.

As a person taking the path you need not put aside any views as right or wrong to start with just because it is said so. Through logic and practice you start seeing things clearly then you can straighten your views. When you experience some thing sometimes even a a firm believer in Buddhism you would start seeing things in a new light and sometimes see your initial conceptual understanding differs from reality.
Hence the Buddhist position would be that conceptual / philosophical understanding is flawed. Your understanding is right only with regard to what you see at the experiential level. Hence any philosophical / conceptual aspect of any religion including Buddhism cannot be absolutely right.

The Theravadan Buddhist perspective says that Buddhist has a pluralistic view of religion. The Buddha was suggested to say the following about the validity of other religions in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

"In whatever Dhamma and Discipline the Noble Eightfold Path is not found, no ascetic is found of the first, the second, the third, or the fourth grade. But such ascetics can be found, of the first, second, third or fourth grade in a Dhamma and Discipline where the Noble Eightfold Path is found. Now, Subhadda, in this Dhamma and Discipline the Noble Eightfold Path is found, and in it are to be found ascetics of the first, second, third or fourth grade."

The "Noble Eightfold Path" is a group of 8 "corrects" that when put into practice lead to Enlightenment. These 8 are correct view, correct intention, correct speech, correct livelihood, correct effort, correct mindfullness, correct meditation.
Note that these 8 "corrects" are qualities that can be done and are done in other religious (and non religious) groups.
While all Buddhist accept these 8 "corrects" as needed to reach Enlightenment, they have a lot of disagreement of how to define them.
Some Buddhists sects view "correct livelihood" to mean vegetarianism is necessary, while other sects view it is not necessary.
Some Buddhist sects view chastity as necessary to achieve "correct meditation", other sects do not view chastity as necessary or beneficial towards "correct meditation".
Within the religion, many Buddhist accept the view that there are many roads leading to the same place.
While other religions may not call living virtuously and with self-restraint, the "Eight Noblefold Path" and may call it "The Ten Commandements" or "The Word According to the Book"
are they not really the same thing?

Perhaps there are some sects of Buddhism that preach salvation, but there is no god to save us in Buddhism, and there is no one that can be saved, and there is nothing that we need to be saved from. So salvation in Buddhism has no place to take root.
The Buddha replied to an inquiry about who he was. He thought for a while and said "Awake."
That same awakeness is here right now whether we are aware of it or not.
If you want to read about Zen, you will find no salvation or hope of it.
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf
But to answer your question, I would find any sect that denies any other religion difficult or impossible to defend as Buddhist. They violate one of the most sacred principles, Do No Harm. Denying any other religion is an attempt to harm another's path to awakening. If someone worships a rock, even that is their path to awakening. When the pursuit of awakening supersedes the pursuit of having the most powerful religion, we will have no reason for such debates.

The "soteriology" that the question is asking about is "liberation" from suffering and ignorance, achieve nirvana, becoming enlightened.

The following seems to be an apposite quote for this question.
The commentary to the Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar says that the following quote says that eternalism and annihilationism are, both, views which do not lead to liberation i.e. the end of suffering.

"Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.[5]

"Any recluses or brahmans who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape[6] in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favoring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say.

The commentary says,

The view of being is identical with eternalism (sassatavada), the positing of some eternal entity or spiritual principle, i.e., a substantial self or soul, as the essence of the individual, and the positing of an eternal entity, such as a creator God or metaphysical Absolute, as the ground or source of the objective universe. The view of non-being is identical with annihilationism (ucchedavada), the repudiation of any principle of continuity beyond death and the denial of an objective, transpersonal foundation for morality.

There's more (which I haven't quoted) in that commentary.

The existence of 'Right view' implies that there also exists such a thing as 'wrong view'.

Talking about Buddhism as a whole it's rather difficult since there are many views and ideas. Many people would tell you that's harmful, others would tell you that it's ok. What I'd tell you and I think it's the most accurate is that in the core teachings, it's as irrelevant as it is relevant, which means "it depends".
Religion is often used as an excuse to not think, not see the life according to your own view, and in general drift from reality to something that intellectually is more appealing to ourselves. Some other times it's used as 'imposed beliefs', which we follow naively without question; each being has it's own realization path and it's own state of mind, preferences, personality and so so, thus, it could make him/her confused and drifted as to what he actually believes and thinks. When such is the case, indeed, religion is poisoning us (even if it's "buddhism") and making us go into samsara or conditional suffering.
Beliefs are not against buddhism in any way, as long as it's of good use to you and others.

“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a person
accomplished in view to dedicate themselves to another teacher. But it
is possible for an ordinary person to dedicate themselves to another
teacher.”
AN 1.276

"A person accomplished in view" refers to a stream enterer.

In the sky there is no track, there’s no true ascetic outside here.
People enjoy proliferation, the Realized Ones are free of
proliferation.
Dhp 254

"True ascetic" refers to stream enterers, once-returners, never-returners and arahants. "Here" refers to the Buddhist path.

An alternative approach is to consider what Lord Buddha taught to whom.
For instance, he did not teach vinaya to laypeople.  What we can learn from this is that he adjusted his teaching according to his audience.
How can he do this? Because Buddhism is not dogmatic. Buddha taught contextually, in accordance with the needs, convictions, and views of his audience. He was also sensitive to their beliefs.
Did he speak out against certain religious practices? Yes, definitely, but with great hesitation. For instance, the 'dog-duty' practice, or the 'ox-duty' practice (MN57 - Kukkuravatika Sutta).
If Buddha were to give a talk to christians, in a region where non-christians would come to harm, would he talk against their beliefs?  I doubt it.
If Buddha were to give a talk to muslims, in a region where non-muslims would come to harm, would he talk against their beliefs?  I doubt it also.

The term religion is just a synonym for a world-view and there are many wrong ones but only one right view, regardless of how any of them are labelled. The one right view concerning suffering, its cause, its annihilation and the method for its annihilation is actually the timeless essence of all existence, while how much of it is understood and practiced does indeed vary in time and space.
Delving into a comprehensive study of comparative religion per se, in order to see how much Truth can be found in each particular world-view, each with its inherent jargon, would be a different topic altogether. But there is nonetheless only one true and correct answer to the problem of salvation from suffering, in Pali terms - Dukkhanirodhagāminī Paṭipadā Ariyasacca


text:
Can following Buddhist practices help me in my studies?
I am a student and follow Buddhist ideas. Can Buddhist practices increase my capabilities to be a better student? More discipline? Clearer mind? What practices would be of the most benefit to achieve my academic goals?

Related questions (involve increasing focus/ attention, productivity/ efficiency/ time management)

What meditation practice will allow me to sleep less and focus more?
Best type of meditation for attention
Does meditation increase productivity for software developers and related professions?

Additionally, what studies have been done for the more general "spillover" type benefits such as greater well being and confidence?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE! Your question is very broad and difficult to answer in its current form, so I've put it on hold. If you can narrow it down so that it can have a good answer, then it can easily be reopened.

I think above is based on Ten percent of brain myth

Buddhism is partly about happiness. If one is happy, truly happy, wouldn't they perform better on all levels--such as with academics? Furthermore, related questions (increasing focus/ attention, productivity/ efficiency/ time management) will help answer the overall question.

You didn't mention whether you are a University student or a high school student. I'm going to assume you are in University for this answer.
Since you follow Buddhist ideas, you are likely familiar with the 5 precepts which are voluntarily taken by lay people who wish to follow the Buddha's teachings and who recognize that living in a manner that is harmless to others is needed as a first step. By taking the 5 precepts, a University student would be avoiding some of the worst problems that plague University populations many of which are related to alcohol and drug use and the regrettable behaviors that can follow. Here's a recent example of highly intelligent students ruining their reputations and educational opportunity by engaging in Wrong Livelihood. The practice of sīla can serve a student well and preserve educational opportunity.
The benefits to a student of practicing mindfulness are many and are briefly outlined here from the Brown University Student Health Services page.
An excerpt:

Several studies with college students suggest that the practice of mindfulness leads to decreases in stress and anxiety, improvements in concentration and attention, and increases in self-awareness and overall emotional well-being.  Professor Willoughby Britton, a clinical psychologist at Brown, has studied the effects of mindfulness meditation on Brown students and has found that meditation decreases anxiety.

Here's enough data to make your head spin from the American Mindfulness Research Association, much of it new and with mixed results. As is often said said regarding following Buddhist teachings and practices, try it for yourself. See if you see beneficial changes in yourself. When you see it for yourself; you'll know. :)

Can Buddhist practices increase my capabilities to be a better student?

Absolutely: increased calm and alertness, improved memory and health, reduced daydreaming — how could it not help?
Yoga too.

What practices would be of the most benefit to achieve my academic goals?

Sitting meditation
There are two main ways (that I know of) to do it:

One is counting breaths. My mind is extremely active so that method wouldn't have worked well for me.
What I used to do (for many years and hope to return to — it's much like the gym in that regard, I've found) is to watch your mind, your being itself; for example: "now I'm feeling the heat from sunlight through the window, now I'm having an argument do-over from the real one yesterday, now I'm feeling awesome because I quickly came out of fantasy daydream to recall I'm sitting doing this practice, now I'm remembering...".

Sending and receiving
There is a Tibetan practice you and anyone, Buddhist or not (same as sitting meditation) can do — it's called "sending and receiving": you breath in all the world's pain and other crap, hold it a sec to transform it, and breath it back as joy, health, and so on (this is an outline — instructions are good to do it right but they aren't complicated).

Can you identify any specific "Buddhist practices" that are helpful, or that are "of the most benefit"?

sitting meditation. there are two main ways (that I know of) to do it. one is counting breaths (vipassana I believe). my mind is extremely active so that method wouldn't have worked well for me. I used (for many years and hope to return to....its much like the gym in that regard, I've found) is to watch your mind, your being itself. for example: now I'm feeling the heat from sunlight thru the window, now I'm having an argument do-over from the real one yesterday, now I'm feeling awesome because I quickly came out of fantasy daydream to recall I'm sitting doing this practice, now I'm rememberin

man, my keyboard is acting up. sorry. also, there is a Tibetan practice you and anyone, Buddhist or not (same as sitting meditation)/can do. it's called sending and receiving. you breath in all the world's pain and other crap, hold it a sec to transform it, and breath it back as joy, health, and so on. this is an outline. instructions are good to do it right but they aren't complicated.

Thanks for clarifying! I edited the comments into the answer (and added some formatting). If you click on the little 'edit' link you'll see how I applied some formatting to the text ... the techniques for this simple formatting as described on this help page. The most important formatting is ordinary punctuation, and using empty lines to separate text into paragraphs. Other useful formatting is for hyperlinks and/or blockquotes (if you want to reference some other text).


text:
Buddhism about the Big Bang and Science in general
What did Buddha have to say about the creation of the Universe, if any? I asked a monk after a discourse, and he said that there is a reference to continuous Big Bangs, not simultaneous, but one after another. There have been many such Big Bangs before? I don't understand though. Is this true?
This is a slightly broader question than my previous one but is related. Does Buddha have anything to say about scientific advancements? Is there any need for Science in Buddhism? Is Buddhism too broad and philosophic for Science to explain logically or is this an excuse for not being able to explain certain phenomena scientifically?

That's 5 questions, two on cosmology and three on if traditional cosmologies should be believed literally.

One thing which is important to remember is that the Big Bang theory is a mathematical model that fits in with physical observations and helps with predictions. The model is beneficial in that it's both useful and intuitive. However, there might be many more models, possibly more complex, or simpler, which would do the same job. Saying we know that a Big Bang occurred is thus a shorthand for saying "for our intents and purposes, it's good enough to assume that a Big Bang occurred." However, although it's good enough for cosmological study, it's obviously not good enough for individual predictions, i.e. which code of conduct will lead to the highest form of welfare. For this purpose, empirical science has found its way into the field of psychology, which is, unfortunately, notoriously lacking.
The Buddha's Dhamma includes such a code of conduct, and certain cosmological references, but always in terms of the individual, e.g. what gives birth to our experience of the world, what sorts of possibilities are there to experience, what sort of conduct leads to each, etc.
Though the Buddha recalled past lives from, to quote, "many eons of cosmic expansion and contraction," he didn't present (in the suttas) any clear-cut genesis story. There is one sutta where he talks of how worlds of experience are generated, but never in terms of the origination of "what's out there." Nor did he take a stance on whether things have an inherent existence or not.
You'll find many interpretations of the Buddha's statements about the world. For instance, when he describes an "intergalactic void with a darkness beyond any other," it correlates with black holes. When he speaks of other realms of existence, it correlates with other galaxies, or (considering recent cosmological theories) universes. When he talks of beings who are invisible to the ordinary human eye, it correlates with the theory of dark matter. But it's crucial to note that these are all worthless speculations, which might or might not have anything to do with his intentions. They have nothing to do with the tasks he left us with.
It's useful to note how, even though infinitesimally few people have been on the moon, us lay men and women always want to hear more about the size of the universe. When we think of the solar system, we're awed; the milky way, woah; the observable universe, and now the multiverse theory, we just can't get enough. If and when multiverse becomes a standard belief, we're going to watch out for bigger revelations. All of this to feed out insatiable intellect. Regardless of whether the size and origination of the universe is of any importance to us, we can clearly see why the Buddha, even if he knew about it, would not even spare a taste if it didn't directly support his path of practice, which is said to be the path to end the craving for existence and thus the end of all of our stress and suffering.
Hence, Science and Buddhism are not in competition. We study science for certain purposes. We practice Buddhism for others, such as to set clear boundaries for ourselves so our minds don't get carried away with ideas and sensations. In doing so, he implied we'll be able to find out the truth about many things. But that in itself wasn't the basis for his message - one which he said we urgently needed to hear.

No, there is no big bang theory in Buddhism, however, Buddhism perceives that world has three stages of nature: Utpati (Origin), sthiti (beingness/stillness) and Chyuti (devastation). These stages are not unilinear but cyclic, and none can say about the first point of beginning. Buddha says whether the sansara (means much more than world or universe or cosmos) is eternal or not eternal and finite or infinite are unspeakable axioms and somewhat useless in the seeking of cessation of the sufferings.

Aggana Sutta mentioned the beginning of things. This is similar to the idea you mention.
Buddhism deals with absolute reality while science deals with proximate reality through models and theories. In Buddhism the reality you see as Dhamma is empirical which you understand through Vipassana.

Also, it should be stated that while The Big Bang is the mainstream view, there are a few cosmologists who are skeptical of it as a plausible theory. So I think I would be careful about placing faith in anything like real parallels from Big Theory (tm) to Buddhist Practice.


text:
Nature of spiritual advancement and material advancement
How would you balance, material advancement and spiritual advancement in terms of Buddhism? I consider this because something material is close to what we see and feel in the moment, and related to desires of creating something and/or modifying it to suit our needs and ego (and suchlike consequences) and probably being attached to that which you created.
This may be a question of how to balance spiritual and professional commitments. Isn't commitment a form of attachment?

You might find this answer (and the book it describes) interesting.

Maybe this question is related.

Because of the existence of mind and matter there will always be feelings when they come in contact. So professional or material advancement is not the real problem. The problem is that your mind identifies things which you cannot exercise absolute control of possession as mine. When classify something as unwanted or wanted you react. Letting go of this identification leads to spiritual progress. (Letting go of this of lay life may make time for more serious practice though.)
The main problem is the reaction which results when mind and matter comes in contact giving rise to feeling. If you react to this as desirable and undesirable and you keep reacting creating new conditioning which keeps you rolling in misery. Keeping equanimity towards feelings and knowing their impermanence is the actual measure of spiritual progress.
There were many lay followers who were wealthy but also achieved spiritual progress. E.g. Visakha and Anathapindika. All of them attained it through developing insight. Also having material wealth may not be an issue in many cases like the above.

You can have material wealth with spiritual advancements. No need to always give that up as in the question. There were many followers who were at a high stage of development despite being rich. The spirit advancement happens due to mainly mental cultivation, though giving up lay life maybe of some help. Therefore there is no issue in being wealthy and also progressing in the path. Why do you say otherwise?

the rich followers: have they gotten "to richness" before they came in contact with the Buddha dharma or after they found their spiritual development? I've not read of one of the latter type in the Palicanon, it would be interesting to me if there were indeed such cases.

Anathapindika when bankrupt after becoming a Buddhist. He managed to earn back the money he lost.