text:
Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings?
Have any important Buddhists made any claim/s about Krishnamurti's teachings? Especially (caveat I know nothing about this) his claim that

"Tell them there is nothing to understand"

Bold emphasis is mine.
or

He claimed that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing
  standing in the way of enlightenment itself, if enlightenment existed
  at all.

Why don't you list some of his specific teachings with your question. Thanks

hey @Dhammadhatu i don't know enough to list them. it would defeat the object of my question to do so anyway, which is about his teachings as a monolithic thing

fwiw, i personally, probably, believe that there likely will be something to understand. but that's just my two cents, i don't practice buddhism etc.

I have edited the question with some teachings and videos.

I deleted the list of teaching and videos. I think that his teachings don't claim to be Buddhist, so they're not on-topic on this site. If a Buddhist teacher has compared them with Buddhist teaching, that might be on-topic (i.e. they might tell you about Buddhism).

Apparently there is nothing to say because Krishnamurti was teaching Advaita and not Buddhism? Two different ways to get to the same goal?

@nocomprende I'm tempted to close this as off-topic (because the subject isn't Buddhism), except however that I think there are parallels between Krishnamurti's doctrine and some forms of Buddhism. OTOH the form of Buddhism that it's closest to may be Zen (see also your flower/sermon) and apparently one can't count on Zennists to say a whole lot.

@ChrisW i would say don't close it as we do have some answers which are ok at least. apologies if the question is worded strangely btw!

@ChrisW I was not saying off-topic, only that Buddhists might not have ever commented on something that they don't teach, so there is nothing to report? Do Buddhists say much about running, or art therapy? But then Krishnamurti himself said there is nothing to say, so why should anyone say anything? It would be wrong to say anything in that case.

There are two Krishnamurtis and this question is ambiguous as to which one it's asking about (except the link that leads to UG who is the more controversial of the two). This resulted in people answering about either one they assumed it was about. Closing the question as I don't think it can be fixed at this point.

I have read a remark by Ajahn Sumedho on Krishnamurti. I don't recall much of the details. But I can tell you that Krishnamurti 's teachings are different from Buddhism, although he has practiced Vipassana himself.
Edit: My answer relates to Jiddu Krishnamurthi, not U. G. Krishnamurthi. I am unfamiliar with U.G.

Sometimes you hear monks or nuns or lay people here saying, 'Don't attach to anything.' So we attach to the view that we shouldn't be attached! 'I'm not going to attach to Ajahn Sumedho; I can learn from anybody. I'm going to leave, just to prove I'm not attached to Venerable Sumedho.' Then you're attaching to the idea that you shouldn't be attached to me, or that you've got to go away to prove that you're not attached – which isn't it at all. That's not being wise, is it? You're just attaching to something else. You may go to Brockwood Park and hear Krishnamurti' and then you think – 'I'm not going to attach to those religious conventions, all that bowing, Buddha images, monks and all that stuff. Krishnamurti says it is all poppycock: "Don't have anything to do with it, all that is useless." ' So you attach to the view that religious conventions are all useless, and you shouldn't have anything to do with them. But that's also an attachment, isn't it? – attachment to views and opinions – and if you attach to what Krishnamurti says, or you attach to what I say, it's still an attachment.
Ajahn Sumedho
You can be attached to the idea of not being attached. Krishnamurti, for example, would always emphasise not to be attached to anything. He would say, 'Monks, this is all wrong. Religion, monks, all this is wrong. It's not the way.' Then people listening to that would attach to his view, and they weren't aware of the attachment they had to Krishnamurti's view. So the problem is not the view, but the attachment. A view is a view. You can see if you're attached to a view, for or against it. Then the actual practice is to not being attached to any view, and you are very much investigating what's going on.
Ajahn Sumedho

Edit: I added a separate answer on U. G. Krishnamurthi.

Nonattachment is good. Wait...

Wait, is this UG Krishnamurti you are talking about or Jiddu Krishnamurti?

The question asked about UG Krishnamurti. The Krishnamurti associated with Brockwood Park is Jiddu Krishnamurti. So this answer cannot be right.

Oh yes, I thought the question was about Jiddu Krinamurthi.

@sandeepani thanks for the edit suggestion :). i've not done my own reading on 'Theosophical Society helped "uprising" (I think you meant reviving) Buddhism in countries such as Sri Lanka in Colonial British era thus i will refer to your saying. Also your answer reminded me I have to state my answer is on Jiddu, not U. G.

@ Bhumishu 米殊, you are welcome :).

I have not found anything about "Buddhists" saying anything about UG Krishnamurti. UG Krishnamurti was too low key anyway to take a "religion" seriously and for any "eminent Buddhists" to think about him. Perhaps the "Buddhists" here can offer some opinion(of course that would just make the site go on).
There's one thing I'd like to add here. UG Krishnamurti will not come off as a gentle man when he speaks and he speaks very controversially about other religions and religious leaders. People may not like it but he didn't care about it either.

I only just read the title, and try to answer.

Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings?

I think Jiddu Krishnamurti (not U. G.) is not particularly being concerned by any Buddhist. If you don't ask this question, this is not really a dish that's waiting to be served. This dish may even not exist.
From past material I read, he was "chosen" by the Theosophical Society and groomed to be a spiritual leader, later he rebelled. Theosophical Society one of the founders was Helena Blavatsky who had learnt something from the Tibetan Lama, thus formulated her theory about the 5/7(?) races, the Atlanteans, Lemurians... and the Aryans are the supreme race... her theory later was adopted by Hitler... then we will have to go on analyzing the hands playing in the dark under the table, the world history and wars how these happened... OK. Pause.
According to @sandeepani:
The Theosophical Society has helped the reviving of Buddhism greatly during the British Colonial Era in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. But their teachings were somewhat different still (a lot of mythical interest and combining religions), which caused many Buddhist members to leave it in later years.
If you are seeking to nourish your spirit, your inner life, my advice is to seek pure, pristine teachings from great teachers.

After investigating the Wikipedia page and other sources on U. G. Krishnamurthi, it was possible to came up with some ideas about him. He seems to have had Uchchedavadi like ideas. For e.g. there is no enlightenment, there is no mind, no need for medicine etc. He also expresses the idea that there is no self, which sounds like a Buddhist view, but we must recall that in Brahmajala Sutta, the Buddha has mentioned that, the belief in the existence of a being and non-existence of a being are both extremes.

Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?

What is really found is a result of causes that appear and disappear in the form of Pancaskandha (Five aggregates). These aggregates do not belong to a mine, thus they are Anatta.

I am not sure if the transformation UG was claiming was sophist propaganda or new age enlightenment or what....I find his style to be quite unorthodox and he has too many homemade videos. However I like his general apocalyptic sensibility. He even called Buddha an a**hole once..I am sure he was against philosophical dualism, and he was always...but I am too under the impression he was working for Mara to think it’s all good
EDIT: was also saying the question is born from the answer...quite often true
EDIT:  he also spoke of something coming from the background, but i can't recall the context now.  it resembles the past, no?  the here and now that escaped into the past, but he calls it background perhaps?

i was meh today...buddha-nature is not not meh...


text:
In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings?
In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings?
Do they claim that it isn't impossible, or only need be partially achieved, or that not all Buddha's took this vow, or what?

No Buddha takes such a vow according to Theravada Buddhism. Are you expecting an answer from Mahayana?

@SankhaKulathantille would be great to answer with that. i don't mind

in my answer i would guess that as bodhi is a function of bodhicitta the understanding of te vow changes with enlightenment. but i can't find any sourses that say this explicitly, so...

From the Mahayana viewpoint, the mind of enlightenment is the wish to achieve buddhahood in order to benefit all sentient beings. It is true we also often say "to set them in enlightenment" as well.
The omniscient mind of a buddha gives birth to the teachings of the buddha in that it causes him to teach us the Dharma. We say that the teachings of the buddha emanate from his omniscient mind (the wisdom truth body part of the dharmakaya). In a way, he teaches all of us but some do not have the ears to listen to him. This is merely an analogy. The meaning is that not all sentient beings have the karma to listen to the Buddha dharma but his enlightened deeds (in particular his teachings) pervade all sentient beings, just like the rays of the sun illuminate indiscriminately. However, the deeds of a buddha do not engage with all sentient beings, they are capable of doing so.
In his Commentary to Maitreya/Asanga's Great Vehicle Treatise on the Sublime Continuum (mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga) Gyaltsab Je says:

These three can be illustrated: meditating on the path of utilizing
  the basic element results in the attainment of the dharmakaya of a
  perfect buddha whose enlightened deeds emanate and pervade to all
  sentient beings. These enlightened deeds of the dharmakaya are capable
  of engaging with sentient beings and exist exclusively for the mind
  streams of sentient beings. Because of this it is said that all
  sentient beings possess tathagata essence. This is similar in meaning
  to the Abhisamayalamkara when it says, "Because enlightened deeds are
  vast, it said that the buddha is all pervasive."

And

Illustrating the teachings of conventional and ultimate truth with
  similes gives further explanation of the term "emanate" in the line,
  "The perfect buddha body emanates. " This is because "dharmakaya
  emanates" means "dharmakaya pervades," which in turn refers to being
  pervaded by enlightened deeds, and enlightened deeds engage with all
  sentient beings by way of the speech of the tathagatas teaching the
  dharma to various disciples. The capability of the enlightened deeds
  to engage with sentient beings is always present and this is the
  meaning of "pervaded by the dharmakaya.

Additionally, according to Mahayana tenets, the continuum of a buddha is not severed. His enlightened deeds will not stop as long as one being remains in samsara.

From the beginning of-the Agama-sutra is supposed to be the oldest sutra-Buddhist sutra, but even in Agama-sutra this kind of thought is there. [It] says, Shujo muhen-"Sentient beings are numberless. I vow to save them." Wikipedia: "In Mahayana Buddhism, the bodhisattva vows to work for the relief and liberation (nirvana) of all sentient beings as long as samsara persists."

If the goal is merely to  "attain complete enlightenment for the sake/benefit of all sentient beings", this goal is no different to Hinayana Buddhism because the silent sage does not kill, steal, hurt, etc, therefore the silent sage has attained the state of benefiting all sentiment beings merely due to their impossibility of harming others.

@Dhammadhatu Except merely not harming others is not the meaning of "benefiting sentient beings" according to Mahayana. As I explained above, the meaning of "benefiting all sentient beings" according to Mahayana is "being capable of engaging with sentient beings by way of emanating enlightened deeds out of the omniscient mind [part of the dharmakaya]." One must therefore achieve the omniscient mind.

This is Hui Neng's (the Sixth Zen Patriarch) interpretation of the first of the Bodhisatta's Four Vows:

Learned Audience, all of us have now declared that we vow to deliver an infinite number of sentient beings; but what does that mean? It does not mean that I, Hui Neng, am going to deliver them.  And who are these sentient beings within our mind? They are the delusive mind, the deceitful mind, the evil mind, and such like minds-all these are sentient beings.

From 'The Platform Sutra': http://zen.thetao.info/read/platform.htm

The short answer?
You actually save all the beings in your heart. The hell within. Your demons within of anger, craving, delusion. When they are saved you are left with enlightenment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the major Buddhist critiques of Christianity?
What are the major Christian teachings that Buddhists don't accept and why? For further reading, can anyone recommend books which critique Christianity from a Buddhist viewpoint?
For context, I am a follower of Jiddu Krishnamurti, whose teachings were similar to Buddha's.

The Buddhist teachings are three-fold, namely:

Morality; non-harming
Concentration; unified non-judgmental awareness; unconditional love; unworldly 'heavenly' states of mind called 'jhana'.
Wisdom of four noble truths; three characteristics; not-self; emptiness of self; natural elements.

Christianity & Buddhism are essentially the same in respect to 1. morality & 2. unified non-judgmental love however different in relation to 3. wisdom.
In fact, it is highly probable the Christian teachings that set Christianity apart from Judaism come from Buddhism & post-Buddhist-Brahmanism (Hinduism). 'Brahma' is the 'Father of All' and the Buddha (in the Tevijja Sutta) taught to non-Buddhist Brahmans that the way or path to Brahma was to radiate limitless unconditional love in all directions, which is essentially the same as what Jesus taught, namely: "My love is the Way to the Father" (John 14.6) & "God is love" (1 John 4:8).
Buddhism differs from Christianity in that is does not believe in a creator God and believes everything in life, whether physical, mental or Nirvana, is merely natural elements ('dhatu'). Buddhism is strictly impersonal ('anatta') where as Christianity believes in personality, including the personality of God.
The following book makes a comparison however I doubt it is completely objective since it seeks to make mutual understanding between religions: Christianity & Buddhism - Buddhadasa Indapanno

Absolutely.  I think I'd also add that Christianity believes in developing a relationship with that personal God.  It's an important aspect driving most of their theology.  I think it's also what most distinguishes Christian wisdom from Buddhist wisdom.

Comprehensive. Add some rumours: Jesus in his disappearing years he went to India and became a Buddhist student, returned, with the power to heal and change water to wine; revived the Judaism by incorporating Buddhist teaching into their tribal religion, thus, Christianity.

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


text:
Who is the adi buddha?

In many web sites they are saying that there is another buddha and he is the incarnation of lord vishnu and he existed before lord buddha existed.My Question
Were there two buddhas ?
Was he an incarnation of lord vishnu ?
Was his teachings same as lord buddhas teachings ?

This question is an attempt to propagate Hindu beliefs

@SankhaKulathantille :D

Were there two buddhas ?

There are not just one, nor two, but many many buddhas in all directions of the cosmos, literally speaking.

Was he an incarnation of lord vishnu ?

"adi-buddha" belongs to the Tibetan Buddhism, maybe related to the Tibetan's rooted religion, Bon. "adi-buddha", thus completely confusing here how does an Indian god related.

Was his teachings same as lord buddhas teachings ?

No. I think in the "adi-buddha" related faculty no record showed what he taught.
If you are interested in Buddhism, read some fundamental sutras such as the Heart Sutra. Buddhism is about how to end the suffering and be truly liberated from life. It's not about supernatural, mystic, magic, spell, voodoo power that sorts of things.

so gautama buddha was lord vishnu

@sakthi If you do read my answer, I'm completely speechless that you've drawn such your conclusion. I'm sure the other readers have my clear answer. This is an open platform, question and answer are to serve all people interested in Buddhism. And my task here is to provide what I know as much clear and accurate, for those studying authentic Buddhist Teaching. I don't know your purpose maybe you have an interest in promoting your Hindu gods?

In Buddhism, the Buddha is unrelated to Vishnu (refer to this link),which states:

The Buddha is neither an incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu, as is believed by some, nor is He a savior who freely saves others by His
  personal salvation. The Buddha exhorts His disciples to depend on
  themselves for their deliverance, for both purity and defilement
  depend on oneself. Clarifying His relationship with His followers and
  emphasizing the importance of self-reliance and individual striving,
  the Buddha plainly states: "You should exert yourselves, the
  Tathagatas (Buddhas) are only teachers.

In fact, in the oldest Pali scriptures, it appears Vishnu is not mentioned at all because the primary Brahmanistic gods mentioned were Indra, Brahma & Prajapati.
About the Vedas that existed during the Buddha's life, Wikipedia states:

Vishnu is a Vedic deity, but not a prominent one when compared to Indra, Agni and others. Just 5 out of 1028 hymns of the Rigveda, a 2nd
  millennium BCE Hindu text, are dedicated to Vishnu, and he finds minor
  mention in the other hymns.

The idea that the Buddha was a reincarnation of Vishnu is strictly from Hinduism and part of the assimilation of Buddhism into Hinduism, which made Buddhism extinct in India.

what about ADI-BUDDHA

never head of him or her. refer to google

Adi Buddha is the first primordial Buddha. The trikaya consists of dharmakaya (truth), sambhogakaya (bliss), nirmanakaya (emanation). Adi Buddha is particularly known for emanating the universe. Buddhahood is neither god nor man. All devas (including Vishnu) in Buddhism  are created and impermanent. All Buddhas teach the same thing, although they might teach it in a different way.

Can you please add which Buddhism school(s) hold this view?


text:
should i consider this as a hindrance in my practice
advice solicitated:i went to a wedding to perfect my mantra recitation and help around in the vedic work say,setting the "havan-kunda" etc.at night on the last day while i was sleeping in the outhouse,my sister was sleeping beside me, well aware of this fact,was in deep sleep,in my sleep i saw an arousing dream and then in a semi awake sate put my arms around her first in a brotherly way,but then lust gripped me,but i immediately retracted my hand and then went to bed..crying...my questions are...will god forgive me for my sin....moreover i did not spill my virya(semen)but i did commit a break in Brahmachari(out of the 8 breaks)so have i lost my rank of a Brahmachari ?????please help me.....(though this queation pertains to hinduism,i feel my Buddhist brothers and sisters can help)

Buddhists might like to help, but maybe cannot answer the questions which you actually asked, which were "will god forgive me for my sin?" and "have i lost my rank of a Brahmachari?" This site is meant to be for helping to answer whatever question was asked, not for advice (Answers vs Advice).

In my opinion, you have not lost your brahmacharya because your action was not intentional because your mind was in partial sleep. In Buddhism, for sin or transgression to occur, it seems there must be conscious intention.
If you want to train in discipline like a Buddhist, you should never sleep with your sister, let alone with any other female, even your mother, let alone in public, because, for a brahmacharya, nocturnal emission can happen anytime.
Buddhists do not believe in God. Sexual arousal is caused by chemicals, electrons & hormones and only enlightened beings do not have sexual arousal. Sexual arousal is 'not-self' ('anatta').
The error you made was to sleep with your sister. As a brahmacharya, you must not do this because a brahmacharya should no longer behave like an ordinary householder.

Give up Hinduism & any views of a God. Take refuge in the Triple Gem.
Yes, you break the third of the eight precepts the moment you touch someone with lustful intent. But you can retake the Eight precepts after taking refuge in the Tripe Gem.
If you wish to keep the eight precepts, avoid getting in a bed with any woman.
Avoid sleeping in the same bed with your sister in any case!
For meditation, try Patikulamanasikara or Satipattana.

(1) Nigrodha, you may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to win disciples.’ This is not so.
        Let whoever is your teacher remain as your teacher.
(2) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us fall from our rules.’ This is not so.
        Let your rules remain as your rules.
(3) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us fall from our livelihood.’ This is not so.
       Let your livelihood remain as your livelihood.
(4) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us do unwholesome things and follow unwholesome teachings.’ This is not so.
       Let what you consider unwholesome continue to be so considered.
(5) You may think,
    The recluse Gotama says this to separate us from wholesome things and wholesome teachings.’ This is not so.
        Let what you consider wholesome continue to be so considered.
—I do not speak for any of these reasons.

Udumbarika Sihanada Sutta
According to the above statement you do not have to change any of your practices and faiths. In addition to whatever practices you are doing now practice:

Morality - whatever faith system you subscribe to cannot have anything to do against morality
Mastery over the mind - no faith system would advocate being compulsive slave your of mind
Wisdom - no faith system can have anything against wisdom to know things as they are than being deluded

The above system is also systemised as the Noble Eightfold Path. As you progress in this path your faith in Buddhism will increase based on your experience of reality. The experienced reality does not change by what ever label you apply to your self. Call yourself a Hindu if you may but the Dhamma will still work. But to start with you should have some basic level of faith also otherwise you will not practice in earnest or may mix and match the techniques which might lead to undesired results.
In this instance it is difficult to  say if there was a moral transgression as it is difficult to establish if there was intention. There is ongoing a debate about this type of activity. You might want to read:

The Unconscious by Piya Tan
Conscious, preconscious, unconscious, subconscious by Piya Tan


text:
love and caring is suffering
In my point of view everything we love finally ends up with sufferings. love is a root to suffering. But in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love. But the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives. So why is this world seems to be unfair ? does it completely depends on our PREVIOUS BIRTH sins and merits ?

Great question, but I disagree with the "others being happy". We have a few examples where so called happy couples were having unhappy relationships. Why think of others? Is comparison not the illusion here? Should we not take care of "ourselves" first? We do. ♂

@Iresha Rubasinghe, the answer to your question lies in the story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi’s life before monkhood. It is best explained in one or two of the Sinhala sermons that I’ve come across. It is mentioned in the Malunkyaputta Sutta (Reject Sensuality) SAMYUTTA NIKĀYA 35:95. The story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi in the scriptures, is a good example of karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts. She became aware of the secret of the cause of her suffering only after she attained Arahantship. In a nutshell :

” She realized seven births prior to her current birth she had being born a male. During that life he had molested young girls. After his death he was born in hell. He suffered in hell for a considerable period of time. Next he was born a monkey. Attacked by an older monkey he was wounded. The wound festered. The festered wound did not heal for a long time and finally died after much suffering. His ‘kamma’ was not over. He was born a goat, next a cow and suffered similar fates. Thereafter he was born a human being. He was born a female. Her mother was a low caste poor servant. One day debtors took the young girl away from the mother. Her life ended thus. Finally she was fortunate to be born during the time of the Buddha and was liberated from the sufferings of ‘samsara’. Thus we all should realize that we should reform our inner selves by conforming to the Dhamma if we are to attain liberation.”

This story will help you in getting your mind in a state where it’s willing to learn, where it’s able to observe cause and effect, so you will be less judgmental, and less despondent.  Then you will love others, and you will care for others without any expectations in return. Your mind will begin to settle down. You will no longer want things to be this way or that.

That's really meaningful @Saptha. So I have another question, isn't it a good idea to become a monk/ bhikkhuni in the intention of minimising further sufferings ?

Two people that can advice you on this stay in the Mahamevnawa Monasteries for Buddhist Nuns. First  check their FB Page.
There meet two Anagaarikaas (We do not call them Bhikkunies). They were originally from Toronto- the two girls were both students of University of Toronto, their fathers were engineers. Today one goes as Anagarikaa Dhammabhashini (‘Dahama Pawasanni’ – one who explains the Dhamma). Other is Anagarika Dhamma-Dhaarini (one who Retains the Teachings).

Nice to read. Mudita! And Sadhu!

It is true that worldly love finally ends up with sufferings; that worldly forms of love is a root to suffering. The only people without suffering are enlightened people. It may appear in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love but this appearance is not true.
If the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives, how can such sinlessness (honesty) be the result of previous sins & merits? Such an idea is illogical.
People with full of honesty get cheated because of acts of evil people.
If I am a good person & an evil person wants to murder me, how can I stop this? I cannot.

so what can we do to deal with such hurtful situations ? how to make our mind ?

I am answering this question without having previously read other answers herein and would like to express without citing textbook references.
If I may.
Love (cause):

"I love cows, because my family had a cow, which farmed for us; it
  brought us income and thus food on the table."

Care (as a result):

"Therefore, I love to wash my cows on the field very frequently; I
  love it when passer-by come touch my cows and pet them. I think these
  beings are magnificent, which deserves love. I hate those who are
  so afraid to approach magnificent animals such as cows. What are they
  afraid of? Stupid people, oh well, oh well."

On the opposite of love (dislike/hate):

"We had a cow; my mom would milk it daily. With the milk, we'd make
  cheese, which we would sell to the locals. But one day, this cow took
  a swing with its hind legs as my mother milked it that injured my
  mother. Stupid cow, which I thought we took very well care of. Now,
  when I see on T.V. what they do to cows and bulls on Spanish T.V., I
  don't feel bad for them, given for the cow we had did to my mother."

As a result (on the opposite side of care):

"Yes, we have cows that farm for us; but who cares, these things
  would just freak out one day and hurt you, who knows? It's winter, but
  I don't care if they are let out and freeze."

Love (out of compassion):
There is none (minimized). But compassion exists, regardless of the amount of love (and/or hate/dislike) within you.
Care:
Without love or hate, one suddenly sees a clearer picture. There is no fuel (love or hate) that forces/drives you to care or abuse.
And then, you care out of compassion. Care, in my opinion, is often mistaken as a result of love.
Your caring of one thing/being, suddenly, becomes unbiased, it stems from compassion that benefits those, whom you need not to love or hate (cause) previously.
Without those attributes, your care/tending to those in need suddenly become unbiased and is thus truly beneficial/helpful.
Only then can care benefit those in need.
As for previous life (debt or gain).
We don't know it, and we wouldn't care. Compassion doesn't care.

So what's the the difference between liking a lot and love?

The moment is a good place to go birdwatching some truth , moment by moment, without anyone's assumptions about reality or truth being you or his or mine or unfair or Abercrombie...
When we approach reality this way then the world isn't unfair, it just is.
When we approach reality this way then it is easier to understand that love isn't at the root of suffering, the attachment mixed in with the love leads to suffering. Pure love sets the loved free, it doesn't strangle the loved one with a what's in it for me? attitude.


text:
Caring is wrong?
Is caring is a bad thing according to Buddhism ? Because as I experience caring leads us to suffering. But caring can come in so many levels such as we do help a person normally as a result of our caring towards that person/ animal. And in a relationship we do caring on very tiny things even by checking the other person has reached home safely etc. But in the big picture finally we get reasons to suffer due to our caring. It seems like we can get rid of most of the sufferings if we do not care.
So is it not appropriate to care ? Otherwise how can we avoid suffering ourselves while caring ?

http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy is an interesting read about the different types of empathy - affective and cognitive!

interesting blog @llya

@Iresha Rubasinghe, I understand that caring for others is very much a part of you, but the question that you have is how to avoid having to suffer while caring. You seem to have a lot of good traits that an adult would like to see in the present day youth. It is interesting to note that you are somewhat of the same age as my own son, and is in the same field of Software Engineering.  If I am to have a fervent wish for this coming New Year 2017, it is to see in the present day youth, a new breed in the making, who are compassionate, caring, trustworthy and well-disciplined. Young couples who earlier spent time on film halls and botanic garden shrubs, who would begin to observe Sil with their partners. Then start helping with charities, and became respectable citizens as a by-product of this endeavour. Some of the most fortunate amongst them, who have a special calling, because of their past meritorious deeds, to get to shed all their bindings to the mortal world and became Anagaarikas & Monks.
A law of the universe is the more one gives away, the more one gets. You would not believe it, (that's why you asked this question) yet it is a law of cause and effect. Always believe it and act accordingly, but keep in mind that it will only be effective if the giving is done in purity. We can give our time, our caring, our concern for others' well-being. We have the immediate benefit of happiness in our own heart, when we see the joy we have given to someone else. This is about the only satisfaction we can expect in this life which is of a nature that does not disappear quickly, because we can recollect the deed and our own happiness.
Those who are of the selfish kind would never know of this complete satisfaction, contentment and peacefulness. For them life would only be about getting up, eating breakfast, washing, dressing, thinking and planning, cooking, buying things, talking to people, going to work, going to bed, getting up... over and over again. Is that enough for a lifetime?
We are all concerned about how to change our mind from enmity, hurtfulness and unhappiness, to their opposites. It possible to change the mind, but we have to work towards it, it will take time, and only  gradually will we come to this stage over time. The body doesn't change overnight, to become athletic, and neither does the mind change instantly. But if we don't continually train it, it's just going to stay the same it has always been, which is not conductive to a harmonious and peaceful life. This willingness to change our mind should make it possible to live each day meaningfully, which is the difference between just being alive and living. We would do at least one thing each day, which either entails spiritual growth for ourselves or helpfulness and consideration for others, preferably both. If we add one meaningful day to the next, we wind up with a meaningful life.

Thank you so much for the really helpful realistic words ma'am. yes that's true, but still mind expects kind of appreciation from the other party to whom we care/ help. Not exactly an appreciation but the thing is its hurtful when that what we care is getting changed. Yes what we should train is to love and care without any attachment which is really hard in practising...

Ordinary caring can lead to suffering but caring with wisdom does not lead to suffering.
We avoid suffering ourselves while caring by developing wisdom.

is caring is wrong?
It's not wrong to "care for" someone who is sick or dying: even if they (or you) ultimately die.
The monks were instructed to care for each other -- see for example this story from the vinaya.

Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.

Otherwise how can we avoid suffering ourselves while caring ?
To avoid suffering perhaps it's wise to avoid attachment to a particular outcome, result.
It's a complicated question: "how to avoid suffering ourselves?" is a central question of Buddhism, and so the answer might be as big as the whole of Buddhism.
A good beginning, according to the Theravada doctrine, might be to develop the brahma viharas:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, ...

Misunderstanding leads to suffering! Also if you want to care just for some benefit is misunderstanding as well. Every our action has consequences so to act rightly we need wisdom, we need to be very careful. We have to learn and open our minds. If you want to care you need to know how to do it. You need to know what consequences your action might bring. Don't regret what you've done wrong as long as what you did was done with compassion. As long as you want to help and expect good results of your action you should help/care. But suffering is always present.
Another aspect of caring is transforming ourselves. You should transform your mind and realise how bad is the world that we live. Realising this you should generate even more compassion to others. You can't get rid of suffering of the world, but you can develop 'armour' to protect you from result of suffering (spiritual path, wisdom). You might still suffer in traditional meaning but you can be happy anyway (when you achieve high enough level of spiritual development or wisdom). Just be a good observer of the world, people, emotions (also yours). Remember when things happen I try to figure out the relationship between them. Knowledge with compassion eventually will bring wisdom.
That's what I think about it and believe in it.

I really like @user10547 answer. I'd like to add something. 1 - people have to be aware of cause and effect all the time. We should know, or at least think of it, what consequences would bring what action, and what action could cause what we experience. 2 Ego - most of the time we want what we want, and we don't think about others really. It's not about relationships with others, but the difference between our attitude towards ourselves and other people. 3 - we have to be honest with ourselves, we have to know what we want. If we know we want to help others, then the problem's solved :)

It's wrong to cling, not wrong to care. Isn't there a difference? Wrong in that it will lead to suffering. This is why there is the Brahma Viharas. Loving-kindness, compassion, appreciating the success or wellbeing of others and equanimity, they show us how to care with the way lit by mindful insight. Dissolving away the sense of self so one is truly selflessness and caring for others.
To care for yourself it can be very helpful to care for others. It helps to drop the selfishness. A love for everyone is all that remains when one finds themself aware that there is no boundary to selfless emptiness.

I think that caring is right, good and human.
The only people that do not care are evil people, psicopaths or dead people.
Hate and evil can only be overcome with love and care.
Care is also the basis and precondition of cure. Care is pure friendship.
True care means love with wisdom and without attachment

Is this a Buddhist answer or totally your own opinion?


text:
How to acknowledge emotions and their consequences in day to day life?
Do you have any suggestion on how to view the act of sexual intercourse objectively? For example, when we view a lady, we view her as a composite of flesh, bones, feces, pus, joint oil, etc.
Similarly in which way can we address sex neutrally without labelling it as good or bad? This is because I have learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act. Is there any thought based method using which I can achieve this feat? Similarly while using urge surfing, when a lustful desire comes up I repeat in my mind "pleasure, pleasure" -- similarly how can I combat a desire to have sex through this technique as I am on a period of abstinence?

The Buddhist path has 3 trainings:

sila/morality
samadhi/concentration
panna/wisdom.

To view a lady as a composite of flesh, bones, feces, pus, joint oil, etc, is the practise of panna/wisdom. It is called 'asubha'. There are many 'asubha' videos on Youtube.
Not judging things as 'good' & 'bad' is the practice of samadhi/concentration but not the practice of morality or wisdom. Not judging sex as 'good' or 'bad', i.e., 'theme-less-ness', can also overcome sexual urges.
Morality forms the foundation of the path. It is to know what is good (harmless/beneficial) & what is bad (harmful/unbeneficial). Without morality, there may possibly be a battle against sex because by using asubha or theme-less-ness only it may be difficult to generate empathy & thus metta (loving-kindness) towards women, whose natural purpose in life & often greatest joy is motherhood. Morality includes the precept about refraining from 'sexual misconduct'. The purpose of the precept is to preserve the integrity & nurturing of families. In the modern world, since the era of universal birth-control, there is obviously a correlation between sexual liberalism & difficulties in maintaining the family unit. Thus morality views certain types of sex as 'good' & other types of sex as 'bad'.
A well-rounded practitioner uses all three methods, as described in the Bharadvaja Sutta. The 1st method here is to view women as family members only, i.e., mothers, sisters & daughters; the 2nd method is to see the unattractive nature of the parts of the body; the 3rd method is to abide without any judgments (themes).

so it implies that morality is the spine of these above-prescribed methods?

Morality limits the potential of sex so is a good starting point to narrow one's perceptions of what is possible.

so by engaging in illict sex with polygamous partners,do we invite bad karma and simultaneously deprive a woman of motherhood?

I suppose this just increases lust, which is an obstacle to the path, plus we do not engage in any development of higher virtues. Knowing women is difficult but if we want to develop metta (loving-kindness), we should always think about what women really want. We can ask them ourselves. Do a survey of different women of what they believe will bring them happiness.

I see you have accepted an answer but i feel like to add something because I can personally feel related.

learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act

Do yo mean like you learnt to let go of the ice but still desire its cooling property?
If so, that means you can let go of rupa (form) but stuck at kama sanna (perception of sensual pleasure).  Perception of grossness of body may not help with kama sanna because you are already above Rupa and dealing with something of a higher level.
So many ways to deal with kama sanna such as meditation.  I promise you it will help.
FYI: I recognize a pattern for terms Buddha used for satisfactory in sensual pleasures; kama chanda, kama raga, kama sanna, kama yogi.  Each has specific use and definitely not interchangeable.  For example, when Buddha taught about sensual pleasure in 5 hindrance, or jhanna, he would use kama chanda, or kama sanna.  Howerver, when he talked about higher fetters or an anagami, he would use kama raga or kama yogi.
For those who are interested in the difference between Kama Chanda (English-sensual desire), and kama raga (sensual lust): The Greater Discourse to Mālunkyāputta


text:
The odd phenomenon of cycle of emotions
it is a well-observed fact that that the cycle of emotions never cease to exist, but they do follow a defined route which I shall refer to in this question as the SFE route namely:
A sensation-----feeling-------emotions(----represents"gives rise to")say, when I eat a doughnut, the sensation is of eating, feeling of pleasure, and emotion of happiness.
how can I use a similar mindset of this technique to counter lust like emotions which arise and disturb through my meditation practice and sometimes cause me to relapse on my bad track of sexual misconduct.
for eg: when a lustful thought emerges in my mind is suppress it easily by satipathana and mindfulness however when a thought arises related to the act of copulation, it becomes impossible to suppress it as it is very difficult to view the act objectively.(i.e without any biased feelings and from a neutral point of view).this thought then keeps appearing until I finally give into my bad ways of self-pleasuring as I am a novice-in-training and not being accepted due to this reason.
P.S: please forgive me if this answer seems to violate or copy other answers, i am new to the various technicalities of this website and will take time to adjsut.

Once a woman becomes sexually active but does not have a permanent partner, it is difficult for her to stop engaging in sex for seeking a partner. Therefore, women give the 'impression' they want to have sex just like men do, i.e., for a short term pleasure. However, this 'impression' is false & a deception. Yet there is an entertainment (movie) industry devoted to giving the public this wrong impression.
The Buddha taught women want to find a husband, not share a husband with another wife, have children & control/dominate her husband (AN 6.52).
What I am saying is when thoughts arise related to the act of copulation, these thoughts are generally about scenarios that are implicitly harmful. These thoughts are only sexual objectifying women with no respect for a woman's emotions & feelings and no regard for the potential consequences. These thoughts have no real love & no compassion. In summary, they are harmful thoughts about doing harmful things.
The mind can only sustain such thoughts when it wrongly believes the imagined sexual acts are pleasurable to both parties & not harmful. But in reality, the acts are harmful. That is why our world is full of broken-hearted & lost souls, both men & women.
In religion, it is generally taught if you want to have sex with a woman, you should marry her. This is right view. Therefore, when you have sexual thoughts, think about marrying that woman, having children with her, working for her & having her boss you around & nag you, like her slave. If you adjust your thoughts like this, the thoughts about copulation may stop.
The method the Buddha used before his enlightenment is at MN 19.

all was dandy but if you could please just rephrase the 1st paragraph(don't mind a bit,i happen to suffer from brain fog)

I intended to say women generally are really interested in long term relationships rather than short term sex

but they give a fake impression because they too are swayed by the false emotions and pleasures of copulation?

No. For men, it is the physical sensation of copulation. For women, it is mostly the pleasure of companionship & feeling they are attractive. This is where most people are blind to women. Women seek short term sex because they are suffering. They suffer from being alone and suffer from their past failures. They need to feel they are still attractive & still sexually competent (rather than failures). Listen to this video from 3:50 to 4:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQFOrwyFopA&t=2s Although this woman was raped & abused for many years, she still needed affirmation from men.

It can work out that Satipatthana can help one let go of desire. Usually, as you may know, Satipatthana isn't to suppress but to see the truth.
Our sex drives are strong though and if they are too strong for standard Satipatthana then they can be surpressed by other techniques like the naming of the parts of the body, that can have a repulsive affect on sensual desire. An other good technique to turn one off quick is to look at autopsy photos. That is also good for reflecting on death. These little practices really are very supportive of the main Satipatthana practice.

can we develop repulsion towards the act itself?what i mean to say is that i have a certain disdain for the human body, but when i think about the pleasure that might be derived from intercourse (irrespective of whether the body is desirable or not)i fail to reason and therefore, relapse.

We're did you get the disdain for the human body? Sex is a distraction to meditation , a nuisance but these defilments can end up teaching us things you know... not that we should be trying for sex.     At the point were you are forgetting and thinking about the feelings and the formations, if you can grab yourself with a heroic courage from the depths then this knot should loosen greatly but who knows what will happen. We all got unused courage in there, we really fail to see our individual courage.


text:
what is the difference between Ego and self respect?
What is the explanation of Ahankaara(Ego) & Swabhimaan(Self Respect) as per Buddhism ?
Is there any way something in a way so that one keeps his self respect without showing Ego ?

In Pali Buddhism, any positive term that includes "self" is merely a statement of conventional language because there is no other way to communicate whatever concept pertaining to individual persons that needs to be communicated.
In addition, most teachings that positively use the term "self" are mundane or moral teachings. They do not represent the highest truth. For example, (somewhere) it is taught one of the benefits of giving/charity/generosity is 'self-respect'.
For the most part, 'self-respect' is related to freedom from remorse, guilt &/or regret. Here, to use the word 'self-respect' is not so necessary because 'freedom from regret' implies 'self-respect', such as in AN 11.2, which states:

For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will, 'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.

Where as the teachings about ending "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra & mamaṅkāra) represent the highest truth about freedom from suffering (Nibbana).
In summary, 'self-respect' is a statement of conventional mundane reality where as the destruction of "I-making" and "my-making" is a statement of ultimate supramundane reality.
The way to keep self respect without showing ego is to comprehend the word 'self' is only a word, only a convention & not something inherently real, as explained in SN 1.25.

Another translation of "Ahankaara" is, apparently, "pride".


text:
Downfall of the Buddhist religion?
I feel that Buddhism is not what it used to be (the original teachings of Lord Buddha). It has got corrupted and what is left mostly relates terminology and worldly-matter and excuses. For-example: recently I came across a question in which someone said Buddhism teaches it is okay to eat meat, drink wine, etc. with various excuses such as it's okay as long as the animal isn't killed particularly for you and so on. I think, like Christianity and Hinduism, the teachings of Buddha are mis-interpreted for one's own benefits and the discipline with which Buddhism started out has long faded. Neither remains the atheism which Buddha preached, for example see: this. People have forgotten the abstract concepts and the Buddhist way of life and instead focus on miracles, folklores and powers that Buddhists monks possess. The question: Do you think so too? If so, provide references of Buddha's teachings being mis-interpreted. If not, tell me then what was it that Buddha forbade, and if it was nothing, then why is Buddhism a religion? Shouldn't it be just living your life the usual way?

I don't understand the reason for the downvote, this question recieved. If you feel the question is not helpful, please explain your reasons in the comments, before downvoting.

First, we can't tell with absolute certainty what is the original teachings of the Buddha -- unless we were there. In principle, any buddhist who says "this is the absolute original teachings of the Buddha" is putting forward a belief. A belief that may have varying degrees of proximity with the real facts. But that belief can be quite different from another buddhist living in a different buddhist culture.
So a question here is how can we tell what is original and what is not? People who misinterpret something think they interpret it right. How are these people different from "us", those who think interpret things right -- maybe we are the ones misinterpreting it. And what is the source of the information misinterpreted? A text? A teacher's word? A feeling?
Five hundred years after the Buddha, there were over 18 distinct names identifying distinct buddhist groups. These already disagreed with each other in some topics, so of course two thousand years later buddhists still disagree with each other over topics.
But also, there are buddhists and there are buddhists. For example, Brazil has a large percentage of catholics. Most likely, the great majority never read the bible. It's reasonable that many buddhists are buddhists due to being born in a culture of buddhism, but this does not mean such a person is familiar with the entire doctrine -- or with any word believed to be said by the Buddha. The general case is they don't know. There are even buddhist monks who didn't even know scriptures quoting the Buddha existed.
Moreover, just because there's a large population who are not quite engaged with their religion doesn't mean the religion is declining. After all, there are the buddhists who take it seriously, who dedicate their life to it.
Also, some people come here with varying degrees of knowledge of Buddhism and very distinct interests on Buddhism (e.g. super powers), who may not even be buddhists themselves, and may ask questions that are perceived as strange to some buddhists. But these questions are not evidence that buddhists are going bananas.
It seems to you Buddhism comprises some abstract concepts and way of life that you claim have been forgotten. But other Buddhists are following their traditions -- which they claim to be genuine -- or are reading old scriptures -- which they believe to contain the words of the actual Buddha. To them, Buddhism is being practiced. They think themselves to be genuine monks when they follow what they read in the scriptures, e.g., that the Buddha instructed them to not eat meat if they know the animal has being killed for them to eat it.
And to answer your question: yes, the Buddha forbade, in the sense that he instructed people to abstain of many kinds of actions.
But forbidding is inconsequential for a doctrine to be a religion or not. One could still spawn a religion by just saying what people should do or how people should understand their lives, etc.

The Dhamma is verified by the wise in absolute honesty. Attachment to the five aggregates is suffering? Verified. This suffering arises from craving that leads to new becoming? Verified. Suffering ends when craving ends? Verified. 8 fold path ends suffering? Tick. Verified. All four noble truths have been verified as true & as ending suffering. Verified as a teaching of a Buddha (awakened one).

Buddhism is not what it used to be. Just as every conventional construction, within a conventional world, it is exposed to change. Is that a bad thing? Ideas need to be applicable to people within completely different frames, separated by time and space, so change and differentiation is only negative if it limits people's ability to achieve the idea's goal.
The Buddha banned the intentional use of mind altering substances, possibly outside of medicinal cases.. Within Buddhism drugs serve no purpose within the soteriological process.. Personally I think that they provide possibly valuable different ways to look at the world, but that such experiences are less and less needed the further you are along the path, and at some point they become detrimental to progress. In some ways, modern neuroscience is giving a more nuanced view on substance, meaning maybe the rule should be like with sex - 'none' for monks are 'no misconduct' for the laity, and much more than ghee for medicine!
Meat is more interesting. The Buddha only ruled that monks should never intentionally accept meat that was killed directly for them. This makes sense in their world - in 500BC householders were not all rich enough to be picky with what they gave monks as a gesture of goodwill.. The monks refusing meat could cause embarrassment or even offence to people, sometimes that is all they had maybe. But having it cooked for you is a different story.
The Buddha did not teach an atheist message -  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html atheism is not usually clearly philosophically defined, but in denying 'God', it (usually, both in style and substance)  lands on an essentials, nihilist position, which the Buddha saw as just another idea to be found within the thicket of views. The Middle Way begins with the abandoning of philosophical speculation, with Nagarjuna providing the best philosophical argument for why this is the obvious thing be done much later, and a more sparse and scattered reasoning by the Buddha on why within the Tripitaka (imo)..
Even though the Kalama Sutta states to find out for yourself, which limits the faith element to be found within Buddhism, faith (lack of doubt) in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha is a prerequisite for stream entry (this faith is not absent in buddhist laity anywhere imo btw).. I'm not sure if that makes Buddhism a religion, I don't personally like the word as I see it too close to the broader and more useful one of ideology. Buddhism is definitely not an ideology. It asks for the abandonment of ideology, just as any other conceptual construction. The social structure that was born and exists within buddhist cultures, being moulded and mixed into ethnic customs can become religious in nature (a hodge podge of cultural history, law, economics etc),  and this can have detrimental impacts on people's progress on the path, but this is a delicate point, because after millenia, there are many people with an ironic 'their' version of Buddhism.
The Buddha taught the Dhamma and the Vinaya as a path to the cessation of stress. This original path, as likely best described within the Vinaya, Nikayas or Agamas, in its proper implementation likely has had difficulty in all times and places. The message is profound and wonderful, but it's implementation is tough. It is primarily a path of meditation.
Broadly speaking, the Buddha asked people to not harm themselves or others either in thought, speech or actions http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html, even broader  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Right_Exertions give a map for an honest decision making process with regards to what actions should be taken and which ones abandoned. So yes, with regards to morality, it is basically living your life in the usual way, but 'usual' requires more definition for most people than they think imo!

Buddhism became extinct in India due to its transformation into a religion of reincarnation, which resulted in it being the same as & thus absorbed by Hinduism.
Original Buddhism is about the here-&-now, as chanted everyday in Buddhist countries but, at the same time, ignored:

Savakkhato bhagavata dhammo
The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One
Sanditihiko
Apparent here and now
Akaliko
Immediate
Ehipassiko
Inviting inspection
Opanayiko
Leading to liberation
Paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi
To be experienced individually by the wise

Buddhism is unrelated to vegetarianism, which is the fetter of sīlabbata-parāmāsa (i.e., using morality in ways that is unrelated to the goal).

'almost extinct in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) due to its transformation into a religion of reincarnation', can you please elaborate on that?

i amended my post to remove Ceylon. However, what i wrote about India is one general theory about the demise of Buddhism in India. see "Philosophical convergence" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India . As for Ceylon, I read Buddhism was so degenerate in Ceylon at the time of colonialism that Burmese & Thai monks had to visit to reinstate a Sangha of monks in Ceylon. However, I am unaware of why Buddhism declined in Ceylon although this is probably easy to research in the internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Sri_Lanka#Decline_and_revival. Regards

You are correct the religion declined in 17th and 18th centuries, but it wasn't due to Hinduism per se. It was more of a gradual decline due to colonial influence and no access to resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weliwita_Sri_Saranankara_Thero

Buddhism declined before colonialism. It was colonialism that lead to a Buddhist resurgence due to trying to protect Ceylon from Christianity

It's important to always remember that Zen "Empty your cup of tea" story. Most of the time, our perception is shaped by our preconception. So always keep an open mind and read extensively before jumping to a conclusion. The most important thing the Buddha taught us is that we should rely on the teaching, not the teacher. So if someone said this or that about Buddhism, always verify, verify, and verify even if that person is the world most renowned Buddhist teacher. Most of the Buddha's suttas have already been made available for free online at accesstoinsight.org and suttacentral.net. So if someone claim something about the precept of eating meat or drinking wine, simply go back to the suttas and you'll find the answer for yourself. On eating meat, refer to MN 55, on drinking, refer to AN 8.39

Buddha gave scenario of the disappearing of his teachings with a drum..

Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [1]
"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

There is new tradition of Buddhism about 15 years, they study only what can be credited to Buddha and dismiss all later additions or if later additions that are not directly supported by Buddha's teachings.

Buddhism was never the point, Buddhism, like any and all systems, is made of delusion - it cannot be otherwise. To pursue and deify the Buddha or the Buddhism is merely one's own delusional association with causality and means to soothe or transcend causality, and such effort can only lead to more hubris and more delusional authority making.
Once one adorns the primary miracle of being with the cloak of implication, anger and positioning ensues. The Buddha gave the simplest of observations as means and memes to evoke clear seeing. The volumes and volumes of instruction and moralistic encouragements and discourses on the discourses are all indulgences in deferral and avoidance.
Isn't it the privilege and duty of each generation to make the Dharma their own? What was true then is true now, and that truth is uncomplicated by the gifts and prisons what came before.
Warmly, NightSkySanghaGuy


text:
Is there a value for a single moment of mindfulness (without others) ?
what is the value of a single moment of mindfulness- and is it worth anything if not combined with other moments
when i do a good action to help others even a small one it has its benefit to the other without even looking at its affect on the practice even
even if i do one deed like washing the dishes of the family than i dont do nothing for 4 months its worth something
if i meditate for 30 minutes or  be mindful while doing some action for 30 minutes   and than i dont do meditation or even be mindful  for 4 months   -  is it worth something ?  why you say so ?
(there are so many teachers talking about the importance of consistent practice which makes me think that its not worth anything)
This is a continuation of a precius question i ask which is very similar but not exactly the same :
Is there a point for a not continues practice?

How old will you be by the time you learn to play the piano? The same age as if you don't. You seem to be asking if you will ever learn to play the piano by practicing once every four months. How much time do you have? Are you willing to wait forever, or not?

i tried many times to have a consistent practice - i dont think im exaggerating if i say its probably more than a 100 times  ....  so if it was piano  i would just give up on trying to play the piano

Whatever you do is worth something. Because existence exists.

Value, let's face it, is an idea - not to diminish the question. Value can be attributable to all and everything that occurs, whether once and forgotten, or consistently applied.
All that can be found is mindfulness, whether realized or ignored. No moment, or what appears in it, can possibly have a beneficial or detrimental effect on some other moment, though a clean sink is bliss itself.
If one's present course of practice is intermittent, it is beautiful. If one's present course of practice is consistent, it is beautiful. If we tie our quality of practice to some preferential outcome, there is binding.
If we fail to see or appreciate the fulfillment of things as they are, our very commitment to practice can reinforce the myth that we are somehow less than enlightenment. Presence is awake, this is irrefutable.
Warmly, NightSkySanghaGuy

If you have only a single moment of mindfulness it is only two types of thought moments that will be of immense benefit to you. Even other thoughts are OK if you understand the nature of your mind, how merits and demerits form in the mind, how to free yourself from those demerits, and ways to cultivate merits, and then follow such a process with effort. You will then be able to come to the Dhamma gradually. It will be like a hole-less pot being filled by droplets of water with the each drop it receives.
The two thought moments to cultivate are that of Metta and impermanence (Anicca). Such moment thoughts would be of immense benefit (as per the scriptures). Here I did not say loving kindness, as metta is not necessarily an attitude of loving-kindness. It’s more an attitude of goodwill—wishing the other person well, but realizing that true happiness is something that ultimately each of us will have to find for him or herself, and sometimes most easily when we go our separate ways.

"It will be like a hole-less pot being filled by droplets of water with the each drop it receives. "  ....  if i can truly believe that my practice will surely be great and i see no reason i wont reach nibanna this lifetime if my health stays good  .....
but still i dont understand how what you wrote in the first paragraph shows that each moment of mindfulness is a drop in a hole less pot

Have 'Saddha' in what Buddha taught, @breath. Never lose Confidence in the True Teachings. Never for a moment Doubt the True Teachings. Therein lies your protection. The 'break through' will not happen in this life for almost all of us. We live in such unfortunate times. You must have heard the discourses about the blind turtle and the yoke, and the comparison of the small piece of earth on the fingernail and the great earth itself, of those who do not realize their truth. So it is the unflinching confidence in the dhamma that would make a hole-less pot.

i have faith that non-attachment is great if you get it (nibanna) and that the 8 fold path is the way to it .... i have a ton of doubts i can do it -    and im really confident of my ability's in achieving anything i want in life - i can learn to play any song on the piano - talk fluently in 50 languages ect   but not that i can advance in the path cause i alway stop after a short time and take huge breaks whatver i try even without formal medtation - i didnt try 1 time or 10 times or even 20  but much more  i assume at least a 100 times without exaggerating  - also i tried differnt techniques

@breath, it is up to you to accept what I say or disregard it. Please do not ask for sources as that it is clear example of the 'doubt' in you. If your confidence (Saddha) is unflinching, then even a single moment of mindfulness in Metta and Impermanence is important. Then Sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue) is important, BUT meditation is NOT important. Having any kind of regret is BAD. Be happy for that one moment, disregard the 100 times. Even if you do not meditate, there are 7 planes of Heaven to go & practice dhamma. If you do you will go beyond these to practice in 16 other levels.

The ultimate Buddhist practise is letting go or non-attachment (refer to Culatanhasankhaya Sutta). Selfless or unselfish acts, such as washing the family dishes, contribute to a mind that can let go.
When the Buddha spoke of mindfulness, concentration, etc, he referred to qualities of mind that have the quality of 'letting go' or 'vossagga':

A monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting
  in relinquishment. He develops analysis of dhammas as a factor for
  awakening... persistence as a factor for awakening... rapture as a
  factor for awakening... serenity as a factor for awakening...
  concentration as a factor for awakening... equanimity as a factor for
  awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent
  on cessation, resulting in relinquishment ('vossagga'). Anapanasati Sutta

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go ('vossagga'),
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn
  from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters
  & remains in the first jhana... SN 48.10

Definitions for vossagga

Concise Pali English Dictionary vossagga masculine donation; relinquishing; giving up.

PTS Pali English Dictionary vossagga relinquishing, relaxation; handing over, donation, gift (see on term as ethical Bdhgh at K.S.
  i.321) DN.iii.190 (issariya˚ handing over of authority)

This was a helpful reply - but i still dont understand why 10 minutes of mindfulness followed  by 4 months of no mindfulness is worth something
many monks talk about the benifit of a consistent practice  - which makes me wonder what is the point of a non consistent practice  -   but an extreme one like my own     -  when i meditate for 3-4 days and than take a break of 4 months   - not only from offical meditation but from mindfulness in general

The eightfold path and particularly the five precepts are important for everyday life, so you can be aware of your actions in relation to other people. However, if you are not gaining benefits from formal meditation practise you can give it up. Buddhism does not insist everyone practise formal meditation. In the suttas, it is rarely found the Buddha teaching formal meditation to lay people. Regards

im talking about mindfulness even while doing choirs    - i take the 4 month breaks and i am not being mindfull at all during it  ..... also i tried this many many times and failed  -  which make me think why try if i always stop no matter how relazed i am or how hard i try or what trick i try to use

Buddhism starts with non-harming & metta towards oneself & others. One should not suffer or stress over Buddhism.

i can do that - but i wouldnt do anything than  - just watch videos on youtube play pc games enjoy life without a single moment of mindfulness

If you are thinking about it this much, then you must be mindful at least some of the time.

You don't say what your practice is - unless I missed it - but there is more than one way. Have you considered hunting around and reviewing a few different ways? Life is fleeting and opportunity is soon lost, as is said. Even reading a sutra or chapter a day would be more protective than what you are describing, I think. I hope you find something that works for you.

vipassana - with labeling -  prostations before the walking medtation than sitting than a few seconds of metta ///
i tried death contemplation -  doing lots of metta - short meditations - no medtiation just informal mindfulness ect     nothing works i always stop after a short time and take huge breaks

and i asked this question a ton of times in many different ways and i never ever got an answer for it  - i got some nice answers which are good and even a bit helpful but never a full direct answer

You said you don't see how 10 minutes of mindfulness followed by 4 months of no mindfulness is worth something, but even daydreaming kind thoughts while staring out the window during a bus ride is worth something. It just isn't worth much. How will it keep you from sliding into vanity or greed when the going gets ugly? Will it help at all? Not what you describe. But you haven't scratched the surface of ways to practice. Get your hands dirty, get out there and look. Even to set out on a course of researching and comparing the multitude of ways that people do practice can be used as a practice.

Imagine some valuable has fallen into a well and you are draining it to get the items. Every bucket of water you take out has a value towards draining it. But if you take buckets of water far apart new water will replace the old and the water level will not go down.
Same with Fabrication. You have to take them out faster than new ones forming, i.e., every moment you practice has a value as long as you practice often enough.

which means they dont have value if you dont practice them often enough - which means 1 minute of meditation in a year dosnt have value- so your answer is no - right ?

Nobody can attach a value to this, even yourself. The value is decided by the benefits you experience.

we make fabrications all day long in each moment  - so to take out fabrications faster than they form means to be mindful for at least half the moments in a day - right ?

No throughout the day. Also practice to keep mindfulness having a sitting about 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening.

do you have time for a chat now ?


text:
Is change permanent?
I find this an interesting question. When we say things are impermanent, we often say that it is because they constantly undergo change. But in that, do we make the assumption that change will always be around and therefore that it's permanent? Could there be a place where change never occurs? Has this kind of question been pondered in Buddhist texts at all? The possibility of change never occurring?

Change is permanent.
The Laws of Nature (Dhamma) are permanent.
The unchanging Nibbana (Nirvana) is also permanent.
Buddhism explains only conditioned things (sankhara) are impermanent; thus conditioned impermanent things are permanently impermanent.
The Dhamma (Natural Truth) is permanent (but not-self).
This is standard Buddhism, as follows:

"All conditioned (sankhara) things are impermanent".
"All conditioned things (sankhara) are unsatisfactory".
"All things (dhamma) are not-self".

Dhammapada

There is no actual condition that enjoys a moment's stasis. Consciousness comprised of perception and that which appears in and as perception can never fulfill the notion of a present moment and no possible moment has any duration.
That impermanence is all that can be found as present experience may suggest "change" is "permanent" and thus it is an insightful curiosity to ask if there is a place, or an observable perception, of "change never occurring" and this same curious demonstration of perception masquerading as experience/existence can also be said to be "change never occurring" with as much verve as you can muster "Change is permanent".
All that appears as mind in receipt of a find-able object or subject is the improvisational display of Consciousness, itself not a thing, and having no actual properties or implication. Thus, by the time we have conceived of something being experienced as change or otherwise, it is long gone, and yet does not cease even for a moment though there are none.
Warmly, NightSkySanghaGuy

There’s permanency when one eventually achieves complete, permanent freedom from all the suffering and limitations of the physical body and after death, freedom from the need to reincarnate into yet another physical body. The permanency of a complete mastery over life, and death is possible, and with that one can one can even achieve absolute memory recall of every moment in this lifetime and even countless past lifetimes. Until the moment of Nibbana it is otherwise.  The comforts of the day before disappear today the comforts of the moment before perish this moment. This unavoidable variation functioning with nothing existing permanent is called the' viparināma dukkha' (suffering caused by change) functioning in the nature of being and person.

Nirvana is end of changes. No efforts, no maintain, no continuous care to colloquially exist/survive, free from Sinkhara Dhamma which require continuous attentiveness to persist (Kaya Sinkhara, Citta Sinkhara).
The example of Nirvana is fire is extinguished because oil is depleted as well as  the rope dipping in oil is burnt completely. The state of Sunyata of Nirvana also means there is no single entity left change or to be changed.

Whatever conditioned or arisen is in a flux of change and impermanent. Nirvana which is unconditioned and unborn is not in a flux of change or impermanent. The key here is if it is conditioned, if it is born, if it arises then it is subjected to change and cessation when the conditions sustaining it disappears.


text:
Where do I start?
I'm 22 years old and have been interested in Buddhism for a long time and consider myself Buddhist. I meditate 2 or 3 times a week and have read a few books on Buddhism. I am more interested in Theravada Buddhism and am not sure where to move forward from here. Should I read and study the Digha Nikaya? I should probably find a sangha near me and go to it, too. For starters, though, should I purchase and read the Digha Nikaya?

Some related answers that you may find helpful include English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon and Chronological or other sequence for beginners.

Related: How to Study the Suttas?

I would stick to the Majjhima Nikaya.  The suttas are a bit shorter than the Diga and cover a very wide breadth of Buddhist concepts.  In the past (and maybe even nowadays) it was usually the first text studied by new monks upon their ordination.  Bhikkhu Bodhi did an incredible English translation that is amply footnoted (and yes, the notes are superstitious...but then again, the original texts were written 2,500 years ago.  People believed different things back then.).  Moreover, Bhikkhu Bodhi also did an indispensable introductory class series on the text which can be found here.
If you are interested in the teaching of the elders, you'd be hard pressed to find a better entry point.

"where to move forward from here" is actually all you need to fulfill the purpose of your quest, which is yourself, here and now, empty of conceiving, in the midst of profound objectivity and subjectivity.
To add to your experience by means of knowledge and study is merely a way to defer the simplest of insights from taking root in you. Experience alone is sovereign and complete, full and empty, blissfully replete, without implication.
This is already so, nothing further need be attained.
Consciousness confounds itself with ideation; as the separate self, ensconced in body, dwelling in a definable place, of the nature of time implying what is imagined of the past, the present, and the future. None of these are real or binding, they are apparitional.
So the question already has you convinced of that which is not true, and thus condemns you to find some remedy or path of action when there are none. This is cessation and nirvana, to see through the complex and richly adorned nature of samsaric implication, to be relieved of a codependent relationship with existence.
And here you are, thus relieved, no one possesses any knowledge that isn't yours already.
Warmly,
NightSkySanghaGuy

The starting point is Saddha. It is the first of the five Sekha Dhamma.  What are these Sekha Dhamma? Saddha (Confidence), Hiri (shame), Ottappa (fear), Viriya (energy) and Panna (wisdom). A student of Dhamma would practise these five Sekha strengths. He would live in association with them. He would not abandon them. While cultivating the Sekha Dhammas he would then practise five types of meditation, once he gets a good grasp of the fundamentals of dhamma. All of us have six Indriyas. They are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.  In a true student of Dhamma, another five Indriyas arise and become strong. What are these five Indriyas? They are Saddha, Viriya, Sati, Samadhi and Panna. Such a person takes a lot of trouble, exerts immensely to live in Dhamma. For example in Chakku Sutta (Okkanthi Sanyutta – Sanyutta Nikaya.03) Buddha said:

“Oh monks, Eye is an impermanent object. A changing object. Something that transfers to another form. Ear is an impermanent object……. Nose…….. Tongue…….. Body……. Mind is an impermanent object. A changing object. Something that transfers to another form.  Oh monks, if someone believes these principles in that way, gets immersed in Saddha he is referred to as Saddhanusari. He will not die until he attains the fruit of Sotapanna (the first stage on the path to deliverance)”

The Buddha has taught us the importance of Saddha. Saddha means having a pleasant mind towards, and confidence, in the Supreme Buddha. This confidence should be rooted (mulajata), and it should be well established (patitthita). To develop this kind of unshakeable confidence, it is important to know about the knowledge of The Buddha. By learning the Dhamma, The Buddha’s Teachings, we can learn about the knowledge of Tthe Buddha.
The Noble Dhamma has a special quality. In Pali, it is ‘paññavantassa ayam dhammo; nayam dhammo duppaññassa’ which means, ‘this Dhamma is for the wise; not for the unwise’ (AN 8:30). If the listener is wise, then he will be able to cultivate a pleasant mind by hearing and learning the Dhamma. Therefore, when we talk about Saddha, confidence or pleasant mind, we are speaking about confidence in the knowledge of the Supreme Buddha.

Sometimes, it is useful to find your way by thinking all the way back from a certain point. Therefore:
Looking at aging, sorrow and death one has to find out what causes this. This can be understood by pratītyasamutpāda
Then to understand suffering, in its proper form, would be realizing the four noble truths. To understand this, one travels in the Noble Path which has eight components (note that its not a sequential path of 8 steps)
Reading Sutras to understand this would do good. You might also benefit from reading Sutras on Pancha upadanakkanda

I am more interested in Theravada Buddhism and am not sure where to move forward from here.

Buddhism does have some theory but this is about how to practice. As you lean do more and more meditation. A retreat at some point maybe valuable to boost your practice.

Should I read and study the Digha Nikaya?

Yes of course. But for starters the Middle Length Discourse may be more bite sized than the Long Disclosure.

I should probably find a sangha near me and go to it, too.

Yes why not. This is also a good idea.

For starters, though, should I purchase and read the Digha Nikaya?

If you want to. There are online resources also which might contain many of the Sutta.

In my opinion, after reading a few introductory books like Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught", one should start reading the Sutranga portion of the Samyutta Nikaya. It is the oldest part of the Pali canon. It is also the most systematic and comprehensive. If you want to find the original message of the Buddha, it is the place you should focus.
Now, what exactly is the Sutranga portion of SN? SN has in total 56 Samyuttas. The Taiwanese scholar monk Yin Shun has divided these 56 Samyuttas into three Angas: Sutra, Geya and Vyakarana. Sutra Anga was composed first, then Geya, and lastly Vyakarana. The other three major Nikayas, namely, Digha, Majjhima and Anguttara also fall under Vyakarana Anga. So you see, the Sutranga portion of the SN is the oldest part of the four Nikayas. Here is the list of Samyuttas that comprise the three Angas of SN:
Sutra: 12, 14, 22, 35, 36, 45-51, 54, 55, 56.
Geya: 1-11, 21.
Vyakarana: Rest 29 Samyuttas.
You can read SN from the excellent translation of Bhikkhu Bodhi though you will not find the Anga division there. You can find reference to the Anga division in Choong Mun-keat, "The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism" where the Sutranga portion of the SN is systematically compared with the corresponding Sutranga portion of the Chinese Samyukta Agama. This book can be of great help while you struggle with the numerous suttas of the Sutranga portion of SN.

Sounds like you've already started :)
Where to go from here:

Have confidence in yourself
Rejoice that you've set out on the spiritual path!
Find a sangha or community of fellow spiritual friends
But, don't worry about committing to any one community or tradition at first...
Test out the various traditions and communities until you find the one for you...
Once you do find what seems to be a good fit, rejoice!
Test your understanding happily with dharma friends you make
Work on abandoning non-virtuous habits of body, speech, and mind

If you are looking for good books to give a landscape of the Buddha's teachings and the various Buddhist traditions have a look here.
Welcome friend!

I personally would not recommend the Digha Nikaya because it is mostly a book of long-winded suttas, most of which were probably not spoken by the Buddha and was probably written at a later time for the purpose of propagating a hybrid form of Hindu-Buddhism to the general population at a time when Buddhism was attempting to expand its following. Scholar monks as diverse as the old Bhikkhu Buddhadasa and the new Bhikkhu Sujato have questioned & asserted the unauthenticity of much of the Digha Nikaya.
The Brahmajāla Sutta is a good & important sutta but its sounds more like a PhD dissertation than a sermon of the Buddha. The principles of the  Brahmajāla Sutta are found throughout the other sutta collections.
The Mahaparinibbāna Sutta is good sutta story about the Buddha's last days.
The Sigalovada Sutta is a very important sutta about morality for laypeople.
Apart from those, in my opinion, most of the other Digha Nikaya suttas will lead you astray, being about creation stories & anti-Brahman rhetoric (see this topic), past Buddhas & other superstitious things. DN 15 (Mahanidana Sutta) is particularly bad, since it contradicts the many other suttas on Dependent Origination.
Generally, newcomers start with the Majjhima Nikaya and move on to the Samyutta Nikaya when serious. The scholar monk Bhikkhu Bodhi first translated the Majjhima, followed by the Samyutta. The small books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, such as the Dhammapada, Sutta Nipata, Udana and Itivuttaka are also popular & can be good for newcomers.
The Anguttara Nikaya is long, with many very good suttas but, similar to the Digha, has many suttas that seem composed with the aim of both debunking & converting Brahmans (Hindus).
Unfortunately, in the long run, all these Buddhist-Hindu suttas did was destroy Buddhism in India, making it the same as Hinduism & poisoning the pure teachings.
Bhikkhu Bodhi compiled a good selection from all of the suttas: "In the Buddha's Words". However, one must take care with Bhikkhu Bodhi's footnotes, which are often sectarian & superstitious.

Downvoted for baseless personal opinions such as "most of which were probably not spoken by the Buddha and was probably written at a later time for the purpose of propagating a hybrid form of Hindu-Buddhism..."

I did say "probably" therefore did provide some scope for being wrong. However, because many of the DN suttas contradict the other suttas and are about unverifiable superstition, my opinion is not baseless. The other suttas (MN 122) say talk about the creation of the world is "animal talk" therefore why would the Buddha himself create a creationist myth? DN 15 only has 9 nidanas and some of those nidanas are described differently thus the Buddha did not speak it. I gave my honest & sincere opinion that starting with the DN is a waste of time & will lead one astray.

Where does it say "animal talk" MN 122?

MN 122: "I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, & ministers of state..... the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.' In this way he is alert there.

AN 10.70 "bestial (animal) topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not."

@Dhammadatu, I think the problem here is trying to interpret the Suttas on your own without a proper teacher. If you read carefully, you will notice that the statement is conditioned by the clause "unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion...". Whenever the Buddha preached about the origin/end of the world in Suttas like Agganna sutta, Satta Suriya sutta etc., he presented them in such a way that would make us understand the impermanence, suffering and non-self on a cosmic scale. That's why many attained enlightenment as a result. Such talks do not come under animal talk.

I am a pro. The sutras in the DN are superstition  & were probably composed after the Buddha for coverting Brahmans to Buddhism.

Well, if that's the case those Suttas would have been eliminated from the Buddhist councils. Saying that I'm a pro doesn't add anything to the discussion. Sometimes our egos can make us overestimate our ability to discern the true Dhamma.

The True Dhamma is verifiable by each insight person. I trust you know the homage to the dhamma, namely, Svâkkhato Bhagavatâ Dhammo Sanditthiko Akâliko Ehi-passiko Opanâyiko Paccattam
veditabbo viññuhiti. The suttas you referred to a not True Dhamma. They are superstition. Regards

Yes, it can be verified if you follow the path properly. If you want to verify the knowledge only known by the Buddha, you should follow the path to become a Buddha. Calling those Suttas as superstitions while being an ordinary human being is similar to a farm boy denying the existence of black holes, electrons, protons etc. as superstitions. Homage to the Dhamma does not say that the true Dhamma can be verified by being egoistic.

The suttas are superstitions if taken literally. The Aggañña Sutta at best is only a metaphorical story about the growth of craving in the world. It is not real.

That's just an opinion. It's not a "verification of an insight person" :)

The correct arising of the world by insight is described in SN 12.44. Since you cannot prove any comment you have made, they are superstition. It is you that must provide the evidence. You sound like a Christian that expects an atheist to prove the non-existence of god.  Regards

"since you cannot prove... they are superstitions" - which sutta supports this statement? If that's the case, even Nibbana is a superstition since you cannot prove it to another! No I do not expect heretics to prove any Buddhist teaching, I just don't take the egomaniacal stance that we know everything that is possible and we are capable of verifying everything the Buddha knows without becoming a Buddha.

Nibbana is the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion. Only arahants know 100% nibbana but non-arahants can know & prove the peaceful taste of Nibbana. Nibbana (& not superstitions about the creation of the earth) is the goal of Buddhism. If I did not believe in Nibbana, I would have 0% interest in Buddhism. But,in reality, I have 100% interest in Buddhism because I have 100% conviction in Nibbana. Nibbana is real. Perfect peace of mind is real. But many suttas of the DN are superstition, probably written by later day clergy wanting to covert Hindus to Buddhism

Nibbana cannot be proven to another. It's an individual attainment. It's also very common to be deluded that one has seen/attained Nibbana, just as it is easy to be deluded that we are capable of knowing everything that is possible while still being ordinary. Such thoughts seem to be common among arrogant and conceited people.

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