text:
Body feels like crying
After stressful events that I'm unaccustomed to, or after strenuous workout, my body feels as if it wants to cry.
I am unable to produce the tears to "cry it out", but my body feels it.
This started happening when I had a miscarriage (at the time, I didn't know I had miscarriage, but Doctor estimates it was at that time).
Right now, I do meditative drawing to ease the symptoms. People think I am an artist (I'm in IT) because the drawings are so intense and beautiful.
Also, I do deep-breathing meditation, 15 minutes, 2 times a day. I lay on my bed on my back, knees bent, feet flat on the floor. I place one hand on my stomach, one hand on my chest, and I concentrate on breathing through my diaphragm.
As I inhale, diaphragm expands, exhale, diaphragm contracts.
Anything else I can do?
What does Buddhism recommend about art? Or anything to ease this suffering?

I deleted some comments. People should please post answers instead of comments: comments are mostly only for when you don't understand the question, to ask for a clarification, or to suggest a way to clarify the question.

Maybe this question could be rephrased to include, "How can Dhamma help when facing the loss of dear ones? Would doing art be an approach, according the Dhamma?"

Body feels like crying is good. This means your body-heart connection is not numb, you feel things. This is good, people spend years breaking through the barrier.
Several things you can try are: (not necessarily Buddhist but from the eastern yogic practices)

tai-chi style dancing improvisation. Turn on some low tempo music, close your eyes and move how you feel. This will help you reconnect your deeper layers.
tapping. With soft fists or hard fingers tap like the King Kong, lower abdomen, solar plexus, chest, head. This will help relieve habitual psychosomatic tensions.
slow bowing aka full prostrations. Something like on this video. This is a universal stretching / balancing / syncing the body-mind exercise.
spend enough time in the nature regularly. Spend time doing nothing in particular at a place where there is healthy vegetation and moving water. This will help you reconnect with the spirit of life.
try incense. I recommend Tibetan incense or the good old sage.
hugging. Find a buddy to hug with, to stay healthy we need ~6 hugs a day.

And then of course there is actual meditation when you sit and stare at your feelings and stare and stare and stare until you see ;)

Wow those are some fascinating points. I was thinking of putting incense in the kitchen because angry feelings appear the most in this room. Plus, on the other side of the kitchen is our building's garbage disposal room. But the "body crying" happens in my bedroom, so that's also a place to keep incense. As for hugging, I hope teddy bear is ok?

I do 54 reps of Surya Namaskar (http://aboutyoga.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Surya-Namaskara.jpg), and aim is 108 reps. This must be similar to full prostrations, correct?

A cat or dog would be better than a toy bear, if you don't have access to humans. The Sun Salutations (surya namaskar) are very good too, although with prostrations you focus a lot less on stretching / muscle power and a lot more on subtle energy feelings in your body.

LOL, then I'll have to "borrow" a pet ....

or you could make a baby ;)

In God's time:-)

Welcome to the site.
There are (many) people on this site who have practised meditation themselves, but perhaps there's no-one who is very experienced as a teacher of meditation? It seems to me that this ("Body feels like crying") would be a question which an experienced meditation teacher will have heard before: so, one small bit of advice is, can you try to make contact with an experienced meditation teacher?
There are several forms of breathing (during "breathing meditation"): see for example Active breathing, passive breathing.

Anapanasati is most commonly practiced with attention centered on the breath, without any effort to change the breathing.
In the throat singing prevalent amongst the Buddhist monks of Tibet and Mongolia the long and slow outbreath during chanting is the core of the practice. The sound of the chant also serves to focus the mind in one-pointed concentration samadhi, while the sense of self dissolves as awareness becomes absorbed into a realm of pure sound.
In some Japanese Zen meditation, the emphasis is upon maintaining "strength in the abdominal area" (dantian or "tanden") and slow deep breathing during the long outbreath, again to assist the attainment of a mental state of one-pointed concentration. There is also a "bamboo method," during which time one inhales and exhales in punctuated bits, as if running one's hand along the stalk of a bamboo tree.

The above spends more words talking about chanting and the "bamboo method" than it does in the first paragraph about "passive breathing", but it might be right in saying that "passive" breathing is the way in which it's most commonly practised.
There's a book about Anapanasati, Unveiling the Secrets of Life:
a Manual for Serious Beginners by Buddhadasa Bikkhu, which has information about several (not all) techniques of breathing meditation, and which people recommend.

At the risk of going off-topic I'll also mention two non-Buddhist forms of breathing, from my own experience

Aerobic exercise (e.g. bicycling) -- I'm not sure how you can do "deep breathing" when you're not exercising, but exercise is recommended e.g. by (non-Buddhist) doctors as a way to help your body manage 'stress'. I mean, a bicycling fast enough that it begins to affect your breathing (and/or cycling up-hill), at e.g. 20 km/hour; or, various forms of running if you prefer (though I prefer cycling, myself, because it's easier on my joints). The experience (of well-being from being physically fitter) may make you more 'attached' to feeling physically fit (and perhaps monks don't recommend physical exercise, except perhaps "walking meditation"); nevertheless it (exercise) is meant to be one of the ways to cope with stress: see for example Exercising to relax from Harvard Medical School.

I've also sometimes enjoyed practising a "Tai Chi" form, which is also called a "moving meditation". There's a description of that (with links to videos) here. The caveats are that you need a reasonably good teacher; and a form with a reasonably low stance; and maybe a couple of years of lessons: because you need to learn the form before you can practice it, and you have to practice repeatedly (having already learned the movements) to learn to integrate the breathing with the movements; and learning a long form (e.g. 108 moves), which takes about 20 minutes to practice, might take a year (or more) to learn. Still I found that's it's good for breathing and posture (so, "physical well-being" again), and there's something to be said for its way of handling conflict.

Another (Buddhist) form of meditation which you might like to investigate is Metta Bhavana.

There are various ways of practicing metta-bhavana, the meditation on universal love. Three of the principal methods will be explained here.

In terms of insight about suffering, it might be worth considering "the Three Poisons" i.e. ignorance, desire, and aversion; for example:

Aversion: I don't want to feel sad
Desire: I want to feel happy
Ignorance: I don't know why I feel sad

A common problem is, apparently, that if you think you're averse to something then you may try to avoid it. If you "feel like crying" and are averse to that feeling then there's a tendency to avoid inspecting that feeling, avoid thinking about that feeling. Instead maybe you need to be willing to investigate (accept, work out) such a feeling if it arises. I presume you'll find that such a feeling is transient (impermanent), because most feelings eventually are.

How fascinating! I am trying to understand significance of 108. I do Surya Namaskar (Sun Salutation) in morning, 54 reps so far. Ancient Indian medicine says do 108 Surya Namaskars a day

The three poisons is also interesting. Lot of "Law of Attraction" sites will tell you to say "I want to feel happy". I suppose everything is done in steps. After all, Buddha was once a Prince who had everything one could desire. Only then he was able to ponder their temporal nature, hence became Enlightened.

There was a topic about "108" here ... but I don't know that it is especially significant in Tai Chi. In the Tai Chi form it's not one move repeated, it's a sequence of more than 100 moves. A reason why the long form is preferable to the short form is just that the long form takes longer to practice (e.g. 25 minutes, compared with the "short form" which is I don't know about 18 moves). So you can spend an hour doing the long form 2 or 3 times, or an hour doing the short form about 10 times -- which is more repetitious, more starting and stopping.

Thank you for the link. There must be some deeper significance to certain numbers. After all, it's shared by so many Eastern cultures, i.e.Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc

"May I be happy" (or at least, "may I be free from suffering ... may all beings be free from suffering") is part of the Metta meditation.

You can start with a smile, when you wake up in the morning each day, be grateful that you are alive and just think to yourself "I will make this a joyful and pleasant day".
Start today. And increase it to moments during the day and then be grateful that you are here each moment, breathing. Simply accept each moment and each person for what it is and what they are. This increases your acceptance of your life and every moment.
As for the exercise that you do, I suggest you don't deep breathe too much. Just start initially with about 3-4 deep breaths. Smile. And then focus on normal breathing. I suggest you do this sitting up as erect as possible but not tight.
As for art, I think it is fine to adopt more sceneries and beauty in things. Because as such that is creation. Be grateful that you have this talent in you to sketch. And do it with a smile. :)
This life is to be loved and lived. And living happens in the "now". Not in the past and not in the future. It is upto you to create life as it is.
Don't live in the mind. Live the moment.
I wish you pleasantness and joy with each passing moment.

Oh boy, positivity in the morning does take work! However, before I go to sleep, I thank God for whatever it is I have. Will start on making this a morning routine.

You might find somatic (in the body/sensations) meditation helpful since you have the feeling of grief so strongly in the body.
This form of meditation deals directly with the sensations in the body and bypasses the thinking left brain. Observing the sensations, working with, and finding the right context to process them, might help find release from the stress you are experiencing
Reginald Ray (he is from the lineage of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche) teaches Somatic Buddhist meditation.
Here's his website: Dharma Ocean
I'll also link to two articles by him, which you might find helpful:

What is Somatic Meditation?
Reflections on the Somatic Foundations of Meditation


text:
Is the determining thought moment (vottopana) based entirely off of past karma?
Is the way I choose to react to a situation based entirely off of past karma or is there something else that determines how I react to an external object?
I am confused between my understanding that ultimately there is no control and yet I can control my reactions to situations. Is there only a sense of control as long as an individual is not fully enlightened?

Vottapana is a Citta(thought moment) that has the function of determining or decision making. It is not a result of past Kamma. But it is not a self either. There's no 'I' in it. Why? Because it is also born of causes and impermanent like any other Citta.

there is no
  control and yet I can control my reactions to situations. Is there
  only a sense of control as long as an individual is not fully
  enlightened?

Whether one is enlightened or not, there's no sense of control if by 'control' you mean there's a 'self' or 'I' who does the decision making. But there's a sense of control in the sense of a citta performing the function of decision making.

As Sankha has mentioned, the determining (votthapana) citta is functional (kiriya); it is not the result of kamma, nor does it create kamma. This is an important point, because if the reaction to an object was fixed according to kamma, then there could be no spiritual development (everything would be predetermined).
There is no "self" who decides how to react, the reaction arises naturally due to conditions. For example, consider the last time that you were confused about something... was there a conscious decision, "I think that I will choose to be confused now!" Of course not, confusion arose naturally. Just as confusion arises naturally, other reactions arise naturally as well.
From an Abhidhamma perspective, the primary conditions that influence the votthapana citta and determine the nature of the subsequent javana cittas are object-predominance-condition (arammanadhipati-paccaya) and natural-decisive-support-condition (pakatupanissaya-paccaya).
In simple English, object-predominance-condition means that some objects are naturally going to elicit a strong reaction of a certain type. Natural-decisive-support-condition means that "past strong" experiences naturally condition a reaction.
Let's look at the natural-decisive-support-condition in a bit more detail. If I have a daily routine that involves metta meditation, this repetition creates "past strong" experiences that will cause the mind to naturally react with metta when facing a new situation. If I had a really bad day at work, these "past strong" experiences may cause the mind to naturally react negatively when I get home. If I had a traumatic experience of drowning (or almost drowning) in my past life, this "past strong" experiences may cause the mind to naturally react with fear when in a boat.
Natural-decisive-support-condition explains that the mind cannot be controlled, but it can be trained (just as a puppy dog cannot be controlled, but it can be trained). If you want to develop yourself spiritually, train the mind through repetition and make the training stick through strong volition.
When we approach our spiritual development as a gradual training exercise, we then know that it requires lots of energy, lots of repetition, lots of patience and that it takes time.
If you want to train yourself to play the piano well, you can’t spend just a few minutes on it from time to time. You have to commit to regular practice, energy, repetition, patience and time. The training associated with spiritual development requires a similar commitment, but the rewards are much greater than becoming a skilled pianist.
The literal translation of the precepts are "rules of training". Think about the implications of this.

Only Arahants have Kiriya citta. They are Javanas. Avyākata is the word for Vottapana. Kiriya cittas are also in the Avyākata group.
Reacting positively or negatively is Javana. Hence it's Karmicly potent. Vottapana is not the reaction. It's simply the determining Citta.

Arammana is due to past Kamma. Vottapana decides on what is experienced or felt hence deciding what the future Karmic effects though the next 7 Javana process. You have free will at this point to decide on you convert what is felt into a wholesome state or not at this point.

This is the understanding that I have.  Please correct and improve on it.
Please forgive me if this is not an answer to the original question, but another question.  Since this refers to the same subject of "Vottapana", hopefully, this may not do any harm, but contribute to this conversation.
As messages reach the senses, “Chitta Veethi” keep on running, one at a time, rapidly.  The most critical step in a Chitta Veethiya could be considered as the “Vottapana” step, because it is the step that determines the ultimate effect that results from a  cause that had originated from a sense.
Through spiritual development, if the “Sakkaya Ditthi” is destroyed (to whatever level); at the Vottapana step, if a “self “ concept is not created, internally or externally, no habits or prejudices would arise and how would it proceed in the rest of the Chitta Veethiya?  What kind of Javan Sith could result after that?
Due to the absence of a “Self” notion, would it become a “Kriya” sitha, resulting no karma?  If so, would there be any Javan sith formed in the rest of the Chitta Veethiya?

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
What does the Buddha mean by this quote? "There is no punishment for anger. It is the anger which will punish you."

There is no punishment for anger. It is the anger which will punish you

I pondered on this for a few hours now but can't understand the meaning.
Tnx for all the help

"You are not punished for your anger, you are punished by your anger." ... "Holding onto anger is like holding onto a hot coal and expecting the other person to get burned"

tnx for all the answers!

There's an explanation of it here, on the Fake Buddha Quotes web site: “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.”
It's not a quote from the Pali canon.
Buddhism probably does have things to say about "anger": but maybe not that. :-)
If I had to make sense of it I'd guess it's saying that anger is unpleasant and thus a kind of punishment (the consequences of angry behaviour might not be good either).
According to Buddhism, anger might be associated with aversion and perhaps with an unwise view of 'self'.

According to Bodhipaksa one of the earliest versions of this quote (from a non-Buddhist source) is,

They teach that he who hates shall be hated, and that the one who gets angry shall be punished by anger, and that all sin is punished by it and not for it. This is correct.

I guess this might also be Christian-like in origin, e.g. it reminds me of the aphorism, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."
Another original version of the quote is from a book about the Hindu (non-Buddhist) Bhagavad Gita,

Even more intriguing to me is the karma of our health. Again, let me illustrate one or two kinds of connection. For one, the Buddha says that we are not punished for our anger, we are punished by our anger. In other words, anger is its own karma.

Note the absence of quotation marks. Eknath is not quoting the Buddha, but paraphrasing his teachings on anger and karma.

So it's talking about, trying to say something about, karma.
That (karma) is something which the Buddha will have talked about; however starting here from a fake quote (a mis-quote) about anger probably isn't the easiest start to explaining karma, a difficult subject.

Anger or hatred is one of the two main blinding affects ("avarana-klesha" - the other one being lust aka strong obsessive desire). When the mind is affected by anger it can't understand things properly, it confuses what's a wrong action and what's a proper action in this situation. So that's what we mean by saying that you are punished by your own anger or your own weakness for pleasure - that we go temporarily insane and do stupid things, and then suffer the consequences.

Peace to all....anger is the punishment for the lack of acceptance of that which cannot be controlled. Undeniably anger is a state that consumes understanding which leads to ignorance. And ignorance is not bliss....to simple?

It is very simple: he was saying there is no external god who will punish you, but the person or thing (ie a thief, the weather, your brother who hit you) you are angry at may not suffer at all, only you will. If someone steals from you, how will anger help the situation? Will it hurt the thief (unlikely). Will it bring back the stolen goods? (not necessarily) Will your anger change the fact that in life bad stuff just happens, and there is no reason for it and often no fix for it (of course not). Anger causes YOU agitation, so YOU suffer. Your anger doesn't hurt anyone else, as much as you may want it to!

As someone who has learned (after experiencing huge violence at the hands of others) to let go of anger, to forgive not only others but myself, it became clear that anger is a destructive and toxic energy that can only harm.  the saying "help ever, harm never" is to be taken to heart in how we treat ourselves and others.
There is a native american story regarding this philosophy wherein an elder tells a child, "there is a battle in my heart between two wolves; a wolf who is anger and fear, and a wolf who is compassion and love." the child asks, "which wolf will win?" to which the elder replies, "the one I feed."  (https://vimeo.com/152432001).
Two more quotes from The Buddha regarding anger: "holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die," and, "let go of anger, let go of pride.  when you are bound by nothing, you go beyond sorrow."  one way to begin this is through mindfulness, simply acknowledge your negative emotions (anger, jealously, fear) instead of feeding or fighting them.  look at them as cars of a train, watch them go by.  this process takes practice, but will give you the gift of freedom.  i am still practicing...

The quote means that no one is going to punish us for our anger, those hellish fiery sensations which arise on our body are the punishment itself. Thus it is the anger which will punish you.
Another quote on anger makes it more clear 'Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.'

I think that's a fake quote too (I hope you don't mind my saying so).

May be...But it seems to be Buddhist...Anyways thank you

i apologize for downvoting your answer, but we need to be wary of quotes given without reference to their source.
i will be happy to undo that once the misguided part is removed, let me know

Regardless of the quote's authenticity, It sounds authentic to me.
It just means there is no punishment for anything. Karma is just cause and effect. No one is to blame by anyone but our own actions punish us as we do them. I know I can kind of feel the punishment when I get all angry and especially after I calm down.

What does Buddha mean by this quote?
"There is no punishment for anger. It is the anger which will punish you".

It means that when one is identifying, attaching and taking ownership of phenomena, then one gets tossed around. If one simply notes them and observes them with objectivity they will arise and cease on their own accord.
When we interfer with phenomena they tend to get sticky and grow in size and intensity.
My teacher once likened this to picking up an ember from a bonfire. If you take the ember and hold it in your hand, you will get burned. But if you take the ember and lay it on the ground, it will glow for a while and then fade out.
Its the same with anger. If we identify with the anger by saying "I'm angry" we tend to suffer a lot more. Anger and all other phenomena are impersonal and do not belong to anyone. They arise and cease on their own.
Go practice insight meditation and experience this for yourself. Only then you will truly know what the Buddha was talking about.

The leading verse of the Dhammapada says (in, say, the P. Lal translation),"We are what we think, having become what we thought. Like the wheel that follows the cart pulling ox, sorrow follows an evil thought. And joy follows a pure thought like a shadow faithfully tailing a man. We are what we think, having become what we though."
Probably I have misquoted a bit as I am reciting from memory, but I think anger can be equated as an "evil thought" in this context--.

You're not wrong (i.e. you are accurately quoting the P. Lal translation); but "What you think, you become" is listed as another 'fake Buddha quote' ... the "P. Lal translation" is presumably a bit loose.

Anything which is a byproduct of unconscious choice is Karma. If you are agitated mentally or emotionally you are unconscious. Therefore you accumulate Karma. Consequence of Karma accumulation is re-birth (pain and misery once again!!!) which is in itself a great punishment. If you are angry you are accumulating Karmas which will lead to re-birth. Karma theory is pretty much convoluted in West but in East you imbibe it as part of your upbringing.
Anger leads to various Heart ailments. It also effect your other organs. Lot of research has been done to establish effect of mental and emotional upheavals on health. That too can be taken as punishment.

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка

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


text:
Has Ram Bahadur Bomjon already proclamed that he is a Buddha?
On wikepedia is written that buddha-boy had in 2005 said that he was at the level of a rinpoche. He said that he will need six more years of meditation before he can become a Buddha. So in 2011 he could had become a buddha. But is he still /already living in the bush as a buddha?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon

"six more years of meditation before he can become a Buddha" is written in Wikipedia but not in the Telegraph which the Wikipedia article cited as a reference. The Telegraph article gives this quote: "Tell the people not to call me a Buddha. I don't have the Buddha's energy. I am at the level of rinpoche [lesser divinity]. A snake bit me but I do not need treatment. I need six years of deep meditation." FWIW this appears to be a web site devoted to him, which has some news and a biography and messages etc. (though I don't know who is the author of that web site).

It just goes to show how careful we must be. .From the question I deduced that Ram BB is a fool. From Chris's more careful approach I deduced he is not.

@PeterJ Maybe we should be more careful when we observe ourselves, especially when we judge others based on limited information. ;)

@Muuski - I meant we must be careful not to believe Wikipedia and should check our sources.

The international and Nepali media, as well as direct witnesses and victims had described Bomjon as too far from even from a normal ethically firm human beings, far from a law-abiding person and too far from compassion. He had attacked seriously dozens of people, luring his victims to himself through promises of secret initiations. They come to his jungle, for a few days or weeks are loved and cared by his resident "Sangha", and at one point, out of the blue, attacked at Bomjon's order by maroon-robed monks, chained or locked up in his secret houses, beaten with sticks and hands to black and blue, and many of them kept for weeks and even as long as 3 months in his captivity, telling to the outside world that they are in "secluded meditation"! During that, further tortures are inflicted on these victims, if they are women, often even raped and tortured so extremely that two of his victims did not survive. Yet, unfortunately, he has a political backing in his country, and huge money resources, especially from foreign devotees, who are securely kept away from learning the truth.
Have a look at these sights, among many others you can easily Google out:
https://buddhaboymedia.wordpress.com/
http://irregulartimes.com/?s=bomjon

It's possible for someone to attain the Noble Fruits (Streamentry, Oncereturn, Nonreturn, Arahant) but not SammaSamBuddha (Fully Enlightened One) when the Dispensation still exists. From MN 115:

It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time.

Ven. Bodhi's note:

It's impossible that two Fully Enlightened Ones could arise contemporaneously in one world system: from the time a bodhisatta takes his final conception in his mother's womb until his Dispensation has completely disappeared. Detail at Miln 236-39.

I think the questions are whether he has proclaimed that he is a Buddha, and whether he is still living in the bush. What you wrote is general doctrine and not any specific/personal information.

Regardless of what Ram Bomjon said, the original quote says: "He(Ram Bomjon) said that he will need six more years of meditation before he can become a Buddha. So in 2011 he could had become a buddha." It is very important to refer to the Suttas to prevent any misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching. It's not important to speculate on what an individual did or did not claim. I'll let the original poster decide if the info. I provide is helpful. If s/he says it's not, please feel free to delete my post.

In 2014 he seem to have been in a kind of fight with people who are disturbing him in his meditation, so probably he is far from buddha? Or can they fight?

From the Teaching, it's already clear that noone can be a Fully Enlightened Buddha while the Teaching is still here. Whether Bomjon is near or far away from any Noble attainment, who knows! Anyway, does it really matter to you? As long as you yourself wholeheartedly learn and practice what the Buddha taught, what other people did or did not claim is irrelevant..

Why is it  impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time?

Because it's already exceedingly rare for even just one Enlightened One to be born at any point in space and time, let alone two.

I am a victim of Ram Bahadur Bomjon, the "Buddha Boy" of Nepal:
Obviously anyone who abducts people, holds them on chains for months (like me), tortures them brutally (like me), rapes nuns (like Ganga Maya Tamang), thrashes people to blood and fractures (like me, Anil Khatri, 9 shepherds, 17 Madeshis of Manarhawa, Jason of Australia, his own mother and siblings) and even kills people (his own sister Manu, a retired US psychiatrist Dr. Moore, and apparently his 5 disappeared nuns and monks Chinimaya Tamang, Fulmaya Rumba, Suresh Ale Magar, Sancha Lal Waiba, Rita Bot) - such a person cannot, at the best will and wish, be even near to anything named Buddha!
If the easily available sources on Google about all these crime accusations are still not enough to you, please watch the videos of respected Buddhist lamas i Nepal who are proving, from the authority of Buddhist teachings, that Bomjon cannot be a Buddha and even less the Maitreya, as he claims:
https://youtu.be/GGgIcF2XAzI
https://youtu.be/vAyXJ0z98B0
https://youtu.be/BqpnFHYRnxM
https://youtu.be/0Y9SG6GNKEQ
https://youtu.be/1Ftjln60UEg


text:
Are there any descriptions of the deathless/unborn in any tradition of Buddhism?
Most things that we read about in Buddhism describe aspects of the conditioned world: Three Marks of Existence, The Skandhas, The Hindrances, Defilements, and the practice to overcome these and gain insight into the true nature of reality and enter the unborn to gain final freedom from the cycle of birth and death.
I would like to read about the unborn: what it is, how/why conditioned existence comes into being (perhaps from the unborn?), etc.
I think this is one of the things which the Buddha left unanswered, but did he describe it indirectly perhaps? Are there descriptions in the sutras (from any school of Buddhism) about the unborn/deathless state?

A related topic: What does deathless mean?

I didn't understand the phrase, "how/why conditioned existence comes into being from it" -- is that based on some doctrine, can you quote/reference the source from which you get that idea/definition (i.e. that "conditioned existence comes into being from the unborn")?

@ChrisW Sorry I am probably mixing doctrines. In the Tantras of Shaivism, Shiva is considered to be the ground of reality and Shakti the creative power of Shiva who creates the manifest existence. The concept of the Unborn feels very similar to Shiva the ground of existence from which the manifest existence arises. I also read something in Dzogchen (I don't remember exactly what though) which felt very similar to the Tantras of Shaivism. Somehow from these connections I probably interpolated that the conditioned existence arises from the unborn.

@ChrisW Also the goal of the Tantras is achieving the non dual state which doesn't make a distinction between Shiva  and Shakti. This seems so similar to things I have read in both Zen and Dzogchen. So it somehow felt to me that the conditioned existence emerges from the unborn.

I thought that your mentioning, "the things which the Buddha left unanswered", implied you might be looking for descriptions based on the Pali canon. I think I agree with you that "existence arising from the unborn" would (to the extent that it is a Buddhist tradition) be from a later tradition, perhaps for example "Buddha-nature".

@ChrisW Thanks for pointing out how the question might come across. I have updated the question to reflect that I am looking for references from any tradition within the Buddhist schools. Yes Buddha-Nature and also Tathagatagarbha...

I think that in the Pali suttas:

"The deathless" is a synonym for nibanna (see this answer).
Samsara is conditioned and has no construable beginning (which, I think, means 'perpetual' but 'without an original creator')
Nibanna is (in contrast) unconditioned

I don't think there is (I don't know of any) doctrine which explains how/why conditioned existence comes into being from the unborn.
There is a theory of dependent origination which explains how one thing leads to another, i.e. how samsara is perpetuated.
And I think that Buddhism is seen as a way to escape from (to be liberated from) samsara.

Speaking of Siva, I've noticed that akalika (timeless) is given as one of the attributes of Dharma. Kali is a (Hindu) goddess of Time, consort of Siva, and associated with (among other things) Destruction.
So, conversely, perhaps it makes sense that that which is akalika is associated with what's Deathless (and Unborn).
My understanding of it in conventional terms is that "Born" means that 'it' comes into existence as a result of conditions, and Death means that it stops existing in the same way (see e.g. this essay, Anicca Vata Sankhara by Bhikkhu Bodhi) -- and thus, 'it' is impermanent.
Conversely the Unborn and the Deathless is not impermanent.

In its description of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism claims,

Th nirvana of the arhat is said to be merely the absence of the afflictions (KLESA) but with no awareness of the buddhadhatu. The nirvana of the Buddha is instead eternal, pure, blissful, and endowed with self, a primordially existent reality that is only temporarily obscure by the klesa; when that nirvana and buddhadhattu are finally "recognised," buddhahood is then achieved. The Buddha reveals the existence of this nirvana to boddhisatvas.

Incidentally it also says,

To assert there is no self is to misunderstand the true dhamma. The doctrine of emptiness (SUNYATA) this comes to mean the absence of that which is compounded, suffering, impermanent.

So if you're looking for doctrine about the "unborn" as something other than an absence of defilement, something with a self-existence, then you might want to be looking into later Buddhist doctrines, for example to do with Buddha-nature.
If you read the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra there's a lot of talk about Self, for example,

Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or
  not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb,
  Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self
  has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man
  cannot see it.

You're asking "what it is", which I think assumes that "it is": i.e. that there is an 'it', which is existent. That existent 'it' I suppose might be Buddha-nature (which I think the Pali sutta describe more as a non-it: not-born, not-dying, trackless, unconditioned, not suffering, etc.).
Even so I'm not sure that it's right to talk about the unborn as a creator or source of conditioned existence.
Apart from "Buddha-nature" there's another word from the later doctrine, Tathāgatagarbha,

The Tathāgatagarbha sūtras are a group of Mahayana sutras that present the concept of the "womb" or "embryo" (garbha) of the tathāgata, the buddha.

Calling it "womb" implies that maybe it's a creator of something, but I think that what it's said to be creating is Buddhahood rather than creating conditioned existence:

Every sentient being has the possibility to attain Buddhahood because of the tathāgatagarbha.

For example the Tathagata-garbha Sutra says,

"Or, kulaputras, it is like a kernel of wheat that has not yet had its husk removed. Someone
  who is impoverished might foolishly disdain it, and consider it to be something that should
  be discarded. But when it is cleaned, the kernel can always be used. In like fashion, good
  sons, when I observe beings with my Buddha cakshur, I see that the husk of kleshas covers
  their limitless Tathagata vision. So with appropriate upayas I expound the Dharma, to enable
  them to remove those kleshas, purify their jnana paramita (tenth bodhisattva stage) and to
  attain in all worlds the anuttara-samyak-sambodhi."

... and,

"Or, kulaputras, it is like the genuine gold that has fallen into a pit of waste and been
  submerged and not seen for years. The pure gold does not decay, yet no one knows that it is
  there. But suppose there came along someone with supernatural vision, who told people,
  'Within the impure waste there is a genuine gold trinket. You should get it out and do with it
  as you please.' Similarly, kulaputras, the impure waste is your innumerable klesha. The
  genuine gold trinket is your tathagatagarbha. For this reason, the Tathagata widely expounds
  the Dharma to enable all beings to destroy their kleshas, attain correct perfect enlightment
  and perform Buddha deeds."

In summary I don't know of a doctrine which says that the conditioned comes into existence because of the unborn.
If anything perhaps it's the reverse, e.g. there's the image of the (pure) lotus which grows out of the (impure) mud.
Even so, attaining the unborn might change the way in which you see conditioned existence.

In Abhidhammattha Sangaha Sections on Supramundane Consciousness, Realisation of Nibbana, Rootless Consciousness, Nirodha Samapatti, Realization, Emancipation and Attainments cover aspects of Nirvana.
There are a few book which is based on this:

Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, general editor
Fundamental Abhidhamma, Dr. Nandamālābhivaṃsa
Handbook of Abhidhamma Studies by Sayadaw U Sīlānanda

You can consult them for further details. Also look directly at the source, viz., The Abhidhamma Pitaka which is available for from http://abhidhamma.com/.

The Dhammapada includes the following verse

Heedfulness is the Deathless path,
  heedlessness, the path to death.
  Those who are heedful do not die,
  heedless are like the dead.

In Pali, deathless is called "Amara".
It is also called A-mara, free from the Evil One called Mara.
This is the related sutta that I've found in english: Samyutta Nikaya - Mara Samyutta


text:
Is it important that the reality of things doesn't exist, instead of just behaving like things don't exist?
In some traditions their philosophy says that concrete things don't really exist, only in the mind like just an experience. But is that vision important, or could just your relation to those things as if they don't exist be enough? In other words, is this philosophy just a way to concentrate on the spirit, instead of the outer world, or do they really mean this?

But is that vision important, or could just your relation to those things as if they don't exist be enough?
I like the description of the "South Indian Monkey Trap".
The parable is that one way to trap a monkey is to put some food (a nut or a banana) in a narrow-necked jar. If a monkey comes, it reaches into the jar, and grasps the food in its fist. Now that they've made a fist with food in it, their hand is now too big to remove from the narrow-necked jar. So the monkey is stuck in the jar. The villagers are coming. What general advice can you give the monkey?
Well, some general advice might be that you have to re-evaluate the importance of grasping the food. Is that grasping food more important than freedom, for example, more important than letting go?
Another bit of advice is that you might be panicking about people coming to get you, but if you pay attention to the sensations in your body, maybe sensations in your hand or wrist, is there anything you could learn from that?
The teaching isn't entirely that "concrete things don't exist", it's that our ideas about things are a result of a mixture of different things: including sensation, contact, consciousness, and attachment/grasping -- and the 'importance' that we place on something might be unwisely disproportionate to whatever values or properties may be inherent in the "concrete thing" itself.
In other words, is this philosophy just a way to concentrate on the spirit, instead of the outer world, or do they really mean this?
I'm not sure where there is "the spirit" as such. That might be an idea (about 'soul') that's slightly absent from Buddhism, though some traditions do talk about a Buddha-nature which might be similar to 'spirit'.
It might be better (or more usual) to say 'mind' instead of 'spirit'.
Still you mentioned "in some traditions": so maybe you'd be interested in this topic, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?

Whatever that exist outside we experience through our sense doors and paint a picture in our minds. This metal model we construct will not exactly correspond to what is outside will not the exactly the same from person to person depending on many factors like cognitive ability, sharpness of senses, etc. Hence that we know about the world is not perfectly in touch with reality and not always exist as we expect it to be. So it would be safe to say that anything we perceive as such does not exist in such a form that we perceive or expect it to be in. Also our outlook of the world is mentally constructed and does not exist in any form we expect or think it to be in. Also we have no ability to exactly know what exactly the world is as we are limited by cognitive ability and or faculties. So we will never know the world as it is, perhaps unless you become a Buddha as only Buddha can see all phenomena.

"I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak: Sabba Sutta: The All"


text:
Does the Pali Canon say anything about duty to siblings?
A number of Suttas make very clear the practitioner's duty to his/her parents. Does the Pali Canon say anything about duty to siblings?
Thank you

Yes in several places Pali Canon says to help one's relatives such as parents. In the Mangala Sutta in one stanza says to support mother, father and cherish wife and children while in another stanza says to help the relatives. So relatives should include siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents etc.
"To support mother and father, to cherish wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupation — this is the greatest blessing"
"To be generous in giving, to be righteous in conduct,[11] to help one's relatives, and to be blameless in action — this is the greatest blessing"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.5.nara.html
Although I am unable provide any other exact instances, there can be other instances too.

Lord Buddha had given such advice to householders on several occasions. Here are the suttas....
Sigalovada Sutta: The Buddha's Advice to Sigalaka
Maha-mangala Sutta: Blessings


text:
Mindful meditation, problems with anger. Where do I find other Buddhist for learning support?
I consider myself new to being a Buddhist. I've been practicing mindfulness for the past two and a half years . Most of what I have learned and what seems practical are teaching from books written by Thich nhat hanh .
I've had much success dealing with anxiety. Lately though I've been unable calm my anger and it seems to be getting worst not better. No matter how much I focus on breathing.
I live near Vancouver BC, Canada. How do I find other Buddhists or teachers for support? Something in line with Thich nhat hanh's books.

In an answer to another question, Buddhist Centres in Paris?, Andrei said that he

had success with http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ when looking for local communities.

Here is a link to all its search results for British Columbia (about 100 results), which you can filter etc.
Thich Nhat Hanh is I suppose Mahayana, more specifically Vietnamese Zen. Among the search results is a "Mindfulness Practice Centre" in Vancouver which says that its "spiritual director" is Thich Nhat Hanh.
Their web site says,

We practice in the tradition of Zen Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh. We are peer-facilitated and volunteer run, without a formal teacher or leader.

Still that might be a good place to start.

Mindfulness Practice Centre looks very good thank you.

The 2 components to this:

the 1st case that made you angry
what kept you rolling in anger

Initially when some unwanted thing happens you get angry. The subject of anger can be towards a person of situation you are in. The 1st the initial experience cases your 1st unpleasantness (i.e., you get angry) and then subsequently through proliferation or thinking and pondering on the experience, how you could have handled it, how you would retaliate, etc. keep you in misery or sustains the unpleasantness (in this case your anger).
If you are angry or unpleasant due to what someone has done then you keep rolling in anger when you think "x did y to me". Here you have a notion of a doer and you the receiver or experiencer or some other association. When it is a situation you still may have the self identification as experiencer or receiver or some other association with the situation.
Now this can be due to your Karma and also the experience of what was done maybe in the past. Dwelling on this makes anger into feud if it is to do with a person. Contemplating this as past Karma, disidentification of the action from the identity of self as oneself and the other person or people, contemplating that situation will not last for even and subjected to change, also contemplating that there is no entry who did this and no entity who experienced this and whoever perceive has the doer has changed and no more and whoever you perceive as the experiencer has also changed and no more, etc. can help reduce this. Here the remedy is at rectifying the perceptional or the view which cases anger to arise.
At a more advance stage you can contemplate on the sensation this bring. You have a Perceived ideal as in how you should be treated or an ideal situation you should be in which what you experience deviates from then this results in unpleasantness. Similarly for when a pleasant situation or treatment changes and finally when you are in a situation or treatment which you do not evaluate positively or negative hence which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant. Though this you study the full sphere of sensation (vedana) or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). This is more or a permanent solution whereby you eradicate the roots which case this type of unpleasantness and your bondage to becoming which can cause future experiences of such nature.
This is easy said than done for and also influenced by personal temperament.

First of all here is a place for you to go and learn Buddhism. You will find good friends there. This is the monastery where i learned from and that's why i mentioned it so as it might be a bit far away use the Web Site mentioned and it will help you immensely.(I learned most of what i know from the site too, so i'm sure you will learn a lot of things.)

Mahamevnawa Buddhist Monastery and Buddha Meditation
Centre of Greater Toronto
Address - 11175 Kennedy Rd, Markham, ON L6C 1P2, Canada
Phone:+1 905-927-7117
Website : mahamevnawa.ca

Now lets see what is wrong with your efforts....
Anxiety,Anger,Hate,Pressure all are generated from something called "Patigha". The proper English translation would be "Colliding with thoughts".

Now lets see what it is all about and how to fix it......
"Patigha" Or colliding with thoughts happen because of one reason and that is the willingness to accept Aggressive thoughts. When you accept Angry or violent thoughts what happens is very simple, Your Mind start to react to it. What it does is feeding more emotions and thoughts that goes along with the  Aggression that already exist.
This causes you to feel angry and then you are anxious Eventually you are frustrated. This situation is completely normal and it is very simple to fix.

Now lets see how to fix the issue....
Anger has a way of becoming a big cloud that shadows a persons judgement. Before you know it the anger that you had for something or for someone turns into hating yourself and sooner it turns into an anger towards the world. This turns a person into a dull angry one and ironically that very person start to get attached to that anger even though he knows it makes him miserable.
This happens because of his mind actually reacting to aggression time and time again and eventually getting attached to feeling aggressive.

Here are the solutions that has been mentioned in Buddhism....
Lord Buddha mentioned a direct cure for Aggression and it is called "Meththa".
Here is a Link to Meththa Meditation (Audio file- Click on the link below)
Meththa Meditation
Loving kindness Meditation
Practice these and in a short time you will feel better. Every time you feel anxious or angry start doing this meditation. This does not require you to sit down in a position, you can do this meditation while doing anything that you do. Anger can only be overcome by Kindness & Anxiety can only be overcome by calmness, That's why we are doing this meditation.

Here is a Link on Mindfulness
Mindfulness : Correct observation of thoughts

Also watch -
self-hatred
Meththa sutra
Trauma & Meditation
Useful Meditation practices

Video Links are from - Dhammasith.blogspot.com

Markham is too far away for me about 3000km. The information on anger and Meththa Meditation is very informative though thank you. I'll combine the link to the Vancouver Mindfulness center and your answer. I personally think joining a Sangha is the best answer at this time.

After rereading your answer, I'm getting a better understanding. I will practice the Meththa meditation more. Thank you for your time.

Since giving is the first step to be able to understand Dhamma, maybe you like to scarify some time and simply visit a monastery where people are practicing and not just making business with teachings. That means a monastery where are monks who stick to Vinaya and are serious to practice the path for them selves in first place. Do not look for Buddhists, and something in line with Thich nhat hanh can not teach the abounding of aversion, since it teachers the twin brother. You might do oppressing training and just wait to find even a bigger disaster at least, this life or later. Just a short good advice from the Buddha in this Question regard of anger: "There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten?"


text:
How can an arahant still perceive without ignorance?
According to the 12 nidanas, perception ultimately arises out of ignorance. How can an arahant or the Buddha still experience sense contact when all ignorance is abandoned?

The 12 nidanas are not necessarily about things 'arising' or 'created' out of ignorance.
Unskilful things are 'created' by ignorance, such as craving, attachment, becoming, (self-identity) birth & (self-identity) aging-&-death.
Neutral things are 'tainted' or 'polluted' by ignorance, such as fabricators, consciousness, mind-body, sense organs, contact & feeling.
Perception is included in the fabricators, mind-body & feeling nidanas.
It follows there are two kinds of perception: (i) ignorant perception; & (ii) wise perception (often called 'full comprehension').
The quotes below may help:

Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..SN 45.1

~

Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the
  reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it
  really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart
  possessed and overwhelmed by sensual desire... then he cannot know or
  see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of
  others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long
  studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.
  SN 46.55

~

If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there
  is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed,
  not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it
  is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
  contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is
  totally unbound right within. SN 22.53

~

A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained
  the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released
  through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly
  knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does
  not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of
  earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth.
  Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you. MN 1

~

On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with
  body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He
  discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release &
  discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease
  without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he
  doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain
  fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it,
  & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the
  cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging. From the
  cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming. From the
  cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation
  of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress &
  despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress
  & suffering. MN 38

See also this depiction of the 12 nidanas where what you called "neutral" are also called "passive".

Thanks Chris. However, the depiction does not conform with my post because the depiction regards 'birth' & 'death' as something physical & therefore 'passive' (where as my post does not). It also regards 'sankhara' as something inherently defiled, which my post does not.

Unlike an Arahant, who is a disciple 'perfected in training’, whenever we perceive something through the senses our consciousness decides to either take it negatively or positively. If the response is negative we refuse it. That is revulsion. And if the response is positive we grasp it as our own. That is attachment. The great Arahants (disciples who attained the enlightenment), too perceive things, but without ignorance. In the Thera-gathas one the arahants say: “I don’t delight in living, don’t delight in dying; I live out my time, waiting my time as a worker waiting for his wage.” The arahants no longer hungers, and theirs is a happiness that doesn’t need to feed.  They have come to a point where  kamma is ended. The only people who are really debtless in this world are the arahants.
After attaining Arahanthood  the arahants will continue to live,  continues to formulate intentions, but each intention is like a seed that’s been burnt as soon as it’s created so that it doesn’t sprout into anything else. "Happy indeed are the arahants! No craving can be found in them. Cut off is the conceit ‘I am,’ Burst asunder is delusion’s net.” -  The Buddha (SN 22:76)


text:
Do geshe degrees change over time?
I have read several different conflicting pieces of information about geshe degrees.  I assumed geshe is a rank given at the end of study.  But, according to Wikipedia:

At the conclusion [of their studies] the abbot assigns each candidate to a category of geshe according to his ability. There are four such categories, Dorampa, Lingtse, Tsorampa and Lharampa, Lharampa being the highest. After this, in order to qualify, the geshe candidates are not allowed to miss even one of the three daily debate sessions during the subsequent eight months.

Does this mean that one can first get a dorampa and then a lingtse later, similar to how lay people earn a bachelors and then a masters?

The difference between the geshe degrees is comparable to the grade you get on an exam.
From TibetCulture.net:

Geshe Lharampa is the highest degree of the Geshe system, equivalent to the doctorate degree in Buddhist studies. The other three lower-level degrees, namely Dorampa, Lingtse and Tsorampa, will also be conferred according to candidates' performance in the dialectical debate.

And:

Such a challenge as it is, it usually takes decades for a few distinguished lamas to succeed.

No. Once awarded, that is it.It is a one off.

Could anyone clarify why they downvoted?


text:
Why are beings born?
Does anyone have an explanation as to how Buddha explains the reasons as to why are beings born? What is the reason for birth?

I don't think this is an actual answer to your question, so I will allow those with more knowledge to answer that (Buddha's commentary about birth). But for myself, I think of the answer as being similar to the answer to, "Why does a pebble skitter across the ground when kicked?" Because conditions cause it. Simply that. We are as waves in an ocean, and waves rise, peak, and fall, over and over, because that's simply what the conditions of the water cause.

There is no reason why "beings(sattānaṃ)" are born, there is causal for for it.  and causal for birth (jati) is Existence (bhava).  This is from dependent  origination or Transcendental Dependent Arising (pali - Pratītyasamutpāda).
Please make sure you understand the word "being" as per Buddha.  beings or sattānaṃ is a difficult term to understand.  ("being" is not the same as permanent soul).
recommendation for further study

Satta Sutta
Dependent origination

I'm going to try to use an example to explain it, because of protons, electrons come to be; because electrons, element comes to be; because elements, molecules come to be; because molecules, mass  comes to be; because masses, gravitational force comes to be; because gravitational force, a planet comes to be........    you can see from this example (Im not a physicist so my example might be flawed but you get the idea) a planet doesnt have a reason for coming to be, it has causal.

As I understand, in the aticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta (Dependent origination), beings are born because of ignorance?

yes..  "... Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of dukkha, not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of dukkha — this is called ignorance.."


text:
Does "which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them" refer to nibbana or the knowledge that abides in nibbana?
The essay The Progress of Insight includes the following definitions:

Maturity Knowledge
Immediately afterwards, a type of knowledge manifests itself that, as it were, falls for the first time into Nibbana, which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them. This knowledge is called "maturity knowledge."
Path Knowledge
It is followed immediately by knowledge that abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of formations since it is the cessation of them. This is called "path knowledge."[43] It is also called "purification by knowledge and vision."

In the first paragraph, does “which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them” refer to nibbana, or does it refer to the knowledge that abides in nibbana?

The roots (greed, hatred, delusion, non greed, non hatred, non delusion) creates conditioned fabricated state. When the root condition passes away so does what was fabricated. The root conditions are impermanent hence is the result. Each root condition and the result is tied with sensation which are unsatisfactory they neither last or in control of them.
When you do Vipassana and keep eliminating to roots a stage will come where there is no more results of past conditioning nor is you mind creating new conditioning. At this state you experience the 1st glimpse of Nirvana. As the root and result is tied to sensation what you experience as Nirvana does not have any sensation hence is satisfactory (not unsatisfactory) and since not dependent on an impermanent root it is permanent though still it is not not in ones control (you cannot bestore it on someone else nor can you realise it by will or wish).


text:
Didn't Buddha Say The Biggest Fault Of Humanity Was Idol Worship
Why did Buddhist start making idols of Buddha a few hundred years after Buddha died, even though Buddha himself said Idol worship was one of the biggest scourges of humanity

Do you have any reference for the Buddha saying that? And is this question a duplicate of Did the Buddha discourage antropomorphic representations of himself?

From personal experience as a chaplain:
I have found that when one worships the idol, and not the idea of that symbol, that is when the scourge to humanity issue arises.
Very much like mistaking the finger, when it is pointing at the moon, to be the moon.

Idols were created Kanishka's time. This was used as a tool to develop faith by worship.

even though Buddha himself said Idol worship was one of the biggest scourges of humanity

I do not thinks there is any reference to this in the Tripitaka.

to the best of my familiarity with the Canon, outside of clear instructions for laity regarding 3 ways of skillful bodily action
no killing
no stealing
no sexual misconduct

4 ways of skillful verbal action
no lying
no divisive speech
no harsh speech
no idle chatter

and 3 ways of skillful mental action
no covetousness
no ill-will
no wrong views

expounded in the Cunda sutta (AN 10.176) in particular
the Buddha was rarely categorical about dos and don'ts, being rather a proponent of analytic approach, whos apt expression is found in the Vajjiya sutta (AN 10.94)

I don't say that all observances should be observed, nor do I day that all observances should not be observed...
If, when an observance is observed, unskillful qualities grow and skillful qualities wane, then I tell you that that sort of observance is not to be observed. But if, when an observance is observed, unskillful qualities wane and skillful qualities grow, then I tell you that that sort of observance is to be observed.

leaving it to our own discretion and judgement to decide what should and should not be done, necessary and unnecessary, useful and useless for our own good
going back to the Cunda sutta (AN 10.176)

These, Cunda, are the ten courses of skillful action. When a person is endowed with these ten courses of skillful action, then even if he gets up at the proper time from his bed and touches the earth, he is still pure. If he doesn't touch the earth, he is still pure. If he touches wet cow dung, he is still pure. If he doesn't touch wet cow dung, he is still pure.
Why is that? Because these ten courses of skillful action are pure and cause purity. Furthermore, as a result of being endowed with these ten courses of skillful action, [rebirth among] the devas is declared, [rebirth among] human beings is declared — that or any other good destination.

so in continuation of Buddha's line of exhortation it can be said that when a person is endowed with the 10 courses of skillful action, then if they don't worship idols, they're pure, and if they do worship idols they're still pure.

from my study, i recall Buddha allowed Buddhists to build Stupa as memorial.  And those who deserve memorials are Buddhas,Private (self) Buddhas, Buddha's disciples, and "wheel Turning Monarch" (a man who righteously rules the entire world". Maha-parinibbana Sutta


text:
How does the story of General Siha's Meal for the Buddha at Vaisali vindicate the Buddha?
I'm working on a radio history of vegetarianism and featuring a dramatisation of the story of General Siha in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka because it shows the difference between Jain (there called Niganthas - "tieless ones") and classical Theravada Buddhist attitudes to meat-eating.
Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org. The story begins with the first sentence on the page:
https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/324/mode/2up
The story is told as if it vindicates the Buddha of the Jains angry accusations of himsa. But that seems flawed to me. General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for (in the Pali canon account) Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had literally been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect.
I want to make sure that I accurately reflect the Theravada understanding of the story, but I can't find it anywhere. How is Gautama the wise sramana vindicated?

Here is a version of the story as told by Ajahn Brahmavamso ("a British Theravada Buddhist monk"), in an an essay titled, What the Buddha said about eating meat:

Once, a rich and influential general by the name of Siha (meaning 'Lion') went to visit the Buddha. Siha had been a famous lay supporter of the Jain monks but he was so impressed and inspired by the Teachings he heard from the Buddha that he took refuge in the Triple Gem (i.e. he became a Buddhist). General Siha then invited the Buddha, together with the large number of monks accompanying Him, to a meal at his house in the city the following morning. In preparation for the meal, Siha told one of his servants to buy some meat from the market for the feast. When the Jain monks heard of their erstwhile patron's conversion to Buddhism and the meal that he was preparing for the Buddha and the monks, they were somewhat peeved:

"Now at the time many Niganthas (Jain monks), waving their arms, were moaning from carriage road to carriage road, from cross road to cross road in the city: 'Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gotama (the Buddha), the recluse Gotama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake'..." [1].

Siha was making the ethical distinction between buying meat already prepared for sale and ordering a certain animal to be killed, a distinction which is not obvious to many westerners but which recurs throughout the Buddha's own teachings. Then, to clarify the position on meat eating to the monks, the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." [2]

There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. One of the most interesting of these passages occurs etc.

I think that answers your questions: I think it's basically that meat was bought from the market, instead of animals "killed on purpose for him".
You could probably find more references to the story using this Google search: vinaya siha meat

See also this explanation of meat-eating, in The Bhikkhus' Rules —
A Guide for Laypeople.
Another explanation I read (I don't remember where, at the moment) is that the Buddha wanted monks to be easy for the laity to support: i.e. not too demanding/fussy about what kind of food they will accept.

Just to complement Chris' response, the sutta which i think is the final authority with regard to Buddha's position on meat consumption is Jivaka sutta (MN 55)

I like the next wiki page on buddhas diet (which even mentions siha story discussed here ) which shows that even if the buddha did eat meat (and its not 100% sure)  it was very rare :
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Diet_of_Buddha
There has been some controversy about the diet of Buddha, if he ate meat or if he was strictly vegetarian. The first Precept states no killing or causing to kill living beings, but at the same time, monastics are expected to take what is offered them, living by the Threefold rule.
Contents
1 The Buddha's final meal
2 Meat eating
    2.1 General Siha
3 Vegetarian foods
4 Vegetarian foods served to former buddhas
5 The Three most important meals
6 Scientific sample
7 See also
8 References

The Buddha's final meal
At his final days in the parinibbana sutta, the food that led to his death was at one time translated as pork. The terms have been translated as “pig’s truffles” which was originally mistranslated as pork. Modern scholars including, Arthur Waley, K. E. Neumann, and Mrs. Rhys Davids have corrected this to “the food of pigs” which are mushrooms. Today, the majority of Buddhist scholars agree that the Buddha ate mushrooms, which may have been poisonous and led to his death at the age of 80. Or it could simply have been the size of the meal that led to his death as there is evidence that the Buddha was already suffering from digestive problems well before eating the final meal (from previous suttas where the Buddha was ill and then recovered). However, the Buddha eats from the dish and requests for the remaining amount to be buried, apparently knowing that the food was in some way tainted and not simply a large meal. This suggests that the food was in some way not fit to eat, such as the wrong type of mushrooms. From the Digha Nikaya, Mahaparanibbana Sutta, no. 16:

Thereafter the Blessed One spoke to Cunda, saying: "Whatever, Cunda, is left over of the sukara-maddava, bury that in a pit. For I do not see in all this world, with its gods, Maras, and Brahmas, among the host of ascetics and brahmans, gods and men, anyone who could eat it and entirely digest it except the Tathagata alone."

And Cunda the metalworker answered the Blessed One saying: "So be it, O Lord."And what remained over of the sukara-maddava he buried in a pit.

Then he returned to the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, and sat down at one side. And the Blessed One instructed Cunda the metalworker in the Dhamma, and roused, edified, and gladdened him. After this he rose from his seat and departed.
And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Even today, in modern times, it sometimes happens that people prepare and cook the wrong type of mushrooms and then become ill and pass away. And the illness and passing happen very quickly. The food may have been the wrong type, not from poisoning, but simply by accident and therefore, no intent to harm by the giver of the food, Cunda. The Buddha continued showing his compassion for all by prasing the gift of the food and then later teaching Dhamma to Cunda, others, and even one last ascetic who came from far to see the Buddha to learn the Dhamma.
Further evidence that the Buddha did not eat pork can be seen in the fact that Cunda was a blacksmith, the one who offered the final meal to the Buddha. The three highest castes do not eat pork or other foods from pig meat. As a blacksmith, he was a member of the third caste and therefore, could not have prepared pork.
K.E. Neumann, in the preface to his German translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, quotes from an Indian compendium of medicinal plants, the Rajanigantu, several plants beginning with sukara.
Other vegetarian possibilities mentioned by scholars and early Theravada Commentators include a medicinal plant, a yam, or a tuber. Dhammapala, in his commentary to Udana VIII.5, suggests that it refers to young bamboo shoots trampled by pigs (sukarehi maddita-vamsakaliro).
Meat eating
There appears to be one place, and apparently only this one place, where he is described as eating meat. At AN III. 49 it mentions that the Buddha was once served sukaramamsa (Pali) with jujube fruit. The term mamsa = meat or flesh.
The sutta mentions that the Buddha ate "out of pity" apparently suggesting that he wanted to please the layman by accepting his food.
General Siha
There might be one other case where the Buddha ate meat. After hearing a Dhamma talk by the Buddha, (the military commander) General Siha addresses one of his staff and tells them to go to the market to purchase some meat for the Sangha. The Niganthas (Jains) complain that the Buddha and his monks will be eating meat from an animal killed for them. But the Buddha explains that no animal was killed specifically for the meat according to the 3 fold rule. The passage does not specifically state whether the Buddha ate the meat or not. Later it is reported that the "pure stainless eye of the Teaching appeared to the general Siha seated there itself; Whatever arisen thing has the nature of ceasing" (Anguttara Nikaya 8.12 / AN IV.185) which implies that he attained stream entry (sotapanna). This suggests that lay people can purchase meat without violating the First Precept since it is an indirect connection and no specific animal ordered to be killed. However, upon closer examination of the Suttas, we find that this passage completely contradicts other teachings of the Buddha against killing, causing to kill, the Buddha's opposition to animal sacrifices, slaughter houses, butchers or any other livelihood in the business of meat (Anguttara Nikaya 5.177). And in another Sutta the Buddha reports that soldiers are not headed to heavenly realms and in fact have rebirth to lower realms (Samyutta Nikaya 42.3). A stream entrant has no more than 7 more rebirths and they are always in higher destinations of human or deva realms. Therefore, General Siha could not have been a stream entrant and / or the passage about him purchasing meat must have been added by later writers of the Tipitaka.
It turns out that the mentioning of General Siha purchasing meat must have been added later to that Sutta. This is very likely when we look further into the Tipitaka and see that General Siha was a Jain up until the time of conversion (AN 8.12 / AN IV.185). The Buddha even advised Siha to continue providing alms to Jain monastics. The Jain religion requires vegetarianism and as such, Siha could not have been interested in meat and there is nothing mentioned at the time of the Buddha's sermon that would all of a sudden want to make Siha a meat purchaser and meat eater.
Vegetarian foods
Yet in spite of the one reference to meat, there are numerous other places where it mentions what the Buddha ate and they are vegetarian:
Thick milk-rice porridge and fresh ghee (Udana 4.3)
Wild rice (Majjhima Nikaya I. 78)
Rice with grains (M. 247), (Majjhima Nikaya 36.33)
Barley meal honey balls (Vinaya I. 4)
Choice rice with curry (Majjhima Nikaya II. 7)
Rose apple, mango, myrobalan fruits (Vin. I. 30)
Steamed barley and rice (Vinaya, Suttavibhanga 1)
Lettuce and fruit salad (Vinaya, Suttavibhanga 33.1)
Vegetables and rice (Vinaya, Cullavagga VI 4.1)
Milk (Vinaya, Mahavagga VI 34.20)
Conjey (watery rice porridge) and honey lumps (Vinaya, VI 24.3-7)
Vegetables and bread (Vinaya, VI 36.7)

In the Khuddaka Nikaya, Vimanavatthu, there are stories of meritorious deeds done by lay people who then ascended to a deva (heavenly) realm. Many of the meritorious deeds were giving alms food to the Buddha or one of his monks. Here we find several examples of only vegetarian food either given to the Buddha or one of his chief monk disciples, Moggallana or Sariputta:
Ghee, honey, sugar, rice, milk (Vim. 1.5)
Molasses (Vim. 4.2) and (Vim. 6.4) and (Vim 6.5)
Rice-crust (Vim. 2.10)
Cake (Vim. 3.1)
Sugar-cane (Vim. 3.2) and (Petav. 4.5)
Rice-crust, soups and curries (Vim. 2.3)
Mangoes (Vim. 6.3) and (Vim. 6.5) and (Vim. 4.8)
Rice custard / pudding (Vim. 6.7)
Rice gruel (Vim. 4.4) and (Vim 4.5) and (Petav. 3.5)
Rice, cane-juice, sugar cane (Vim. 5.12)
Rice gruel and mangoes (Petav. 4.12)
Beans, grains (Vim. 7.6)

Vegetarian foods served to former buddhas
The Buddha of our time is the teacher who rediscovered the Dhamma. In previous aeons, there were Buddhas who taught the Dhamma, according to Buddhism.
The bhikkhuni Rohini was an arahant (enlightened) and in a previous life, from a prior aeon, she served "sweet cakes" to a former Buddha (Thi. 67).
The Three most important meals
Main article: 3 most important meals to a Buddha

According to Buddhism, the three most important foods served to the Buddha were the final meal (discussed above), most likely mushrooms, the meal just before enlightenment, which was the milk rice served by Sujata, and the meal right after enlightenment, which was barley meal honey balls. All three of these meals were vegetarian.
Scientific sample
A scientific sample is one that is done without any bias toward selecting the things to be studied or evaluated. The passages mentioning what the Buddha ate appear to fall into that category as they are spread out through the Pali Canon and refer to other teachings, not about diet and thus, appear to be random mentions of his diet. As such we can use the above as a representative sample. If we count all of the above plus the last meal, the meal Sujata gave to the Buddha and the mention of meat above, we come to: 35 vegetarian meals and 1 meat meal. This results in a diet by the Buddha that is 97% vegetarian. This is the equivalent of eating vegetarian all year except for 10 days per year which is less than one meat meal per month. Such a person even in modern times would most likely be defined as a vegetarian who makes some rare exceptions as may be necessary for social reasons. Of the 35 vegetarian meals 74 percent (26) were vegan (no meat and also no animal products). Even if we include the possibility of there being a second meat meal in the passage about General Siha (see above), then it still calculates out to 95% vegetarian (35 out of 37) diet of the Buddha.


text:
Loss of "faith" in buddhism
I've never had any religion throughout my childhood and adolescence, and at the age of 18 I had my first contacts with buddhism; It seemed fascinating, and I kept reading about all the things I could find about it. Everything just seemed right, because I was truly convinced by this idea that the truth lies within, and I just saw the buddha as someone who had found it. It seemed to be the "no trust-my-words religion".
Recently I bought a buddhism book. It was an interesting reading, but somethings were discussed that I haddn't seen with this emphasis: karma and rebirth in other worlds.
The thing is that, after that, I became VERY skeptical when I learned that those things come from hinduism. It seems to be the religion that existed before buddhism, and it has karma, it has the samsara, the liberation (which is a little different), the worlds, the gods... And it's just seems as though the current culture at the time and location buddhism took place influenced buddhism itself, poisoning it with the same kind of dogmas other religions have - man-made dogmas, made up truths.
In short, my problem is that following buddhism started to seem like following christianity, or islam - just another religion that it's followers think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Why is buddhism any different? It seemed right, now it feels overwhelming and almost crazy. I want to follow buddhism, but those hindu concepts make it become yet another trust-my-word religion. I'm seriously disappointed.

(1) the law of karma in buddhism is not only original, but very different from the law of karma of other religions (such as the vedic traditions) -- they almost only share the same word: "karma". (2) Buddhism does not ask for your faith, not like other religions; if you have reservation about rebirth and karma, then it invites you to scrutinize it and see if they are true (or put it aside, as in secular buddhism). (3) until you read the suttas and study buddhism, it will be something you see from other people's opinions and you will have to believe instead of know

Question is reopened.

if you can't apply buddha's teaching to your life then faith will not do you any good.  there's nothing of faith involved.  you have to really want what he achieved. and in order to for you to achieve that, you have to understand the instructions.  if you think you understand the instructions and still can't achieve what you think it is he achieved then you might as well forget it...

Everything just seemed right, because I was truly convinced by this idea that the truth lies within, and I just saw the buddha as someone who had found it.

Buddhism is about the psychology of suffering in life and the way to overcome it.

karma and rebirth in other worlds

Karma is that each action will have a reaction in a the future. E.g. if you seek a life of crime then jail time may follow though many who do not expect to be caught.
We have to at least believe in this world. There is the human realm and the animal realm which we can directly see. The possibility of other worlds seam illogical just for some time leave them aside. As you see many and verify much of what the Buddha though through pratice then you can start believing them and also perhaps which might be beyond your experience and you might not be able to experience everything the Buddha experience himself. If the belief does not come, belive what is logical and what you experienced. One of the main ways to experience there aspects of the teaching beyond the normal sphere of comprehension is through mediation.

It seems to be the religion that existed before buddhism, and it has karma, it has the samsara, the liberation (which is a little different), the worlds, the gods

Hinduism had these aspects but Buddhism is completely different. A lot of things which are at the core of Hinduism was rejected by the Buddha. He accepted what was true.
Leave aside that may not be logical for the time being and pratice until you have verified facts through your experience. Experiencing the teaching will reinforce your belief.

Cause and effect isn't linear so one shouldn't consider it so to be. There are many variables that determine an outcome the laws you describe are a construct of humanity not natural law.

The cause in Buddhism is the root condition (greed, hatred, delusion, non greed, non hatred, non delusion). What you can understand is the past cause giving results now to which you react creating new cause for future results.

The challenge though is the contextual use of the terms and often words being homonymic. What is greed to you, may be selfless to others, etc. Who bears the responsibility is defining what is greed and what isn't?

It is the sensations or what is feld define them. If you receive something and you feel happy and unhappy when you part with it then there is greed. If the feeling is unpleasant when you receive something and happy when you part then hatred and if it is neutral then it is ignorance.

One of the beauty about Buddhism is "Don't just believe, but find the truth by yourself" (as I paste below).

The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

The Kalama Sutta is a very powerful sutta but if not being read carefully might lead to misunderstanding. Please also refer to Ven. Bodhi's excellent essay "A Look at the Kalama Sutta" (ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html )

This is what happens when you create too many expectations of something that is only in your mind. Why don't you take whatever you read with a pinch of salt and figure it out for yourself? Buddha advised people to practice for themselves. If buddhism was somehow influenced by other religions, then it cannot be original, and therefore it is not truthful <-- how did you arrive at this conclusion? Buddha himself said that he figured out a few things that was already found with a few differences in understanding and not the original. He explained it more scientifically and simply to regular people with a few practices (and in Pali instead of Sanskrit) so they could practice it. Regular people don't get the flowery language of the Vedas.
And the caste system in India was not stupid. It was meant to create well defined roles for people for all walks of society for all professions. It is the perception of the invaders of India that changed the whole landscape. Sounds like you need more reading to back up your claims.
I came across another answer which said something about learning say, a topic like Calculus. You would go to a textbook and pick up information and build from there. You wouldn't for example, say, HOW did this author know what Calculus is? HOW do they know the proof for something?

It is not that I suggest you to actually negate rebirth (that would be disparaging Buddha Dharma), but you do not have to admit it either. And while not dwelling on the notion of rebirth itself, you might find the space to take a step back and look at your own mind, so as to come to know "Why do I react in this way? How do I relate to rebirth in this way? Why does it make me feel the way it does? why do I see my not accepting rebirth as a problem? Why is accepting rebirth a problem for me?"
You can even try to determine why truth is important to you, why doubt makes you feel restless, and so forth. The descriptions of doubts and its functions that we find in the abhidharma is for us to come to know that.
Karma pushes us to look where we look, and to pay attention to this and not that. So, knowing that, you can approach the notion of karma in this meditative (yogic) way. Check what you look at when you open your eyes... check how you look at things, what kind of world you see, and what do you see when you look at the world.
I would advise you to adopt that practical stand. Ask yourself "where do my dislikes, liking, tendencies come from ? from where do my pleasant and unpleasant feelings come from? how come that I tend to look in that direction and in this way? how come I pay attention to this and that while not paying attention to other things?"
Do your dislkies, your liking, and so forth, arise without a cause? If they manifest in dependence upon causes and conditions, what are theses causes and conditions? Really, karma was taught for us to pay attention to the course our mind takes... the rivers in which it flows (a river which we ourselves dug)... and to help us set a positive, wholesome course for it to take. If Dharma is no antidote, it is not Dharma.

Your question is based on a false premise. Hinduism did not precede Buddhism; it followed it. Hinduism dates from 200 BCE approximately. The Buddha died about 400 BCE. It is the Hindu pretension to antiquity that is "made up." See Wikipedia, "Classical Hinduism," s.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Origins. Be careful that your disappointment is not with Buddhism, but with your own erroneous beliefs about what Buddhism is.

totally wrong, did you studied a little of history before writing?

Dhiego Magalhães: "I just wanted something I can trust, and now I don't see much sense in trusting buddha over jesus"

is there anything in the Dhamma which you can positively and cogently disprove to substantiate your lack of trust?
as for me, i don't over-rationalize about things outside of my range, i gravitate towards the tenets which i can understand and accept easily and that's still more than enough for seeing a sage in the Buddha and putting trust in his Dhamma

From my understanding, the Buddha expounded the Four Noble Truths in a practical way. In the Simsapa Sutta, he uses a simile with a handful of leaves, saying:

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
  knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
  taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
  with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
  not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
  direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
  not taught them.

In any religion, the peripheral teachings aim at some direct purpose. In Buddhism, this purpose is either fortunate rebirth or ultimate liberation from karma [Dalai Lama, p.20].

From the point of view of emptiness, a significant Buddhist concept, one might consider the relativity of the situation. Religion isn't 100% synonymous with the teachings  of the Buddha himself. Religions are made up of parts, and any singular part cannot be said to embody the religion as a whole: the parts which you view as Hindu aren't necessarily truly Buddhist. Even within the Hindu religion, there are variants and discrepancies.
The distinction made, similarly, between human dogmas and truths might be specious. All these truths and ideas interact in such a way that to clearly delineate them might be somewhat misguided. It might appear this way, but the reality is different.
Even the solidity of your apprehensions, their relation to a self, or their status as views might come into question under the light of contemplation. Contrarily to worldly facts -- such as the existence or non-existence of gods, or the goodness or badness of dogmas -- the investigations proper to Buddhism usually transcend such partial conclusions. With a certain investigation into reality, referential points might change, merge, or alter in ways invalidating previous modes of questioning.
In Buddhism, a reliance on this type of insight into reality itself moves the practitioner forwards, whereby experience with focused mediation (shamatha) and insight meditation (vipassana) continuously familiarizes one with reality, in a tangible rather than metaphysical way. Without such an immediate perception and without such a practice, everything may remain at the conceptual level. It is the experience of Buddhism, not its abstraction, that brings the cessation of suffering.
I will end by saying it is difficult to express skepticism to a phenomenological experience, such as colors, or sounds. With insights of the same nature, the notion of skepticism becomes moot: realities are seen as they are, rather than through categorical and conceptual lens.

If you just do a bit of meditating, stick the the 8 precepts (equivalent to the 10 commandments) and get your head round the whole (not actually) suffering thing, then you are sorted.  Secular buddhism is another name for this.  No supernatural (rebirth, karma, etc) stuff.  Admittedly it reduces it to almost a self help book but that is fine.  You are not losing anything really.
In short, be a good boy/girl, meditate and be happy with your lot in life.  That is essentially what the bhudda said.
Read some Brad Warner and Stephen Batchelor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

I think I get where you're coming from: you believe that 'karma' is ossified dogma, and not why you had faith in Buddhism.
If you are entirely unconvinced by dependent origination, or rebirth, then I would suggest seeing "karma" as a fictional means to think about good and evil.

India, at the time Buddha was preaching, was teeming with many ideas similar to Buddha's ideas. See Śramaṇa for details on the Śramaṇa movement in India. All of these were competing ideas, and the only ideas that have survived till now among the 6 Śramaṇa schools mentioned in Buddhist texts are Jainism and Buddhism. My short advice to you - forge your own path and be a light to yourself. Why do you need somebody to follow when you can be your own teacher? Look deep and you will find all the answers you need. Many people like Buddha have existed on this earth and will continue to do so far into the future. Be a Buddha yourself. Good Luck.

It's all generally misunderstood.
Birth and death relates to action/withdrawal and stuff like that (yin/yang). Karma is the energy that gets stuck after an action without the proper withdrawal. It's why you see old people with so many issues because it builds up throughout their whole life.
Anyone who thinks karma has something to do with reincarnating into a rodent has absolutely no idea.

I'm sorry Cameron, What you have Mentioned about Karma does not belong to any form of Buddhism.

As I said, it's generally misunderstood. That is unfortunate.
Since there is nothing other than the present moment, then it is clear that karma is generated in the present moment. The question is then how is it generated and how is it released. The idea that you'll reincarnate into an animal is a BELIEF and serves no purpose. The concept of action/withdrawal is a blanket for absolutely everything that happens in creation. You could also say that energy arises and returns. This is not buddhist, taoist, or whatever. It's just how it is. It is observable right now.

The idea of reincarnation is the very reason that we Buddhists follow Lord's words, Because we are afraid of the Samsara that's full of agony and suffering. As Lord Buddha said one must loose the attachments to reach nirvana and if you ask why i should do that the answer is simple, Because to be born is to suffer. Believing in the Reincarnation concept is taught as an essential factor to reach Shraddha. That concept is the very reason that push a being more into the path

It indeed does push people into the path. Those that are posting here are on the path, so now I'm telling you all that it's not necessary to hold on it since you're already on the path. Beliefs and longing for Nirvana in the future generate suffering right now. Resultantly, people tend to lose focus on what's happening presently, and hence the cycle of birth and death continues. I see this all over this stack exchange. Almost nobody is interested in asking questions directly related to the application of fundamental Buddhist concepts. Heads in the clouds, it seems.

Longing for Nirvana is considered a good thing in Buddhism & it is also the only form of longing or suffering that is appreciated in Buddhism. Here in Buddhism SE we talk about a lot of things and it may seem like most of us are talking about worldly things, that's because we are actually helping a lot of new Buddhists here. And i must say that even the people who achieved goals in path took interest in worldly matter when the influences of those matters can effect path of fellow travelers of the path. You can see good examples in "Sutra Pitaka". And that's what we are doing here.

@Cameron I think your comments clarified your answer; and if you edited them into (i.e. appended them to) the answer then it would be a better answer. You don't have to do that, of course, just if you'd like to (but because the purpose of comments is ideally to improve an answer I often reply to a comment by adding a clarification to my answer, instead of by posting another comment). Also it could be a bit clearer about how this is an answer to the OP (I think you wanted to say in this answer that Buddhism is based on some universal reality/actuality instead of being based on Hindu doctrine).