text:
Does Human Evolution Disprove a Kamma Based Rebirth?
I've started my practice as a Buddhist.  Currently, I've read a few books about Buddhism particularly the Theravāda lineage for myself it seems more appropriate. While reading about kamma one thing started to bug me.
It is said rebirth is conditioned by kamma. Which implies my good deeds may lead me to be born as human for example, while bad ones as mosquito. Homo Sapiens are on Earth for circa 200 000 years. Does that mean more than 1 million years ago no one could reach Nibbana, since there were no modern humans?

Maybe Dinosaurs weren't eradicated but simply collectively attained Nibbana?

dinosaurs weren't eradicated, they evolved into birds.

Many realms there are.

No, evolution does not do that. But this is a hard question to answer succinctly, because of the layers of concepts involved. I'll have a try.
First, consider one of the core notions in Buddhism: that our normal view of reality suffers from three illusory aspects. We don't normally see that the thing we usually call "real" -- tables, chairs, electrons, our brains, the evolving of species of organisms through natural selection, etc -- are impermanent, do not satisfy our desire to be free of suffering, and do not comprise that entity we call "self". A major point of Buddhism is to get to understand and experience the "true" nature of reality.
OK, so far so enigmatic. The point is, according to Buddhism what we see (feel, smell, etc) "out there" is not "real" -- it is merely the way whatever it is that is real appears to us. A well-used but very good analogy is the movie The Matrix. We are, in a very true way, in a Matrix. There actually is a "reality", but what we experience is not It. What we experience is just how It appears. And that idea isn't unique to Buddhism or even to religion.
Now within that set of experiences -- the things inside our Matrix -- are matter, energy, time, and so on; in other words, all the things of which a materialist scientist would say "that's all there is to reality". But in Buddhism, the insight is, no, that's not "all there is".
So to your specific question. The reason evolution -- and 200,000 years of the homo genus -- doesn't disprove kamma is because evolution is a concept inside the Matrix. Kamma, on the other hand, sits outside it.
Here's another analogy. Imagine you're a player of an online video game, like Call of Duty. Within each specific match, you can increase your score, gain points, get better weapons. Those are all like evolution. They happen inside one specific match. But you also have an overall ranking, or "experience points score" (I forget if that's what CoD actually calls it, but the idea is accurate) that lasts from game to game. That's like kamma. So asking if evolution disproves kamma is like asking if the fact that the current match has only been running for 5 minutes proves that no one can have a total "experience point score" of 10,000. The answer is, no, of course not. One is a concept within a game-match/samsaric-existence-instance; the other is a concept outside or "across" game-matches/samsaric-existence-instances.
One last way of thinking. Modern physics allows the possibility of multiple universes within a multiverse. So our current universe's 200,000 years worth of humans-able-to-attain-nibbana may be only one of billions of examples of such instances of human species across the multiverse, and maybe rebirth happens across universes.
So, again, no. The fact that we have a localized phenomenon called Darwinian evolution (which I accept, as far as it goes) really says nothing about the "global" (all-of-reality-scale) nature of things.
(See, I told you I'd find it hard to be succinct!)

Excellent answer. I've thought many times about the matrix and video-game analogies myself before! However, I don't think rebirth happens across universes. I remember reading somewhere that rebirth happens based on existing attachments (cravings/aversions). So, my particular attachments (towards relatives, country, culture, etc.) would be earth-based, right? Maybe the jhanas actually exist there (across the different universes)?

I've literally had these exact same thoughts about kamma and evolution especially the ones that concern rebirth across universes in a multiverse and that of the matrix. Just wow.

Humans aren't the only ones who can attain Nibbana. Gods and Brahmas also attain Nibbana. In fact, there are five Brahma realms called the Suddavasa(pure abodes) which are reserved only for Arahath and Anagami Aryans. Sahampathi Maha Brahma who invited the Buddha to preach the Dhamma to the world is from one of those realms. He was already an Arahath at the time. Human realm is said to be the best place to work for Nibbana as the balance between pleasure and pain is ideal to realize the four noble truths. Also, the Buddhas appear only in the human realm. Beings below the human realm cannot attain Nibbana as it requires a birth caused by a ti∙hetuka(triple rooted) kamma.
Incidentally, Buddhists don't believe in the Homosapien theory or evolving from some sea creature. Read the Aganna Sutta to know about the origins of humans.

I'm not sure that it's universally true that Buddhists don't believe in evolution. I've asked the general question here http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2225/do-buddhists-believe-in-evolution so we can perhaps explore this further.

Agree. I posted an answer there that may help.

According to the White Lotus Sutra enlightenment isn't restricted to human beings. The  daughter of the dragon king (nagas) became enlightened when she was a young girl in that text. In fact she became enlightened extremely fast......

Her meditation, in front of the whole group, allowed her to grasp
  deep Buddhist doctrine and immediately reach a level of no regression.
  Throughout this transformation, she remained half human and half
  dragon—and a girl.
“I see the Saha World clearly now,” she told her father and the
  others. “We must look within for the true way. Each one of us
  possesses a priceless jewel within the confines of our earthly bodies.
  We must polish that jewel and help others do the same.”

Generally I don't think Buddhism has a problem with dealing with concepts such as a planet a long time ago in a galaxy  far, far away. A browse of the wikipedia entry of Buddhist cosmology gives a flavour of the vastness of the enterprise for instance

A collection of 1,000,000 solar systems are called “Divi Sahashri Loka
  Dhatu”

and

The largest grouping which consist of one Trillion solar systems are
  called “Thri Sahashri Loka Datu”/Thrisāhasra-Mahāsāhasra-Lokadhātu or
  "great trichiliocosm".

Ouch - that's pretty big.
If space wasn't enough then there are kalpas for time. The Dharma is seen as spanning many kalpas. One definition of a kalpa is

Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately
  16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard
  seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be
  filled even before the kalpa ends.

Ooohh- that's a long time
So in general Buddhism is comfortable with the non-human, other worlds, and vastness of time. I don't think the Dharma would be seem as redundant by the trifling matter of the absence of human beings, 200,000 years ago on one planet.

I'll just comment on my own question. I just wanted to give you a flavour of the cosmic vastness of Buddhism and why human evolution might not be seen as an issue. Of course you (probably) won't be taking these things literally but it shows a attitude of universalism for the Dharma. Hope it helps

This question highlights the real problems of trying to marry Iron Age theology and Anthropocene science. The assumptions in the two worldviews simply do not fit together. The answers to this question which try to make them seem compatible contain a lot of nonsense.
If you want incorporate the evolutionary record into Buddhism then you have to ditch the traditional views and rethink the whole concept. Else the implication you have noticed becomes obvious: there were no anatomically modern humans before about 200,000 years ago. Thus no human realm to be born into per se. Enlightenment was not possible at all, since it can only occur from the human realm. And evolution of humanity is a one time thing.
But there are a lot of other problems too. On one hand you have science and evolution and on the other myth, superstition and supernatural beings. There's simply no place for supernatural beings in science. Such things are entirely ruled out. Science and religion are incompatible. This is why so few Buddhists take science seriously, and why so many Buddhists are openly hostile to science.
The Agañña Sutta gets mentioned a lot in this context. It's a satire on Vedic cosmogony - something acknowledged by scholars for 20 years now. See for example Richard Gombrich's 1992 article 'The Buddha's Book of Genesis?'. Only Buddhists forgot the joke and started to take it literally as an account of the origin of the world. One of many examples of early literalism that either forgot a joke or reified a metaphor.
And yet many early Buddhist texts make very clear that the "world" the Buddha is talking about is the world of experience. He has nothing to say on the subject of "reality", nor even a word for the concept as we understand it. He seeks to understand the arising of dukkha (the experience of misery or disappointment) and in the Vajira Sutta and the Kaccānagotta Sutta says explicitly that "only dukkha arises, only dukkha ceases". In other words the main point of Buddhism is that only experience arises and passes away. It has nothing to do with the evolution of species or worlds or any of that. Only the momentary evolution of experiences.
This precise focus is soon lost. And Buddhist "philosophy" starts to produce a good deal of nonsense that masquerades as wisdom. And so far it has not stopped.

There could be other habitable planets or even Universes too. So even though nobody could birth as human on the Earth (or Mars), they could birth in other places. Also, fact that somewhere somebody (or everybody) could not reach Nibbana does not disprove kamma. Buddhas are rare, and other beings need Buddha to learn Dhamma.

This is a good question for all to think about. We know that although humans were around for 200,000 years, their brains were not developed (to understand any form of reality) until about 7000 years ago. Till then they had only three things in mind- eat, reproduce and sleep- not much better than animals. When our minds developed then we began to think about who made us and where we are going. So for nearly 5 billion years there was no religion. The early animals (female) did produce births. Buddhism is a humanistic religion developed around humans. So my view is that human evolution and concept of rebirth are connected. Root causes for rebirth is -greed, hatred, and attachment to self. Animals kill for food, hate other preditors to protect their young, so the root causes are different. Early humans, 200,000 years ago had similar intentions. As their brains developed animal instincts gradually disappeared and developed the power to think. Religous leaders like some early hindu priests believed re-incarnation and Buddha found that rebirth is the key issue for human suffering.

Here is an essay I did a few years ago that may help.
Buddhism and the Idea of Evolution
How is evolution seen in the Pali?
It is the subtle nature of Darwin's theory of evolution that it plays into the hands of the Devil (so to speak); that is, relying on the idea of the evolution of species, there is little ground for personal evolution: doing good, abstaining from bad, cultivation of the mind; and there are good grounds for hedonistic self-indulgence and domination of others by any means.
Seeing it this way there is reason to empathize with some Christian groups reactions to this theory; but for Buddhists, the solution provided by ignoring the evidence of science and reliance on faith in the Bible is out of the question. So how can we understand what the Pali teaches so as to accommodate the discoveries of science and still allow for personal growth?
In the Pali, the fundamental operating principle of life is the law of kamma: that identification with actions of mind, speech, and body intended to produce pleasurable consequences for one's self result in identification with the consequences of those actions; and by the corollary of this law, in the fact that that with which one has not identified carries no subjective consequences.
The power of this idea is in one's ability to see this principle in action in the here and now in as simple a way as in an act of generosity and by careful examination of that with which we identify (e.g., this body is considered "mine" and is defended and catered to by "the self", but excrementia, that which a few moments before was a part of this "me," is considered disgusting and is abandoned in an instant).
Personal evolution takes place when the individual understands that by controlling his intentional acts of pleasure-seeking and by letting go of identification with body, sensation, emotion and ideas, he is able to stop producing future consequences and to overcome the consequences of past actions (which are limited in the objects in which they can produce results — i.e., body, sensations, emotions and ideas).
From the "theory" of kamma one evolves to the knowledge of kamma not by faith, but by scientific observation of personal experience. From this knowledge of kamma deductions can be made which are harder to "see" but whose conclusions are impossible to avoid:
Given two identical acts, one with which one identifies and one where there is no personal identification, and both of which produce the same material consequences, but only one of which produces identification with the consequence, then the conclusion can be reached that that which is "personal" is not absolutely bound to the material and can transcend it. (Meaning it can be seen that it is the act of identification that is causing identification, so that therefore one can, by not identifying, break the bond to the material.)
In other words, given the mobility of this business of identifying, there is good reason to believe in the idea of rebirth, or the continued identification (under some circumstances) with life (identification with some aspect of the material, such as consciousness) after the death of the body.
Given this, we have opportunity for the evolution of the individual apart from the species, and good reason (in the expected benefits of evolving) for the individual to evolve.
This is the Pali explanation of Personal Evolution.
Based on this, the Pali holds that what is at work in the visible (material) realm, is the natural course of what we call "the imagination."
In it's "playing around" with the controls of personal evolution the imagination tends to form certain patterns of existence: the bad find rebirth in hells and crude and monstrous forms, the good find rebirth in heavens, those whose efforts are at escape find themselves reborn in subtle states of less and less involvement.
What science finds in the layers of carcasses and their identifying marks (DNA) is the material evidence of the consequences of the imagination at work. "I tried it this way, I will try it the opposite way, I will try to do both, I will try to do neither...but also: "that one tried it this way, I will try it the opposite way..." A being (an individual identifying with consciousness and identified forms of matter) will identify with stage one, etc., but is not bound to identify with stage two...and this is not the same thing as saying that being "x" here now (a being identifying with a certain life-form here today) evolved from stage one of that species, etc. How come? because there exists the possibility of evolution apart from the evolution of the material form: One individual may continue identification with a certain level without evolving at all, another may continue identifying with the evolution of a certain species, while still another may skip to higher or lower levels without passing through the intervening stages and so forth.
This is the Pali explanation of the evolution of species, and is an explanation which also accommodates the scientific evidence.
Additionally in the Pali, seers tell us (and in Buddhism we are told that with practice we may see this for ourselves in the here and now, so this is not a matter which necessitates acceptance by faith ... belief is a matter of faith only in so far as we do not make the effort to see for ourselves) that the entire world-system (that which is the material aspect of the universe) which we occupy, also both evolves and devolves.
Given that we do not see this for ourselves, it is still a reasonable proposition given the fact of Time: that which is identified with Time of necessity comes to an end; and given that the material from which the universe evolved is something that can be observed to be "conserved" (science tells us it is not subject to complete disappearance, and is re-usable; and while science does not tell us this, if we are reasonable and logical we can assume that this law of conservation applies also to that element we understand to be consciousness (and in the Pali, consciousness is considered to be an element)).
So this brings us to the possibility of the re-emergance of life forms upon the re-evolution of the world system: beings, identifying with subtle mind states during a period of the devolution or complete destruction of the material world (you could say those reborn in Heaven after the Apocalypse), begin, at the re-evolution of the world, to seize on the possibility of once again exercising their imaginations in world-bound life.
It is no great leap from there to the idea that there may be, of these beings, one who is first to devolve into this newly evolving world. In Buddhism, this individual is known as Pajapati (The Creator of the Created); but those who follow may call him God. He identifies with the process of the re-emergence of the world and believes it is his own work. Those who follow believe that it is his work as well. There is no problem, even, given this view, of the idea of an Adam and Eve. It simply takes a belief that those previous life forms that we find that pre-date the possibility of Adam, were beings that identified with poorly thought-out actions and ended up in crude life-forms.
And this is the third thing we needed to be able to understand in order to explain to ourselves how we can hold the belief that the world is the personal creation of the individual making kamma while at the same time it can be reasonably seen to have been created by a creator god while not needing to deny science or eliminate the motivation for personal evolution.
I conclude by saying that we who have come into contact with the Pali are lucky in the extreme in our association with this system in that it frees us from the wrangling over this issue...a problem with ideas that is clearly holding back the development of all three areas it effects: man, science and society.

So you've noticed this too?  The 200,000 years of Homo sapiens on Earth creates a problem with regard to karma because it's so short a time. When Buddha recalled his previous lives, he said he remembered eons and eons of being born and reborn.  How can this be?  Our current universe isn't cyclical so there isn't infinite time.  Time started with the Big Bang. Our universe isn't quite 14 billion years old so it's almost 4 eons.  The evidence we have says our universe did have a beginning.  Look how long dinosaurs were on Earth before humans.  If that giant meteor didn't hit the Earth I doubt I'd be typing this answer to you at all. That humans could reappear on other planets?  I doubt it.  That karma affects evolution? Well, I'll use Occam's Razor.  We know gene variety and an environment is all we need to get evolution rolling, do we need karma too?  If the universe did hit a Big Crunch and then re-expanded would it expand in the same way and produce the same planets and life forms again?  No.


text:
Do Buddhists believe in Evolution?
Just as a companion question to this I want to ask if Buddhists believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection. The aforementioned question makes me think that the answers might be different depending on which tradition you are coming from. I'm interested in canonical scriptures and more modern commentaries and reinterpretation of the texts.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is vipassana outside a ten day retreat possible?
Traditionally Vipassana meditation is taught in a 10 day retreat. I have been trying to participate in one of those, but there is only one place where I live that offers this course, it is almost always fully booked, so it is very hard to match their availability with mine as I work pretty hard.
I have been practicing meditation for some time (different types) and went to a retreat in Asia, but I never had the chance to practice Vipassana in a traditional course.
I will keep trying to join the retreat, because this is important for me, but in the meantime is there anything one could try at home? Some glimpse of Vipassana perhaps?

I don't think there's anything fundamentally "traditional" about the 10-day retreat setting. In fact it appears to be a very modern invention.

good to know, I thought the 10 day retreat was a very old tradition, so what would you recommend? Any practice for a meditator to take one step further?

see related question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2148/can-one-learn-meditation-on-their-own

This is possible but anything less than 10 days for you 1st sitting may not give you visible results for an average novice. Also anything shorter may not have the critical push to give results. This is the reason the courses are organised in such away.
Also some continuity or length of practice takes you deeper and give better results. Just when you practice playing a game, more frequently you do it better you become.

I'm going to say that Vipassna or insight is possible outside of the 10 day retreat. Dipa Ma was wonderfully inspiring when working with the enlightenment experience in everyday life. One of her first students was a nursing mother. The account goes that this student achieved the first level of realisation (i.e. stream entry) by mindfully noticing the sensations of her sulking infant. No ten day Vispassna retreat for her - she never left the house. However I'm going to guess that you aren't a nursing mother (you might be!) so this isn't probably immediately and practically useful to you.
Depending on which sangha you are with (if any) they may be more or less willing to instruct you on Vipassna. I'm with the Triratna Buddhist community and my local centre has no problem discussing these techniques with people that have been around a while. It is all based on personal relationships within that setting though. I think there would be a lot more reluctance to go down that route with people who have just walked through the door.
I think the caution is that these techniques are strong and certainly within Triratna people are required to have a very good grounding in samatha practices before hand. There are resources that you can look at yourself. Daniel Ingram in his freely available book is very specific and I was also recommended this set of talks about Anapanasati practice as a route into insight practice.

Having personally sat three days and served one ten day and many more short courses. I can vouch for the technique. It really does have this no BS approach towards dealing with your impurities/negativities/ defilements whatever you want to call it. YES. There is a rigorous schedule to follow for and a first timer you'll feel a tinge of discomfort but it's all worth it in the end if you don't let your discomforts overpower you. I would recommend you to go to the centre on day 0 because in my experience there always are a few cancellations and they mostly never refuse a student. Refusing Dhamma is like refusing water to the thirsty.
You might find the rules and regulations overwhelming but everything in place there is with a good purpose. It will most certainly help your meditation if you follow them.
Going in with a clean slate would definately help you. For the period of ten days please forget everything you have learnt about meditation or all other intellectual acrobatic exercises. Although do have a nature of inquisitiveness within you about the technique. Smart questions to the teacher will yield smart answers. Talks about suttas and other traditions, not so much. All this coming only from experience so please do not mind this answer. It's actually one of my first ones on here. I really hope this helps and may you benefit on the path of liberation. Metta.
Rohit

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


text:
Beginner academic text recommendation
I am an ordinary western man willing to start learning Buddhism, for now - just for curiousity. I have a B.Sc as for education (if the field DOES matter, that is either economics or computer science, because there are actually two of us, and we both are willing to learn). I do not have any previous knowledge of Buddhism besides pop culture references which are what Buddhism looks like to absolute most of people living.
I also do not want to learn about Buddhism based on online videos and random texts. I think there is some academic treatise on the topic. And there should be - science of religion should be interested in it. It is religion, learning about religion from random sources is potentially devastating. Any misconception that was just sounding appealing to a not so educated mind could ruin his worldview. I know these misconceptions could also arise from reading academic texts. But to a much lesser extent and only if you have exceptionally rich imagination - academic texts do not look to convert or convince you, just to educate you.
I would be so glad if someone, and preferably one who holds  a university degree from a science of religion course could share some of titles on topic and explain why they are so good.
I am also aware about this question: Introductory books to Buddhism
but the author seems to seek for books on Buddhism for a different purpose and never insists on "academicity" of text. I do. It would better be not so insightful about the meaning of life but rather about what Buddhism is taught like to students.
Thank you!

I'm a graduate in Indian studies but since I speak German and a lot of research on Buddhism is done in German speaking countries, a lot, even most of the publications I read are in German. Just wanted to make sure what language(s) the publications are supposed to be in?

In the answer I gave to the question you mention, I referred three academic books under the heading "Comprehensive Introductions to All Traditions". From those three, I've only read Rupert Gethin's "The Foundations of Buddhism" since it emphasizes the early teachings, but the other two, by their content page, seem more comprehensive because of the historical emphasis on all traditions. You might want to give a try to Peter Harvey's "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" since it's the most updated.

Let me add that there are many more academic books that explain Buddhism in detail. Some names that you might also want to investigate are, Hirakawa Akira, Etienne Lamotte, A. K. Warder and Hajime Nakamura. All of these have books of this kind.

I can read English and Russian

I'd add Edward Conze - Buddhist Thought in India: Three Phases of Buddhist Philosophy (1962).

This is not really a great Q&A question: it's very broad and prone to lists of answers with no single correct answer. Is there a chance you could narrow it down somewhat?

I just read this, and it is pretty solid. It's from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so it should meet the requirement that it be an academic text.
I recommend also reading the suttas (source texts), many of which are available here and simply reading them critically. A third option is to buy a text such as this which has suttas as well as commentary from a prominent Buddhist scholar, Bhikku Bodhi (Although he is Buddhist).
One reason why I would personally urge caution when reading anything without having the source texts is that they can be easily misrepresented. For example, one modern position that is not uncommon is that the teaching of rebirth was a metaphor or was simply a cultural belief. If one reads the source texts (the suttas) thoroughly however, it is very difficult to defend this view as the Buddha claims to have direct, personal knowledge of rebirth (e.g., in the Bhaya-bherava Sutta).
I hope this helps. Best.

I would recommend reading the suttas too, the only thing with the suttas is that they can be hard to read if you don't have any previous knowledge, they make reference to the 4 noble truths all the time, if you don't understand them, the suttas will become hard to understand, a pre-reading on some topics might be the answer.

If you want academia and Buddhism, here are some great resources. They all have done numerous introductory and advanced books on Tibetan Buddhism.
Dr. Robert Thurman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Thurman], "Je Tsongkhapa Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, holding the first endowed chair in this field of study in the United States. He also is the co-founder and president of the Tibet House New York".
Jeffrey Hopinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Hopkins], "American Tibetologist. He is Emeritus of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Virginia, where he taught for more than three decades since 1973.[1] He has authored more than twenty-five books about Tibetan Buddhism,", or
 His Holiness the Dalai Lama, my favorite teacher, on my favorite teaching "Illuminating the Path to Enlightenment" (http://lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=398), a "stepped path" (literally) of teachings that are designed to take one to enlightenment. (Also a great site for all levels of teachings.)
Enjoy! There are so many more online now in the many Buddhist traditions. Lucky us!

A quick note: It would be interesting to have a basic idea of the different Buddhist traditions, so you can understand what is the core of Buddhism and what is specific to a certain tradition, as you want an academic approach it would probably be a good ideia

Yes, but I find the "academic approach" problematic. I would not want an "academic buddhist" as a teacher, any more than I would want an "academic Doctor of Medicine", who had never actually treated anyone successfully, to treat me. I am "in it" for freedom from mental pain (liberation), and ultimately, enlightenment. Any thing else, I think, seems to be wasting the time we have in this short life.

If you can come to Sri Lanka, you can follow a diploma or a post graduate diploma in Buddhism at the Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. In the mean time, you can get a good start with books like Buddhism in a Nutshell by Ven. Narada thera. Or the life of the Buddha.

For a general introduction, I heard good things about An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices by Peter Harvey of Cambridge.
Now, if you by chance would like to taste a way Buddhism is taught to students within the tradition itself then you will do good to read Treasury of Precious Qualities (in two volumes) by Kangyur Rinpoche, studied as a review text at the end of a comprehensive course of study Tibetan monks take towards their Geshe degrees.


text:
Why is Buddhism not Nihilism?
I'm familiar with the concept of the middle way and how Buddhism is neither Eternalism nor Nihilism. Not being Eternalism seems straightforward to me - all things are impermanent. However Buddhism not being Nihilism takes a bit more thought, for me anyway.
So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? When we start to get into concepts like voidness and emptiness it can start to seem like it is edging towards it. When I practice it seems like anything but Nihilism. However I think I would struggle to write down why that is.
Just to clarify the question could we take the existential view of nihilism so quoting from wiki

life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

This is Nagarjuna's rejection of both and their conjunction and disjunction, right? I don't get it either. I plan to ask how the logic works someday.

'People who think that things are real are as stupid as a cow;
People who think things are not real are even more stupid.' - Saraha

@Crab Bucket - Bhuddism is Nihilism with an exit door.

I have struggled with this often. There is so much discussion about impermanence and everything lacking a substantial core that it's very easy to think of it as nihilism. But that is not the entire doctrine. There IS something. It is the unconditioned, Nibbana. What does exist cannot be spoken about in logical words (what we can most easily understand), but what does not exist (Impermanence and the Five aggregates) can. This results in the Impermanent side of Buddhism being discussed far more than the permanent side, giving the incorrect feeling of Nihilism.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that Nihilism in philosophy has two meanings.
The most used in philosofic discussion is defined as:

the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the
  belief that life is meaningless.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism
Within this framework nothing has meaning, no wortwhile goals or useful morals exists. Friedrich Nietzsche is probably the most famous philosopher accusing Buddhism as being Nihilistic.
On its face Buddhism shares some of the ideas with this philosophy in the sense that mundane things are in an eternal sense not valuable, but it differs in the way that it has a form of morality and sees spirtual goals as wortwhile. Both Friedrich Nietzsche and Schopenhauer knew about Buddhism and wrote about it, and have arguably been influenced by it, but ultimately rejected it in favour of their own rather pessimistic worldview.
The Eternalism vs Nihilism stance tends to be more of a discussion whether the soul is eternal, and whether things exist in an ultimate sense.
In the same way konrad01 is describing Buddhism holds the middle between the two, seeing objects as real but dependently originated, not self and unsatisfactory. Seeing mundane life as meaningless but reconizing spiritual goals as meaningfull.
Nietzsche on Buddhism:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=wZt7AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=nietzsche+movie+on+buddhism&source=bl&ots=6tb66KX1m8&sig=8JTpz5pXw2eHnBKLtircejx38lE&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=6nYUVMfhE8iPOLWxgJgD&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=nietzsche%20movie%20on%20buddhism&f=false
http://marmysz.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/nietzsche-and-buddhist-philosophy/
Schopenhauer on Buddhism:
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh_144_146.pdf

The nihilist conception is that the flow of life is the sum of conditional phenomenons. This leads to no God, no purposes, no liberty, etc. Nihilism does not, however, recede as Buddhism does; but only moves forward.
In that sense, Nietzsche is a real Nihilist; but he has not truly grasped the receding process of Buddhism.

The Tumblr link is rotten unfortunately.

Thanks for pointing that out, removed it and replaced it with another one, not exactly the same, but having roughly the same information.

Buddhism is not Nihilism because it does not reject values, morals, and religious truth. Buddhism is not Annihilationism because it establish idea of karma (i.e. inheritance of actions). Actions are not destroyed at death and inherited in next birth. Thus, it is useful to do wholesome deeds and practice Teaching.

I believe it all comes down to the way one sees reality. One could argue that as everything has been changing since the beginninless time, everything is "Eternal", it is just changing shapes.
I believe the point regarding the middle way is how things exist:
Eternalism suggests things exist as they are. The chair is a chair, it has a "chair-nature", it goes against the dependent origination. Also the name 'chair' is just a convention, nothing more.
Nihilism as we know it is a recent phenomena. The name has a Latin origin, so in the time of the Buddha Nihilism didn't exist like today. It was more related to ascetic practices of thinking that the world is a illusion and nothing exists at all. So the Buddha was trying to explain that things DO exist, but not as we think. There IS a chair, but it does not own a chair-nature. It is something transitory, impermanent with a dependent origination that we perceive with the eye-consciousness

Is this against the "Yogacara" teaching that everything is a product of mind? Isn't a chair not a product of the mind and unreal?

@GokulNC I believe so.  Most of the later schools ran afoul of the Buddha's teachings in some way or other.

(Since the question seems to be referring to Annihilationism and not Nihilism, I suggested an edit to it. I'm responding with this change in mind.)
Plainly, Annihilationism assumes a self that is destroyed after death. Buddhism doesn't assume a self.
For references, see DN 1, Brahmajāla-sutta, especially the Annihilationism section and the ending section.

I've heard this translated as nihilism such as here http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/eternalism-nihilism-and-middle-way.html?sm_au=iVVr26W56TNMvRw5 so I would prefer the question to stay as it is. If the problem is in translation then great - then that is the answer

Briefly, it is not the translation, it's the meaning. Both words have the same root 'nothing' (nihil) so they are roughly equated (Annihilationism has the prefix ad-) but their meaning in English is different. See Nihilism & Annihilationism for the difference. Bear in mind, they can co-exist, but they are not the same. For example, 'if their is nothing after death (annihilationism) then my actions are meaningless and purposeless (nihilism)'.

The Pāḷi word is Ucchedavāda and it's meaning, as you can verify in the discourse I mentioned above, is the same as Annihilationism. That's why I suggested the change in the question.

I'm with @Unrul3r on both terminology and the answer.

Nihilism is even worse than eternalism. Because eternalists can still do good deeds and reach heavens. Nihilists are said to be destined for hells. There's also a version of nihilism which is said to be even worse than the Ananthariya Karmas(matricide, patricide etc.). It is called Niyatha Micca Ditti. It is said that they won't be able to escape even when the world ends. They will be born in a hell called the Lokantarika Naraka,  which is located at the center of where 3 universes meet.
Key beliefs of the person with Niyatha Micca Ditti are,

No benefit in offering alms
No purpose in caring for parents
There is no merit or demerit in deeds
There aren't any ascetics who preach the Dhamma with direct knowledge
There is no rebirth.
No spontaneous becoming i.e. becoming of gods, brahmas and hungry ghosts etc.

Lokantharika Naraka sounds extremely like the hell in Abrahamic religions. Do you have canonical proof that there is a description of Lokantharika Naraka in Thripitaka? To be honest this sounds like a fairy tail invented in post Buddhist era.

@Krumia, here's a reference:http://www.metta.lk/pali-utils/Pali-Proper-Names/lokantaraniraya.htm  if you don't have faith, anything you can't see can sound like a fairytale, including regular hells and heavens

Your definition of nihilism seems to me to ignore the four noble truths: that suffering (dukkha) exists, and, can cease.
You define nihilism as "life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value", however isn't "cessation of dukkha" (i.e. third noble truth) the 'purpose' of Buddhism (see also 'sentient beings')?

Nothing
  Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after
  another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and
  sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena
  is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no
  mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked
  Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come
  from?"

But being (possibly) "the 'purpose' of Buddhism" - in which relation does such an idea stand to some "purpose of life" (from the "definition" of nihilism)?

The only definition of nihilism I know is the one in the OP. I assumed that "what is the purpose of life?" means something like, "why is my purpose in life, why do I do things, what is my intention?", and that Buddhism's answer to that question is, "our purpose, our intention, our actions are directed towards reducing suffering." In particular I think that's the purpose of Buddhism's teaching about emptiness: it's a teaching whose purpose is cessation of dukkha.

Well, while I can share that, it seems to me, the asker asks in the spirit of "what is the purpose of life" (referring to the wiki-quotation) - not of cessation of dukkha etc, which are only circumstances of the "life" or even better: remedies for someone who recognizes the life as dukkha-bound. I think, there is an widespread attitude of thinking, which poses itself "outside" the life and asks then: "what is the purpose of that funny thing there what I'm looking at: 'life' "?

widespread attitude of thinking, which poses itself "outside" the life That reminds me of what this essay describes as, "the language of thought that seeks objectivity". Still I don't think that Siddhārtha Gautama was "outside the life".

A late response... "Still I don' think that Siddhartha Gautama was 'outside the life'" Yes, that's why in a plenty of discussions (... phew, sigh...) I always liked to take the stance of the Buddha and not that of the discutant with the (...)widespread attitude(...)

I whacked a friend in just the manner of Dokuon.  He told me never to do that again.  :)

Because it does not deny or reject conventional reality, and conventional experience. Buddhism reaches emptiness via the dependent origination of apparent objects. It does not negate the conventional existence of them, just examines their absolute or final nature.
Because of this acceptance of conventional reality and truth, Buddhism examines causality, morality, and consequence, specifically in the light of human suffering and liberation. This is far from nihilism, which is essentially the view that there is no consequence.

Because it offers an escape and the path leading to the escape from the impermanent, the substance less and the sorrowful. Nihilism offers no such escape.

Buddhism is not nihilism because the Buddha clearly posits the Deathless as the goal of nirvana.

Buddhism contains optimism and pessimistic view points on life. On the positive side, there is the celebration of merit (virtue, alms giving, helping one another etc). There are the four sublime states of lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. But it is a religion which points out that there is a field of unhappiness as well as a field of merit/happiness. This field of unhappiness contains painful human circumstances/woe and the woe of beings in hungry ghost realms, animal realm and ultimately hells. But salvation is Nirvana which is (the realisation) of emptiness but which is said to be a completely blissful state of being. So the goal of Buddhism isn't nihilistic. There is something "in" the aim. It is the promise of a pleasurable/transcendant state of being as a reward for good actions of body speech and mind and following the 8-fold path. But the religion could be construed as nihilistic in the sense that Buddha didn't directly, as far as I am aware, offer an explanation of why we suffer or why the law of karma exists. He merely states that that is how life is, in Samsara, the wheel of life and death/ cycle of becoming.

So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism?
One can argue that from the Ego's point of view Buddhism is nihillisim .Because practicing Buddhism fully, inevitably leads to the destruction of the ego.Buddhism helps shatter the ego's solidity.So quite understandably the ego freaks out at some stage of the practice.
Fortunately,we're not the ego.Buddhism is not nihilistic because we're not the five aggregates which we continuously mistaken ourselves to be.

FWIW, the only thing the Buddha said about ego (atta) is that it doesn't exist.  The view that it has a point of view came later, and is falling into the Wrong View of a self, atta.

Buddhism is perhaps not a philosophy that can be easily compared with nihilism. Buddhism (and I can only speak of Zen) is a way of being that essentially problematises the inherent dialectic of thought and the governance of reason. Nihilism represents an extreme doctrine within the philosophic tradition wherein one's subjective/analytic sense of emptiness becomes axiomatic of synthetic/objective emptiness. The Buddhism I admire would smile at the childish certainty of such notions.
Put another way, the false notion of a separate 'I' - a core idiom of Western thought - is the root of nihilism. Indeed, nihilism may represent the analytic fruit of this ontology. Buddhism names the Way wherein self, as something separate, is dissolved. In such a state of being - so full in its emptiness - nihilism has no meaning.

This answer has potential but is incomprehensible to someone not familiar with academic jargon. Can this answer be made more accessible?

Thank you for your comments Anthony. I have attempted to rephrase my thoughts on the question.

IMO adding a paragraph that's slightly easier to read doesn't make the answer more accessible to a general audience. Still, maybe someone more intelligent than myself will find this answer helpful in its current form :-)

Hmm, just in case I came across as rude, what I mean is that your answer may have value in its uniqueness, and that it doesn't have to satisfy everybody.

Buddhism is not easy to understand or articulate, because it is not accessible via the intellect. Language can point the way, but it is only at the collapse of analytic meaning that satori awakens. I suppose the very context of this discussion to some extent alienates one from this understanding.

In Nihilism, as noted, there is a sense of self which is 'lost' upon death, and is absorbed into a vacuum, as it were.
In buddhism there is no inherently-independent existence of a self, so upon death nothing is lost and nothing is gained.
This in fact reflects physical reality much more than nihilism does, regardless whether you consider it from an agnostic or buddhist perspective.
However the philosophical implications of this are, 'you' don't lose anything. Ergo, a nihilist is someone who is attached to there being a sense of relative meaning in life, because they still believe in an inherently-existing self. Whereas a buddhist is someone who strives to be free of the false view of an inherently-existing sense of self, and hence avoids the depression, negative attachment to life, and ultimately, despair, that the nihilism view ultimately entails.
If you take the buddhist view, the sense of 'self' ultimately becomes dispersed, and even in early stages, 'wider'.

Dhamma is not a philosophy, it's a path of practice to go beyond and to see what is reality for one self. What happens is one does not use it simply like this is good described in Iti 49
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of trade and keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

'Eternalism' does not mean 'permanence' & 'nihilism' does not mean impermanence. Instead, both Eternalism & Nihilism are forms of 'self-view'. 'Eternalism' is the belief "I" will exist after death. 'Nihilism' is the belief "I" will cease at death. This link called 'Held by Views' may help:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-049
You may also read the Brahmajāla Sutta (if you enjoy reading), which defines these words clearly.

@atman Please see When shouldn't I comment?

Sometimes there are translation issues.  When people say that Buddhism is not nihilistic, they are not exactly talking about the definition you gave.  One can say that the Buddha never said anything about nihilism (according to the definition you gave) one way or the other.  The Buddha avoided the three wrong views, eternalism, hedonism and what is usually translated as nihilism, the view that "nothing is".

Strictly speaking, the experience of emptiness (sunyata) provides experiential insight about one’s basic relationship with the universe, with others, and with oneself. It is an experience that establishes beyond any doubt that we give meaning, purpose, and value to life and to experience. It is somewhat like making a distinction between sensation and perception: Sensation is the given and the real, while perception is what we add to or understand about that sensation. Perception, understanding, value, and motivation, of course, are real but in a “relative” way. The experience of sunyata provides a valuable perspective on what is true or wise, because it teaches us to be more careful about what we add to experience. We become more careful by acquiring a deeper understanding of what is “relatively” true. Relative truth is based upon evidence. In other words, truth is objective and not arbitrary. It is on this point that Buddhism and nihilism takes opposite positions on the nature of existence.

Loosely, They say the Buddha was asked:
 - What is the happiness there where there are no sensations?
 - Just that is the happiness there.
The answer to OP question is in the definitions there, it is the core of the teaching on mechanics of reality. The sole postulation of existence of that something supposedly makes the teaching definitely not nihilistic unless there would be contradictions in that doctrine, there are no such contradictions. Surely someone couldve formed a more or less coherent argument if there were.
As simply as i can:
All or Everything that is, gains footing in the Deathless. In a fashion of unbinding, All that has a cause or supportive condition can cease, whilst that in which it used to gain footing, in that sense unafflicted.
The Deathless as i wrote it is to be understood as a Name for and a quality of that something apart from Everything/All. It is the ultimate Reality.
The way to make sense of how can something be said to be apart from everything, is to realize that ultimately everything can hardly be said to exist in first place.
It is similar to saying that hearing gains footing in the brain and brain gets footing in the Mind, which is of course no less confusing for we usually assume that mind gains footing in the brain.
Experiencing is definitely there and we can study that, that is a good start.

If it is nihilism then it isn't IMVHO degenerate passive nihilism of so called "western buddhism" (schopenhauer - i think).

We should be wary of saying that death is opposed to life

Nietzsche said...
Whether we see death as a rebirth or not, that does IMHO mean that release from suffering (even if we say that all life is suffering) is not opposed to life and not opposed to living.

Discovering nirvana does not erase the self because nirvana is the self. Discovering nirvana is the seeing beyond local identity to the non-local source. So local and non-local become indistinguishably the field and its knower.

The phrase "nirvana is the self" seems to me an unusual choice of words. Do you say that based on scripture (i.e. can you reference where you learned that), or is that based on your personal experience?

If nirvana was self then there would be no suffering. You wouldn’t even need to meditate or do good deeds

In buddhism the self as in nirvana consciousness exists independent of the local brain. So if you swat a fly say that fly as a form dies but its consciousness exists still as you the swatter of the fly. Because the fly and swatter of the fly share the same empty consciousness.

"...So if you swat a fly say that fly as a form dies but its consciousness exists..." - This view sounds like it belongs to the belief in Eternalism (sassataditthi) which is not part of the Buddha's teaching. You also mention "empty consciousness" which brings to mind the doctrine of Emptiness (sunyata) from Mahayana Buddhism. Is this what you are talking about? Please add clarification. Thank you.

If you hold the view that the Buddha taught there is no eternal soul, then Buddhism is basically nihilism. If there is no transcendent self outside the scope of samsara, there is no rebirth, no enlightenment and no liberation from samsara because there is nothing that is being reborn, enlightened or liberated, just a phantom and an illusion. Fortunately this is absolutely something the Buddha DID NOT TEACH:

“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!” [MN 1.436]

Please use > to format block quotes. Details of how to do all types of formatting are here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/editing-help#simple-blockquotes But quoting (and a blank line for paragraphs) are IMO the most necessary types of formatting.

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn64/26.197-26.267 translates this passage as, "He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus". According to this topic, "deathless" is a synonym of nibbana.

"He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus"
In other words, mind ("citta") transcends the 5 aggregates

Are you a Hindu? Buddha said that all things are impermanent. If there is a soul then where is it when we need it. Why can’t we say “let my soul be thus, let my soul be not thus? Nirvana is not “Citta”. Nirvana is the ending or cessation of all phenomena.


text:
How is prayer different in Buddhism when compared to theistic religions?
We all know the concept of kamma-vipaka and that we should strive and create the causes of our happiness.
I understand the Buddhas only point the way, they teach the Dhamma and we are responsible for walking the path. In this context, why it is so commom for Buddhists to pray? For example, does prayer in Buddhism have a different meaning when compared to for example Christianity?
I can understand why praying is so important in religions with a creator God, because that is the way you ask for all sorts of blessings, but in Buddhism it is not so clear, does praying have a different meaning or purpose?

konrad01, you have stated an assumption that "it is so common for Buddhists to pray". On what is this assumption based? It's a good question, but perhaps better without the generalization.

Hello Robin, fair point! Of course this question is based on my own experience and in how Buddhism came to the west (at least in my country) I'm sure different traditions may have different answers and this will be positive for the debate, I just want to make one thing very clear: I'm not questioning the prayers, just trying to understand it better and how it fits with Buddhism.

Why is it so common for Buddhists to pray?
Generally speaking, before going into the specifics of Buddhist practice, people pray because they are looking for a support, because they want to be happy and free from suffering; they pray when things are out of their control, in order to help bring about desired results. Ordinary Buddhists are just people looking for a good future.
As in all things, one can't judge a religion by what is "common" among its followers; it stands to reason that the majority of practitioners in any religion will  not be serious about their religion and practice it only insofar as it supports their worldly pursuits. Hence the popularity of prayer over say meditation.
The Buddha's attitude towards theistic supplication is well-summarized in the Jaataka commentary:

These greedy liars propagate deceit,
  And fools believe the fictions they repeat;
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
  Why does not God set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
  Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
  Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
  Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?
I count your God one th’ injust among,
  Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Jāt. 543

He also implicitly pokes fun at the concept of supplication in the Ratana Sutta, acknowledging the prevalence of prayer and encouraging higher beings to respond positively:

O beings, listen closely. May you all radiate loving-kindness to those human beings who, by day and night, bring offerings to you. Wherefore, protect them with diligence.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html

Does prayer in Buddhism have a different meaning when compared to for example Christianity?
In Theravada Buddhism, the word used is adhiṭṭhāna, which means "determination" or "resolution", in the sense of setting one's mind (ṭhāna) firmly (adhi) on something, e.g. "May I be free from suffering". Though the translation makes it sound like a request, it is actually just a means of reaffirming one's commitment to something - one's own happiness, the happiness of others, the attainment of enlightenment, etc.
An example of a core Buddhist determination, one made by the Buddha himself, is:

‘Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.’
MN 70 (Bodhi, trans.)

In other Buddhist traditions, prayer may actually be used as a means of supplication, e.g. to a bodhisatta or even a presumed Buddha.

Bhante, thanks for this great answer, full of details!

I am a practicing Buddhist in Theravada tradition from Burma(Myanmar), as far as I know the praying in Buddhism can be either one of the 2 things.

Reciting the tachnings of Buddha or others great teachers in tradition probably to remind oneself of tachings and for tranqulity of mind
Actully asking for some blessing but not from Buddha but from benovelent dieities (who may or may not help) in witness to your merit or virtue

Hope that help

Also as Sathyakriya(saccakiriya) and as paying respect to the Triple gem

Thanks Nanda, It did help! Point #1 is very clear, point #2 I believe you should only do if you have created the merits, so nature should act on your favour anyway, but yes, your answer is very clear! :)

Whether "it is so common for Buddhists to pray" is unclear as there does not appear to be non-subjective evidence to support that claim. It could be said that the emphasis given to prayer in theistic religions is generally given to meditation in Buddhism. Some forms of meditation, such as metta (sending thoughts of universal friendliness) have a prayer like quality to them.   But surely some Buddhists do pray and to whom these prayers are sent is spoken about in the book "The Energy of Prayer" by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk and prolific author.

"But when we recite these lines, we are not just handing this desire
  over to the Buddha. We are gathering our strength from within and
  combining it with the strength that lies outside us."

Another quote from this book is

"the one who prays and the one prayed to are two realities that cannot
  be separated from each other. This is basic in Buddhism, and I'm quite
  sure in every religion there are those who have practiced for a long
  time and have this understanding. They can see that God is in our
  heart. God is us and we are God."

So that is one interpretation from zen master Thich Nhat Hanh.

Thanks Robin, of course that was based on my experience, a very incomplete experience I must say, here in South America we don't have many types of Buddhism available, in Asia I have been to both Mahayana and Theravada monasteries, in Nepal and Malaysia, so I'm asking based on what I have seen and I can clearly understand it may not be the usual worldwide :)

Does praying in Buddhism have a different meaning or purpose as compared with religions with a creator God?
There are various points of view, depending substantially on the intent or state of mind of the person praying. I'll give you three of those points of view (POVs)
From the POV of the typical Christian, it absolutely has a different meaning. For example, in Catholic Christianity, prayer is "the uplifting of the heart and mind to God" (from the Catechism). Prayers are typically done to, through and "in the name of" Jesus, one of the three "persons" in the single tri-une God. God -- the personal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of everything -- is front and center of Christian prayer. If God is not front and center then best case it's not prayer, and worst case it may even be seen as downright dangerous and at risk from the influence of evil spirits. The primary purpose of Christian prayer is to bring the creature into union with the Creator (worship, praise, and also intercession are all components in that).
From the POV of the typical praying Buddhist, there is no such "fully featured" God, so again the meaning is clearly different. A common purpose is, as with meditation (which is very like, although not identical to, some contemplative forms of prayer), to help train the mind as part of the path to enlightenment.
However, finally, from my POV, I think it is hard to overlook the marked similarities between Christian prayer and Buddhist prayer and meditation, if you see past the difference created by the (excessive) anthropomorphizing of the concept of God. For example, the first time I participated in a chanting session in a Zen center, I was struck by how similar it felt to the many times in my childhood when I attended a Catholic Rosary service. Many Catholics, especially post Vatican 2, have tried to stress the importance of saying prayers in one's own language and in understanding and meaning the actual words. But via Zen, I came to see the value in the almost mantra-like quality of the high-speed Rosary, and of prayers and hymns in languages other than my own. This Latin, for example, is beautiful to my ears, and spiritually uplifting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxyiUB1L0s
For another example, look at this extract from the Eighth Letter in the 17th Century "The Practice of the Presence of God" by Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection:

"...concentrate on keeping your mind in the presence of the Lord; if it
  sometimes wanders and withdraws itself from Him, do not let it upset
  you; confusion serves rather to distract the mind than to recollect
  it; the will must bring it back calmly; if you persevere in this way,
  God will have pity on you."

To me that bears a striking resemblance to instructions for Buddhist meditation. The main difference -- the idea of God -- is a difference only if, as I say, you take very literally the typical anthropomorphic view of "God". But if you see past that -- and surely whatever God is, if indeed God "is", then "he" is certainly not an old white dude with a long beard sitting up in the clouds -- my view is that there is often actually very little difference between Buddhist prayer and Christian prayer. This is, of course, a minority view! (Which doesn't, on the other hand, make it wrong.)

Good point, once I have heard from a Buddhist monk that Buddhists should not go around saying they don't believe in God, they believe in the laws of nature that is somehow a God, not a creator, not a human figure in Heaven, but a force of nature behind the universe, kamma and so on, that was an interesting point of view.

In short, most Buddhisms are not devotional and their religious recitations (prayers-- a very Christian work) are not devotional. Old school lay Buddhism in many places is very devotional, monastic Buddhism is less so, modern western secular Buddhism isn't devotional at all.
Not speaking of Pure Land (someone else should address that because I suspect it would have interesting similarities to theistic prayer), there are many things that Buddhist say that are not of the same sort as theistic prayer, but could be depending on how it's worded.
Repentance. Repentence is saying what you did wrong and promising to stop doing wrong. Said that way, it's not a prayer. If it involves getting a supernatural being to purify you of your bad Karma, then it's prayer.
Meal Gatha. A meal gatha (a gatha is a verse), is all about reminding you who brought the food to the table (workers and donors) and how you ought to be practicing hard to be worth it. If you are saying thanks to supernatural beings for providing your food, then it's theistic prayer.
Manra. In the Indian world, there was a belief that the spoken world created reality. This evolved into mantras. So mantras essentially work like Harry Potter magic.  Who cares, for the moment, if mantras work. They work by ones own power. Unless they are like Nembutsu, which every explicitly works via other power (Amida's grace)
Dedication of Merit. This is just disavowing credit for your own good deeds and possibly magically transferring your good karma credits to others.
Vows. These are often heroic goals that you plan to implement yourself. Some of the vows are made by Buddhas and Boddisattvas, vowing to take care of other people-- get them to a Pure Land, make them healthy again and so on. I think if people just read the vows and wait for the celestial Buddha's to deliver on their promises, that's devotion. If you read or recite the Medicine Buddha's vows and think that these are good vows that everyone should make, then that's not so devotional.
Praise. There is a lot of praise going on in Mahayana texts. If it is reminding people of what the goal is, namely to some day, some kalpa to become a Buddha, then it serves the purpose of focusing your attention on the goal and the merits. If the praise is a quid pro quo to get the celestial beings to reward you, help you and so on, it's devotional.

Just for clarification, Nembutsu is not considered to be a mantra by Shin practioners: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/184/what-is-meant-by-namu-amida-butsu-and-also-nam-myoho-renge-kyo


text:
Why is it that I always experience sleep paralysis (suffocating) very often?
Is there anything I can do to avoid sleep paralysis? Has this got anything  to do with astral projection?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE kare. This question may not be considered on topic for this site.

You should really see a doctor before trying to make a connection with Buddhism or any other spiritual path, of course Buddhism can help people, but maybe not the kind of help you are searching for right now.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE. I've put your question on hold since your question doesn't appear to have anything to do with Buddhism and so would fall outside of the scope of this site.

While I agree with the off-topic verdict and mostly konrod01's post that one should one first consult a doctor is very good advice, but I can't help but to think that the question could become "on topic" easily if the question would include: "Do buddhist texts say anything about this?" or "could this be helped with meditation or meditation induced?

That's a question for the meta.

@kare If you're experiencing sleep paralysis and you're conscious, then you're half way to OBE. Then try to higher your vibrations (aka electric feel) and thing of moving up and viola (take a bit of practise). If you experiencing some kind of suffocating, maybe you're sleeping on black stream.

Advanced meditation will fix this problem eventually but it is the equivalent of learning brain surgery to cure a headache.

I once read that meditation, yoga etc. can help to get a deeper breath and to switch more to belly breathing instead of breast breathing. Thus, those practices may potentially support your condition. Nevertheless, I think you won't find the reason or cure for it in Buddhism.


text:
Question on the possibility of higher rebirth for animals
In the questions Why not kill animals to hasten their rebirth? and Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals? and others, it in part discusses how animals have a very difficult time to be reborn as humans, and stuck endlessly in a cycle as animals. As I understand it, because they are not capable of Meritorious Deeds on there own.
However, it seems to be possible for humans to transfer some good Karma to them, which may improve their chances of a higher rebirth.
If it is possible, how is this accomplished? Take this case:
Let's say there is a housefly in my house. Of course I could just grab a fly swatter and kill it. However, I choose to take 15 minutes to wait for it to fly to the screen door and then let it out.
If this provides some good Karma for me, can it be transferred to the fly which may be helpful upon its rebirth? Or am I the only beneficiary of saving it (or at least for not killing it)?

No, you can't transfer merits to animals. You can only do that with a class of Petas(hungry ghosts) called the 'Paradattupa-jivi'. Animals at best might hear some Dhamma, memorise it and as a result be born in a better place next life. But that is extremely rare. Animals don't get stuck endlessly in the animal realm. They can easily sink lower and get into more extreme states of suffering. Once their bad karma has been exhausted, a past good Karma may come forward to give them a better life.
There is a classification of Karma, according to the priority of effect:

WEIGHTY (GARUKA) KARMA.
PROXIMATE (ASANNA) KARMA OR DEATH-PROXIMATE KARMA
HABITUAL (ACCINA) KARMA
RESERVE OR CUMULATIVE (KATATTA) KARMA

Katatta Kamma are usually the Kamma done in past lives. So if #1,#2,#3 are missing, Katatta Kamma will get a chance to result in the next birth. But that is highly unlikely as animals mostly have habitual and proximate Kammas. So the chances are that they will keep sinking lower. But once you get into the Niraya, you probably won't be creating any new significant Kamma. Because you will be in a constant state of agony throughout the lifespan.

I understand. But in your last sentence you write "...their bad karma has been exhausted...", how does this happen if they can't affect it?

I was referring to the bad Karma that gave them the animal birth. Not the fresh ones they do. So when their lifespan runs out, a Karma from a past life might get a chance to give the next birth, if they don't have any significant Karma in the present life. Added some more info to the answer.

Buddha said that you can transfer merits to hungry ghosts or give them food/clothes by burning it to then, a type of offering. as Kulatha said, you cannot transfee merits to animals
Just to add: There is a famous story when the Buddha said: Imagine a turtle living inside the ocean, in this vast ocean there is a small piece of wood floating, this turtle comes to the surface to brieth once in every 100 years, the chance of this turtle hits the wood when coming to the surface is higher than getting a human rebirth if you are in the low planes, animals cannot keep moral precepts, meditate or make donations, therefore they shall only return when they clear almost all negative kamma as Kulatha pointed out

Just like Wiki mentioned; Karma means action, work or deed. You actually have to take good action to achieve good Karma. Basically, you cannot transfer Karma. Even Preta need to express   sadhu (appreciation) to get good Karma after someone do good Karma and share it for them.
However, you can provide good environment for them (can be human/animal) to do good Karma. For example; some children/animal, they do not really understand what are Dhamma talks/chanting. If they listen and feel good somehow in it, at least they gain some good Karma.


text:
Can a lay person become an Arahant according to the Suttas?
I have already seen different answers to that question, but I don't know which one is based on the suttas. I would appreciate the source of the answer for this specific topic.
If you think the answer is "No", could you please write about how far a lay person can get? Just a higher rebirth?

Seems to be a duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23/do-you-have-to-follow-a-monastic-lifestyle-to-attain-enlightenment/25#25

This is what one of the suttas says:

When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Blessed One:
“Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the
fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an
end of suffering?”1
“Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of
householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of
suffering.”
“Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the
fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has gone to
heaven?”
“Vaccha, there are not only one hundred or two or three or four or
five hundred, but far more householders who, without abandoning the
fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body have gone to
heaven.”
-MN 71, To Vacchagotta on theThreefold True Knowledge (Tevijjavaccha-suttaṃ)
1 (Post-canonical texts:) MA explains “the fetter of householdership”
(gihisamyojana) as attachment to the requisites of a householder,
which MT details as land, ornaments, wealth, grain, etc. MA says that
even though the texts mention some individuals who attained
arahantship as laymen, by the path of arahantship they destroyed all
attachment to worldly things and thus either went forth as monks or
passed away immediately after their attainment. The question of lay
arahants is discussed at Miln 264.

Disclaimer: Taking only this discourse into account (without post-canonical works), the following is what I find reasonable. If there are other suttas which also shed light on this, I'd be glad to know.
So, it seems a householder cannot make an end to suffering on the dissolution of the body without being free of the "fetter of householder-ship". Since this applies to the furthest case of "on the dissolution of the body", it would be safe to assume that it also applies before. If this is correct then the answer depends on the meaning of "householder" & "fetter of householder-ship". Since the meaning of "fetter of householder-ship" is not, as far as I know, explicit in any of the discourses, I'll lay out two cases:
Case 1
If "householder" means "living in a house" & "fetter of householder-ship" means "owning a house"
Then, the answer is yes, since one can live in a house without being it's owner.
Case 2
If "householder" & "fetter of householder-ship" mean the same thing as "living in a house",
Then, the answer is no, since the problem is living in a house.
Since Case 2 seems absurd (because of it's implications) and Case 1 is suggested implicitly by the possibility of there being householders who -have- abandoned the "fetter of householder-ship", I would say:
"Yes, a lay person -without- the fetter of householder-ship can become an arahat".
I hope this is understandable & helpful.

By a householder I understand not someone that simply lives in a house, but a family man, a father, a worker, not a monk, not a recluse, but this is only my interpretation.

That would seem more difficult but Case 1 would still stand I think. If you can manage to live in a house in which you have no authority over your sons, wife, wealth etc, it seems possible but -not- helpful if the intent is to reach the end of suffering. The problem is ownership of house, wife, sons, etc. and what this ownership entails. "'I have sons, I have wealth' — the fool torments himself. When even he himself doesn't belong to himself, how then sons? How wealth?" -Dhp 62

IMO the key element of "the fetter of householdership" is attachment to worldly things, so if householder completely drops such attachment (while still remaining a householder) then arahantship is perfectly possible.

@AndreiVolkov Indeed, that is the point of this answer. I think it is possible but I'd suggest monk-hood if cessation of suffering is intended. It's like a drug-addict detaching himself from drugs while still having them by his side. He can certainly stop using them but with the drugs by his side it's much more difficult. I think you would certainly agree that monk-hood life style is far more conducive to the goal.

What are "MA" and "MT"?

Would the dilemma be resolved, might be the explanation be, that "gone to heaven" isn't the same as "become an arahat"? I read it as saying that if the fetter isn't abandoned then they haven't made an end to suffering but might be reborn in heaven.

@ChrisW MA & MT are the commentary and sub-commentary of the Majjhima-nikāya (Aṭṭhakathā & ṭīkā respectively). Yes, I think that is the case. The answer doesn't mention that because the question is only about arahant-ship.

User Leonardo C. intended to comment: Implicit definition of householdship in SN 22.3: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_3.html

Thus have I heard: A lay person can become an Arahath, but he will enter the Sangha within a week or he will enter Parinibbana. If it's a Pacceca Buddha, he will leave the lay life to dwell in the forest since there's no Sasana in the world. Also, if an Anagami lay person dies, he will be born in one of the pure abodes. There he will attain Arahantship and won't be entering the Sangha.

The answer is Yes. Please look through this website.

"If a layman attains arahant-ship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna" -- Milindapanha III.19

Good answer, but Milindapanha is not a sutta it is a post-canonical work and OP asked specifically about suttas.

One of the Dhammapada stories (for example) suggests it's possible.
Dhammapada Verse 142 – Santati Mahamatta Vatthu

In agony, he tried to think of a refuge and remembered the Buddha. He
  went to the Buddha, accompanied by his followers, and related to him
  about the grief and anguish he suffered on account of the sudden death
  of the dancer. He then said to the Buddha, "Venerable Sir! Please help
  me get over my sorrow; be my refuge, and let me have the peace of
  mind." To him the Buddha replied,

"Rest assured my son, you have come to one, who could help you, One who could be a constant solace to you and who will be your refuge. The
    tears you have shed due to the death of this dancer throughout the
    round of rebirths is more than the waters of all the oceans."

The Buddha then instructed the minister in verse. The meaning of the
  verse is as follows.

"In the past there has been in you clinging (upadana) due to craving; get rid of it. In future, do not let such clinging occur in
    you. Do not also harbour any clinging in the present; by not having
    any clinging, craving and passion will be calmed in you and you will
    realize Nibbana."

After hearing the verse, the minister attained arahatship. Then,
  realizing that his life span was at an end, he said to the Buddha,
  "Venerable Sir! Let me now realize parinibbana, for my time has come."

I think that counts as Theravada: apparently the stories were compiled 5th century CE, by Buddhaghosa who is called Theravadin.
Other things to note:

It was deep distress, sorrow, grief (perhaps disenchantment) that led to his seeking refuge. My guess is that at that point in his life perhaps he found that his clinging was no longer tenable, perhaps he then no longer had the attachments you'd expect to find in a lay person.
His having attained arahatship, perhaps you would no longer call him a lay person.

At the congregation, the bhikkhus asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir! The minister had realized parinibbana dressed in full regalia; is he a samana on a brahmana?" To them, the Buddha replied "Bhikkhus! My son can be called both a samana and a brahmana."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 142: Though he is gaily decked, if he is calm, free from moral defilements, and has his senses controlled, if he is established in Magga Insight, if he is pure and has laid aside enmity (lit., weapons) towards all beings, he indeed is a brahmana, a samana, and a bhikkhu.

This version of the story explains that Santati had been the follower of Vipassī Buddha in an earlier kalpa, had preached the Dhamma for eighty four thousand years ... perhaps that (i.e. his past life) helps to justify why he might be called "a brahmana, a samana, and a bhikkhu".


text:
Giving up bad friends
The Buddha has spoken many times about giving up bad friends, we can find it in the Dhammapada, in the beautiful Maha Mangala Sutta and many other places.
My first point is: If we abandon bad friends, how will they improve? What role compassion plays here?
My second point is: It is very hard these days to completely abandon bad friends, we have social networks, professional networks, smartphones etc., we are connected like never before, it is very hard for a lay person to live only with good friends around, except if maybe he/she becomes a recluse, so what should one do? Just set limits?

at 1: I don't know the exact source, but in the sutras there is (at least...) one text where it is recalled that "bad company" keeps you away from attaining better state(? my english might be wrong here with the buddhist terms) - so if you prevent to train and realize the pre-requisites: how likely is it that you can realize calmness, and metta? So there is a concurrent pair of behave. And it's your turn to take your time and observe yourself how much you can give to your "bad friends" and how much you need for your part.

You have a good point and I agree. If you ask me, the hardest part is to give up bad friends in our current society, in the time of the Buddha you would simply avoid such people, but now we have too many interactions, for example: Socializing with friends from our workplace, people from our building, old friends from school... it didnt exist at that time

This actually became a big sectarian argument in historical Buddhism-- people posited Icchantika, people who are incapable of ever being enlightened. Other people took the radical position that everyone is enlightened, but need to realize it is so, to get full benefit. In the later system, there are no bad friends in the sense of Icchantika.

"A crystal, when placed on a piece of cloth, takes on the color of that cloth, whether white, yellow, red or black. In the same way, the friends with whom you keep company the most often, whether suitable or unsuitable, will greatly influence the direction your life and practice take." Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

The answer to this question may also depend on the individual and how advanced they are in Buddhist practice. If a person is solid in faith and regular in practice and can truly be that good example for friends that may help lead those friends to the Dhamma that is one thing. If the individual is newer to Buddhism and the keeping of precepts and right speech and needs lots of time to themselves to establish a regular meditation practice and learn about their new path then friends and social activities can be a distraction. In fairness, a person in the second scenario should explain to their friends why they can't be as available as they've been in the past, or why they are no longer willing to participate in certain activities. Good friends will understand and give you that time you need. Bad friends may not respect your commitment and may continually try to persuade you back to your old ways. It's not compassionate to yourself or even the bad friend to accommodate that. Leaving a bad friend with more time on their hands (because you are not around) may give them more time to think and may be the wake up call they need.
As far as socializing in real life and online, you have to set limits and priorities or the days and weeks and months will simply fly by aimlessly. As a practical suggestion, I find Airplane mode on the my phone very handy when I want to use my phone based meditation timer but not be distracted by texts and notifications. :)

lol! I do the exactly same thing with the airplane mode :)  some apps are very useful when you need to set a time for meditation

First, how bad is "bad"?  Second, what are your limits?  Third, can you really help?  Fourth, is walking away a form of help? Fifth, what does your need of "bad" people say about your path?
First, how bad is "bad"?  Does it mean people who are not as far along the path?  Does it mean those who don't care for the dharma?  Does it mean toxic people?  Knowing the specific problem can help you know whether you should help or not.  Also, don't assume that just beacause they carry the label of Buddhist or are in your Sangha that they are on the same path.  Some of the most toxic people I met were in my Sangha.
Second, what are your limits?  Boundless compassion is great, but usually there are limits to where we are at the moment. We want to challenge those limits, but we don't want to go overboard and end up dragging ourselves down.
Third, can you really help?  Most people don't want to be helped -- they identify with their pain, consider it themselves and thus cherish it above most else.  Confronting that pain becomes an attack on their identity, and the reaction can be ugly.  Further, some people just want someone to exploit and they can string you along, making you think you are helping so you stick around.
Fourth, is walking away a form of help?  It can be.  If you stick around and try to help, you may simply be reinforcing their behavior, by providing them with what they want: attention.  By walking away, they lose the platform and may get the message that they will lose other people, or that they are noxious in the eyes of others.  This might just make them re-evaluate what they've been doing.  After all, they do what they do because on some level they think it's "working", so maybe they need to see it's not "working"?
Fifth, what does your need of "bad" people say about your path?  That you need to associate with such people due to social networking means there is a worldly pay-off to associating with them.  That's fine, but it's important to note that it's not dharma at this point.  Being immersed in the world builds up webs of dependencies which can easily enmesh us, and part of it is the possible domino effect of associating with certain individuals.  How you choose to live your life is a decision only you can make, but it may not hurt to keep your eyes open to what you are really doing; it may help you balance the dharma and the worldly more effectively.
Conclusion: Just wanting to help is not enough, we need to wisely apply our efforts.  Failure to do so leads to what some Buddhists call "Idiot Compassion".  Don't let the harsh-sounding phrase scare you off -- and I recommend visiting that link, as it's relevant to this situation.

It won't be a problem as long as you are being the example and the inspiration to them. You can be one of four types of Kalyana Mittas and guide them to the right path. It will only become a problem, if you start emulating them and start taking their advice.

Friends are important in buddhism. Good friends (kalyana-mitra) are Buddhist teachers, not just some pleasant companions. From this I derive that bad friends (papa-mitra) should be not just some non-prefect associates, but really evil company (like gangsters, thieves) or wrong teachers (of some evil, for karma, teaching).

I think this is quite complex area and we cannot have correct or incorrect answers. anyway I am trying to give my opinion here.
If you refer the Maha-mangala Sutta, the first advice is related to this topic. It goes

Not consorting with fools, consorting with the wise, paying homage to those worthy of homage: This is the highest protection.

here "fools" refers to those lacking in wisdom and live unskillfully. This is essentially those who lead ignoble lives that contradict basic moral values and decency and/or takes one away from the correct Path.
In the other hand Upaddha Sutta states

Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life.

By keeping the above teaching in mind I am trying to address your points.
Point one:
If the "bad friends" is a person like someone, describe as fools in the "mangala Sutta", I think first step is keep our ground and not allow him/her to drag us down. We can have compassion and kindness to the "bad fried" and let him/her know about your position. If he/her is a really friend, he/she will understand it treat you with respect. Further, it also help them to think about themselves. However if they still trying to drag us down, my personal feeling is to avoid them. Otherwise it will do a great harm for us.
Second Point:
Although it is quite easy to have friends in these days, I do not think that we have enough real fried (As mentioned in the "Upaddha Sutta"). We can keep contact with any person through social media very easily. Keeping the contacts and having a real fired is totally different thing.
Anyway to conclude this I would like to give two Dhammapada verses:

329: If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

and

330: Better it is to live alone; there is no fellowship with a fool. Live alone and do no evil; be carefree like an elephant in the elephant forest.

Konrad and those interested,
of course the path is not easy to do and it consists of letting go for long term benefit. The good in regard of this path is, that it actually benefits not only oneself but also all others, which therefore includes your bad "friends" as well.
As even the Bodhisatta, having free one wish, wished:

Once, when the Bodhisat was born as a man called Akitti Pandita, the King of Devas promised to grant
  him any boon he asked. Akitti Pandita begged that he might never meet, see or talk with fools. The King
  of Devas was surprised and asked him the reason for this strange request. Replying, he explained that
  fools or the unwise ones i.e. people who do not understand discipline, always lead their friends to bad
  ways and teach them to do wrong, because they do not know the right way them selves. If discipline or
  good ways are spoken in their presence, they become angry, for they cannot understand, they lose their
  temper and quarrels arise. If discipline or good ways are spoken in their presence, they become angry, for they do not understand them. Therefore he prayed that he might never speak, meet or come in
  contact with fools.

Mangala Suta-Uannana

Once possible firm in Dhamma, having become good independent, one may, if seeing benefit and having possibility, return to "bad friend" and maybe help them further. For now, like suggested in the airoplanes, adult should take on the emergency mask first.

"Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of relations is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable.
"Bhikkhus, the increase of relations is nothing in comparison to increase of wisdom. Therefore you should train, we will increase in wisdom.
Good companionship

As the Buddha told, if not finding people better or equal in regard of real treasures, it's better to walk alone.
For more and detail, this links may maybe provide a lot of satisfaction and cleatancy:

Association with People of Integrity
How to address wrong view?

Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.
Upaddha Sutta

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]