text:
How is the Pali Phase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." Interpreted as per Different Linage?
What is the interpretation of the Pali phrase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." this seems to be interpreted differently by different lineages. What are the different interpretations? What is the rationale behind the interpretation?
How is the word Sabbakayapatisamvedi interpreted by the tradition, and what is the rationale behind it? How is it interpreted in the context of different meditation types (Kamatahan)? Is it connected to any stage of Insight Knowledge as per the interpretation?

With regard to one among many of the numerous occurrences of this phrase, the canonical text summarizing the 16 steps of Anapanasati meditation has the following passage:

[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long';
  or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'
  [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short';
  or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.'
  [3] He trains himself, 'I will breath in sensitive to the whole body.'
  ---> (sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati)
  He trains himself, 'I will breath out sensitive to the whole body.'
  ---> (sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;)
  [4] He trains himself, 'I will breath in calming bodily fabrication.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breath out calming bodily fabrication.'
  ...

Again this is only one occurrence among many, hence do not bias or limit the answer to the context of Anapanasati.

Added the quote the question refers to

For those who have no clue: the question refers to the Sabba-kaya being alternatively interpreted as either a reference to "the whole body" or to "the entire duration of one breath".

I described ānāpānapabba at https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24514/10100

Nanamoli/Bodhi in their Majjhima Nikaya translation (4th ed) writes the following note associated with "experiencing the whole body" as present in the Sathipattana Sutta:

The Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha explains "experiencing the whole body" (sabbakaya patisamvedi) as signifying that the meditator becomes aware of each in-breath and out-breath through its three phases of beginning, middle and end. In the first edition I followed this explanation and added in brackets "of breath" after "whole body". In retrospect, however, this interpretation seems forced, and I now prefer to take the phrase quite literaly. It is also difficult to see how patisamvedi could mean "is aware of", as it is based on a verb "to experience".

Here is what Thanissaro Bihkkhu wrote on a footnote for the Anapanasati Sutta:

The commentaries insist that "body" here means the breath, but this is unlikely in this context, for the next step — without further explanation — refers to the breath as "bodily fabrication." If the Buddha were using two different terms to refer to the breath in such close proximity, he would have been careful to signal that he was redefining his terms (as he does below, when explaining that the first four steps in breath meditation correspond to the practice of focusing on the body in and of itself as a frame of reference). The step of breathing in and out sensitive to the entire body relates to the many similes in the suttas depicting jhana as a state of whole-body awareness (see MN 119).

In The Experience of Samadhi, Richard Shankman interviews Ajaan Thanissaro:

RS: In the Satipatthana Sutta, the anapanasati Sutta and the Kayagatasati Sutta, one is instructed to breath in and out, experiencing the whole body. Some interpret that it is talking about experiencing the whole physical body breathing, while others say it means staying with the whole duration of the breath but the focus can be at any point.
AT: It's the whole body.
RS: Does it matter?
AT: One of the drawbacks of concentration that's too one-pointed is that you're blocking out many areas of your experience which means that a lot of things can hide away in the areas you're blocking out. If, however, you develop more of a 360-degree awareness of the body, you're more likely to be conscious of more peripheral events in the mind. Also, if awareness is a whole-body awareness, it's a lot easier to maintain the state of concentration as you open your eyes and move around. [...]. If you only have one point that you are totally focused on, then as soon as you move from that point, your concentration is destroyed. But if you've got the whole body as your framework and you're constantly mindful of this framework, events can come through and go out, leaving the framework undisturbed.

Bhante Gunaratana, on his interview:

The Buddha has said that breath alone is one of the bodies. What do we have in a body? We have four elements: earth, air, water, fire. This is what we find in the breath. And therefore, the breath alone is fully qualified to be called a body, the breath body.
Therefore, if one practices the first tetrad, that individual has practiced mindfulness of the body just by practicing mindfulness of the breath. Some people ignore this particular sentence where the Buddha says the breath is a body, and they give their own interpretation.

Ajhan Brahmavamso, on his interview:

The word kaya  in Pali is well translated by the English word "body". We have a physical body, but also have a body of evidence, a body of experience, and these are all immaterial "bodies". We use the word "physical body" just to make sure we  know what body we are talking about. kaya, just like the word "body", means an accumulation of things, a conglomerate, a group of things.
Pervading the "kaya" with the jhana factors means that the experence of bliss pervades the whole "mental body" throughout the jhana. It does not mean experiencing the jhana with the physical body. That is a misunderstanding of the use of the word kaya in Pali. It is quite clear that in jhanas you cannot feel anything to do with the body (*).

In the same book, Richard Shankman devotes an appendix titled "Does it matter where you watch the breath?", making further considerations.
Also, Shaila Catherine, in her Focused and Fearless, seems to teach that step as focusing on the breath "as an object", rather than focusing on the specific sensation of in and out breath. Its hard to say from what lineage she got this, as she trained with monks from many different schools (maybe Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw?).
Ajahn Brahm, also wrote on this matter:

The third step is called in Pali sabba-kaya-patisamvedi, experiencing the whole process of breathing. A minority of teachers mistake the Pali term kaya to mean your physical body and so wrongly assume that now you are meant to direct your attention onto all the sensations in the whole of your physical body. This is an error. The Buddha clearly stated in the Anapanasati Sutta that he regarded  the process of breathing as "a certain body (kaya) among the bodies". Moreover, the direction of the first twelve steps of anapanasati is toward simplifying the object of awareness, not making it more complex. thus, this third step is where your mindfulness increases its agility sufficient to observe every sensation involved in the process of breathing.
-- Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond - A meditator's handbook

On a related issue, Joseph Goldstein notes in his book:

At this point in the sutta, there is an interesting change of language. As Analayo points out, in the first two exercises, the Buddha uses the verb "to know": breathing in, one knows one is breathing in, etc. But in the next two exercises of mindfulness of the breath, the Buddha uses the verb "to train". [...] This shift of language [...] suggests an increasing level of intentionality in our practice as we broaden our awareness from the breath to the whole body.
-- Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening

And then he goes on to summarize  the conflicting views of "whole body", but doesn't really take any position, just sees them as useful alternatives.
Finally, Analayo writes on his PhD-thesis-turned-book on the Satipatthana sutta:

The third and fourth steps of mindfulness of breathing, alike in both the Anapanasati Sutta and the Satipatthana Sutta, are concerned with experiencing the "whole body" (sabbakaya) and with calming the "bodily formation" (kayasaukhara). In the present context, the "whole body" can be taken literally to refer to the whole physical body. Understood in this way, the instruction points to a broadening of awareness, a shift from the breath alone to its effect on the en tire body. According to the commentaries, however, the "whole body" should be understood to refer, more figuratively, to the "body" of the breath. By understanding the "whole body" as the whole breath-body the  instruction then indicates full awareness of the beginning, middle, and end stages of each breath. This interpretation can claim support from the same Anapanasati Sutta, since the Buddha here identified the breath as a "body" (kaya) among bodies. An argument against this interpretation, however, could be that the cultivation of full awareness of the length of the breath was the task of the previous two steps, knowing a long or a short breath, which already required the meditator to be aware of each breath from beginning to end. One would therefore expect this next step in the progression to introduce a distinctly new feature for contemplation, such as, for example, a shift of awareness to include the whole physical body.
-- Satipaṭṭhāna, the Direct Path to Realization

(*) Other interviews present conflicting declarations with that assertion made by Ajhan Brahmavamso.

Edit: included texts by Ajahan Braham, Shaila Catherine and Joseph Goldstein

Is it possible to add some material from Vipassana Research Institute, DhammaSuka, Pa Auk Sayadaw, Mahasi Sayadaw, Ledi Sayadaw, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Ven. Nanavira, etc. also if you come across the material. I like to know a 360 view on this.

These are all I'm currently aware of, as I struggled with this issue before. If you have related material, please share too (either in the question, or as an answer, or if you are able, editing my own answer and adding it -- I think there is something called wiki answer, where many contribute, but I'm not sure how it works).

I am more familiar with the VRI take on it only.

http://www.vridhamma.org/Discourses-on-Satipatthana-Sutta

http://www.tipitaka.org/stp-pali-eng-parallel

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html

Above are the ones i have had a look at.

Also http://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html, http://www.dhammasukha.org/the-teachings.html

Also see Analayo's http://host.pariyatti.org/treasures/The_Ancient_Roots_of_the_U_Ba_Khin_Vipassana_Meditation.pdf

In Pali, the word 'sabba kaya" means "all bodies". The Anapanasati Sutta states the "breathing is a body among bodies". These bodies (kaya) are the breath kaya, rupa kaya (physical body) and nama kaya (mental body). The Buddha was not interested in the "whole body" since this is only samadhi. The sutta states: "He trains himself", which means the entire 3 trainings. The Buddha was interested in how the mind can calm the breathing, which calms the body, which calms the mind, in turn. This is 'cause & effect'. Or, in terms of suffering, how the state of mind disturbs the breathing which disturbs the body. The Buddha was interested in suffering & it cessation.
Refer to Buddhadasa book: Anapanasati: Unveiling the Secrets of Life.
Best wishes here discerning the purpose of Buddha-Dhamma


text:
Is there an interpretation of the 12 nidanas that occurs just over one lifetime?
Is there an interpretation of the 12 nidanas (shown on the outside of the wheel below) that is compatible with a lack of belief in rebirth. For instance in the 12 nidanas there are the links

Becoming -> Birth -> Aging and Death

So even though this explicitly names rebirth is there an interpretation of the cycle that occurs just over one lifetime (or reoccurs many times over one life). Or are the concepts of the nidanas so bound up with rebirth that they have no value or sense to practioners who are more agnostic about this.

All factors of the pratityasamutpada occurs in this lifetime. Just from different causal rounds of it. And of course, there is much more relations between the nidanas than just sequential enumeration of 12 states.

Or are the concepts of the nidanas so bound up with rebirth that they have no value or sense to practioners who are more agnostic about this.

If you deny just one link, that should not make other 10 links of no value even for you.
In Sarvastivada school there is also instantaneous (ksanika) interpretation of pratityasamutpada. Quoting Abhidharmakosa-bhasya:

[Question:] – How is dependent origination momentary? [Answer:] – When
  persons who are a victim of the defilements commit murder, the twelve
  members are realized in the same moment:
  1. their delusion (moha) is ignorance (avidyā);
  2. their intention (cetanā) is the formations (saṃskāra);
  3. their distinct perception of a certain object [vastuprativijñapti] is consciousness (vijñāna);
  4. the four aggregates co-arisen with the consciousness are name-and-form (nāmarūpa);
  5. the sense-faculties abiding in name-and-form are the six sense-spheres (ṣaḍāyatana);
  6. the functioning [abhinipāta] of the six sense-spheres is contact (sparśa);
  7. to experience [anubhava] contact is sensation (vedanā);
  8. greed (lobha; LVP: attachment [rāga]) is craving (tṛṣṇā);
  9. the envelopments (paryavasthāna) associated with craving are grasping (upādāna);
  10. bodily or vocal action [kāyavākkarma] that proceeds [from sensation or craving] is existence (bhava);
  11. the emergence (utsarjana; LVP: unmajjana = utpāda = arising) of all these factors is birth (jāti);
  12. the maturity (paripāka) of these factors is old age (jarā); and the breaking down (bhaṅga) of these factors is death (maraṇa).

There's no single accepted one-lifetime interpretation of pratityasamutpada in modern Buddhism. There have been multiple attempts to come up with such an explanation though.
1) A decent summary of this question and the various approaches to it is Dhivan Thomas Jones' "New Light On The Twelve Nidanas", published in Contemporary Buddhism journal in 2009.
Jones discusses Nanavira Thera and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu both of whom independently came up with their slightly different this-lifetime interpretations of the Twelve Nidanas of Pratityasamutpada. He also summarizes Bhikkhu Bodhi's polemics with the two, defending the 3-lifetimes interpretation from the traditionalist point of view.
2) Bhikkhu Analayo in his study of Goenka meditation, "The Development of Insight –
A Study of the U Ba Khin Vipassanā Meditation Tradition as
Taught by S.N. Goenka in Comparison with Insight Teachings in
the Early Discourses", touches upon the topic of 12 nidanas.
There he says:

In the Pāli canon, the Paisambhidā-magga has as its predecessor the Vibhanga, the second and perhaps earliest book in the canonical Abhidharma collection of the Theravāda tradition. Regarding the topic of dependent arising, the Vibhanga presents an alternative mode of interpretation, which applies each of the twelve links of dependent arising to a single mind-moment. The Vibhanga explains that, when considered from this viewpoint, the reference to 'birth' in the context of the twelve links can be understood to refer to the arising of mental states. A similar
  interpretation can be found in the Mahāvibhāsā of the Sarvāstivāda tradition.

In addition to Vibhanga, Analayo also quotes Abhidharmakosa-bhasya 3.25 proclaiming that "all twelve links can be found in a single moment".
3) The Shambhala tradition founded by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche follows his (Tantric) interpretation of 12 nidanas as describing the process of psychological development of the feeling of "otherness", solidification of "thingness" that culminates in the I-making. Trungpa says:

Ignorance ... symbolizes old generation giving birth to further generations, while remaining fundamentally blind. [Perpetuating the] concepts and ideas about how the world should be... [Ignorance is] the basic intelligence that stirs endless clusters of solidified thought and crowded energy. ... The energy begins to see itself. [Ignorance is] the clumsy discrimination ... with its quality of thingness, or solidified space. ... It is the beginning of self-consciousness, which is based on clinging to intangible qualities as if they were solid.
Samskaras represent the process of impulsive accumulation ... again and again shaping ... conceptual mind, forming itself into certain patterns. It is the point at which karmic creation begins.  ... That activity takes place constantly. Basically, karma is created by ... the sense of I-ness and the sense of other. By means of [action based on these two] we make ourselves into something. As [the cycle] goes on and on, it produces further speed.
Things slowly escalate that way. ... When an object has a conceptualized name, it becomes significant. ... Names and forms serve as ... philosophical reinforcement. For instance ... you think that the title should fit the person.
[Contact] At this point, you can no longer simply exist alone without relating with the rest of the world. ... [You have] made your situation very solid and clear ... you ... make it into a solid thing, you develop personality ... self-respect ... foreign relationships.
[Vedana] is the first real perception of "this" [- the self] and "that" - the world outside. ... It is like feeling alive, feeling that you are really living in this world.
At the same time, you experience a natural self-indulgence, a craving for more milk and honey.
[Upadana]. With this nidana, there is a tendency to do whatever you feel like doing. [Objects of desire] are very definite, lumpy, and satisfying.
[Becoming]. In this nidana, you have finally been caught. ... Instead of dancing around ... you have been captured by this life.  ... You are taking life more seriously, adopting a somewhat more defined form.
[Death]. Having had so much fun playing with phenomena ... that was exhilarating, but that excitement has become questionable. The many objects you have created ... the situation of having too many things to manage ... becomes [an image of] the charnel ground.

From my perspective based on years of studying and practicing this stuff... Trungpa's explanation is definitely the right one (even if a bit unclear & incomplete). It seems clear to me that this is what Buddha had in mind when he originally taught it.

Yes very much - the circle operates very quickly - interpret it as thoughts arising - creating structures that prop up the ego and provide further thought.  Kant, Wittgenstein and Castaneda have plenty to say on this.  'If my gasping of life involves me in a viscious circle, how am I to learn not to grasp?'

If one removes the second sentence of this answer as irrelevant (i.e. off-topic to Buddhism, and incomprehensible to those who haven't read Kant et. al.), then there's little left to this answer: i.e. the question asks, "is there an interpretation?" and you're only answering "yes". Maybe it would be good to explain the interpretation; or to cite a (Buddhist) reference to an interpretation. I think the OP might belong to Triratna: and is wondering whether the doctrine of the nidanas can have value or make sense to him or to them. Or how does the doctrine help to "learn not to grasp" as you say?

That was my first post, I didn't realise long answers (rather than pointers) were required.  My interpretation of the four noble truths, and therefore all Buddhism, is psychological - avidya, trishna, maya and karma are thought processes that happen in seconds, though they are also 'structures' that take over all perception and thought.  Once the 12 causes are seen to be happening all the time thay can be observed and the 'grasping' taken note of, the mind in action observed, This is the 'mind only' doctrine of the Yogacara in which there is nothing to grasp and no-one to grasp it.

Welcome to the site. Yes, pointers too (e.g. citations or references, to Buddhist literature or dharma talks) are welcome. Long answers aren't "required", and the lengths of answers varies; but an answer which only replies "Yes" is unusually short. It's said that good answers tend to be based on references, and/or based on personal experience. If this were a discussion forum then "yes" might be a good beginning to a longer conversation or dialog; but this is meant to be a site for getting answers.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Why is Buddha almost treated like a God in most Buddhist traditions?
While I find some buddhist ideas intriguing - mainly using meditation to find insights in oneself - I'm also quite irritated, why so many traditions are so full of dogma, i.e. things you just have to believe or do.
It's exactly this way of thinking which always bugged me with religions. Buddhism (at least in it's "westernized" form) seemed to be different: Don't believe in anything except the insights you got from your own meditation practice. At least I thought, that this was one of the core teachings of Buddha.
So why is it, that most established traditions treat Buddha almost like a god, which you have to worship or errect statues for?
Or put another way: Would he be happy if he would see what became of his teachings today, especially in regard to the personality cult?
The only answer I could come up with is: People can't let go of gods.
But isn't this foiling the main idea that the historical Gautama was teaching?

Is the question something like "why are there devotional forms of Buddhism?" I think it's because monks were responding to the competition-- Buddhism was surrounded by devotional religions. I'm not sure what the factual content of the answers can be here.

@MatthewMartin I actually like this explanation most of all.

Related question: Why should we worship statues of Lord Buddha?

I dont know an answer to this question, but: statues and such were things developed much later. There is an artistic aspect to it, as much as other religious art, and also could have served as advertisement through centuries -- provoking curiosity of people, etc. I dont know how explicitly devotional inclinations come to be in buddhism, or devotional schools developed. On a side not, in the canon the Buddha frequently emphasizes the usefulness of means that help one remembers the teachings, become inspired and rise energy ("ardent, mindful, resolute") to practice. If a statue helps ...

See, worshiping Buddha statue doesn't mean we pray we begging to Buddha for something. Wherever you'll go to see how does people practicing or as you mentioned treated like a god you'll not find superstition. In other religions it's only superstition in Buddhism it reverence and they do just because of they believe in Buddha and their faith. Here in India we do not worship Buddha just ignite candles. Thank you.

It follows, why sticking poster of Beyonce or Justin Bieber on the wall, are they Gods? Now there even internet celebrity of don't know whom... Yet worshiping Buddha with Buddha statue is primitive or not westernized enough??!

Simply I can tell you this. When Buddhism was invented in certain countries, it mixed with their culture and believes. So if you want to filter what Buddha really said, you have to refer The Pali canon. Actually in "Mahaparinibbana Sutta (Maha vagga - Digha Nikaya)" before The Blessed one passed away, when gods and humans are worshiping him and paying their last respect, the Blessed One stated that:

"This is not the real way (by offering flowers etc) that you can pay respect for me. I appreciate the disciple who pay his respect by following my teachings (Prathipaththi Pooja)."

However most people have forgotten these words of the Blessed One.

Welcome to Buddhism SE! I think you are referring to this sutta, but I can't find the quoted text. Where exactly does the Buddha say this?

Yes you'll find it here. I just gave the summary of this quote: 24. Then the Venerable Ananda said: "How should we act, Lord, respecting the body of the Tathagata?"
"Do not hinder yourselves, Ananda, to honor the body of the Tathagata. Rather you should strive, Ananda, and be zealous on your own behalf,[46] for your own good. Unflinchingly, ardently, and resolutely you should apply yourselves to your own good. For there are, Ananda, wise nobles, wise brahmans, and wise householders who are devoted to the Tathagata, and it is they who will render the honor to the body of the Tathagata."

So this basically confirms from "first hand" material, that there's no reason for all this personality cult. Which makes me wonder even more, why so many traditions cling to it and misinterpret the messenger with the message.

By worshiping Buddha a devotee gains merit. But merely gaining merits won't lead you to the Nibbana. The practice of Dhamma is the only way to attain Nibbana. But people satisfy only by worshiping. But it's not the way to become a perfect disciple of the Blessed One.

Buddhism should be followed through practicing, not merely by following rituals.

"Like a God" is a very broad notion. God is usually treated with respect, so we could strip out the specific mention of "God" from your question, and rephrase it instead as 'why is Buddha treated with respect'?
Buddha is treated with respect because treating a sage in that way is regarded as a good deed (karma).
In addition to good karma, an image of the Buddha may be placed on show because such images can serve as reminders of the great sage and his teaching. Mindfulness of Buddha is a good mental action too. It inspires, and brings to mind other related good objects and habits, as a result leading the mind in a good direction.

Or put another way: Would he be happy if he would see what became of
  his teachings today, especially in regard to the personality cult?

Worshipping something worthless would of course be bad, or at very least simply useless. But respecting a wholesome object is not the same thing. You would probably not treat with the same level of respect the words of an enemy or foolish person as you would the words of a good friend.
So there is nothing inherently wrong in respecting something or someone. It all depends on whether the object of worship is worthy of that respect.

What about Tibetans prostrating in front of Buddha sculptures and offering them money? I'd say that 'worship as a god' is a much better description for that than respect.

What is woship as not high(est) degree of paying respect?

I can't agree that you can replace "God" with "respect". If I respect someone I'm still far off from building statues, turning prayer wheels or performing other ceremonies for him, that are typical for sacred figures or gods.

Michael, it's certainly reasonable to view respect and worship as at very least lying quite far apart on a spectrum, if not being entirely different. But I think catpnosis's primary point was his first one: that "Like a God" is very broad. Like you, I was "bugged" by the apparent contradiction between Buddhist concepts versus practice. But I think catpnosis is saying that not everything that looks like God-worship actually is worship, any more than the behaviour of soccer or cricket fans is (although sometimes I do wonder about that :-) )

the 1st statue of Buddha made during Buddha's time, when he dwelt in one of the celestial realms teaching his mother... it's either recorded in the Vinaya or Sutra i yet have to find.

I think what you are seeing here is cultural differences. My Vietnamese friends have alters in their homes of their grandparents. This does not mean they are worshiping them as much as they are paying their respects to them. Showing respect is very different in Eastern culture than it is in Western culture. Do not be caught in your own perspective when viewing the traditions of others. Perhaps it is the dogma of "worship" and "Eastern vs Western" than needs to be let go of? May you be happy.

I'm not sure, if what I meant can be explained through cultural differences. Because if a good idea or philosophy is deformed by cultural influences (and in my view, sometimes up to a point that you can't recognize that basic idea anymore), there's a danger that people are blinded by these ceremonies, whorshipping and so on and take this for "Buddhism", where in fact all this has really nothing to do with what that wise man called Siddhārtha Gautama tried to say. That being said, there's probably not a really meaningful answer to my question.

I think this is a fair question. There are people that pray for Buddha, Medicine Buddha, Dharma protectors and other entities in some Buddhist traditions. We should keep in mind that Buddhism mixed with local traditions when spreading through Asia many years ago.
As Buddha is now in parinibbana, he cannot hear us praying and as Buddha said: The Dhamma is our teacher now, so we must walk the path. Only we can help ourselves.
I know a Theravada monk in Malaysia who is building a monastery without any Buddha image, just like it was back in the days Buddha walked on this earth. He has great respect for the enlightened one, but he chose not to show it by using statues or images.
Of course it doesn't mean we should not have a statue or pay respect to the Buddha. It is a good practice, I personally do that, but there is a clear line between respect and "please help me, I need to be cured". All these requests for help go against the concept of Kamma-vipaka.

"Almost" like a god? But it's the other way around. You should ask people who worship gods: "Why do you praise your gods, almost as if they were enlightened Buddhas?" - That would make more sense, because the Buddha is portrayed in the suttas / sutras as a teacher of the gods, and superior to them.
And this isn't the statement of some late Mahayana Sutras. It's right in the earliest strata of the Pali Canon:  "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9)
I think your question comes more from the idea that the Buddha "was just a wise teacher". This idea has nothing to do with Buddhism, but with Western preconceptions and prejudices, which are rooted in the European Enlightenment.
When Buddha was asked if he was a human, he replied "No."
The Buddha is not a god, not a human. The buddha is a buddha - sui generis.
You say:

The only answer I could come up with is: People can't let go of gods.

What if it's not the Asian, but the Westerner, who can't let go? Let go of preconceived ideas that function exactly the same as idols that prevent the Westerner from understanding Buddha?
You say:

Don't believe in anything except the insights you got from your own
  meditation practice.

But what does that mean? It's from the popular Kalama Sutta ... that sutta is the most misunderstood of all! Bhikku Bodhi warns us:

On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha
  has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all
  doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to
  truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

And that is a Western fantasy that has nothing to do with the Buddha-Dharma.
The idea that Buddha is Eternal is not a "cultural" distortion as some have mistakenly suggested. It is in the Mahayana Sutras. It is in the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, etc.
But if some say this "supernatural" Buddha is a "later" addition or invention by Mahayanists ... in the "early" (Nikaya) Buddhism, it is just the same: if Buddha was just a guy who taught some interesting stuff, how are we to explain that he was able to recollect his past lives, recollect even the beginnings of the universe(s)?

The Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth,
  two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty
  births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a
  thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of
  world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of
  world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a
  clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my
  experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away
  from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of
  such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my
  experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away
  from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and
  particulars he recollects his manifold past lives.

(from Majjhima Nikaya 12, Samyutta Nikaya 12)

I practise Vajrayana, I have Buddha statues in my flat and I did plenty of prostrations in my life.
We take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. And Buddha is not a person, it is the enlightened state of mind. It is the Buddha Nature which we all have inside us. So when I see a Buddha statue, I don't see a god, I see perfect qualities which I want to discover within me.
So imagine, you have a Buddha Nature, you are already enlightened but you haven't realised that yet. The simplest way to make you realise that is to put a mirror in front of you so you can see it yourself. But of course, if you look at the mirror now, you see your physical, not quite perfect, body. In fact, you don't see yourself at all, you just focus on some impermanent body through your habitual thinking fuelled by your disturbing emotions like jealousy ('I wish I looked like Brad Pitt') or pride ('Oh, I'm so sexy'). So the trick is to put various Buddha forms in front of you which will shout at you - hey you, look at me, I am your mirror, I am perfect, joyful and strong. Hey, melt with me, there is absolutely no difference between you and me!
If you ask me, I would rather expose in my room a depiction of my perfect qualities (Buddha statue) than a picture from my sister's wedding or some souvenir from Peru. I also happily donate money to my local Buddhist Centre because this is where I might get closer to my goal and, admittedly, I use their facilities there - hot water, electricity and toilet paper!
Tibetans prostrate in front of the statues and their teachers, I prostrated as a part of Ngondro. It is a fantastic practice to purify your body and to work with pride. Plus, it strengthens your back muscles so later you can seat in meditation for hours. In principle, if you perceive Buddha as your perfect qualities, what's wrong with bowing in front of your perfect self? Through prostrating you also pay respect to those who gave you methods to realise your Buddha Nature. If somebody gave you the best gift you can ever imagine how do you show your gratitude? Is 'Cheers, mate' all you can do?
In general, our Buddha Nature is represented in a human form because we are humans and it is easier for us to relate to other humans rather than to some abstract ideas. It is a method which apparently works. If you like the method, you follow it, if you don't like the method, you go somewhere else.
This is the theory. In practice it may seem that some individuals or cultures got carried away and think that paying respect to Buddha alone will solve their problems. But it is a mistake to judge them as we don't know what exactly is their motivation and capabilities. Also, you judge them according to your definition of 'god' and most Asians probably wouldn't agree with your definition.
Buddha gave different teachings to various people with different capabilities and problems. There is no universal method that would fit all. Having that in mind, it is a bit childish to be irritated by someone else's practice. Maybe they are doing the right thing, maybe they are making some mistakes. So what? Let's wish them happiness and let's focus on our own practice and let's pay attention so that we don't make any mistakes on our own spiritual path.

Thanks. You're right, that I should not be irritated by someone elses practice. My problem here is, that it affects me in some way: I'm still searching for a community where I could become part of - but I'm always discouraged for the above reasons. I can't embrace something that I don't believe in. That's why I wished, there were more followers of Secular Buddhism in the west. But all I can find in my area are people, who just replaced one divinity (Jesus Christ) with another one (Buddha). So my judgement is just an expression of my frustration.

Well, in my answer I tried to explain that paying respect to Buddha has nothing to do with blind worshipping of gods. I think I had similar dilemma at the beginning of my Buddhist adventure, though. I am very critical and I work in academia so blind believing was out of question for me. Luckily I met a Western teacher who totally inspired me and now I apply the methods he gave me so I can become as joyful and fearless as him. Good luck with your search! If you know what you want to get out of Buddhism, I am sure that sooner or later you will find a community you will fit in:)

although i'm not totally agreeing with all doctrines of Tibetan Buddhism the Great Prostration is one i held high, i do that too, wonderful for dealing pride

buddhism became defied due to Mahayana Buddhism here in my own country Sri Lanka. during historical times kings such as dutugemunu,devanampiyatissa aand mahasen started incorporating the local deities and traditions with Buddhas teaching.The popular trend to Buddha turning into a deity was during emperor Ashoka's time were he gave royal prestige to Buddhism and he needed a religious base for it to face Hinduism.He was more concerned with his royal status than the status of Buddhism. in a sense he spun Buddhism like a roulette wheel to suit his purpose. The kings of Sri Lanka did the same thing to uplift their popularity.Dutugemunu incorporated the Brahmanism and the chakravathi concept into buddhism while sri lankan kings like Walagamba and Mahasen absorbed the deities such as Asuras[ minor gods] and various other Veddah gods and household gods.Thus this became immensley popular and spread throught asia and the east.today's Buddhism is due to our kings influence with the Buddhists priest as our country was the capital of buddhism after it died out in india by the 13th century.

I'm reading 'The Religion of Israel' by Yehezkel Kaufmann, and whilst it's all a bit arbitrary and Essentialist, there is an interesting delineation, if seen from a Buddhist perspective.
In all pagan religions there was the divine and the meta-divine, the gods and the primordial realm. This primordial realm was the seed for all creation, and whilst having effect on both the gods and humans, was itself independent from it all. The Hebrew spin was to claim YHWH as the primordial being, therefore assigning him all the classical anthropomorphic God features, with the Essence of perfection and other divine qualities.
Brahman on the other hand, received the vague but more logically accurate - 'neti neti', 'not this, not that'.
The Buddha simplified all this by instead removing the meta-divine, the 'meta' being deemed unverifiable and entirely without purpose given the effectiveness of the principle of dependent origination. The Buddha was also similar to the mathematical limit of the Noble Eightfold Path, which describes both a morality not so different from what the more refined versions of 'God' bring, and an equanimity suitable to  a physical manifestation of the Dhamma.
The Buddha showed a perfected morality, a perfected concentration, and a perfected wisdom. Aside from the actual metaphysical properties of God, the Buddha does comparatively better than many a good variation, so it's not unreasonable that people would see a 'divine' element in the Buddha when coming from life long world views that have a divine.

In your question, you say "almost" and that is the correct term which should be used! The Buddha isn't a God, in fact He even claimed to be only human, and that people shouldn't attach to him, just as people shouldn't attach or cling to anything.
It is the Core teaching of the Buddha that any attachment or clinging will bring suffering, but.....as to why people worship the Buddha "almost" like a God is simple!! The Buddha didn't have to teach His realizations to anyone, even in teaching others it clearly was hard work, hard work which the Buddha didn't have to do.
So....not only did the Buddha pass His wisdom on, the Dhamma itself is freedom from suffering, there is no other path where one can gain insight, wisdom and mindfulness to understand the full workings of the universe (experientially) and free ourselves from suffering. That statement within itself should be enough to show the complete and ultimate respect and gratitude to the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha.
If you feel otherwise then i would suggest you meditate even more. Anyone who has realized even one of the Buddhas core teachings will agree with my response to your question.
Metta.

Downvoting because not only don't you answer the question, but in addition what you did write is straying a bit too close to being polemical. Your final advice on meditating more is particularly out of place. The original question was not asking for personal spiritual guidance. It was asking, quite reasonably, for an explanation for what is a clearly observable conundrum: the apparent theism-like worship within an ostensibly non-theistic religion.

There is another reason other than "competition" from other religions. If you've observed people, they really like conclusions. They hate stuff when it is open-ended and exploratory and just don't have the patience for it.
When they do meditation, they want to sit tight, and still get consumed by the mind. The mind wants to conclude upon something, otherwise it is always confused and you will never know calmness/peace. It will keep cropping up stuff you don't want to hear. It is a bad master.
So most of the time they just go the traditional way and install an idol. And be done with it to hell. Pray to something and feel good.

you've exposed the bad of statue worship, i.e., idol worship, there are ignorant followers, like withered twigs and dry leaves of a great tree. but we should cultivate and focus on the green leaves and healthy branches - those that make the tree thrive.

Some worship or some statues are not for a god, who is a fictional character, not real, but they maybe for the wholesome-consciousnesses or for an enlightenment.
Those worship or statues are arisen by trust and respect (saddhā).
They are an inspiration of the meditation because they help the practitioner to recall/be aware to meditate themselves like the statue of a person that the practitioner respect to worship to. So in this case, some worship or some statues are not wrong view.
Be careful! tipitaka is the way to safe at all by all useful method, that compatibility with the enlightenment path. So buddha, in tipitaka,  use every method that can help us to meditate. If there are something that are "too much" to enlighten, tipitaka denied them already in vinaya or sutta.
Tipitaka is flexible enough in itself to make the practitioner enlighten, no need modification. But the practitioner must learn by the right method, such as sequenced reciting to memorizing and meditation. Just by this ancient study method, the practitioner can see through all of the reasons in tipitaka.
But that sequence is very hard to choose by the practitioner self, so buddha always force order to the listener to have the ariya teacher to teach them. Buddha deny to learn tipitaka or meditate  by self without ariya teacher.
So in commentary, every bhikkhu must do these strict courses, through 2500 years.

I'm not very impressed with your argument. I think the mistake you make is that the Buddha simply taught and realised "insights in oneself".
The Buddha was meant to be a Bodhisattva, on the path to Buddhahood, for millions if not billions of years, and prior to this had been wandering the rounds of rebirth for a vast and incalculable length of time.

i'll add a note on how long he was a bodhisattva for, as soon as i find the book

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


text:
What other suttas instruct how to do Anapanasati, apart from the Anapanasati Sutta?
Anapanasati is mainly covered in the Anapanasati Sutta.
Some of these instructions (perhaps additional instructions) are also written elsewhere: for example in the Anapana Samuthiya, Girimananda Sutta, the Sattipattana Suttas, Kayagatasati Sutta, etc.
What are the additional instructions or variations covered elsewhere, not covered in the Anapanasati Sutta?
I hope that answers will do one or more of the following:

Reference suttas (apart from the Anapanasati Sutta) which include Anapanasati instructions
Quote the instructions, examples or guidance which are different or which are additional to that given in the Anapanasati Sutta
If it already given in the Anapanasati Sutta without variation, no need to quote or mention.
Comparison with Sanskrit and Tibetan text is also welcome.

Here is an article by Anālayo which you might find useful. It discusses the differences between Ānāpāna texts in the Nikāyas & Āgamas.

Thanks will check this out. But is it possible to give an answer also for the record. Will be useful for someone else.

I didn't put it in the answer box because the article is not a comparison between texts within the Pāḷi Canon as the question requests. It's between Pāḷi and Āgama texts.  Anyway, when I have time to pull all the strings together, I'll try and give an appropriate answer with that article included. In the mean time, the article is still here in the comment section for everyone who's interested.

Edited it so you can use some of the material from the book also

Another question for you when you tackle the above as additional effort may not be needed

@Unrul3r wondering if you can attempt this questions. Eager to see what your answer would be.

MN62 Maha-Rahulovada Sutta is one of them.

"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or
  breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or
  breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or
  breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'
"[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.'
  [8] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.'
"[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in satisfying the mind.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out satisfying the mind.' [11] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I
  will breathe out steadying the mind.' [12] He trains himself, 'I will
  breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out
  releasing the mind.'
"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion.'[5] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.' [15] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.' [16] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'
"This, Rahula, is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed &
  pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit.
"When mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued in this
  way, even one's final in-breaths & out-breaths are known as they
  cease, not unknown."[6]

Just as the what was instructed by Buddha to Ven Rahula. This is the only way that i understand and experienced it myself.

The Anapanasati Sutta is the only sutta that provides proper instruction in accordance to the Buddha-Dhamma, as follows.

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation
  and ripens in relinquishment (vossagga). He develops the investigation-of-states
  enlightenment factor…the energy enlightenment factor…the rapture
  enlightenment factor…the tranquillity enlightenment factor…the
  concentration enlightenment factor…the equanimity enlightenment
  factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation
  and ripens in relinquishment (vossagga).


text:
If you Consolidate the Satipatthana Instruction from the Tripitaka what would the additions and variation in Comparison to Maha Satipatthana Sutta
If you consolidate the instructions from the Tripitaka and other sources what would be the variations and additions to the instructions given in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta?

The question in your text is different from the one in the title. What exactly do you want to compare? Satipatthana with Maha-Satipatthana? Or just Maha-Satipatthana with other sources?

If you compare Maha Sattipattana Sutta to the whole Tripitaka is it comprehensive or are there additional information or variations elsewhere?

Here are four comparison tables that expose the similarities and discrepancies in  satipaṭṭhāna discourses from the Pāḷi Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas:
From Mindfulness in Early Buddhism by Tse-Fu Kuan, p.166-169. Click the images to enlarge.

Is this a freely available book? Where can I get the whole thing? Also looking for a comparison within the Tripitaka also.

The whole book is available in the link I gave above or, alternatively, here. In addition, you can find most of what you are looking for in A History of Mindfulness by Sujato Bhikkhu.


text:
Is Zen an extreme form of Mahayana?
In this Partially Examined Life podcast one of the presenters stated that Zen is an extreme form of Mahayana. Is that true in any sense? Are there elements of Zen that could be classified as extreme? Or is the statement entirely wrong?

Maybe you can explain why they called it extreme.

You need to define what extreme means, what normal Mahayana is and where is the borderline where this Mahayana deviates from being normal. People are different and they need different methods. What looks extreme to you might be perfectly natural to others. I don't see the point in making classifications based on a very subjective term like extreme.

@Rabbit I do absolutely agree. But the point is that this is a quote from a podcast I was listening to. The presenters didn't clarify this point at all - it was in fact a throwaway comment. So the question really is - is there any possible way that this could be true. If not and there is no sense that Zen is an extreme form of anything then this is the answer. I guess there is an implicit invitation for any answerer to define their own version of 'extreme'. Maybe the question doesn't work on those terms. I'm happy to delete it TBH

Extreme means "furthest from the center or a given point; outermost." Zen comes from Japan, which came from Chan in China which came from Mahayana in India. Thus Zen is far removed from the origin in India making it more extreme. I am a Zen practitioner in Florida of the United States. Here it is even more of an extreme since we are even further from the center point of origin.
"the extreme south of Florida"
Or look at it this way, your arm is an extremity of your body. Zen is an extremity of Mahayana buddhism. One could say the arm and the body are one. And one could also say the arm is an extremity of the body. Both view points are correct.
Zen in Japan has a lot of added texts and stories. Check out the book "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones". The "Gateless Gate" is in that book. The Shōbōgenzō written by Dogen is a Japanese Zen text. These are texts native to Japanese Zen that you will not find in the Chinese/Indian/Tibet texts. As far as practice, meditation on a Koan is a good example of a specific Japanese Zen practice that you will not see in Indian mahayana buddhism

Zen is extremely different in style from the other Mahayana traditions. Some even believe that the essence of Zen is Taoist, and not Buddhist, but this is also acknowledged by those who see Zen as predominantly Buddhist:

Are we talking about style? Yes, the records of the Zen masters resemble the style of the Zhuangzi more than they resemble the style of the Avatamsaka Sutra.

Zen, unlike Chan or Seon, underwent several reforms: simplification, stripping of the Pure Land component, association with arts and Meiji reforms. This can be said to be an extreme change.
In the end, Zen was popularised in the West by DT Suzuki, who stripped it from any remaining references to religion. The result, again, can be said to be extremely different from traditional Mahayana.

The last two points are based on the MatthewMartin's great answer to another question about Zen.
So Zen, both in its Japanese and in its Western version, is stripped of many things typical for Mahayana. If we regard whatever that remains as the core of Mahayana, we may call Zen an extreme form of Mahayana.


text:
Was the influence of Taoism on Buddhism responsible for the development of Mahayana?
In this Partially Examined Life podcast the presenters stated that when Buddhism moved into Chinese it naturally was influenced by the pre-existing Taoist philosophy which is uncontroversial. However they then when on to make this stronger claim that

it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the
  development of Mahayana.

That is quite a claim and obviously the real position is more complex. However is there any truth in that statement? Was Taoism instrumental in the development of Mahayana Buddhism?

Only initially, in the earliest Chinese Buddhist texts where they used the Taoist jargon to translate Buddhist jargon. Mahayana started in India, moved to Afganistan and from there went to China-- the main link being the monk Kumārajīva ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism

Here is an article you might find useful which touches the theme of the question.

Taoism was influential on the development of the Chan school in China, but quite frankly it didn't have much influence on the other schools such as Pure Land or Tiantai for example.

I've never heard of this idea and feel it is nonsense. People like Nagarjuna do not form their views under influence but investigate the facts. Why can we not just assume that Mahayana is what the Buddha taught? This is what Mahayanists do. There will be cross-pollination of course, but the teachings were mutually consistent in the first place. ;

It is hard to assess half a sentence without a wider context, but I would interpret this as "it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the development [but not creation] of [some branches of] Mahayana[, more specifically, some of the Chinese ones]". And in this form the statement is true.
You seem to interpret it as "it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the development of Mahayana [in India, even before it reached the Chinese soil]". Which is a false statement.

Since Zen is the most known form of Buddhism in the West [citation needed], it is possibly that for many people Mahayana was formed in China, not India. So that quote can be an accidental false.
Consider this: I am a Vietnamese. In my primitive understanding before seriously reading Buddhism texts, Mahayana is a Chinese branch of Buddhism. It is your question that makes me surprised with what I've known. I had always thought Nagarjuna is a Chinese master. His Chinese name is just so popular to me.

Nagarjuna was born in South India. ..


text:
a good definition of consciousness
I was having a conversation with a non buddhist about consciousness I was struggling to define some key aspects and it kind of led into not self,  but I was looking for a concise simple definition.

Technically, consciousness (viññāṇa) is that aspect of the mind that is aware; it is the qualia of modern Western philosophy.
Colloquially, it is used to refer to the entire mental ensemble that includes sensation (vedanā), recognition (saññā), processing (saṅkhāra), and awareness (viññāṇa). This is because the other three aggregates are always accompanied by awareness. Just as water has colour, temperature, etc., so too, consciousness has sensation and other mental concomitants.
Doctrinally, it is a cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy, which takes an experiential paradigm as the basis of reality (as opposed to the temporospatial paradigm of modern science). Each conscious qualia constitutes an atomic entity in the complex matrix of multi-perceptional reality.

cittena nīyati loko, cittena parikassati.
cittassa ekadhammassa, sabbeva vasamanvagūti.
By the mind the world is led, by the mind is it carried away.
Of the mind, the one thing, all indeed go according to its power.
-- SN 1.62

Consciousness in English has a different semantic range than it has in Pali. Westerners have spent a lot of ink writing about consciousness, so I think there is a nontrivial risk of talking about biscuits (British cookies) and biscuits (American little round bread thingies).
Some of the relevant Pali jargon words are:
viññāṇa- awareness, especially the sort that is like a chain reaction starting with the physical senses of sight, touch, etc that leads to thoughts of other things. Sometimes translated as consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na#Overlapping_Pali_terms_for_mind

The Buddhas teaching on the Five Aggregates will help you perfectly explain the consciousness!
Here is a passage from the link below:
But physical elements by themselves are not enough to produce experience. The simple contact between the eyes and visible objects, or between the ears and sound cannot result in experience without consciousness (Vijnana). The eyes can be in conjunction with the visible object indefinitely without producing experience. The ears too can be exposed to sound indefinitely without producing experience. Only the co-presence of consciousness together with the sense organ and the object of the sense organ produces experience. In other words, it is when the eyes, the visible object and consciousness come together that the experience of a visible object is produced. Consciousness is therefore an indispensable element in the production of experience.
http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud14.htm
If you do practice formal sitting meditation, you will experientially see this. When you focus on the rising and falling of the stomach, once the mind wanders to a different experience, you no longer are aware of the stomach, this is because you no longer have the physical and mental duality, so there is no experience of the stomach, there is no existence, but..when the mind returns to the stomach, once again you have contact between the mental and physical, and once again the sensation of the stomach is realized! (just a side note: The changing experience is "rebirth/birth)
Metta.

It is difficult to give a similar meaning for Pali Buddhists words in English. Actually to define a Pali word, we need 10 - 20 or more English words. Only thing we can do is give a similar English word for the Pali word. But it doesn't completely represent the Pali word. Even in some cases, Buddha too have explained certain Pali words in suttas. Those suttas are known as "Vibhanga Suttas" (Divide and explaining).For example "Saccavibhanga Sutta". Therefore when explaining a Pali word in English, it's better to explain it in detail.

@Lee Hebditch - Sorry they took out your question on biocentrism. I had only wished it could be reformulated from Buddha's point of view. That would have been a good ground for mulling over consciousness. (Although I don't think that there should be any "centrism" in all this.) Cheers.

@RobMacHugh Thank you for your kind words! I know there are more insightful and  wise people on this site than me, and if they believe that it was of no value to others, then i can accept that. May your practice be fruitful, my friend. Metta.

The Pali scriptures define consciousness as 'sense cognition' or 'sense awareness'. This is the most accurate single definition to use.

'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'? 'It cognizes, it cognizes':
  Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it
  cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes
  'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is
  said to be 'consciousness.'
Mahavedalla Sutta

~~

And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
  unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.
Khajjaniya Sutta

~~
And what is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.

Sammaditthi Sutta

~~~

The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
Chachakka Sutta

~~

'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'
Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in
  dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as
  eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear
  & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that
  arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as
  nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.
  Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile
  sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified
  simply as intellect-consciousness
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

Consciousness is simply ability to know or, more complicated, it's property to have object. Pali commentaries define consciousness (citta) in three ways. Agent definition - citta is what cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti cittam). Instrument definition - by means of which mental factors (cetasika) cognize the object. Activity definition - nothing other than cognizing (or knowing) the object. Third definition is considered to be ultimate definition, while first two is provisional definitions, all of them are supposed to refute view that these functions are performed by Self.
Probably consciousness could be hard to define in mechanistic-materialistic view (or standpoint), it's because such view eliminate consciousness. So, how to define thing that is fundamentally eliminated? To correct this we should recognize that consciousness is of fundamental (phenomenal) nature and does not need to be reduced to matter or derived from matter. For all of us consciousness is basic fact (phenomenon).

The Pali suttas explain in many places there is no consciousness independent of a physical body (eg. SN 22.53, MN 38 & SN 12.76). From where consciousness is derived is irrelevant to Buddha-Dhamma, which only concerns itself with how consciousness is tainted by ignorance to contribute to the origination of suffering.

@Dhammadhatu Please kindly spare me of this Theravada revisionism.There is not only your version of Theravada, but different opinions inside of Theravada, besides, there is also other schools. Also, to argue properly you need to understand answer first, which is lacking. Nowhere I said that "consciousness independent of a physical body". And what is 'irrelevant' is obviously not for you to decide.

Read SN 22.53, MN 38 & SN 12.76. Its all in there. SN 22.53 states the arising of consciousness is impossible without the other four aggregates; MN 38 states impossible with sense organs & sense objects; SN 12.76 states impossible with a mind-body (nama-rupa). The idea of 'independent consciousness' is not from the Buddha but from Brahmans who took over Buddhism at a later time.

@Dhammadhatu If you think this answer isn't good enough or could/should be better in some way, perhaps it's time for you to post a better answer (to the OP's question) of your own (and stop commenting on catpnosis' answer). The main purpose of a comment is to clarify, improve, or add to answer; and I don't think we should post more than one comment if the first comment isn't welcomed.

@catpnosis If you disagree with a (any) comment, find it unhelpful (or especially if you find it hostile), it's your choice whether to reply to it (you don't have to). If you don't think it's a good idea to reply and if you just want the comment deleted, you can also 'flag' the comment for moderator attention (after you flag it you can call it e.g. "not constructive", or select "other" to explain to a moderator why the comment isn't helpful and should be deleted). It's also sometimes a good idea to add a reference to your answer (to help readers understand why your answer says what it does).

@Dhammadhatu I repeat - nowhere I said, nowhere (sic!), that 'consciousness is possible without the other four aggregates'. Also, you judging my answer by [in]ability to quote suttas, where I didn't even tried to quote them. Point of your comment is totally missing what I was trying to say. Also, there are other schools besides Theravada, like cittamatra. Do you understand cittamatra enough to judge correctness of my answer?

@Dhammadhatu Btw, you are saying that consciousness can not be independent of a physical body, this is wrong, because only five sensual consciousnesses are such, but mental consciousness isn't based physical organ. Also, this is doubtful that even sensual consciousness is based on physical organ and not, instead, on sensual dhatu or ayatana which is not necessarily exactly equal to material organ.

There is no single definition of consciousness, but what seems to be common to all, at least implicitly, is the existence of an internal model of the "external" world, and sensory input to inform the model. Humans have several kinds of sensory input, and their internal models usually consist of a field of different densities (objects with different "hardnesses, e.g. steel, wood, water) and with varied luminance, along with sound, flavor, scent, and so on. Bacteria have very different consciousnesses, built almost solely on chemical concentration gradients (which way to the sugar?).

I like this answer.

If there is no single definition, there are definitions and examples in Buddhist scriptures. In my opinion, your answer is not suitable on Buddhism SE.

Very much analytical and full of words which do not make sense. "Internal model of external world" is wrong interpretation. Consciousness is both the phenomenon - the observer and observed. There are no internal and external worlds. Infact external world is a manifestation of internal world. It is very difficult concept to deal with.

@ShashankKhare. the Pali scriptures refer to an internal & external world in many places, such as the Chachakka Sutta. Your comment sounds like Hinduism.


text:
Will smoking cigarettes permanently hinder meditation?
The breath is such an important part of meditation. Will a decreased lung capacity decrease the depth I can achieve in meditation?

This is a form of intoxicating addictive substance. Any such substance will hinder your meditation and quality of life. Things like unhealthy food (some foods induce the 5 hindrances) and drinks also have a similar effect.
Also when meditating you should be both mentally and physically fit. The addiction will reduce your metal fitness and the health effects will reduce your physical fitness. So your lung capacity also will play a role.
This does not mean which you should not attempt meditation as a smoker. Perhaps you should take a residential course where you do not get the chance to smoke / drink, as to get results you need to have mental and physical well being. Then you can leverage on the meditation to slowly get you out of addiction.

Correct, but important to note that meditation is not hindered by decreased lung capacity, it is hindered by the addiction and loss of mindfulness.

Check out the Fifth Mindfulness training listed here: The Five Mindfulness Trainings (Page 19). These are the precepts written by Thich Nhat Hanh. I am not going to summarize his commentary, but hopefully his writing can help shed light on what you are looking at. May you be happy.

If the link breaks, your answer will become worthless. That's why all SE sites encourage people to summarize the contents of any links they provide.


text:
Meditation through clearing the mind of all thoughts
Is it good practice in meditation to focus on having no thoughts? A purely empty mind. Whenever a thought arises, it is cast off.

This may have already answered my question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/188/how-can-i-know-that-i-am-clear-of-thoughts-while-i-am-meditating/191#191

From the viewpoint of Theravada Buddhism, we definitely do not teach this way. It's impossible to empty the mind. Thoughts pop up all the time. We can, however, train ourselves not to follow these thoughts. In other words, we want the mind to become stable and free of dependencies.
Here is a basic outline of the method of Mahasi Sayadaw, a prominent 20th-century meditation teacher:

Focus on the rising and falling of the abdomen during the process of
breathing. Focus on only one thing at a time, and make an honest effort to
focus well.
If a thought arises—besides the thought, "rising... falling..."—focus on the act of thinking itself. In other words, shift from "I wonder how much that car will cost me" to "thinking... thinking..."
If pleasure or pain is experienced, focus on the pleasure or pain itself.
Similar for liking, disliking, drowsiness, distraction, doubt.
When these objects disappear or become uninteresting, return to rising
and falling.

The ultimate goal of this practice is to bring about the insight into the nature of reality. This means understanding—not by thought, but by having seen the truth for oneself—that all experiences are:

Anicca—Impermanent
Dukkha—Unsatisfying
Anatta—Uncontrollable, not part of oneself

That being said, a beginner should have the guidance of a skilled teacher. Here is a meditation manual in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, by the Venerable Sir Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu.

Coen nun (Zen) joked once:

A mind without any thoughts? It's brain death.

The point of meditation is not to make the mind devoid of thoughts, but to stop being dragged by them. Not to follow them, not to feed them, and so on.


text:
What are the Pali or Sanskrit words for these things?
I think I know some of these, but the rest are a translation muddle. The west seems to not attempt to translate nirvana, sangha, dharma, mantra, mudra, buddha, bodhisattva (and probably a few more) and that for me is actually helpful. I expect that some of these correspond to multiple Pali/Sanskrit words.
Enlightenment. In English, it is an anachronistic reference to the European age of Enlightenment.
Meditation. This word predates the west's contact with Buddhism. I have no idea what non-Buddhist baggage it brings along.
Loving-kindness. This sounds like Christianity projected on Buddhism.
Soul. Seems like this is atman, but everyone seems determined to call it something like "self," which is for a man-in-the-street just a reflexive pronoun. (Does the self exist? Well, as much as any other pronoun, like "he" or "they")
Reincarnation/rebirth. Synonyms in man-in-the-street's English, but I've seen people argue passionately how Buddhism believes one but not the other, sort of like believing in leasing but not renting (which are synonyms).
Repentance. I know for sure this is a big deal in Chinese Buddhism.
Pure/Purity. Means scrubbed clean of earthly dirt. I know this is a metaphor, but somehow, after 2000 years it falls as flat as if I tried to use a computer metaphor to explain to a 500BC farmer how the brain and cellular DNA works.
Heaven/Pure Land.  Sukhāvatī comes to mind, but I'm not sure if this is a specific pure land, or the jargon for pure lands in general. Again, 'pure' makes it sound either homogenous or really well scrubbed, like a hospital. I'd rather just use whatever jargon word the originators used.
Deity. This in man-in-the-street English mean a god, or God, just like the one's the Christian's pray to. In Vajrayana, people seem to argue that yidams are something else.

Enlightenment - bodhi (awakening), vimokṣa, vimukti (liberation).
Meditation -    bhāvanā (cultivation), samādhi (concentration), śamatha (calmness), samāpatti, dhyāna.
Loving-kindness - maitrī.
Soul - as permanent entity which doesn't exists is ātman. Soul as psyche or mind is citta, manas, or as life force is jīvita-indriya.
Reincarnation - is uncommon in Buddhist discourse.
Rebirth - pratisaṃdhi. Where birth is jāti or bhāva.
Pure - śubha.
Heaven - deva-loka.
Repentance - 懺 (ch'an) which is kṣamā.
Pure land - buddha-kṣetra.
Deity - devatā.

I think śubha means beautiful; suddha (śuddha in Skt) is pure.

@yuttadhammo 'Beautiful' is one of the meanings, but also "good (in moral sense) , righteous , virtuous , honest; pure (as an action)".

Sure, but it's not the best literal translation for pure, that's all.

@yuttadhammo I thought MatthewMartin meant not just some abstract purity, but purity of action and personality, where śubha is good fit.

What is your source for thinking that?  It means literally
"beautiful"; that it can be in some cases glossed as meaning "pure" doesn't make it a good fit. See http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=%C5%9Bubha or http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/237402/subha or http://vedabase.net/s/subha - nowhere is it defined as "pure".

@yuttadhammo Because OP said 'clean of earthly dirt', where 'earthly' I read as mundane, and not some physical dirt. Śubha/subha is definitely have connotations of purity and cleanliness, and goodness. Sobhana cittas and cetasikas are w/o defilements, i.e. pure in ethical sense.

the only reference to purity in your first link is parenthetical for subha-sa~n~naa; cleanliness in the PED is for the noun form, and it's not a literal translation; goodness is also not a literal translation. Sobhana cittas are so-called because it is beautiful to be without defilements; the word still doesn't mean "pure".

I even provided links to dictionaries where it says in plain text 'purity', 'cleanliness', and 'good'. (I have even more links.) And you say it still doesn't have such meaning. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it non-existent. "Noun form", "not a literal translation" - who cares? Word does have such meaning and use (in the context of actions), literal or not. If I'm correct that OP asked in the context of ethics then word is correct. Beauty in actions or personality is purity. It's not context of beautiful dance moves or material art form. It's ethics.

OP was asking for "the" word for it. subha isn't it. It just doesn't mean "pure", except in the same way as, say, anavajja (non-guilt) does - i.e. obliquely. The CEPD has eleven words for pure and none of them are subha. "pure: (adj.) suddha; suci; nimmala; accha; pasanna; pūta; asaṅkiṇṇa; amissa; kevala; niddosa; anavajja."

OP was asking how some Western ideas & words, which he thinks of, and which he tried to express sometimes metaphorically (note: not literally), is correspond to words in Buddhist discourse. Not just to accidental dictionary words, but to word & ideas of Buddhist discourse. Idea of ethical (persona & actions) purity (from defilements) is 'beauty'. Nowhere I said it's exhausting meaning for purity. I'm not against other translations. I just said that śubha have such reading in particular context. Several references I provided. If some dictionary not includes that, so what? Others do.

There are many synonyms to the words given in the table. Only mentioning some of the popular words.

According to the discussion under this question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3062/760 the translation of "enlightenment" should be bodhi, not nibbana.

The distinction made there is with regards to Magga & Phala nana.
More at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html
But the word 'enlightenment' is commonly used to refer to Nibbana.

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


text:
Is there a proper English word to call Brahmas?
According to the Dhamma(afaik), there are three types of heavenly beings.

Devas - Gods(male)
Apsara/Divyangana - Angels(female) who accompany the gods.
Brahmas(Rupa/Arupa) - ?

We can use the word 'god' or 'higher-god' to refer to brahmas, but that doesn't clearly separate them from Devas who belong to the sensual world. Is there a better English word?
P.S. I'm inclined to think that there's no proper English term because the Western world did not have the practice of attaining Jhanas. Thus no concept of Brahma realms or non-sensual realms.

I always use "angel" to refer to devas, and "god" to refer to brahmas; though the terms have a different connotation in Judeo-Christian tradition, the relationship the terms have with each other is similar, since devas are really just angelic, whereas brahmas are in a sense godlike.

I noticed that in some of the videos, Bhante. But I was wondering what to call Apsaras, in that case. The ones who are there to entertain the Devas. They seem to be lesser than Devas.

@SankhaKulathantille nymphs, I think is the generally accepted translation, though again it's probably not exact.

Thank you, Bhante! Heard that word for the 1st time. Meaning seems to fit.

It's safest to leave them in the Pali or Sanskrit.
Angels sounds very Christian. It creates a "don't think about polar bears" situation to hear these Christian words. If you try not to think about polar bears, all you can think about is polar bears. If you hear the word Angel and try not think about guys with wings that do Gods bidding and sometimes rebel and turn into princes of darkness, then all you'll be able to think about is that.


text:
Do lions create bad kamma for their next life when they kill?
In Buddhism, bad Kamma begins with a bad intention. What can we say about animals, let's say a tiger or a lion that kills other living beings by instinct? They don't have the same understanding as we do as human beings and they simply cannot become vegetarians: so are they creating bad Kamma that might ripen in a next life? For instance, if I used to be a lion will I suffer bad Kamma consequences in this human life because I killed and ate living beings?

Bad Karma are caused by the three evil roots.

Lobha - Craving/Lust
Dosa - Aversion
Moha - Ignorance

Doing something bad without knowing it is bad falls under ignorance. Ignorance is there in all bad Karmas. But in the case of a lion killing a deer, it is stronger compared to a human killing a deer, given that he knows it is wrong. So the lion has strong ignorance on top of strong aversion and craving. That makes the Karma worse. One thing you have to understand about the law of Karma is that it is a law of the nature. It is not a god. So there's never a question of whether it is fair or not. Is it fair for children to get burnt if they touch fire without knowing it burns? Probably not! But the fire doesn't have a conscious to decide whom to burn or not to burn.

Yes, that's the point, it is not fair, so we can say we are very Lucky for having the chance to study the Dhamma, is like we know the rules of a game everyone is playing, but most of them dont even know it!

Actually, Karma is fair as in it is impartial. Not knowing the law of a country is not an excuse to breaking it.

What if the lion were not ignorant? Should it starve because lions can't survive on plant food?

It can eat already dead animals. But if it starves to death by keeping to the 1st precept, there's a high chance for it to be born in a heaven next life.

So, do butchers create bad karma when they kill animals for selling meat for their living? Can it be said that a butcher with no intention to kill but to satisfy his customers will have no bad karma?

@GokulNC For sure it  is bad Karma. Aversion is involved as proximate cause. Greed for money is involved as root cause. Ignorance is involved as in not knowing the consequences of killing.

What if the human does not think it is wrong?

@ulmo that would be ignorance

Within Karma it is the intention or volition behind the action that is important not the action itself. So if we assume that an animal (lion etc..) acts primarily out of instinct then I would say that animals don't have volition (they can't help it) therefore they don't generate bad Karma. However they don't generate good Karma either so they are stuck. The previously accumulated bad Karma will eventually fizzle out be that might take a while, a long long while.
This leads directly to the notion of the preciousness of human life in the four reminders. Once you are in a lower realm then it is hard to get out so birth as a human (the only place where enlightenment is possible) is very very rare. If OP has been lucky enough to be born as a human then make the best of if. It might not happen again for a long while.

It's also worth noting that in the Tibetan wheel of life there is the notion of other power. In each realm, including the animal one, there is a Buddha figure as shown above. The figure is there to do whatever they can to assist the beings (animals) to get out of their situation. Sometimes it;'s just so hard to do it yourself that another power is required. This answer to another post gives some good further detail on that point.

When a lion sets out to kill a pay, 1) it knows it is a living creature, 2) it has the intention to eat (kill) it, 3) it chases after to kill it (method) and 4) finally catches it and kills it. So the Karma regarding killing is complete and would give results.
When you get a animal life you are forced to do bad Karma thus you are trapped in the lower realms for an extremely long time. Also there is always agitation (in fear, lack of food, killing for food) so the metal state generated are most of the time very bad.
Further see my answer to: Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals?

I am not so sure I agree with all 4 points, I have a slightly different view, but thanks for that

Welcome. Out of curiosity what is your opinion?

I am not so sure, that is why I made the question, but I think the intention behind Kamma should be somehow a concious intention, animals don't have it, they act based on pure instinct and reaction. I think your opinion fits very well with the Buddha's teaching, but it doesn't sound fair, understand my point?

Laws of nature are not always fair.

Suminda, are you expressing a view from a specific Buddhist tradition, or is it held by all traditions? Also, could you give a source for what you said? Thanks.

I do not know other traditions but this is what Theravada Buddhists in Sri Lanka believe.

Some people might think that lions don't know that "killing is wrong". They might not understand that, "All are afraid of the stick, all fear death. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others."

There is Dittigatha Samprautha (with knowledge) and Dittigatha Vippautha (without knowledge). Without knowledge is always worse in off in terms of -ve karma. Animals always do things without knowledge. Instinct is a issue whether it is Sasankarika or Asankarika, i.e., prompted or unprompted. If you do something by instinct it is unprompted.

Unprompted is heavier for -ve karma than promoted.

@konrad01 What I mean by not fair is if you have low intellect (animal) or ignorant of karmic results you might be worst off than "fair" option would be that it should not be the case.

By the logic of bad kamma, no animal will evolve into human. How do humans become humans then?
Whenever we are eating a fruit and a vegetable we are killing millions of cells which are alive. When we are breathing we are killing countless viruses, parasites etc. We are constantly gathering bad kamma. But breathing and eating are automatic functions. We are not responsible for it. So how can we be responsible for bad kamma then?
Intention come from mind and animals do not have mind. Only humans do. There is no question of bad kamma when instincts are involved. In-fact even sex if it is driven through instincts has no karmic effect. When it is mind induced which is the case 99% time it has karmic effects. Modern men and women do not have natural sex any more.
In case of animals evolution is automatic. They are unconscious beings. They do not accumulate bad kamma otherwise evolution will stop. But once an animal graduates into human then there is no automatic evolution. Humans need to put conscious efforts to become perfect. Nature will not help. Only through right understanding and right efforts humans progress further.


text:
Which Buddhist council included the conclusions that there is no creator-god and no day of judgment?
After the Buddha is said to have achieved Nirvana, there were subsequent Buddhist Councils that were held.
Some years ago I came across an article that said that it was in one of these Councils that it was made official for Buddhists that there is no creator-god and no Day of Judgment. Which council was that? I think it was the Fourth? But I just can't find that information again.

Following might be able to shed some light on the Fundamentals of Buddhism

It is incorrect that this is later development. From the onset in the Buddhism teaching did not have the teaching of a Creator God or Judgement Day.
The Buddhist notion of a creator is the stained mind or conditioned mind or unliberated mind. We keep creating our next moment due to Kleshas. This is further explained in Dependent Origination and the Links of Dependent Origination. This is evident from the Udana 'Anekajati samsaram sandhavissam' in which refers to the creator as Ignorance.

Aneka jati samsaram,
  Sandhavissam anibbisam;
  Gahakarakam gavesanto,
  Dukkha jati punappunam.
  Gahakaraka ditthosi,
  Puna geham na kahasi;
  Sabba te phasuka bhagga,
  Gahakutam visankhitam;
  Visankharagatam cittam,
  Tanhanam khayamajjhaga.
-Udana uttered by the Buddha after His enlightenment.
So many births I have taken in this world, seeking in vain the bui1der of this house; in my search over and over, I took new birth, new suffering.
Oh! house builder, now I have seen you, you cannot make a new house for me; all your beams are broken, the ridge pole is shattered; my mind is freed from all the conditionings of the past, and has no more craving for the future.
[ The 'house builder' referred to above is avijja (ignorance). 'house' or 'new house' referred to above is nama-rupa (the mind-matter continuum) which is infact the 5 aggregates (pancakkhanda)-matter or body (rupa) and the 4 parts that constitute the mind, consciousness (vinnana) perception (sanna), sensation (vedana), reaction or conditioning (sankhara).]
This has been discussed in more depth later on under "cause-effect (paticca-Samuppada)".

Above extracted from http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk212a.htm

To state such judgement would be to intentionally contradict with Christianity. I believe there is no internal (teaching needs) nor external (societal) need for such judgement. Thus, it's highly doubtful that any big council would make such statement, and even more doubtful that it will be 'official for all Buddhists'.
No council can prescript official opinion obligatory for all Buddhists of Earth. Because Buddhist community is not centralized/autocratic but pluralistic. Any council that will try to enforce dogma will just split community on who accept it and who is not.

I understand that there might be sensitive times and/or political reasons to maintain unity that councils may prefer not to make loud statements. But every religion or ideology has some central/fundamental beliefs that it claims, and to assert them is not to "enforce dogma". I'm interested more in the Theravada Buddhism councils, as I feel that they are historically the closest we can get to the real Buddha. I'm not concerned if what they say wouldn't apply to all Buddhists, and if they did say such a thing, I wouldn't consider it "enforcing dogma", but merely clarifying integral beliefs.

The fundamental teaching of Buddhism is arround Bodhipakkhiyādhammā, Three marks of existence, Four Noble Truths, Pratītyasamutpāda, Twelve Nidānas, etc.

Buddhism does not have the concept of an external creator. We are our own creators. The current moment creates the next. Also there is no concept of a law giver. The laws of nature exit on their own without any external intervention. This is the concept throughout Buddhist history.

Points to take note:
It is TRUE that a number of Buddhist Councils were held after the mahaparinirvana (nirvana-after-death) of the Buddha. Not during Buddha's life time nor just after Buddha attained nirvana.
It is NOT TRUE that any Buddhist Council concludes or makes official something that not part of Buddha's teaching for Buddhists. In other words, Buddhist Councils were held just to preserve the entire Buddha's sayings and rules. No changing or amending.
Since day one from Buddha's teaching, there is NO Creator, God or Judgement Day. Therefore, Buddhist Councils never have to conclude or make official for such things.


text:
How can a person be abstinent?
How can a person be abstinent and overcome all sexual urges including self-gratification in accordance with the Buddhist tradition ? What prescription do the teachers give to get over such obstacles ?

As a monk or as a layperson? Which variety of Buddhism?

@MatthewMartin, would it make a difference ? isn't every person's salvation found through overcoming obstacles ? or do the scriptures say otherwise ? Pardon me for my lack of knowledge.

Buddhism isn't a single monolithic system anymore. In most Buddhisms, the laity aren't expected to be celibate. In some Buddhisms, the laity can also become enlightened in this life. In some Buddhisms, even the monks marry and have kids. In secular Buddhism, the whole topic of asceticism and no-sex/no-booze morality are a non issue.

I find that quite strange. How can one claim virtue if he does not follow the path, diluting words to mean nothing is not the way of the virtuous. Thank you for the input @MatthewMartin

My point is that many sects exist, since Buddhism.SE is about getting people the answers they want, then careful tagging helps. It's in your own interest to tag & indicate your favorite tradition else you will get answers that seem odd your current style of practice. This Sri Lankan Buddhism? Navayana?

Any such urge gives rise to feelings. What you should do is look at the feeling equanimously and objectively so that cravings for sensual pleasures do not arise. This is in Dependent Origination.
Initially the success would be very limited with only a few seconds of success, but as you go on the duration would increase and at one point you would be able to continuously be equanimous. To be able to do this you have to do Vipassana Meditation.
For a lay person the general recommendation is to abstain from sexual misconduct. You do not have to go to this extent, but this would become natural when you become Anāgāmi which is one Stage of Enlightenment.

Also the method by @Sankha-Kulathantille is also effective if your mind is very lustful to bring some balance before Vipassana.

Thank you for your comment, so practicing mindfulness is a prescription for this case. I will definitely take that into note.

Patikulamanasikara is a special meditation recommended for lustful personalities. Back in the day, in India, they used to wrap dead bodies in robes(Pansukula) and throw to a designated land without burying or burning. These places are ideal to do this kind of meditation as you can observe the rotting bodies. Nowadays, it's pretty difficult to get access to a corpse, unless you work in the morgue. Although you could google for pictures and videos of decomposing bodies. Better to start it under the guidance of a teacher. At some point, you will have to turn the meditation in to Vipassana, if you are looking for a lasting solution.

Thank you for the comment Sankha, I find this quite interesting, but one could argue this act within itself could deaden the heart and make one unresponsive or in some cases traumatized, is this type of meditation not considered extreme ?

It is actually good, if one can become mentally unresponsive to sexual temptations. Subduing lust is one of the main goals of this meditation. The trauma or the shock effect can be useful to weaken the notion of 'self'. Because you will notice that what you consider to be yourself is really a heap of dirty, repulsive things. That would be an ideal platform to convert it into Vipassana. Read the benefits section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patikulamanasikara

Check out the Third Mindfulness training listed here: The Five Mindfulness Trainings (Page 8). These are the precepts written by Thich Nhat Hanh. I am not going to summarize his commentary, but hopefully his writing can help shed light on what you are looking at. May you be happy.

Thank you Christopher, I will have a look at the link. May your life be happy and blessed as well.