text:
What is Indra's Net, according to Mahayana Buddhism?
I have heard a lot about "Indra's Net". A wiki says that it describes how emptiness and dependent origination are creating the universe. Can anyone provide me a link and book which I should read, to understand this more?

There are two sets of Mahayana sutras:

The seventeen Perfection of Wisdom sutras (Prajnaparamita Sutras), and
The other sutras, of the Wheel of Perfect Differentiation.

The first set does not present Indra’s net while the second does. Tibetan traditions posit the first set as being “of definite meaning” and therefore study it and overlook the second. They do not study the sutras of the Wheel of Differentiation except through commentaries refuting their presentations.
On the other hand, most Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese traditions such as the Huayan school, Chan, Tientai, etc. posit the second set of sutras as being “of definite meaning” and therefore study it and overlook the Perfection of Wisdom sutras.
Therefore, if you want to know more about Indra’s net, you have to look on the side of Zen, etc. because they are more likely to comment sutras that speak of Indra’s net. Among the various sutras of the Wheel of Perfect Differentiation, the most well known are:

The Lankavatara Sutra (remember that Chan masters were first called "Lankavatara masters" before the "Chan" designation came into being),
The Avatamsaka Sutra (Garland of Flowers), that became popular after the Lankavatara was found too complicated for lay people
The Lotus sutra,
The Tathagatagarbha Sutra, and
The Vimalakirti Sutra.

Most of them mention Indra (just as the Prajnaparamita Sutras do) but do not mention Indra’s net. For instance, the Vimalakirti Sutra merely mentions Indra. Even the translator's footnotes do not say more than:

Kausika, Sakra, and Indra all refer to the same god, who, in Buddhist cosmogony is regarded as the king of gods in the desire-realm.

This helps you understand that it is not that common a notion.

Of these scriptures, only the Avatamsaka Sutra (a 1’500 pages sutra) does. It says:

Far away, in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out indefinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel at the net’s every node, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude. A wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one the these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewels is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that the process of reflection is infinite.

Thích Nhất Hạnh is a Vietnamese Zen master in the lineage of Huineng. The Caodong Chan school in China and the Soto Zen school in Japan also proceed from Huineng. In Understanding Our Mind (Chapter 13, Indra’s Net), Thích Nhất Hạnh refers to the Avatamsaka Sutra:

Indra's net is a vast, cosmic lattice that contains precious jewels wherever the threads cross. There are millions of ewels strung together to make the net, and each jewel has many facets. When you look at any facet of any jewels, you can see all the other jewels reflected in it. In the world of the Avatamsaka, in Indra's net, the one is present in the all, and the all in the one. This wonderful image was used in Buddhism to illustrate the principle of interdepedence and interpenetration.

And he explains the meaning:

In our ordinary world, we see a teapot as a single, independent object. But if we look deeply enough into the teapot, we will see that it contains many phenomena – earth, water, fire, air, space, and time – and we will realize that in fact the entire universe come together to make this teapot.

From this Vietnamese Zen perspective, this is analyzing dependent-origination.

The earlier answer is excellent and exceeds my knowledge of the question in the sutras.
However, this issue is also addressed (perhaps with a twist) in the tantras, albeit, less accessibly (depending on what it is being compared to). Generally, to fully understand the meaning of Buddhist tantras, it requires oral transmission because the information in any one tantra is incomplete, sometimes encoded, sometimes arranged out of order, and needs cross-reference with other tantras.
For example, in the book published in English as "Luminous Essence," which is Mipham Rinpoche's commentary on (Longchenpa's great commentary on) the Guhyagarbha Tantra, arguably the "root" tantra for the Nyingma system, Mipham says the following:

The Great Tantra of the Glorious Magical Net, the Secret Essence, Reality Ascertained reveals mind and wisdom to be self-display. ... This universal tantra of the great Magical Net is a secret among secrets.

and

Reality is nothing whatsoever, yet from it, anything can arise. Due to this key point, its self-display manifests impartially and without limitation as the display of the magical net.

While none of this references "Indra's" net specifically by name, I'm pretty sure it's the same idea explicated with a different kind of terminological domain.
Lastly, with regard to the wording of your original query, to say emptiness and dependent origination are "creating" the universe, this maybe has some conceptual issues (which may also just be semantic). Depending on the system of tantra or the view you're looking from, "the universe" can be said to be somewhat of a mistake, as least as unenlightened beings are experiencing it, and emptiness and dependent origination are concepts we're using to try to bring some degree of understanding into the matter, but to think there is something operating with intent would be, to my limited understanding, a mistaken idea.
Hope this helps (get you started :-)

Just so you know, the question is 4 years old and it looks like the OP no longer has an account. Nice answer nevertheless. ;-)

Yeah, I didn't check the timeframe. It sorted to the top of a list and I assumed that meant it was new. I, on the other hand, AM new here. I'll pay more attention to details :-)

Welcome and enjoy the site!

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


text:
Where is Nibbana/Nirvana being Unconditioned stated in the Canon?
It is often stated particularly by Theravada Buddhism that Nibbana/Nirvana is unconditioned. In fact extensive metaphysical speculations have even been written about by esteemed monks.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/resonance.html
Where is this actually stated in the canonical scripture? This doctrine seems particularly important and should have extensive discourse by the Buddha.
In fact, it would appears that this doctrine is in contradiction with the doctrine of dependent origination. And it would not be clear how the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path arrived at an "Unconditioned Nibana".

When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

It was said that Venerable Sariputta upon hearing the dependent generation stanzas out of his profound wisdom immediately became a stream winner, knowing the way to end suffering.
I believe the reasoning is as follows:

Things that arise due to causes and conditions cease with the end of
those causes and conditions.
Suffering arise due to causes and conditions
Suffering therefore can be extinguish with the right causes and
conditions.
The right causes and conditions are the Practice of the Noble
Eightfold Path, which leads to Ethics, Concentration and Wisdom,
removing the causes for suffering.

But this mean that even the cessation of suffering Nibana itself is conditional!
I did some research on Sutta Central and found the following
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn43.12

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to
  the unconditioned. Listen to that….
“And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust,
  the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called
  the unconditioned.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned?
  Serenity: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned….
“Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the unconditioned and the path
  leading to the unconditioned…. This is our instruction to you.”
“Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the unconditioned and the path
  leading to the unconditioned. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a
  compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring
  their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees,
  bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhus, do not be
  negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you.”

However, there is no correspondent parallel text in the Chinese Agama, and the content is lacking substance having no message apart from Buddhist practice leading to Unconditionality, and hence can be suspected to be a Theravadin innovation and a latter doctrinal addition.
Likewise with
https://suttacentral.net/en/ud8.3

Thus I heard: At one time the Gracious One was dwelling near Sāvatthī,
  in Jeta’s Wood, at Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Then at that time the
  Gracious One was instructing, rousing, enthusing, and cheering the
  monks with a Dhamma talk connected with Emancipation. Those monks,
  after making it their goal, applying their minds, considering it with
  all their mind, were listening to Dhamma with an attentive ear.
Then the Gracious One, having understood the significance of it, on
  that occasion uttered this exalted utterance:
“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If,
  monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you
  could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and
  conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade,
  unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become,
  made, and conditioned.”

This sounds like an illogical tautology - circular reasoning supporting the unconditional Nibbana doctrine.
The fact that this would be said by someone as enlightened as the Buddha is extremely slim.
The main reason I can imagine this being used is the use of Nirvana (Cessation/Blown Out) as a negation, i.e. Nothing is Unconditioned, therefore Nirvana is Unconditioned.
I would appreciate it if anyone can provide canonical sources that explain the importance of unconditionality with respect to Nibbana and Nirvana. Particularly why is it even important and consistent with the rest of Buddhist teachings? Please feel free to point out where you think my own views might be mistaken.

What is the question? There is no question mark in the body of the text. There is a question mark in the title ("Where is Nibbanna/Nirvana being Unconditioned stated in the Canon?") but you answer that in the body (e.g. by referencing Udāna 8.3). Are you actually asking for a reference, or was that only a "rhetorical question" which doesn't need answering? Or are you perhaps asking for any explanation to the "illogical tautology" which you identified? But you also discount "metaphysical speculations by esteemed monks": so it's not clear to me at all what you are asking for.

I want more canonical references on unconditionality of Nirvana than merely "utterances" (Udāna) or statements. At the moment people just assume that Nirvana is unconditional. I would like to have textual explanation why this is so.

I think even "Unconditioned" is an incorrect/ only marginal acceptable English translation. The Chinese is 常; whilst the "Conditioned" is 無常. Just the negation of the negation, a versus. Phenomenal world is conditioned, so is our cyclical birth/death, Nirvana is unconditioned, it's constant, permanent, 常.

@Bhumishu No 常 and 無常 is permanence and impermanence. 有為法 is conditioned Dharma. 無為法 is unconditioned Dharma.

@Yinxu thanks. then it's confusing that Nirvana is a Dharma? Further, an Unconditional Dharma? There is no Dharma called Nirvana, Nirvana is not a Dharma, I think that's what the Buddha will be teaching. I think those flocks are talking about "Unconditional" they mean that's NOT subject to change and to have dependency - their Dependent Origin saying. It's so confusing...

My answer is here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23146/10100

Where is this actually stated in the canonical scripture?
After only a quick search I don't find many references other than the two you already mentioned (assuming you're only looking for suttas and not for example the Visuddhimagga).
There's another here: The Nibbāna-element.
There's also (the famous) Dhamapada verse 154 (which says visaṅkhāra rather than asaṅkhata).
But this mean that even the cessation of suffering Nibanna itself is conditional!
Yes I think that's so: that cessation (i.e. transition from suffering to non-suffering) is conditional ... it's conditional on the removal of the fuel of suffering.
I think the understanding is that, after the condition for suffering have been removed, then the non-suffering (i.e. the non-arising of further suffering) is unconditioned.
For example if you look at an empty fireplace (empty of fuel), then I think you can say "that fire is never going to light again there ... because there is no fuel."
You could bring more fuel, I suppose (so you could say it's conditional on the not-bringing of more fuel), but apparently an Arhat has learned better than to want to do that (and I think might even be unable to do that: unable to see the non-desirable as desirable, for example)
As you say, though, maybe it's not an especially important assertion, and is metaphysical.
I think that there other places where "following the path" is given as a condition for arriving; but that, having arrived, those conditions no longer applicable; for example:

A raft, well-made,
  has been lashed together.
  Having crossed over,
  gone to the far shore,
  I've subdued the flood.
  No need for a raft
  is to be found:
      so if you want, rain-god,
      go ahead & rain.

A raft is also mentioned in MN 22:

Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.

Or the Bhikkhuni Sutta, which says that,

This body comes into being through [food, craving, and conceit]. And yet it is by relying on [food, craving, and conceit] that [food, craving, and conceit] are to be abandoned.

This sounds like an illogical tautology - circular reasoning supporting the unconditional Nibanna doctrine.
Logically, yes, that does seem to be begging the question.
I think it's worth asking, not whether it's a good logical proof for the existence of "the unconditioned", but whether it has an effective pedagogical result, e.g. whether it helps the students to understand emancipation from the conditioned.
That reminds me of another fallacy, i.e. Zeno's paradoxes of motion which "prove" that you can never arrive somewhere.
Something like that paradox is addressed in the Brahmana Sutta (in that sutta I think that  "park" means "monastery").

The problem with the focus on unconditionally is that it leads to the wrong focus and goal for the practice, that is you see practitioners looking for some magical unconditional state where causality and conditionality no longer applies, when the  practice should be utilizing causality and conditionality as much as possible to end suffering.

The path is conditioned:

Monks, among all things conditioned, the Noble Eightfold Path is reckoned to be the best of them all. Those who have faith in the
  Noble Eightfold Path have faith in the best; and for those who have
  faith in the best, the best result will be theirs. AN 4:34

The destination is unconditioned:

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all: the crushing of all infatuation,
  the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the cutting off of
  the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion,
  Nibbāna. Those who have faith in the Dhamma of dispassion have
  faith in the best; and for those who have faith in the best, the best
  result will be theirs. AN 4:34

There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you
  could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and
  conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade,
  unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become,
  made, and conditioned. Ud 8.3

For example, a fire burns conditioned by wood. The same fire is extinguished, by using water. Using water to extinguish the fire is conditoned. But what remains, namely, the absence of fire, is not conditioned by the water because it is not dependent upon the water. When the fire is extinguished, the subsequent evaporation or absence of the water is not the condition for the absence of fire. The fire had a cause (e.g. lightning striking a tree); the extinguishing of the fire had a cause (e.g. hosing with water) but the staying out of the fire is not conditioned by the water. It is the absence of fire that is Nibbana.
The path removes what is hidden. But the path does not create or cause what is hidden.
Similarly, cutting down a tree is dependent upon (conditioned by) an axe. But once tree is cut down, what remains is not dependent upon the axe. Thus what remains is 'unconditioned' since what remains has always been there but the tree covered what was always already there.

Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu is called one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose trench has been filled in, whose pillar has been uprooted, one
  who has no bolt, a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is
  lowered, who is unfettered.
And how is the bhikkhu one whose cross-bar has been lifted? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root, made it
  like a palm stump, done away with it, so that it is no longer subject
  to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one whose cross-bar has
  been lifted.
And how is the bhikkhu one whose trench has been filled in? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned the round of births that brings renewed being,
  has cut it off at the root…so that it is no longer subject to future
  arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one whose trench has been filled
  in.
And how is the bhikkhu one whose pillar has been uprooted? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root…so that it
  is no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one
  whose pillar has been uprooted.
And how is the bhikkhu one who has no bolt? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root…so that
  they are no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu
  is one who has no bolt.
And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
  conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root so that it is no longer
  subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one
  whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.
Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find
  anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone
  is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is
  untraceable here and now.
MN 22

In fact, it would appears that this doctrine is in contradiction with the doctrine of dependent origination. [...] I believe the reasoning is as follows ...

It seems you are conflating causes and conditions as if they were the same? For example, it's not true that a certain thing ceases when it's cause ceases -- not in Buddhism and not in the real world. Causality, strictly speaking, is a very subtle subject, and Buddhism approach it mostly through moral karma.
The subject in discussion, however, is not really causality, but conditionality. It's conditionality that dependent origination (D.O) deals with:

When this is, that is.
  From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
  When this isn't, that isn't.
  From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

Consider a person who lights a candle. What caused the fire to light up? This is a very difficult question. Was it the person? The lighter? His parents who gave him birth? Certainly not the candle wick.
But it's the candle wick (or generally, the fuel) in the Buddha's analogies, that stands for the condition for the fire to keep burning. In other words, that which, when present, keeps the flame going, and when absent, have the fire to cease -- that's the Buddha strategy for closing up on the problem of dukkha. Not the events that led the flame to become (e.g. the person lighting it up), nor the events that led the fire to cease (e.g. water thrown at it).
In D.O. terms, the sense of vision does not arise when there is not a healthy organ like an eye. Simply as that. But when eye is present, and eye-consciousness is present, and forms are present, contact is subject to arising. With the absence of any of the three, say, any present contact cease and there is no possibility for a new contact to arise.
Thus, provided that dukkha is dependent (not caused by) craving and D.O. holds, if one finds a way to cease craving without reminder, than dukkha won't ever find support again. The question then, is whether or not one believes it's possible to cease craving without reminder. But it should be clear that if the relations hold, there's no possibility for dukkha to rise again.
Whether Nirvana is "caused" by the practitioner practicing or not, and what this says about Nirvana is irrelevant -- the "unconditional" quality that buddhists refer to and assign to Nirvana has no relation to this "causality", after all.
To further illustrate, if we apply the same reasoning of "causes as conditions" you gave to show that Nirvana is conditioned, we can reach even more absurd conclusions. For example, are our parents the cause we were born? Then, according to D.O., should we fall on the ground and die as soon as our parents die? Or is our birth caused by their intercourse? So, should we have ceased to be as soon as they stopped that intercourse as per D.O.? If what caused me to know arithmetic is studying, should I forget everything about it once I take a break? And so on...

“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

The circularity is just in appearance due to language habits. For instance, if we understand the Buddha was providing a justification for something, say, for the question "how can we know there's an escape?". In this case,  then we are trapped by the options he gave and we might end up making the circular reasoning with what has been offered. However, he is just stating some simple propositions and relations:

There's X.
With X being, we can do Y.
If there wasn't X, we could not do Y.

...which, by the way, has the same format of D.O.

Thanks for the input. I don't personally think it is wrong in my statements to group causes and conditions together. Now I am certainly not saying they are identical, but in fact conditions are merely secondary causes which result in different outcomes when interacting with the primary causes. As you know the world is a complex system of interaction between all kinds of causes with all kinds of conditions. The ever changing causes and conditions are what causes impermanence of phenomena.

Buddhists should be making good causes as much as possible while avoiding negative causes - Right Effort. Looking for a magical unconditional state seems to go against the very grain of Ethics, Concentration and Wisdom that the Buddha is teaching.

Nirvana is (in Chinese) 常樂我凈, the English term "Unconditional" trying to convey this 常 meaning is insufficient and prone to lead to wrong understanding thus wrong view. There are too many incorrect terms with the similar problems, spreading via the English media, it would be horrible to see into the future how this trend has led to the decline finally destruction of Buddha's authentic teachings. The decline may be symptomized a short-lived sudden glistening for it caught the world's attention by conversing in English. The Pali Canon I tried hard to read some but it's so repetitive so painful to read. Those I read from the online sources and sometimes I read from this forum the quotes are so plank I can't extract any "juice" from the words, maybe they are in fact so sophisticated that's beyond my understanding, maybe, maybe, I don't know.

I believe Nirvana is 涅槃 in Chinese?

@Kyoma Yes. The attributes for Nirvana is 常樂我净。I edited to make it more explicit, thanks.

All conditioned things have an arising, ceasing, and turning otherwise characteristics.
Nibbana does not have these marks.
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/The-Law-of-Dependent-Arising_LE_Rev_1.0.pdf
At page 348 this is said with copious quotes from Pali.

So I realized I have been far too harsh in judging Theravada Buddhism in the doctrine of unconditionality. I was asking my Mahayana teacher whether unconditionality is one of those deluded "confused imagination" described in the Heart Sutra. She replied: to not reach the unconditionality is to have "confused imagination". I was stunned by the answer and decide to do some reflecting. What could be unconditional?
Then I made a realization, the Dharma, that is the Law, the Truth of Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Impermanence, Emptiness are unconditional. Truth itself is unchanging. Change itself is unchanging. Impermanence is permanent. Certainly how we perceive and experience truth is changing and conditional, but it remain the Truth no matter whether anyone realize it or not.
With this in mind, we can surmised that Nirvana is unconditional as the Truth of Cessation of Suffering. If we have made the complete realization of Nirvana, we would be able to end any suffering that may arise. This would correspond well in line of the cultivation of wisdom factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. The subjective experience of this truth is conditional, but the Truth itself was always present.

But see also this answer ("Other schools have disagreed on what is unconditioned"). I don't know the theoretical arguments (about whether dharmas are unconditioned), maybe it's supposed to be a practical statement: if you look at the second-last big paragraph of MN 36 for example, it says "Just as a palmyra cut off at the crown is incapable of further growth etc."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why can't I be happy in the pursuit of Nirvana?
If you are happy, you will have to face sorrow right? So I am being told to just observe everything with equanimity or Anapana. TBH which is very boring So I observed that instead of thinking of everything leads to sorrow in this world, why not enjoy this moment. (Is is necessary to keep observing when you are happy.)
After all we want Nirvana because we are looking for a being in a state of something eternal, Which is equanimity.
According to me Equanimity is not happiness for sure.
In this Video Philosopher and writer Jim Holt says  we can't live like dead humans as per Buddhism and think like a western.
I have experienced intoxication occasionally and I was in to Anapana for nearly a week and I have kept myself safe from any kind of intoxication for a year, everything was going smooth breathing while walking, lying, sitting, talking not always but I was satisfied with my pace of being aware.
But this weekend I had nothing to do and suddenly a teeny tiny thought arises which says to get drunk and at the same time one of my friend said the same thing and we get drunk.
I was still trying to figure out what is happening in mind, Why I am feeling different now.
I know I should not be drinking is there anyway I can punish myself. I was actually scared of getting attacked by mind when alone. It attacked.
Should i keep in doing Anapana as i believes that it cuts your Karmic chain for the moment.

I think this is a good question since i notice many think the pursuit of Nirvana is boring and tasteless. I'll try to answer the question with citations below. I'll edit it as and when i can with further info.

If you are happy, you will have to face sorrow right? So I am being told to just observe everything with equanimity or Anapana. TBH which is very boring So I observed that instead of thinking of everything leads to sorrow in this world, why not enjoy this moment. (Is is necessary to keep observing when you are happy.)

To answer this section:
You are temporarily right to try to be happy this moment. A wise person would think "How can I maintain this happiness forever without changing?". A sensible person, upon contemplating the matter for some time, realizes there is nothing created that he or she can retain forever. He or she furthermore realizes such possessions can't be guaranteed to be with oneself beyond death. Thus, a wise person decides the boring path provides freedom from such a mass, sorrow and disappointment.

After all we want Nirvana because we are looking for a being in a
state of something eternal, Which is equanimity
According to me Equanimity is not happiness for sure.

To answer this section:
Eternity is a word used to describe something that was created and lasts for ever. Nirvana isn't such a thing that is created. Nirvana has not been described as equanimity in the Tipitaka to my knowledge.

I have experienced intoxication occasionally and I was in to Anapana
for nearly a week and I have kept myself safe from any kind of
intoxication for a year, everything was going smooth breathing while
walking, lying, sitting, talking not always but I was satisfied with
my pace of being aware.
But this weekend I had nothing to do and suddenly a teeny tiny thought
arises which says to get drunk and at the same time one of my friend
said the same thing and we get drunk.
I was still trying to figure out what is happening in mind, Why I am
feeling different now.

To answer this section:
Where is that thought now? Did it come to your mind out of your own will? Can you control it? If you can't control it, is it suitable to think the thought is me, mine, or my soul?

I know I should not be drinking is there anyway I can punish myself. I
was actually scared of getting attacked by mind when alone. It
attacked.

To answer this section:
I suggest your reward yourself by contemplating the benefits of avoiding drinking rather than punishing yourself. I'm sure there's plenty online resources to explain these benefits apart from a Buddhist context.

Should i keep in doing Anapana as i believes that it cuts your Karmic
chain for the moment.

To answer this section:
False. If a person can cut the karmic chain for a moment as such and dies, he'll attain Nirvana. There is no moment a lay person is void of Karmic chain (sankhara). This is what binds us to bhava (world, so to speak).
I suggest your practice Satipattana Meditating which includes Anapana Sathi and extends a more insightful consciousness to day to day activity.
Buddha has asked us (citation needed) to travel in the Noble Eightfold Path even if it means crying along the way. Why Buddha says so is because he knows, and intelligent people understand that if someone missed the opportunity to understand the Four Noble Truths, the resultant suffering can be extremely large.
Buddha has said

Nibbanam Paraman Sukhan

Which translates to

Ultimate Luxury is Nibbana

Many guru says don't try to control it , it can attack any time, same happened to me. so they say to observe it. I want to know your thoughts on this, And yes Thank you so much for the beautiful answer

You're right. I'll share Kajjaneeya Sutta with you later. It says you're being eaten up by Pancha Upadanakkada all the time..

One More request is kindly add a little more info about satipatthana thanks

Sure, give me a few days please..

@Rishi I have added satipatthana as a separate answer. Hope this helps you. May your realizes the Four Noble Truths.

I answer, since you tagged Tibetan Buddhism. However, personal practice is a serious matter and I believe you should ask a qualified teacher.

After all we want Nirvana because we are looking for a being in a state of something eternal, Which is equanimity.

No, in Mahayana, we want to achieve enlightenment in order to be able to  benefit all sentient beings uninterruptedly, without  limitations of ours (death being one of them).
Instead of focusing on equanimity, rather train in being patient, content, and have few desires. First, there is less risks of being confused about what patience, contentment and few desires are. Second, it is more at reach for a beginner. Third, aversion to pain causes much unhappiness while patience opposes this. We suffer a great deal just because we have the notion that we would be better off without this or that, or having this or that. Discontent and desires also create much unhappiness.
Tibetan do not usually emphasize Anapana. The concentration factor is in general just a means for the mind to become stable and flexible, and then abide in virtue. Right now, it's difficult to study for a long period of time, or to meditate for a long period of time. Body and mind get sore and exhausted, there is pain and boredom. We cultivate the three factors of concentration, mindfulness and introspection by doing Anapana (or usually focusing on the mental image of the body of the buddha) simply to become able to abide in virtue for as long as we want. It is like opening your eyes to then get to see this and that. Unfortunately, there are people who engage in Anapana meditation and the like just to feel better, temporarily sheltered from their issues, away from their usual obsessive and discursive thoughts, etc. These are not wholesome motivations. Great teachers usually say: if you want to relax, take a nap. It's way easier than meditating.
Meditation should not replace the bottle. It should not be a means to bury your head in the sand or an anesthetic that makes your life more bearable.
There is no better way to damage the karma you have accumulated than:

Purifying by way of the four opponent powers
Restraining from non-virtue by upholding discipline (turning away from the 10 non-vritues, taking refuge and lay vows, etc.)
Abiding by wholesome habits such as not oversleeping, taking refuge six times a day, setting motivation before engaging in activities, dedicating after, offering food before you eat, offering drink (even water) before you drink
completing activities
Studying the teachings of the Buddha, because this will help you see things the way they are
Cultivating altruistic intention, opposing self-cherishing. This makes the mind vaster, open, and inclined in virtue.

what exactly you mean by offering food, water and refuge six times a day? Also I want to know more about Tibetan Buddhism, i would request you to give me a link where i can understand the differences in teachings etc.

@Rishi I just created a chat room, it'll be easier :)

May i know the link of the chat room sir?

Sure, you find it by clicking on StackExchange (top-left of the page) / Chat. The link is http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/56854/room-rishi-dorje-about-tibetan-buddhism

It's a good thing to notice joyful and happy states and also to notice when states change. We know that everything is impermanent yet when we are in the throes of misery and suffering it can feel as though we will never be happy again.
But the more we practice being aware of positive states and the changing of states the more we will train our minds to realise when we are down that negative states do change and that we can choose more skillful ways of thinking to create more positive states.
Everything does not lead to sorrow. I don't think this is the correct way to see it. Sorrow is just part of this life as happiness and joy are. We meet both with equanimity knowing that neither last. Don't cling or avoid either but practice noticing that they change. It's the clinging and aversion that lead to suffering.
As far as your comment about wanting a "punishment" for alcohol use. I'm not sure why you are asking for such a thing. Buddhism does not subscribe to the idea of punishments for anything.
I see absolutely no problem with enjoying 1 or 2 glasses of wine every now and then but if you drink too much and you feel bad after then learn from that. Is it worth the few hours of fun for the self flagellation, nausea, headaches and general physical fatigue you experience after?
If you drink too much again can you maybe try to notice how much you fall into a self loathing mindset after? Notice the feelings of guilt, shame etc and try to be compassionate and gentle with yourself. You are human, you can and will make mistakes. It's how we learn.  Having fun and connecting with people is healthy. Alcohol is a big part of that within our culture but you have the choice to control what and how much you ingest. If you feel like you have lost control and the peer pressure is too great I would suggest seeking some support eg counselling etc.
If your friends show no sign of ever changing their heavy drinking habits then maybe it's time to make new friends.  I had to do this and as hard as it was it was better than staying stuck with people who were slowly destroying their lives.

Sathi means consciousness.  Pattänaya means wedge (something that we keep to prevent an object rolling down an inclined plane). Sathi Pattänaya can be used to wedge the consciousness in order to understand the Four Noble Truths (wedge here, is mentioned as an example).
Sathi Pattänaya is Four Fold - Käyänupassanä, Cittänupassanä, Védanänupassanä, Dhammänupassanä.
Käyänupassanä is the observation of body of oneself and others with Sammä Ditti explained in the Noble Eightfold Path.
Cittänupassanä is the observation of mind of oneself and others with Sammä Ditti explained in the Noble Eightfold Path.
Védanänupassanä is the observation of experiences of oneself and others with Sammä Ditti explained in the Noble Eightfold Path.
Dhammänupassanä is the observation of phenomina of oneself and others with Sammä Ditti explained in the Noble Eightfold Path.
While these can be practiced separately, a skillful apprentice will practice all four of these observations from the time he or she wakes to the time he or she sleeps. It is also important to note that anäpänä sathi meditation is practiced under Käyänupassanä with a clear understanding of Samma Ditti.
It is important to note that throughout this meditation Buddha repeats that one should affirm these observants are not me, not mine, not my soul.
Added as a separate answer due to a requisition by the initial poster of the question. This can be moved into a separate question "What is sathipattäna meditation?"

okay so observing the physical body, mind, experience and phenomena seems very complex. I mean kindly tell me for example i walk, So i must observe how physical body is moving, where is mind, experience ?? phenomena ?? i don't get it , kindly explain a bit more. Thanks

@Rishi it is important to note the mention of "Sammä Ditti" in my answer. Are you aware of what exactly is Sammä Ditti, Miccä Ditti and the two variants of Samma Ditti - Laukika and Lokotthara. This meditation is not difficult if done with Samma Ditti. Most people get confused and complicate matters by associating Miccä Ditti with the mediation process.

When walking, in Käyänupassanä, you have to observe that your body motions are all belonging to pancha upädänakkhanda, hence acknowledge "this is not me, not mine, not my soul". It is important to constantly observe this as most of the time in our actions like walking we assume "this is me, this body is mine, this body is my soul". This helps your rectify (Sammä) your view (Ditthi)

Anapanasati is a Kayanupassana. You can find more details from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta.

Should i keep in doing Anapana as i believes that it cuts your Karmic
  chain for the moment.

When you are practicing Anapana, aware of what is happening, what happens is that your citta (mind) occurs close to state of pure mind. So what happens is you are dissipating your ability to produce Kamma (Karma) and purifying the mind. This is true for all forms of Sathipattana or Mindfulness. (Anapanasati is a Kayanupassana. You can find more details from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta.)
One day, if you can preserve very good Moral conduct, including abstinence from alchohol, and you develop sufficient Samadhi (concentration), then you can cut the Karmic chain, experience Nibbana and become a Sotapanna. This is the true turning point in the practice.
Although absolute Nibbana (Nirvana) is only achieved after death after experiencing enlightenment, there are experiences of cutting the karmic chain which can be achieved while you are alive. These are called fruitions. There are four fruitions (sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami, arhat) as well as "Pala Samapatti".

Nirvana after death? Are you talking from your experience?

No. But what it means is, even for someone who is fully enlightened, the current life has to be spent and life force ends until the Samsaric existence comes to an end.

Some Buddhist schools speak of enlightenment in this lifetime...

You do not have to be a pauper to be a monk. A monk is one who is detached from his possessions. Your possessions exists only in your mind. Similar thing is with happiness. Happiness is a state of heart a positive state of heart. The trouble with happiness is that it does not last long. The moment its gone you will start yearning for it and unhappiness will set it. It is a yo-yo affair. Happiness is a good start. People who are serious seldom reach anywhere. Happiness will drop on its own when you progress further. You should not be bothered about something which is of not much value. Just be happy do not try to be happy and everything will be fine.

Do not be bothered about anything - drinking, sex etc. They will drop on their own as you progress. More you think about them stronger they will get. Get out of your guilt and remain steady. It takes around few years to get the knack. Experiment with your diet. See what makes you restful and easy going. The diet plays a very important part. Best of luck.

But drinking is not something not to bother about. Because if drinking is not stopped during this life time, the next life is in the hell. Drinking is something to stop forcefully and even if it is painful to stop.

who said there is next life? Buddha said do not believe in anyone. Verify it on your own. You are creating beliefs like drinking is bad. Drinking once or twice in a social get together is not bad but constant hankering of it is bad. One day everything will drop - society, drinking, hankering for food and sex. Till that you can just watch yourself. See clearly where lies the problem.

"Nirvana is beyond concepts"
Happiness is a relative state opposed by sadness.
We only know happiness because we compare it with sadness. These are concepts.

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


text:
When was the word enlightenment introduced into Theravada Buddhism?
I feel the word enlightenment conveys the wrong meaning if used in context of nibbana. For example, Buddha says that nibbana is similar to a lighted lamp, having taken away the oil and the wick, will not light ("as though a lamp was extinguished" Rathana Sutta - Sutta Nipatha, Chulla Waggo, 2-1, 237). I'm interested in knowing how this word was associated with Theravada Buddhism if anyone knows early references of such usage.
Thanks in advance.

It seems to me you're asking why and when the English-language word "enlightenment" came to be used in English-language descriptions/translations of Buddhism.

It Tibetan, the same word (Jangchub) is used to qualify the Arhatship of a Sravaka, that of a Pratyekabuddha, and the enlightenment of a Buddha. We speak of "three types of enlightenment." This shows that it is not a case of English translation messing things up.

great question!

@ChrisW yes. Actually I'm curious why didn't people use a more adequate word.

Please quote exactly from the Rathana Sutta what you are referring to. Thanks

There are 2 terms in Chinese but there is only one in Eng "Enlightenment". The 2 terms: a)開悟 b)明心見性. It's hard to be Eng'd but try a): 開 open (a gate with two doors unlocked, graphically), 悟 my heart (left 'heart' when written at left, right is 'me'/ 'I' - formed by top '5', bottom 'mouth'/'opening for influx' = (isn't it the 5 Aggregations to formed the Atta? but the character was before Buddhism ever spread to China). 悟 cannot be Eng'd, clumsily explaint: understanding beyond intellectual, similar to intuition. In full: Opening the Gate to the Understanding beyond Intellect...

there are more terms related:覺, 遍知, 見道, 出三界... so it's unconcerned for automatically i will match the Eng terms to understand what those Eng. articles are trying to convey :)

From Enlightenment to Nirvana, there still a long way to go. Enlightenment is just opening the gate, the next is to trip further on, very graphical, again :))

One place where I know "enlightenment" is used is in this version (which was published in 1894):

A middle path, O bhikkhus avoiding the two extremes, has been discovered by the Tathagata-a path which opens the eyes, and bestows understanding, which leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana!

Wikipedia's Buddhism in the West suggests that's one of the early references (that there's nothing earlier than the 19th century).
It's word with a history of meaning in the West (see e.g. Age of Enlightenment).
Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the word "enlightenment" a lot, e.g. in his book In the Buddha's Words. He uses it to translate words like sambodhi:

sambodhi: [sam+bodhi] complete awakening, perfect knowledge, complete enlightenment. Designates the awakening of the Buddha and the arahants.

Some other translators choose variations on the word "awake" (e.g. "self-awakened") instead of enlightened; which (awakened) is apparently a more literal translation.
According to Wikipedia ("Enlightenment in Buddhism"),

The English term enlightenment is the western translation of the term bodhi, "awakening", which was popularised in the Western world through the 19th century translations of Max Müller. It has the western connotation of a sudden insight into a transcendental truth.
The term is also being used to translate several other Buddhist terms and concepts used to denote insight (prajna, kensho and satori);[1] knowledge (vidhya); the "blowing out" (Nirvana) of disturbing emotions and desires and the subsequent freedom or release (vimutti); and the attainment of Buddhahood, as exemplified by Gautama Buddha.

Very occasionally in Pali the Buddha is praised as ukkādhāraṃ translated "torch-bearer".

As you mention, it seems the Seven Factors of Enlightenment is a direct translation of Bodhi to Enlightenment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Enlightenment

There's more, about the history of the translation, here on Wikipedia.

That 'sambodhāya' is translated as 'enlightenment' or 'awakening' is irrelevant to the question because the question wrongly assumes 'Nibbana' is darkness & death. Regards.

@Dhammadhatu I think the "nirvana" metaphor is of a flame being blown out or extinguished; and so the question was, why "become enlightened", which is a metaphor with the opposite meaning.

There are two kinds of flames: the flames of defilements & the flame of life. Thus, there are two kinds of Nibbana. Regards

There are two kinds of Nibbana, namely: (i) Nibbana that can be experienced & (ii) Nibbana that is the ending of sense experience which can only be inferred. To quote:

Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element with no
  residue left.
What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge (enlightenment). However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbāna-element with residue left.
Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant … completely released through final
  knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced,
  not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is
  called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.
Iti 44

The inferred Nibbana cannot occur without experiencing the known enlightened Nibbana.
The Nibbana that can be known occurs after/with enlightenment.
The Nibbana that occurs when a lighted lamp, having taken away the oil and the wick, will not light again, is only inferred & not the primary goal of Buddhism because it cannot occur without the Nibbana of enlightenment.

Just as an oil lamp burns in dependence on oil & wick; and from the termination of the oil & wick — and from not being provided any other
  sustenance — it goes out unnourished; even so, when sensing a feeling
  limited to the body, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited
  to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns
  that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.' One discerns that 'With
  the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is
  sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.'
MN 140

In summary, the question is inferring there is a destination (i.e. Nibbana) without a path (i.e. enlightenment). The question ignores the special teaching of the Buddha, namely, the Four Noble Truths:

Ete kho, bhikkhave, ubho ante anupagamma majjhimā paṭipadā tathāgatena abhisambuddhā cakkhukaraṇī ñāṇakaraṇī upasamāya abhiññāya
  sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati.
A middle path, O bhikkhus avoiding the two extremes, has been discovered by the Tathagata-a path which opens the eyes, and bestows
  understanding, which leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to
  full enlightenment, to Nirvana!
SN 56.11

That 'sambodhāya' is translated as 'enlightenment' or 'awakening' is irrelevant to the question because the question wrongly assumes 'Nibbana' is darkness, death & annihilation.


text:
Need help understanding this about the jhanas
I am reading
 "A Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas"
And it's talking about the way to reach the first jhana. This passage below.

Block quote
  The Pa:isambhidāmagga explains them as follows:
  For one developing the first jhāna, the hindrances are abandoned by way of
  suppression. For one developing concentration partaking of penetration,
  wrong views are abandoned by way of substitution of opposites. For one
  developing the supramundane path that leads to their destruction,
  (defilements) are abandoned by way of cutting off. At the moment of fruition
  they are abandoned by way of tranquillization. And abandoning by deliverance
  is nibbāna, cessation.2
   (Wr. tr.).
  `

The question is, isn't the first jhanas all about concentration? So why did it say if you want to reach the first jhana you must partake in abandonment by suppression, and to reach concentration you must abandoned by way of substitution of opposites. Isn't it all dedicated to concentration?

I think this passage is addressing something that's more explicitly stated elsewhere.  In the Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36), for example, we find:

secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, [he] enters &
  remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion,
  accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.

The operative word here, of course, is "secluded".  Vitaka and vicara (i.e. concentration) only come into the equation once rapture and pleasure are born of that seclusion.  Piti and sukkha help to calm, gladden, and focus the mind allowing concentration to strengthen in to full jhana.
So of course, this begs the question of how one finds that seclusion.  There are some who are lucky and can just shut the door on their negative and unwholesome states.  Other have to win their seclusion through other methods like suppression and substitution of opposites.  I think the latter group is who your quoted passage is addressing.

why did it say if you want to reach the first jhana you must partake
  in abandonment by suppression?

Because for the First Jhana to arise the Five hindrances must be abandoned.
You abandon it by focusing on one object.
By doing so you blot out the hindrances.
The more you focus on one object the more  the hindrances gets blotted out and suppressed.

(So why did it say) to reach concentration you must abandoned by way of substitution of
  opposites.

For example if a smoker wants to abandon smoking he substitues it with nicotin patches.
If you want to abandon the hindrances you substitute it with the Opposites.(Jhana Factors).
So how do you substitute it with the Jhana factors.You don't have to go looking for the Jhana factors.Just by doing one simple action of focusing on one object. The mind gathers/collects itself.And the Jhana factors (The opposites) arise naturally.On its own.
Each Jhana factor is the opposite of each hindrance.
There are five hindrances and they each have an opposite (Jhana Factor).
1.Sensual pleasures X One pointedness.
2.Ill Will X Rapture.
3.Restlesness X Happiness
4.Sloth and torpor X Vitakka.
5.Doubt X Vicara.

The question is, isn't the first jhanas all about concentration? Isn't
  it all dedicated to concentration?

Yes Jhana is about developing concentration.But you have to ask yourself What is Concentration? Concentration has many levels,but generally it's the state of mind that isn't obstructed by the hindrances.By practicing the Jhanas you are systematically letting go/abandoning the hindrances by means of suppression and subtituting it with the opposites.We need concentration to see clearly.When you see thing clearly you realise the truth and attain liberation.

isn't the first jhanas all about concentration?

It is about vitakka and vicāra. This also concentrates the mind by cutting out distractions as you continuously return to your anchor object. To put it in another way it is developing vitakka & vicāra which also results in concentration.

abandonment by suppression

This is a kind of suppression. You periodically bring you mind to the object of concentration thereby not letting other thoughts that arise.
The above description looks more like abandoning Nivarana. [Nīvarana,pahana Vagga] To get into Jhana you have to abandon the hindrances but abandoning hindrances alone will not get you into Jhana. To get into the 1st Jhana what you need is vitakka & vicāra while abandoning the Hindrances also. Also Jhana is a means to abandon the hindrances. Being without hindrances in the absence of vitakka & vicāra, I think, does not always result in Jhana as this is one of the factors in the 1st Jhana. For more on this see The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera.
Put it in another way concentration and abandonment are side benefits of developing the Jhana through vitakka & vicāra.

I think @xxxx got it right. Remember the sequence from Vitakkasanthana Sutta:

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.

...

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.'

...

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts.

...

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts.

...

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside.

...

"Now when a monk... [using one of these methods] steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering and stress."

This is part of the large scheme with abandoning negative mind states and developing positive ones:

"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for:

non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
... abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
... arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
... maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen."

And the way the positive qualities are generated in the first Jhana is with intentional vitakka and vicāra, or deliberate thinking/generation/enjoyment, about how well you mastered the non-arising and abandonment of "evil, unskillful qualities":

Suppose a skilled bath attendant or his apprentice were to pour soap flakes into a metal basin, sprinkle them with water and knead them into a ball, so that the ball of soap flakes would be pervaded by moisture, encompassed by moisture, suffused by moisture inside and out and yet would not trickle. In the same way, one drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses one’s body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of one’s body that is not suffused by rapture and happiness.

Makes sense? It's nothing magical. First you learn to abandon negative mind states, either through suppression or through distraction, and eventually through direct control of the emotional center that colors the process of free association -- and then you learn to generate positive mind states, first through deliberate thinking, and then directly. That's Jhanas in a nutshell.


text:
Mala in Zen Practice
What is the common use (if any) for mala beads in Zen practice. Also, is there any special etiquette involved, or other considerations?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

They are essentially counting aid for concentration, you basically count them as you chant say "Amitabha", the Heart Sutra or any mantra, for example 108 times. For the technologically minded, it can be even substitute with an electronic counter.

I haven't seen beads used in any Zen sangha.


text:
Which is the best posture to Practice meditation?
Does any one know, which is the best posture to be assumed for practicing meditation?

Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu following the practice of my Teaching, having gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree or to an empty, solitary place, sits down cross-legged, keeping his body erect, and sets up mindfulness, orienting it.
Then with entire mindfulness, he breathes in and with entire mindfulness he breathes out.
Maha-satipatthana Sutta

The above is the standard posture for meditation (i.e.: sit down cross-legged). Even though I can't remain in this posture for a long time due to back pain, I personally believe this is the best posture for meditation. Having said that there are many other postures suitable, depend on your situation (walking, sitting, etc.).

There isn't a 'best posture' for meditation (although I have a yoga book which attributes all sorts of special mystical powers to the full lotus).
The best posture is the one that's best for you, that gives you a stable base (knees and buttocks) and lets you maintain your spine in a good upright position. For some that will be full lotus, others half or quarter, others burmese (all on a cushion), and for others it will be seiza on a cushion or bench.
You definitely shouldn't be deciding how to sit based on answers from people on the internet, you should go to a temple or monastery where experienced meditators with a variety of cushions and benches can observe you and help you find the posture that's best for you.

Purists would say in full-lotus
Most reasonable would say that, half-lotus or cross legged
Sitting on a chair or bed is fine in all honesty.
Not falling asleep but being comfortable are the 2 major concerns.

The best posture? Simple:
The posture that is most comfortable and affords the least distractions to your mind (aches, pains, etc).


text:
Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine?
I had read occasionally on internet that Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine. So Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine ?

FYI, unlike the policy on other SE sites, posting questions so that you can self-answer them is discouraged on this site: May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?

Downvoted , please follow @ChrisW suggestion

There's a book by K. Jamanadas "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine", whose preface starts with,

[This book] has potential credibility to create
  controversies unknown to historical writing and the Hindu common folks who flock to worship Tirupati Balaji
  as one of the supreme deities. It is also a new challenge to indologist at a time when politically imbued
  scholars are engaged to wash out their hands by proving and disproving claims of Hindus and the Muslims
  against each other as they did over the issue of Ayodhya Shrines.

Its conclusion is that

The image of Lord Venkatesvara was not sculptured by the artist as an image of Vishnu, but that of
  Avalokitesvara, sometimes in the reign of Kalabhras, after the period of Mamulanur, and before the period of
  Silappadhikaran, around 3rd to 5th century A.D.

This is a copy-and-paste of http://creative.sulekha.com/dr-k-jamanadas-proves-tirupati-temple-as-a-buddhist-shrine_295854_blog or some other similar source. Please read my comment on Ajay's answer, and edit your answer to reference+quote+summarize like I edited Ajay's answer.

The article "Is Tirupati Balaji Temple a Buddist Temple" concludes that it wasn't:

Conclusion
The Conclusion is that the Tirupati is a Vishnu temple all along. Since the temple has been built around 9th century AD. It is after 9th century AD that the hill is said to be holy place. So any account which says that the hill is holy(sri or Thiru venkata) is after 9th century AD. This applies any work or devote singing on Tirupati. The dispute seems to be primarily between Shivite and Vaishnavite, because of the Shiva Temple at the base of Tirupati which predate the Tirupati temple. Indologist seems to have introduced some confusion here. There are no inscriptions about Tripati temple, before 9th century AD, because the temple did not exist then, not because it was a Buddhist Shrine.

Its arguments are:

The expression "Dig underneath every Hindu temple, there will be a Buddhist temple" is rhetoric, not always true (some new temples are built on new sites)
The historical record (including the puranas) isn't clear
Early (Buddhist) temples were rock-cut, whereas this is a standalone temple
The earliest inscription mentioning this place mentions a hill but not a temple. The earliest inscription in the temple is from 830 AD.

@Swapnil just scroll down the Wikipedia article and see what your religion says. Your question how it is possible when Ramayana is only mythological is an assumption that it is not true. But your previous Buddhas before siddharata Gautama were also from Ramayana characters. If Buddha is against brahmins then why there is a concept of Maitreya Buddha? So no conflict existed between Buddha and brahmin. It is a myth created during 20th century

@Swapnil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas You can clearly see all of the previous Buddhas are either Brahmins or Kshatriyas.
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku_dynasty#In_Buddhist_tradition

This answer is a copy-and-paste of the whole of https://controversialhistory.blogspot.fr/search/label/Silapthikaram (posted in 2011). Please read the answers to https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/160077/139866 and https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/160071/139866 -- the way to fix this is to 1) Delete this answer 2) Write an answer of your own, which a) Includes a link to the reference you want to quote b) Is a summary of the reference (or a summary of the reasoning in the reference), written in your own words c) Quotes one or more fragments from the linked reference (using block-quote formatting).

@ChrisW The author and me are friends. Anyhow, I will provide link


text:
How do you handle a begar who want to stay in your temple?
As a monk how would you handle a homeless person who wants to stay in your temple?
If you are not a monk just give the hypothetical answer based on your present knowledge assuming you are a monk.

I'm not sure that purely "hypothetical" answers are good. A general guideline for "expert" answers on Stack Exchange sites is to recommend that answers be based on references or on personal experience.

I posted the same question in Sutta Central:https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-to-handle-a-homeless-person-who-want-to-stay-in-your-temple/4904/11 and Dhamma Wheel:https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=29377&p=422392#p422392

You might find it relevant to ask another question, about laypeople, e.g. as mentioned here.

Buddha taught kindness and humanity so I'd help a person came to me who is homeless as a human as I following and believing Buddhism.  .

At my monastery, I would merely show the homeless person to a qualified person such as the abbot or the director. I am not entitled to decide such things.

I used to manage certain affairs of a monastery. I once gave a homeless penniless man food & lodging and he has been a monk now for over 20 years & is a well-known dhamma teacher.
The beggar must be able to live by the basic monastery rules for laypeople, which is not consuming drugs & alcohol; not disturbing other people; and doing his share of work.

As a monk, I will have empathy towards this homeless person and welcome him to the temple, in understanding and sharing my experiences and emotions with him. The Buddha and his disciples – who left home to practice so that they could share the Dhamma with us – sacrificed everything to walk the PATH. They came to this from all walks of life. Some were ordinary people like us. Others came from the families of kings, financiers, and landowners, from very refined backgrounds. There were ones like Sopaka, who were born to very poor families. Suneeta was from an untouchable caste like the harijans and Dalits. Suneetha, Sopaka and Patacara would have died in grief had not they come to the dispensation of the Supreme Buddha.
We monks are no different to this homeless person.  When we went forth into the homeless life, we made ourselves into rags and footmats. Our path of practice is frugal and sparing, beset with poverty. We do not concern ourselves much with external plenty or wealth. Instead, we are concerned with the wealth and fullness of the Dhamma in our hearts. We didn’t leave room in our hearts for any of the values that pride places on things. We abandoned all values of that sort so as to become rags without any vanity or conceit. But as for our inner quality, these rags wrapped gold in our hearts. Our hearts contain riches; the treasures of concentration, wisdom, all the way to the greatest treasure – release in the heart.
People who sympathise with each other, see that all human beings are of equal value. They find it easy to be forgiving and to live with one another in peace. They don’t despise one another for belonging to this or that class or for having only this or that much wealth. What we are, and who we are is simply a matter of each person’s kamma. If we can live with the thought that each living being has his or her own kamma, we can live together in peace.

What is the difference between the homeless person and the monk?

They both choose to be in the temple.
They both have nothing to call their own.

I guess the biggest difference is imposed by those that aren't either a beggar or a monk: "I see you as a monk, therefore you are allowed here. I see you as a dropout from society as therefore you aren't allowed here."
The monk may have more knowledge of the Dhamma, and may live his life according to it, but who's to say the homeless person doesn't? He may be a devout Buddhist, which is why he was drawn to stay in the temple. The label of "homeless person" comes associated with a whole host of negative connotations. A monk is a "homeless person". He chooses to gather (as Buddha suggested) with others of the right mind (Right Association). By coming to the temple, is not this other "homeless" person merely enacting Right Association?
Kudos to him/her, I say.


text:
Its been said that deep meditationl leads a meditator to another world, what is this another world actually?
I have heard that when a meditator does a long meditation, he is able to enter into different world, see and hear that world. What are those? Are they just illusion, imagination or different universe?

In Pali Buddhism, the word 'world' ('loka') refers to different mental states.
For example, MN 79 calls the meditative jhanas of pure bliss 'the world of only pleasant feelings' ('ekantasukhassa lokassa'). To quote:

Venerable sir, what is that course of actions to realise the world of only pleasant feelings?
Here, Udāyi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too, abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with equanimity. Udāyi, this is the course of actions, for realising the world of only pleasant feelings. `
MN 79

'Nibbana' is not a 'world'. The attainment of Nibbana is the 'cessation of the world', which is experienced within the living body & mind. To quote:

There is, bhikkhus, that [sense] base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space,
  no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base
  consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor
  another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say
  there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising.
  Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of
  suffering. Ud 8.1

Within this fathom-long body, with its perception & mind, that I declare that there is the world, the origination of the world, the
  cessation of the world and the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of the world. AN 4.45

Therefore, when a meditator does a long meditation & is able to enter into different world, those worlds are not just illusion, not imagination or not a different universe. Those worlds are mental states.
As for Nibbana, this is also not illusion, not imagination & not a different universe. However, it is also not another world and not a mental state, even though Nibbana is experienced by the mind.

What is called world in Buddhism is the six senses. When you meditate you experience finer senses which you can't experience via ear, nose etc. When you meditate you experience finer wholesome mental states.
The logic here is for example you can see only colours from your eye. Even if you become a Deva or Brahama with your eye you only see colours.

Is there a particular reference to this? Because I don't recall reading it anywhere. It seems to me like a kind of experience that would be perceived differently by each person, so not very worth talking about.

I am not aware of where the Buddha called the 'world' the 'six senses' or when the Buddha said the Devaloka & Brahmaloka are colours. Please post links that show the Buddha said what you claim the Buddha said. Thank you

What is all? Sabba Sutta:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

A meditator doing long meditation is able to enter into a different world. We call this the entering into a Manomaya Kaya or that of an Out-of-Body Experience. The Buddha compared the situation of a manomaya kaya separating from the physical body to a sword pulled out of its sheath, or a snake shedding its skin. Once the manomaya kaya comes out, the body is lifeless like a log. The life force or the vitality goes out the moment the manomaya kaya leaves the body.
When the manomaya kaya and the physical body separate, “seeing” takes place without the need of light. The person acquires the ability look at things far away. Ones “hearing” then does not need air as a medium for the sound to propagate (one could hear things far away). “kirana” or “rays” similar to electromagnetic radiation helps in this ‘hearing’. One also gets to  “travel” very fast; it is not physical travel. The Buddha or Arahants with iddhi powers travelled to the worlds of the devas (deva-loka) within a time taken to “stretch a bent arm”. The internal eye and internal ear associated with the manomaya kaya helps in the actual “seeing” and “hearing”.

Please provide links to the suttas that state what has been posted, Thanks

@Dhammadhatu, you want references to Suttas but you are not prepared to accept all inconsistencies and untruths. Your comment on my Vibhava-Abhava answer was false. It is quite clear that vibhava tanha is associated with ucceda ditthi, the view that one lives just this life and that is the end of it. So, one tries to "enjoy life to the fullest" until death. You think that you know a lot, but you are the loser for thinking that way. - Well.. no more comments & no hard feelings - with metta...

You seem to not comprehend that "ucceda ditthi" is the view a "self" will end at death. The view "life ends at death" is not ucceda ditthi. Returning to the answer to this question, please provide links to the suttas that state what has been posted, Thanks

Hello Dhammadhatu. Saptha Visuddhi is writing from his indepth knowledg and from his Sutta Study. If you can trust me he is writing from Sutta, for example, re "sheath":http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

Thks @SarathW. True Dhamma is only in Sinhala. To tell you - What you ask about ‘Atta’ was valid _ you got -3 for that & it was put on hold. Such words come under Adhi-vacana – meaning - the same word has different meanings depending on the sutta. Also, some explanations cannot be given taking only one sutta, as the info is there in bits and pieces in many suttas. I listen to only the Tipitaka in Sinhala. I did not reply to that question b’cos you treat all answers the same. I do not mind getting -3 for an answer if you see it as correct & if you can highlight that as the correct answer.

Saptha Visuddhi is not posting the meaning of Manomaya Kaya.

Details of Manomaya Kaya (Astral Body) I first read in Lobsang Rampa Books. In many suttas and commentaries too this is mentioned. I will add to answer this when time permits. May not be today.

Lobsang Rampa, born as Cyril Hoskin (1910–1981) is not Sinhala. You are contradicting yourself. Buddhism was degenerate & virtually extinct in Ceylon when the British arrived. The Burmese were required to reinstate the Singalese Sangha. True Dhamma is not only in Sinhala.

I knew that you will say this. It is over 40 years ago as a kid I read Rampa Stories. Now it is different. I mostly listen and do not read, and what I listen is in Sinhala. The Buddha has said that the Astral Body is no more one's true self than the body is in Potthapada Sutta. Also in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta and commentaries this is mentioned. In Tibetan Buddhism and Mahayana Sutras too it is mentioned Refer to Lankavatara Sutra. I do not have the time to look into the commentaries where I get the info.

@SapthaVisuddhi I suggest you read SN 51.22, which states the Lord Buddha goes to brahma worlds with a mind-made-body. It other words, SN 51.22 does not state once the manomaya kaya comes out, the body is lifeless like a log; that the life force or the vitality goes out the moment the manomaya kaya leaves the body.

@SapthaVisuddhi DN 11 states: "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body". DN 11 does not state: "once the manomaya kaya comes out, the body is lifeless like a log;".

Okay. It has been scientifically proven that the brain cannot distinguish between you imagining a situation and you actually being in a situation.
So when you meditate with the aim of being detached from your experiences you'd also detach yourself (your soul) from the ego perspective of being in the situation imagined or real.
So the world you'd be a part of then is the soul world.
Now the term out of body experience would say that you actually leave your body, which is not really the case. You just focus on other input that you can receive, mostly via the third eye and other sensations that directly touch your soul.
Since the soul is eternal, yet the body isn't you'd be able to experience everything that your soul has, is or will be experiencing.
If you follow that and say that the soul was there before the body that means the soul is on the inside and the body is on the "outside". So you'd actually be venturing inside by not being attached to your bodies experiences anymore.
However. As long as you(your body) is alive you will never completely detach, so there are always some signals coming through. You just focus on the other ones more.

This answer is not Buddhist. Please provide links that state what has been posted, Thanks


text:
Advice on leading sitting group
I've been practicing for about a half dozen years now, have been fortunate to go on several retreats and have a consistent practice. Where I'm currently living I really don't have access to a sitting group I don't have any delusions about being a teacher but several people who know I sit have expressed  interest in learning.
I was considering doing simple guided sits. Are there any cautions? Should I probably not pursue this without training?

It is good to start a sitting group. My suggestions are:

Make the group as informal & self-reliant as possible. 'Self-reliant' means making it clear that meditation is an activity of self-practise & self-endeavour; that the group provides individual members the support & opportunity to develop their own practise.
Make it clear/overt it is simply an informal sitting group rather than a    formal teaching facility.
Provide guided meditation only to newcomers or when introducing a new
practise.
Keep guided meditation short (e.g. 10 - 15 minutes) & main meditation long
(e.g. 30 minutes).
If there is no guided meditation, do a text reading at the start,
contributed & read by yourself or by a member of the group.
If possible, end with tea & formal group discussion on a topic,  chosen
by yourself or by another member of the group.
Be as 'democratic' as possible but without expanding into other
spiritual traditions that may cause confusion.


text:
Why does Guan Yin ride a dragon?

Someone had once asked here "Why is Kwan Yin riding a sea turtle?", but what I'm more curious about is why is she seen on a dragon? There are many images or the Bodhisattva riding a dragon, one I posted being but one example. But who/what is the dragon? Is there a story behind it? I've heard the dragon is a symbol of wisdom and purity, others have suggested the dragon represents a wrathful force subdued by Guan Yin underfoot, but really what's the case here? Is it merely symbolic or is the dragon a literal entity (sentient or otherwise)? Any information would be appreciated (not modern "New Age").

I don't know about the dragon, but the in some pictures she's depicted pouring water from a vessel (such as the one she holds upright here) onto the world, the water symbolising the peace of meditation soothing the suffering of the world.

Wikipedia says that she is "protector of fishermen, sailors, and generally people who are out at sea".
A Chinese dragon is esteemed (a symbol of the emperor), and "traditionally symbolize potent and auspicious powers, particularly control over water, rainfall, typhoons, and floods", also prosperity and good luck and so on, rulers of weather and water.
So I assume that riding a dragon like that symbolizes control over the sea (part of being "protector of fishermen and sailors").

I believe there are many metaphors and intrinsic meanings in this Avalokiteshvara Riding Dragon image. I would provide one of the many aspects, that the dragon is symbolic of Rage/Anger/Jealousy (嗔), riding the dragon is symbolizing conquered of Anger. Greed (貪), anger (嗔) and delusion (癡) are the Three Afflictions  of the mind. Avalokiteshvara is respected as the Great Compassionate Bodhisattva (大悲菩薩). Compassion (大悲) termed 同體大悲, means "all differences but are one". The Chinese Character of 悲 graphically depicted the meaning, the upper is 非, means "not", "difference", the left and right are the reflection as if looking into a mirror, means all appeared different but in fact are reflections of the other. The lower is 心, a heart. A great heart will uphold all differences together, that's the meaning of compassion 悲. Now, rage, anger and jealousy are the greatest enemy to compassion. The extreme of rage and anger is hatred then escalated to war, then killing... By subduing the Dragon of Rage - a Chinese phrase 嗔心如毒龍 - heart full of rage is like a poisonous dragon - great compassion is achieved. Dragon is also symbol for energy, rage is a kind of energy but in bad use, if one could conquer it, one is able to turn the energy to great use, i.e., the reflection of rage is compassion, like the opposite of love is hate. ;)
P.S. Please be careful of modern rendering of the Buddha and Bodhisattva images, some of them are illegitimate. There are strict proportions and rules to abide when rendering these images, recorded in, such as 《佛說造像量度經》. These modern artists in this time of the world using their own habits and imaginations to freely draw these sacred images are full of blemishes. One should avoid but to find the good one if possible.

I to have this question. What I would like to share is that through my experience of studying the symbolism of dragons you need to carefully find the origin of the the dragon depicted because depending on the person, culture and/or artist that created the image the symbolism changes. Because the dragon symbolizes different things in different cultures there is confusion of what the dragon symbolizes. If you want the original meaning find the beginning of who Kwan Yin is. Then which ever culture first put her on a dragon will give you what it means for her to be riding the dragon.
Some facts from my research

Original name: Avalokitasvara
The original form Avalokitasvara appears in Sanskrit fragments of the fifth century.
Refers to the Mahāyāna bodhisattva of the same name.
Because this bodhisattva is considered the personification of compassion and kindness, a mother goddess and patron of mothers and seamen, the representation in China was further interpreted in an all-female form around the 12th century. In the modern period, Guanyin is most often represented as a beautiful, white-robed woman, a depiction which derives from the earlier Pandaravasini form.
In Chinese art, Guanyin is often depicted standing atop a dragon.
For the most part, no theme would be accepted in traditional Chinese art that was not inspiring, noble (either elevating or admonitory), refreshing to the spirit, or at least charming.
All traditional Chinese art is symbolic, for everything that is painted reflects some aspect of a totality of which the artist is intuitively aware
In Chinese mythology there are nine classical types of dragons.
A turquoise dragons can symbolized the benevolent but potentially dangerous emperor
Of the nine dragons the horned dragon is the giver of rain. (I chose this because the dragon in the picture is a horned dragon.)

Still with this information the dragon could mean different things. So who is the artist and why did he paint this.

Generally speaking Mahayana Buddhism employs skillful means to cleverly convey the message of Buddhism, and metaphors and symbolism are frequently used. The Avalokiteshvara represents the embodiment of the Dharma, and devotion to him is the central focus in the Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra. In the Chapter he is described as having 33 transformations including that of Buddha, Pratyekabuddha etc. Whatever form as needed to teach sentient beings. The Dharma being present in all beings. This is also associated with 33 forms of Guanyin. I am uncertain of the origins of these forms but they are available in the following:
http://big5.xuefo.net/nr/article3/34985.html
The second form is the 龍頭觀音 the Dragon riding Guanyin described. This is also the form associated with the Pratyekabuddha transformation body. The Pratyekabuddha in Mahayana Buddhism is also associated with self realization.
So based on these facts we can probably guess at the meanings of the iconic picture. The Dragon is the Chinese translation of the serpentine Naga, which is a powerful often destructive beast that has the form that twists and turns symbolizing impermanence. So the image of Guanyin on the head of a Dragon represents transcending and utilization of the impermanence by the Dharma.

Thank you, this answer is helpful. And the link was good too, helping me find English blogs as well. Hope to find an English site with that legend of the sea dragon as translation of that link was a little scratchy. Open to more answers if anyone else reads this

The first two characters 龍頭 may provide some clue to the painting. According to wiktionary, the meaning of the two characters together is beginning, leader etc. Looked at separately, 龍 means dragon but is used figuratively for emperor/king and 頭 means head in its literal and figurative senses (like Hebrew ראש). "King of kings" perhaps? The remaining two characters of the four translate Avalokiteśvara. [source: Wiktionary]

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


text:
Did Buddha Return to Extreme Asceticism?
Subject sounds simple, but let me explain why I'm asking. So Gautama joined the ascetic lifestyle and lived it to the most extreme. Then it dawned on him that he would eventually die never finding out the cause/solution to suffering.
Accounts I've seen then vary: He then got up and went begging in a village, other accounts say a farm boy with cattle found him and offered him food, and then there's that story of Sujata with the rice milk which Siddhartha accepted. Going a little further on the last account, he divided the rice milk into 49 potions for the next 49 days, after which he got up and went to the Bodhi Tree where he attained enlightenment. Usually the different stories I read have one or a mix of these events.
Now here's where I'm confused. By this point, the Future Buddha had tried extreme mortification, realized that wasn't working, returned to eating to sustain his life, went under the Bodhi Tree, then makes the vow to not leave again until he finds the answer, EVEN til his body is dried and shriveled. How does the Middle Way operate in this part of the story? Isn't he just returning to that previous practice he renounced? What am I missing here?
I suppose my analysis of Buddha's life is probably disorganized, but there are certain events and the order in which I find them that I cannot reconcile and make sense in my mind. If anyone can better explain to me this, that would be most appreciated.
PS
I've asked this elsewhere, and am getting some help, I'm just expanding the search.

Related topic: Why the Buddha abandoned asceticism

By this point, the Future Buddha had tried extreme mortification, realized that wasn't working, returned to eating to sustain his life, went under the Bodhi Tree, then makes the vow to not leave again until he finds the answer, EVEN til his body is dried and shriveled.

The ascetic practices he did were the methods he thought would lead to some spiritual attainment. He thought that not eating and making his body weak could have some benefit.
Going to the Bodhi tree and not leaving is not a method. He didn't think that the act of not leaving the shades of a certain tree was a particularly interesting practice on its own merit.
The vow is interpreted not as asceticism, but as resolution or commitment. Whether he really meant that he would die under the tree we can't tell, but by the time he took food, it's clear that he was giving up the idea of trying to inflict pain in his body as a means to spiritual progress. Finally, it's clear that the practices he undertook under the tree were not ascetic in nature.

I see, so if I understand correctly, Buddha did not commit to sitting under the tree until he attained, but he did in fact leave occasionally when necessary?

@Pattidharma in the suttas, he says he selected that location understanding it was next to a village were he could get alms.

That makes sense to me, I'm in the process of concluding that I've been in times past listening to somewhat more fanciful accounts of the Buddha.

The story you're recounting comes from the Jataka tales.
I think some of these tales may be exaggerated or fanciful -- see Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories? -- or metaphorical (e.g. as Thiago wrote the "vow" implies resolve, not ascetism).
What may be a more reliable (and less supernatural) account is in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN 26), which for example I mention in this answer and based on which I concluded "no asceticism".
"No asceticism" is consistent with SN 56.11, when the Buddha taught the doctrine of the "middle way".

So Buddha did not starve himself again but did eat and took care of his body after realizing his previous practice wasn't working?

I think so: according to MN 26, he decided that Uruvela was a good place for exertion partly because it had "villages for alms-going" nearby.

And MN 36 describes his reaching enlightenment, "when I had taken solid food and regained strength".

No. The Buddha did not return to asceticism or ever recommend asceticism to his monks.
The phrase you are citing is found in many suttas & refers to the arousal of energy.

Āraddhavīriyo viharati: ‘kāmaṃ taco ca nhāru ca aṭṭhi ca avasissatu, sarīre upassussatu maṃsalohitaṃ; yaṃ taṃ purisathāmena purisavīriyena
purisaparakkamena pattabbaṃ, na taṃ apāpuṇitvā vīriyassa saṇṭhānaṃ
bhavissatī’ ti
Here, a bhikkhu.. has aroused energy thus: ‘Willingly, let only my skin, sinews and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up in
my body, but I will not relax my energy so long as I have not attained
what can be attained by manly strength, energy and exertion.’
AN 8.13;
SN 12.22;
SN 21.3

That "manly strength" is Vīrya.

So if I understand correctly, check me here, whenever I'm reading certain story versions of the Buddha, am watching a documentary or movie about the Buddha, and I find him making this vow, the vow is being imposed on him by the "creative license" of others?

The Buddha advocates a life of mild, in the middle, asceticism but that doesn't mean a practitioner can't practice in an extreme way when it is deemed appropriate to do so when the practitioner knows well the middle way foundation.
There are core teachings of the Buddha's that he repeated many times in many different ways. Look to those core teachings to discern for yourself what is the real teaching when the teachings are seeming ambiguous and possibly corrupted.

But what did he do? He started extreme, found it didn't work, began eating and being healthy, then after going to the Bodhi Tree, vowed to not leave until he attained his answer. To me this sounds inconsistent, so I'm trying to figure this out.

@Pattidharma There are core teachings of the Buddha's that he repeated many times in many different ways. Look to those core teachings to discern for yourself  what is the real teaching when the teachings are seeming ambiguous and possibly corrupted.

(sigh) I'm not in this post examining teachings so much rather I'm trying to plot out the course of events. I think you misunderstood the point of the question. Thank you however for your replies.

@Pattidharma    I am saying anyone who says they know, they can't really know the exact order of events at all but they can discern what is most likely to be the truth,  from understanding the core teachings. You want to know what someone else discerns or what you discern? I am just saying :)

@Pattidharma (sigh)  Come to McBuddha's were we make the answers your way!,(sigh) oh the pain of raw truth! (Sigh) nothing fake going on here!  Are you thanking me as a formality or are you actually being genuine?

wow, what's that about? you seem offended. I suppose the thanks was a formality, for you choosing to take on my question, even if you weren't approaching it from the right angle. (also I think you over used "sigh")

There was a conflict with (Buddha's brother in Law(?) or cousin) Devadatta (see the Devadatta-suttas). Devadatta tried to become chief of the sangha instead of the aged Buddha; and to collect adherents/followers he claimed 5 (?) stronger ascetic rules. Because there was this conflict at all, thus the Buddha must have had milder ascetic rules and according to the transmission in the suttas, he had refuted that radicaler asceticism rules (but allowed them as individual training).  So I would put the answer to your question

Did Buddha Return to Extreme Asceticism?

saying no .
Which does not mean that he wouldn't have left the leading disciple Mahakassapa in peace when this old man went aside into the forests to stay alone and feasting as he wished (see the nice Gosinga-forest sutta). He allowed a spectrum of behaves - as long as that specific behave leaded to emancipation, liberation and ceasing of dukkha.

These different descriptions, depended on what level you are able to understand, are all correct, or valid. The abstaining from food to starve like only a pair of skeleton - the practice of White Skeleton visualization, they have intrinsic meanings. The consumption of rice-milk - the Great Ch'an Patriarch Huineng said it's in fact the Milk of Vairocana. The full practice of White Skeleton kept in one of the Chinese Sutras translated by Kumarjiva has similar analogy. Vowed to sit under the Bodhi tree until enlightened else never rose from the seat, indicates but his determination, not a self-torture. I don't see there is anything what you termed Extreme Asceticism before or after.
Now in the Tibetan tradition, there is part of similar progress of Milarepa's practice. He dwelt in the mountain years (7 years?) without clothes and foods, eating only nettle leaves. On the verge of dying he opened his teacher's sealed bag, in it held the last words of his deceased teacher only can be read at emergency, it said "good food is the key (to pass the final stage)".
Abstain from food is not (aimed to do) a self-torture or to weaken the body, what's the use these to enlightenment by inflicting pain on oneself and with a weak body + bad health?? It's a practice, it's part of the whole enlightenment process. I don't think it's simple to explain here with so many terms and concepts not available in general understanding.
I've never read anywhere about 49 potions for the next 49 days or He then got up and went begging in a village, are you sure this is correct and authentic? There are too many incorrect stories floating in the internet, I suggest you read the original Sutras if possible, not too rely on those articles written by some who-know-whom.

For the begging I was talking about, I didn't have the source at the time, but ChrisW knew I was refering to according to MN 26 when Buddha decided to go to Uruvela near alms giving villages.

As for the 49 deal, I can't exactly recall where I got that. I know there's a tale of Sujata and the rice milk, probably more legend/fable, Buddha did meditate for 49 days after, so maybe redactions to the accounts were made, but again I CANNOT SAY. You'd know better I feel.

49 deals/days, the potion is not important, the number 49 is important. A significant cycle of this world is 7, and it's multiple. (Smaller cycle is 3). What caught your attention is what you need to know at this moment however, to learn knowledge advancing one's practice, it's more useful to look for the deeper meanings, instead of stuck at if Buddha was doing it according/against his own principles ;)