text:
Do you become unhappy when happiness disappears?
Do you become unhappy when happiness disappears? Or is there some other state of mind between happiness and unhappiness?

When you are hungry and you take a first bite of your favorite meal, the happiness in the aspect of a pleasant feeling that you experience is not actual happiness, it is not in the nature of happiness: it is contaminated happiness. That pleasant feeling you experience is merely a relief. You experience the first bite as [contaminated] happiness only because it relieves you from a greater suffering (i.e. hunger), not because it is in the nature of happiness. It is actually in the nature of suffering; it is suffering of change (a quiet subtle form of suffering).
As Tsongkhapa puts it in the Middle-Length Lam Rim:

At present most of the happy feelings that increase our attachment are
  minds of happiness that arise with respect to a relief of suffering.

If you eat when you are not hungry, there is no such relief, no such pleasant feeling, no such experience of "happiness in the aspect of a pleasant feeling", and it is experienced as suffering  of suffering (a quiet gross form of suffering). You are not mislead to conceive of the object as being in the nature of happiness.

There are three types of equanimity. The first of the three is 'equanimity feeling', which his neutral feelings.  Furthermore, when pleasant feeling arise, you wish to associate further with it. When suffering arises, you wish to be separated from it. Tsongkhapa writes further:

That which is neither pleasant nor suffering is that which, when it
  arises, neither of the two wishes occurs.

You can think of it this way: you enter a crowded room, you look at people and you immediately have “I like this one... I like that one... I don't like this one... and so forth” in dependence upon pleasant and unpleasant feelings. There also will be plenty of people you will not have really noticed, you are indifferent to, your attention wasn't drawn towards, because of neutral feelings.
Another more abstract examples of arising of neutral feeling (which is other than neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feeling arising in the 4th concentration of the form realm) is: the conception of the body as permanent , that produces neutral feeling and increases ignorance. Tsongkhapa also adds in the Lam Rim Chen Mo that:

In the case of [these] neutral feelings, ignorance ceases when you see
  that they are impermanent, permanent, exhaustible, and perishable in
  nature.

what about a tasty food - when its more tasty what does it mean ?

if food  at first bite relases you from greater hunger - than what "greater" thing does a tastier food release you from ?

@breath Good question.
Food is not in the nature of being tasty (although it is by nature 'suitable to be an object of tongue-consciousness, and thus tasted'). The food you taste is a condition for a previous virtuous action of yours to ripen in the form of 'happiness in the aspect of a pleasant feeling'. Hunger is another of these conditions. Thus, there are various conditions to the arising of pleasure (hunger, past virtue, food, contact, and so forth). Hunger (from which you are relieved) is not the only reason why you feel pleasure.

it's interesting to me because i asked a monk once whether all the stuff i do for fun (music, food, etc.) is a way of escaping my reality (avoiding doing my chores for example) and he told me straight : NO that is not true -- we attach to music for example because we attach to it because we like it, not as a form of escape; but reading your comment made me think again about my theory that it is a form of escaping reality.

That contaminated happiness in the aspect of a pleasant feeling is in the nature of suffering [and is suffering of change] is one thing. That you take refuge in these pleasant feelings and the conditions of them (among which the objects, such as music, food, etc) is another. They are related though, because taking refuge in them comes from not seeing them as they are: in the nature of suffering, mere reliefs, and - saddest of all - not that satisfying. Turning towards them is obviously also a turning away, in aversion, from suffering of suffering.

You are very correct to point out the false dichotomy of happiness and unhappiness. If you are not unhappy then surely you are happy? Perhaps it's the way that language works that makes us think in black and white terms. Or maybe it's the way that our minds work that makes language black and white. However as Ben Goldacre says - things are a bit more complicated than that. There are many states that equate to happiness and unhappiness and in between states too.
If you consider the Dyana factors then there are states accessible that normally people might equate to happiness but in fact are subtle (and not so subtle) manifestations of various mental processes. For instance rapture (pīti) and bliss (sukha) could both be said to be related to happiness but are different. Then after this there is equanimity (upekkhā) which could be though of as happiness but could be thought of as a stage in between.
But it isn't just Buddhists that recognise the subtley in happiness. Aristole spoke of happiness as flourishing (eudaimonia) but this wasn't something that could be said to occur moment by moment. I've heard it said that it someone could only have been judged to have (or have not) eudaimonia at the end of their life. So in a way that is happiness - but not as we know it.
If we can perhaps indulge in some dichotomies in the Pali language. It have been taught that a antonymn of dukkha (suffering) is sukha (bliss). Which seems straightforward. However if we consider what the four noble truths tell us then the end of suffering is Nirvana. Is Nirvana then the inbetween state?

There are many states of mind that can be categorized either as happy or unhappy. This categorization is individual. This categorization arises because of lack of knowledge about our-self and the reality outside our-self:
For a lay person:
Happiness is satisfying desires.
Unhappiness is not being able to satisfy desires.
For a lay person, he becomes unhappy when happiness disappears.
When happiness disappears, desires are not satisfied and a lay person becomes unhappy. He has 3 choices:

Satisfies his desires -> becomes happy
Doesn't satisfy his desires -> is unhappy
Knows his unhappiness, the cause of his unhappiness and removes the cause of his unhappiness -> becomes enlightened.

For an enlightened person:
There is no happiness.
There is no unhappiness.
By abandoning both happiness and unhappiness, a person becomes liberated. Liberated is beyond happiness and unhappiness. It is neither happiness, nor unhappiness. It is the ultimate. The all and beyond all.
An enlightened person cannot become unhappy. He knows unhappiness leads to a bad future. Knowing, he abandons unhappiness.
An enlightened person can become happy. He knows happiness which leads to a bad future and happiness which leads to a good future. Knowing, he abandons happiness which leads to a bad future and accepts happiness which leads to a good future.

Happiness is used to mention Nirvanic bliss ("Vimukthi suka").
According to that the other mind states are Unhappy(Dukka).
Because the roots of unhappiness(" greed, hate, ignorance) are still in the background  of mind. So there can be blissful overjoyed states to sorrowful miserable states.
In between there can be deep sleep states. But when we awake, we are in the same (dull/joyful) world. It can be change in between any time. But if we have a 'State' that not change/varying for worldly things('8 world dhamma'). It is called the real Liberation/ Happiness.


text:
What is considered lying in Buddhist (five) precepts?
This precept is often translated as harsh speech or false speech. The meaning of this precept is often understood as not to tell lie. But how are we supposed to define "lie" in Buddhist context particularly fourth precept?
An example:
One student got kicked out from a University because of unacceptable conducts. Someone knows this and is asked by his friend what has happened to that student.
Instead of telling his friend that student got kicked out, his answer is, that student probably already moved to other University.
The truth is, the student has committed unacceptable conducts therefore the student got kicked out.
There are many cases in life because of security reason, sensitive information, privacy, etc. we say another thing when we are asked. But is this the same as telling lie e.g. harmful food is said/declared as healthy food, counterfeit product is answered as genuine product? Is being honest the same as having wisdom?

Not providing all information, changing the subject or staying silent does not break the precept. But, marketing harmful food as healthy food or selling counterfeits as originals does break the precept.
Understanding the importance of honesty and knowing when to speak,what to speak and whom to speak are all instances of wisdom.

How is changing the subject or not providing all/some information different from avoiding the truth? The thing is, we know the truth (as the answer) but for some reason we avoid it.  Is it all depend on the intention and the effect of our speech e.g. some people may suffer from heart attack because of some information therefore we avoid it?  Where do we draw the line?

You are not avoiding the truth. You are avoiding a particular topic.

If I am not misunderstand it, if providing all information is helpful than it's a good thing to do. If by providing all information but one self is harmed/being taken advantage of, it's good not to provide all information.

But what if you know more than the person who ask question but you don't tell them because they don't ask that particular question e.g. a person wants to buy someone's car, they ask questions but miss an important question about a particular car part, the result is, after they buy the car they suffer from minor financial loss in order to replace that particular car part. Is this considered lying?

Only if the seller said something like "this car is all ok".

So it's probably not a helpful act but that doesn't mean it's a lie. Does false impression fall into this category or breaking the fourth precept?  For example, an unemployed person doesn't want other people to know his employment status, when asked if he has time to meet up, instead of 'a straight yes', he said something like "I will arrange my schedule". Technically, he doesn't say he is not unemployed but does it mean he conveys false message therefore breaks the fourth precept?

Yes, it breaks the fourth precept, if he really didn't intend to arrange his schedule

Can you give an example what would be the best response for above scenario if he is asked to meet up but doesn't want to tell other people his employment status?  Regarding right speech in Thag 21, Speak only words that do no harm: "One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken." "One should speak only pleasant words...without bringing evils to others is pleasant." What's the exact meaning of the first sentence: speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself?

If you want to make yourself unavailable during a certain time of the day, you can simply say "I'm not available at the time." and propose a different time to meet up.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The fact is he is available but he proposes different time to meet up. But Is that creating a certain/ false impression, which is the same as lying?

If he intends to give a false idea to people, it breaks the precept. But if he doesn't like to meet at a certain time, that's his preference.

Someone is selling an average quality product. He wants his product looks good on the shelf, if not, looks better than it actually is. He tries many things, with the intention so that the product will capture other people interest. That means along with the intention to make the product looks better, he is also creating a certain impression, which can be considered false or not true. But is this the same as breaking the precept?

Making a product pretty to attract customers does not break the precept. Because he just wants the customers to be attracted to different aspects of the product. Not just it's main functionality.

But the different aspect of the product is not true, it is somehow exaggerated for the purpose to catch other people interest.

What do you mean not true? Can you come up with a specific example?

He wants his product looks good on the shelf, if not, looks better than it actually is.

No, that doesn't break any precepts. If that's the case, women wearing makeup also break the precept. :)

:) Both false impression and intention are fulfilled. I can't see any difference with an example of an unemployed person who wears working clothes to create an impression that he is not unemployed.

In the case of acting like you are employed, you are going a false impression . But makeup is used just to enhance your appearance. They are not the same.

If you have two facts, you provide minor fact to answer a question, does it fall into category of false impression as well? Example, A dislikes B, A doesn't check email as often as he used to. B asks A why
A didn't reply his email. A answers because he rarely checks email. The main reason is, A dislikes B but the answer A gives is, he rarely checks his email.

If A had seen B's email and said it's because he did not get a chance to check mail, he breaks the precept.

That's obviously break the precept but he answers he rarely checks it, the main reason he didn't reply the email is because he dislikes B.

if A hasn't seen the mail, it doesn't break the precept.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The following is extracted from "One Life Five Precepts" by Venerable Faxun:
Conditions Under Which A Violation Is Considered to Have Occurred

Object: A human being other than oneself
Intention: The intent to misrepresent the truth and to deceive
The Act: The act of communicating the untruth through words or gestures or by being silent
Consequence: The person comprehends the meaning of the lie. Otherwise, our words are considered idle talk

Exception:

Unintentional misrepresentation

The use of speech to deceive is obvious, but the body too can be used as an instrument of communication – such as in writing (email, SMS, etc), hand signals, and gestures – all can be used to deceive others. The key element in this transgression is the intention. Therefore, there is no offense if a person misrepresents the truth unintentionally. For example, speaking too quickly and saying one thing while meaning to say another, such as a slip of the tongue.
The Intensity / Severity of Violation
The intensity of violation depends on the content of the untruth and the consequence of the untruthfulness. For example, it is a serious offense when a person, out of greed, lies that he/she has attained arahanthood, and the other person believes him/her.
The aim of observing this precept is to respect truthfulness. Speech is a way of expressing our thoughts. By being mindful with what we say and how we say it, we train ourselves to be more skillful speakers.

By giving up false speech, one becomes a speaker of truth. He does not deceive others, thus becoming a trustworthy and reliable person. Giving up slander, he reconciles those who are divided and brings them closer together. He strengthens friendships by living with love and harmony. Giving up harsh speech, he says what is gentle and pleasant, pleasing to the ear, affectionate and liked by most. Giving up idle chatter, he speaks at the right time in accordance with facts appropriate to the purpose, in accordance with the Dhamma. He speaks words worth treasuring, reasonable, appropriate, discriminating and to the point. (DN 1)
Furthermore, abandoning lying, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from lying. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the fourth gift... (AN8.39)

Let's look at the specific examples that you gave. I know that John was kicked out of university because of bad conduct but when asked by a friend, I say, "John probably already moved to another university". All four criteria listed above are fulfilled, so this is considered a lie. According to the commentary, since all the criteria are fulfilled, the "kamma is completed", which means that the intention can potentially cause rebirth in an unwholesome plane of existence.
The Buddha also faced difficult situations when asked questions. In some cases, such as SN 42.2 and SN 42.3, the Buddha said, "Don't ask that question" in other cases, he refused to answer. In AN 5.198, the Buddha gave the criteria for Right Speech as "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."
You asked "Is being honest the same as having wisdom?" Being honest is one aspect of Right Speech. Wisdom (paññā) involves turning the mind inwards through activities such as meditation, studying the Dhamma, teaching the Dhamma and straightening of views. So honesty can arise with or without wisdom. When honesty arises with wisdom there is awareness of the honesty.

From my understanding, declaring harmful food as safe, sell fake products as genuine are what DN 1 & AN 8.39 meant.  They speak more about lie that causes harm and less about 'lie' on more subtler level. Is it because the example I mentioned above is not considered as (white) lie in the Buddhist context?

"Declaring harmful food as safe and selling fake products as genuine" would probably fall under what the commentary refers to as "using false measures and weights" when describing how the precept of stealing can be broken. There is no room for "white lies" in Buddhism; in DN 61, when speaking to his son, the Buddha said, "Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.' "

That is what I mean. Is that because the example I mentioned above (student got kicked out) is not considered as lie, not even white lie, therefore it is not lying and does not relate to any 'lie' as described in DN 1 & AN 8.39?

Page 246 of this (which describes the monastic code, not the five precepts) says, "Result is not a factor under this rule. Thus whether anyone understands the
lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense."

I checked the Atthasālinī, where Venerable Faxun would have gotten her information. It lists the four constituent factors as 1) an untrue thing 2) intention to deceive 3) corresponding effort 4) the communication of the matter to others. It appears as though Venerable Faxun was a bit loose in her wording. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu gives a summary of the Vinaya, so I checked the original (seven pages describing lying). Ṭhānissaro's statement "whether anyone understands the lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant" is not in the original Vinaya... it may be in a commentary or a sub-commentary.

In the section on lying, Ṭhānissaro's interpretation of some points differs from IB Horner's interpretation (she translated the Vinaya for PTS). I am not qualified to judge who is correct... I am merely pointing out that there is a disagreement. The disagreement does not touch on this specific point. Frankly, I have seen both positions taken (lie must be understood vs understanding of lie is irrelevant).

@RobM In that example, answer different thing doesn't have to have intention to deceive. If saying something can cause negative reaction or result, would that be a good thing?

@RobM If you see, for example, a car tire goes flat. You know the owner but you don't tell the owner, not because you have bad or good intention but you just don't tell him. What is this, if this is not considered a lie? I thought being truthful means telling the truth.

Sankha Kulathantille has provided great answers, I mostly agree with the answers (including in the chat). But after long discussion, one thing I have to say/disagree is, we can't know other people intention based on what they imply. Implying something is not the same as intention.

We cannot know the other person's intention, so we cannot know what kamma the other person is accumulating. The Buddha defined the factors of "Right Speech" as [1] "Do I speak at the right time, or not? [2] "Do I speak of facts, or not? [3] "Do I speak gently or harshly? [4] "Do I speak profitable words or not? [5] "Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious?.

The four constituent factors of lying (untrue thing, intention to deceive, etc.) are what creates kamma that is sufficiently weighty to cause rebirth in a unwholesome plane. The five constituent factors of Right Speech (speak at the right time, speak truthfully, etc.) determine if something is spoken skillfully or not.

In other words if someone speaks not untrue thing, there is no way he or she can tell a lie even with the intention to deceive, is this correct?

I am a bit confused by your double negative "not untrue", but if someone speaks the truth, it is never sufficiently weighty kamma to cause rebirth in an unwholesome plane because of lying. However, slander, harsh speech and frivolous talk also can generate sufficiently weighty kamma to cause rebirth in an unwholesome plane and these may involve the speaking of a true statement. Speaking the truth is only one of the factors involved in right speech, so if the truth is spoken at the wrong time, if the truth is spoken harshly, etc. ... then what is spoken is not right speech.

Speak the truth with intention to deceive. Please see "email example" replied to Sankha Kulathantille below.

I agree with all of Sankha's comments. Do you see any areas that Sankha and I are not aligned (we may use different words)?

I agree too with Sankha's comments.
@ChrisW can you please elaborate this "Thus whether anyone understands the lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense."

@B1100 That's a quote from page 246 of http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1.pdf

@ChrisW I assume it refers to something relevant i.e. intention.

@RobM lie must be understood vs understanding of lie is irrelevant. If I can ask which one do you think is the correct one, or at least the one that you put into practice?

I have seen both interpretations and I believe that the correct interpretation is that understanding of the lie is irrelevant. In practice, whenever I feel inclined to lie, I use this as a trigger to examine my motivation. It is almost always ego / conceit, which is pretty ugly to look at.

But is that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretation? How about the original vinaya?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretation agrees with the vinaya. The interpretation of Venerable Faxun (whom I originally quoted) is not from the Theravada Vinaya.

There are four requirements to break fourth precepts, right? Untrue statement, intention, effort and other person is deceived by the lie. If you remove the last one that means they are no longer four conditions as people understand it.

The fourth precept in Buddhism pertains to honesty, and breaking it involves lying for personal gain or otherwise. Buddha consistently valued truthfulness as lying can mislead and harm. Occasionally, revealing the truth may not be advisable, but instead of lying, it's better to withhold statements. Liars can commit various wrongdoings, conceal their actions, and craft elaborate excuses. The path advocated is one of honesty, and if speaking the truth is not possible, it's better to remain silent.

When information is private, then instead of lying you could say, "I can't tell you", "I'm not allowed to say", or "That's private".
Or you could just not talk about it: and not say anything, or talk about something else.
Part of the definition of "right speech" includes "abstaining from speech", and "not saying" things at the wrong time and/or without affection.
Page 245 of this description of the Monastic Code explains lying in a bit more detail. It says,

A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of
  misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing
  the long “wheels” in the Vibhaºga, states that a violation of this rule requires
  two factors:

Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
  communicate based on that aim.

Intention. The aim to misrepresent the truth fulfills this factor regardless of
  what one’s motives are. Thus “white lies”—made with benevolent intentions
  (e.g., to a person whose state of mind is too weak to take the truth)—would fall
  under this rule, so a bhikkhu who wants to shield an emotionally weak person
  from harsh truths has to be very skillful in phrasing his statements. Also,
  outrageous lies meant as jokes—to amuse rather than to deceive—would fall
  under this rule as well, a point we will discuss further in the non-offense section.
Effort. According to the Vibhanga, to misrepresent the truth means to say
  that one has seen X when one hasn’t, that one hasn’t seen X when one has, or
  that one has seen X clearly when one is in doubt about the matter. This pattern
  holds for the other senses—hearing, smell, taste, touch, and ideation—as well.
  Thus to repeat what one has heard, seen, etc., even if it actually is
  misinformation, does not count as a misrepresentation of the truth under this
  rule, as one is truthfully reporting what one has seen, etc. If, however, one says
  that one believes in such misinformation—when one actually doesn’t—one’s
  statement would count as a misrepresentation of the truth and so would fulfill
  this factor.

So apparently a "white lie" intended benevolently to shield someone from harsh truth must be phrased skillfully.
In the case of "the student got kicked out from a University", if you wanted to white-wash that, perhaps you could reply to repeated direct questioning by saying things like,

"I understand he's left the university"
"If you want to know why, perhaps you could ask his tutor -- I suppose his tutor would know why"
"Yes he did explain that to me but it was a private conversation"

The training rules (precepts) are typically more to do with 'acts of commission' (i.e. saying or doing the wrong thing) than 'acts of omission' (i.e. not saying or not doing the right thing). For example if a person were drowning and you could save them but don't, then technically that isn't killing: morally wrong perhaps, but not killing.
Similarly to "be quiet about the truth" isn't the same thing as "tell a lie".

I can not disagree with "be quiet about truth" isn't the same thing as "tell a lie". But that's the reason why the definition of "lie" is somehow quite vague. If you take a look Bhante Gunaratana book, Eight Mindful Steps To Happiness, P.93, Speak The Truth: "Occasionally we may be asked a question to which a response of silence indicates a particular answer. If our silence would convey a lie, then we must speak. E.g., a police investigator at the scene of a crime asks a crowd of on-lookers whether they saw anything. If everyone remains silent, the investigator will conclude

that no one has seen the crime occur. If some of the onlookers are witnesses, then they lie by remaining silent. They may feel that they have good reason to say nothing, such as fear of retaliation, but their silence is a lie nonetheless".

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Earth covered with water in the beginning?
I have heard a monk saying, in the beginning of this kappa Earth was covered with water. And a god or a brahma, I dont remember exactly whom, had put a lotus seed into that water and there grown 5 flowers and they represented the 5 Buddhas (Kakusanda, Konagama, Kashyapa, Gautama, Meithri) in this kappa. But I could not find where in Tripitaka did the lord Buddha say that. So I highly apreciate if someone could help me to find any reference to this.
Thanks in advance.

I recently discussed this in my blog. Here is a quote:

The Buddha proceeds to tell Vasettha a cosmogony, a myth about the
  origin of the world and life. The earth was originally entirely
  covered by water, and everything was blinding darkness. There were no
  sun, moon, stars, night, day, months, fortnights, years, seasons, or
  gender. Interestingly, scientists believe that the earth was
  originally a “waterworld,” almost entirely covered by water, about 2.5
  billion years ago. The only life on earth at that time was sexless
  algae and bacteria. After a very long period, a skin formed on the
  surface of the water like the skin that forms over hot milk as it
  cools. In this passage, the Buddha demonstrates that he understands
  that the cause of the one world ocean at that time was the deep mantle
  of the earth, which was 200 degrees hotter than it is now, and also
  that it was cooling. As the deep mantle cooled, the continental crust
  formed must have been as described in the sutta.
During the waterworld era, any oxygen produced by photosynthesising
  bacteria would have been quickly used up through reactions with
  decaying organic matter in the oceans.
When the newly emerged land eroded, it produced sediment that washed
  into the oceans and buried the organic matter, preventing further
  reactions with oxygen, the scientists believe. As a result, oxygen was
  allowed to build up in the atmosphere and enable oxygen-breathing life
  to evolve and flourish.
The eroded sediment would also have fertilised the oceans with
  phosphorous, an important nutrient for living things.[1]
The Pali Canon calls this phosphorus “skin” rasa-pathavi (lit.
  ‘earth-sap’). Interestingly in view of the subsequent reference to
  luminance, phosphorus emits a faint glow when exposed to oxygen. It is
  also an essential element of the human genetic material, DNA and RNA.

http://palisuttas.com/2015/04/26/aganna-sutta-dn-dn-27/

What about this bit from the OP -- "And a god or a brahma, I dont remember exactly whom, had put a lotus seed into that water and there grown 5 flowers and they represented the 5 Buddhas (Kakusanda, Konagama, Kashyapa, Gautama, Meithri) in this kappa" -- do you see that in the Aggañña Sutta, if not do you know where that might come from?

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


text:
How would the END look like?
According to Buddhism, how would the end of times look like?
Would it just be the end of a pre-defined period, or would it be something different like the Rapture in Christianity?

End of the world or end of the society as we know it?

You might find this useful: Parable of the Poisoned Arrow

Are you asking about this with regard to a particular tradition of Buddhism?

@Ian I don't know about the traditions (still studying them). So, I asked this question referring to general buddhism (<-- might be a vague term)

Read the first few pages of the Surangama Sutra preface.

This isn't an easy question to answer.
Wikipedia, at least, claims that there is such a thing as Buddhist eschatology, i.e. it says,

There are two major points of Buddhist eschatology: the appearance of Maitreya and the Sermon of the Seven Suns.

I think (I may be wrong) that these two are of two different schools of Buddhism ("Maitreya" being Mahayana, and the "Sermon of the Seven Suns" in the Pali Canon being presumably Theravada).
Here is a translation of The Seven Suns (but there isn't a translation of it on accesstoinsight). I don't know how people interpret it (e.g. whether literally, or as a parable about impermanence, etc).
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi (a Theravada monk) writes what might be a mainstream Theravada view, i.e.,

"Now, since cosmic time is without any discernible beginning or conceivable end".

I think that's supported by Suttas such as Gaddula Sutta which says,

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "Monks, from an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on.
"There comes a time when the great ocean evaporates, dries up, & does
  not exist. But for beings — as long as they are hindered by ignorance,
  fettered by craving, transmigrating & wandering on — I don't say that
  there is an end of suffering & stress.
"There comes a time when Sineru, king of mountains, is consumed with
  flame, is destroyed, & does not exist. But for beings — as long as
  they are hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, transmigrating &
  wandering on — I don't say that there is an end of suffering & stress.
"There comes a time when the great earth is consumed with flame, is
  destroyed, & does not exist. But for beings — as long as they are
  hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, transmigrating & wandering
  on — I don't say that there is an end of suffering & stress.
"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, etc.

I think that's saying we can't afford to just assume that suffering will inevitably come to an end some day (a view which might, contrary to Buddhism, assume some form of predetermination or nihilism).
Among the famously unanswered questions is one of which asks whether the world is eternal (see also the Simsapa Sutta referenced in Buddho's answer).
I think that these being "unanswered" implies that the Buddha (who was supernaturally omniscient) decided not to answer these questions because the answer wouldn't be helpful (e.g. the answer isn't relevant to the Buddhist goal of ending suffering).
Slightly off-topic but still on the subject of time and of not-time, there is a concept of timelessness, which may or may not interest you. Some of the "formless" meditative states may I guess be timeless too (if time is a property of form); and nirvana is certainly sometimes described as "deathless".

The Sutta of the Seven Suns is now here: https://suttacentral.net/an7.66/en/sujato

Buddhism isn't Christianity, so it is concerned with a different set of question and has different assumptions.
As for the area of metaphysical speculation, the early Buddhist either explicitly put those questions outside of Buddhism, or assumed that the current assumptions of their day was correct, name that time has been going on for ever, will continue to do so, but go through cycles of things getting better and worse, falling apart and restarting. This is essentially the same world view of anyone in India at that time.
Something unique to Buddhism though, was speculation on how long Buddhism itself would last. All things change and disintegrate including Buddhism, as a movement and coherent set of teachings. Some early predictions thought 500 years, but as that time period came and passed, it was bumped up to a higher number.
The closest thing in the Buddhist system to end times is Mappo, the time of the decline of the Dharma. Many systems of Buddhism believed we were in the time of decline of the Dharma, and therefore we needed new creative ways to practice Buddhism that differed from early Buddhism.
To get a good understanding, read Jan Natiers paper on the topic: https://www.academia.edu/7175816/Buddhist_Eschatology

There is no known beginning nor end of times.

Thank you. Can you please elaborate with the name of the corresponding belief/theory?

Don't know the name of the corresponding belief/theory, but if you want to know more, the teaching of the Buddha is one of the many paths to follow to realize such truths.

@Dawny33 For example "Now, since cosmic time is without any discernible beginning or conceivable end".

@Dawny33 See also The unanswered questions one of which is whether the world is eternal.

@ChrisW Thank you for the links. So, this question is still unanswered (or it would never get answered), right?

@Dawny33 There is a concept of timelessness, which may or may not interest you. Some of the "formless" meditative states may be timeless too (if time is a property of form), and nirvana is sometimes described as "deathless". The "unanswered questions" imply that the Buddha (who was supernaturally omniscient) decided not to answer that question because it the answer wouldn't be helpful (e.g. the answer isn't relevant to the Buddhist goal of ending suffering).

@ChrisW Thank you for pointing me towards the resources.  Can you add this all, as an answer, so that I can accept it.

The "end of times" is not a Buddhist concept so the meaning of the question is ambiguous. If by the end of times you mean the end of the earth, the teaching of the Pali Canon is expressed in the Sermon of the Seven Suns.
This sutta appears to describe a supernova of our sun millions or billions of years in the future, including progressive global desertification, death of vegetation and species, and finally the earth itself being consumed in an expanded solar conflagration that takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
If by "end of times" you mean the end of samsara, religious Buddhism refers to this as the goal of the bodhisattva but I am not aware of any canonical references to the end of samsara. Logically, it seems that samsara, having no origin, cannot have an end either.

As long as there is becoming due to ignorance there will be existence in some form. Perhaps not as humans or planet earth, but further becoming is only extinguished through nirvana.
Such questions don't hold much value in Buddhism for they don't lead to liberation.
Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa[1] forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"


text:
In Buddhism what is 'the will'?
Is there a Buddhist concept that maps to the western concept of the will? For instance the will to get up on a morning, to go to work, practice Buddhism etc... One of my teachers said that it is just another name for our greed, hatred and delusion. I really like that concept but I wonder if the will is discussed in Buddhist texts or by established teachers and in what terms.

This is related to Predetermined future vs. Free will in Buddhism (and other topics which are tagged [tag:free-will]).

"the will to get up on a morning, to go to work, practice Buddhism etc"
This sounds similar to Mahayana's virya-paramita, paramita of exertion or energy. According to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, the key factor of this is joy. The key to exertion is not as much forcing oneself, as it is an ability to derive delight from the element of doing the right thing.
My last teacher called this the power of good news. He said we should be the masters of information, instead of letting the information drive us around. My Zen master said the same about meditation: don't fight the thoughts but don't let them drive you either. Buddha called this the right attention, focusing on things that help us, not on things that wreck us.
The will your teacher referred to as the three poisons is the samsaric will, the will that drives us. Even the will to practice Buddhism on the initial stages can be a type of samsaric will. We hear a nice story about Nirvana and we get inspired to practice. Like a donkey following a carrot on a stick. This is what he must have meant.
The will that is without defilements -- the Enlightened will we could say -- is not dependent on a carrot. It is the choice you make to be motivated by whatever it is that you chose. It is like making yourself fall in love and then maintaining the affair by deliberately focusing only on signs that stimulate it.
The will that is like "another name for our greed, hatred and delusion" seems the same from non-dualistic no-free-will victim perspective, but from Enlightened master's perspective it is quite the opposite. Enlightenment does entail disenchantment and exhaustion of all projects or impulses, but that only means the projects/impulses that come from greed, hatred and delusion. It does not mean you don't have will to do things you see as worth of doing.

The will to do something would probably be equivalent to the term cetana, which means intention or an act of will. The term itself doesn't have any particular positive or negative connotation, as you can have a cetana that is good just as easily as a cetana to do something bad.
Most significantly, the cetana formed with an act is what determines the kind of karma that is produced, as is explained in AN 6.063 where the Buddha said:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.

I am not sure this answers the question, because as far as I understood, 'cetana' is not necessarily intentional, even though it is called 'intention' sometimes even 'volition'. Maybe Crab Bucket's question relates to the 'desire' translated as 'the wish to do something' (which can be virtuous - like the desire to achieve liberation; non-virtuous, or neutral) and is a main mind which is a conceptual consciousness. What do you think?

First of all, welcome to stack exchange! I remember you from Dharmawheel and rather miss your very informative posts!

Perhaps there is some confusion because of how the term Cetana is used in some texts within the Theravada abhidhamma. Within the Abhidhamma cetana is classified as one of the mental factors present in all mental states, but that is a somewhat different usage of the term. In that context the term cetana refers to the mind's turning away from a previous object and towards a new one, rather than intention in it's normal every day sense of the word.

Is there a Buddhist concept that maps to the western concept of the will? For instance the will to get up on a morning, to go to work, practice Buddhism etc...

There's the Four Right Kinds of Striving (Sammappadhana), part of the 37 Aids to Enlightenment:

MN 77: “Again, Udāyin, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way to develop the four right kinds of striving.

Here a bhikkhu awakens zeal for the non-arising of unarisen evil unwholesome states, and he makes effort, arouses energy, exerts his mind, and strives.

He awakens zeal for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states...

He awakens zeal for the arising of unarisen wholesome states…

He awakens zeal for the continuance, non-disappearance, strengthening, increase, and fulfilment by development of arisen wholesome states, and he makes effort, arouses energy, exerts his mind, and strives. And thereby many disciples of mine abide having reached the consummation and perfection of direct knowledge.

Will is cetana, 'consciousness, sense, thought, intention,' the original and originating kinetic aspect of trans-dual reality. Intention is of course the essence of karma, correlative to the "act of observation" in quantum physics.
It is the root of samsara, the principle where samsara originates in reality, not in the sense of a temporal sequence but in the sense of logical primacy. Desirous attachment is will in its objectifying mode. Based on your examples it might also be correlated with 'energy' (viriya'), to which the Buddha frequently exhorts his followers, contrary to the view that Buddhist practitioners are "passive."

"The will" is any kind of desiring, wanting, thinking, intending, choosing, doing, ... Be it very very subtle, very subtle, not very subtle, strong, very strong, etc.
Yes, "the will" comes from greed, hatred and delusion. All come from delusion. When all delusion is removed, "the will" is extinguished.
In the same way as a flame is extinguished when all the fuel is removed, "the will" is extinguished when all delusion is removed.
By removing all delusion, "the will" remains until our bodies die, but because delusion is removed, "the will" is known, it's cause is known and it's ending is known.
"Knowing" leads to final liberation: complete extinguishing of all will.

beginner, if indeed the will is caused by delusion, then it must be false. If it is false then it never existed, so how can it be extinguished?

Friend, delusion is: not knowing the cause of the will. When the cause of the will is known, this same cause is removed. When removed, it's extinguished. When extinguished, there is nothing else to be done.

There's a sutta called AN 11.2 Cetana Sutta, which Thanissaro Bhikkhu subtitled "An Act of Will".
The Cetana Sutta is similar to AN 10.1, which is quoted as The rewards of virtue.
Anyway, the Cetana Sutta starts with...

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

... and continues in a similar way.
I read that as saying that being "consummate in virtue" is sufficient: that leads to freedom from remorse, to joy, to etc., through to dispassion, and to knowledge & vision of release.
Perhaps this is similar to Andrei's answer which says:

The key to exertion is not as much forcing oneself, as it is an ability to derive delight from the element of doing the right thing.

It also seems to match other answers in identifying 'will' as 'cetana'.
My personal guess/opinion/interpretation of how it works as described in the sutta is an internal monologue that goes something like,

If I do the wrong thing or don't do the right thing then I'll regret it (i.e. feel remorse) which is unpleasant/regrettable
I don't want to feel remorse (or don't want to continue to feel remorse)
i.e. what I do want instead of remorse is that "may freedom from remorse arise in me"
Having desired freedom of remorse, and having seen (right view) that what leads to freedom from remorse is virtue (including Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood), then I (naturally want to) do the right thing in order to attain the desired result.

Saying "there is no need for an act of will" reminds me of Wu wei -- a way in which I interpret that is that if I want to score a goal in football then it doesn't take an act of will to kick the ball ... instead kicking the ball follows naturally from being a good football player, from the desire to play football and to score a goal.
Another interpretation is based on dependent arising: when that when virtue is present then that's the condition for no-remorse to arise naturally (like soil and seed and nutrients and water and sun is the condition for a plant to arise naturally).
Lastly, Buddhism doctrine talks about fetters and hindrances and so on. So what an English-speaker might want to characterize as "an absence of will" (e.g. "I don't want to get up in the morning"), a Buddhist might characterize as the presence of hindrances e.g. of sloth and torpor (but see also Hui-neng's mirror).


text:
Is playing computer games an unwholesome activity?
Recently I've slipped back into playing computers games. This morning I had a moment of clarity and realised that for me it is not a good activity and I've uninstalled them and I feel a lot better.
But generally from a Buddhist perspective is playing computer games an unwholesome activity? If so what aspects of it make it so. Or could one be a committed practitioner and still do a bit of gaming on the side. I appreciate we have discussed the impacts on violent games on Karma before but I would like to know if computer games of any description are unwholesome.
(Note - I'm not looking for my own computer game playing habit to be legitimatised so I can start it again. I'm satisfied that for me it is something best avoided. I am just wondering if it is something that Buddhists generally should avoid and if any modern teachers have discussed the issue).

Which games might I ask?

@hellyale erm well Baldurs Gate EE was the main one - which is violent in fairness but not GTA violent. But also Megapolois (city building), A Risk type war game, something with Romans that I forget the name of and a game with Dyson Trees where you are pollen falling on planets. So a bit of a mix really. All uninstalled now though

"unwholesome" (akusala) is same as bad karma... so in essence this question and the question about games and karma, both ask for the same answer.

There are different degrees of unwholesome activity. The term akusala (lit. unskillful, unwholesome) is a broad term that in addition to referring to 'bad' deeds (e.g. killing, stealing, adultery etc...) can refer to any kind of action that doesn't lead to the highest happiness. In this broader sense, all types of sensual indulgence such as food, sex, entertainment, wanting good clothes, etc... are akusala.
By teaching that sensuality is akusala the Buddha wasn't teaching that everyone must abstain from them or else they are being bad Buddhists, but rather that they don't lead towards Nirvana, and that renouncing them is superior, and that in the end when one becomes Enlightened, one will give up the desire for them. That doesn't mean that as practicing Buddhists we cannot enjoy sensual pleasures within moderation, but giving them up is in the long run a much better way of finding happiness.

Well said, well suggested, Mr/Mrs Bakmoon.

There is a Sutta (SN42.2) where the Buddha is approached by the head of an acting troupe and asked, “I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?”
After twice refusing to reply, the Buddha said, “Any beings who are not devoid of passion / aversion / delusion to begin with focus with even more passion / aversion / delusion on things inspiring passion / aversion / delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.”
2500 years ago, just as today, actors make people laugh and give them delight with their imitation of reality. With today’s technology, we have new ways of making ourselves “intoxicated and heedless” (such as computer games) but the effect on the mind (and our spiritual development) is the same.
According to AN 8.40 (and elsewhere) “idle chatter” leads to rebirth in a woeful state. In many Suttas (such as AN 10.69), the Buddha defined “idle chatter” as “conversation about kings, robbers, ministers of state, armies, alarms, battles, food and drink, clothing, furniture, garlands, scents, relatives, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, the countryside, women and heroes, the gossip of the street and the well, tales of the dead, tales of diversity, the creation of the world and of the sea, talk of whether things exist or not.”
With today’s technology (newspapers, Facebook, etc.) we have new ways of indulging in “idle chatter” but the effect on the mind (and our spiritual development) is the same.
You will notice that the five precepts (the moral code for laypeople) do not mention giving up wrong view or idle chatter. This is because the five precepts are ethical in nature. Only once there is a strong foundation of ethics can one consider spiritual development (taking on eight or more precepts). So playing computer games is not an ethically unwholesome activity, but the mental states that playing computer games engenders are not conducive to spiritual development.

As I wrote this, I felt like a bit of a hypocrite, because I spend too much time distracting myself with online Sudoku puzzles. Your question has prompted me to "abstain from Sudoku"; not because Sudoku is "evil" but rather because there are better ways to spend my time (i.e. such as practicing mindfulness)

The mind-state one is having is most important.
A happy, joyful state, filled with focus and energy is not only positive but also similar to samadhi.
This mind-state is free from the Three Poisons and the Six Root Afflictions is good.
On the other hand, some games that have a competitive nature, if taken too seriously, can generate the Three Poisons and afflictions, affecting the various levels of mind, attitude, and neurology.
On the other hand, one can utilize the non-mortal nature of video games to practice detachment from such things... essentially practicing to be a bodhisattva of the world! It is hard to be detached like this for longer, more immersive video games, but it can be a harmless practice watching yourself compete and the emotions and afflictions arise and fall within oneself.

If you try to spend time to develop enlightenment. You will realise that a calm mind is much more easier to live with.
This calm mind in time would achieve any of the four fruits of liberation.
Thus perfecting ourselves to attain nirvana is the only right path is the only right thing to do.
Games being a fuel to craving will stop you to enter into Jhana.
If you enter first Jhana you will see how much better the life becomes.

Sure, Mr/Mrs Amit Dethe, sure. How ever, where does one would know "If you enter first Jhana you will see how much better the life becomes.", who says this and how and why would it get better?

Context
Other types of media (books, films, etc) can also have an effect on us. Plato thought that books were an assault on the person reading because the reader were not able to argue against the thoughts presented there
Mindfulness and concentration
However a difference is that the immersion is often bigger in computer games, in other words it's more difficult to maintain mindfulness and easier to be fully concentrated on the game. We easily "get lost" in this other world
Content of the game
Assuming that we are concentrated on the game and have lost connection with our body and mindfulness in general, the content of the game becomes extra important. Do we think it will be beneficial for us? What states of mind does it help to create and maintain?
Many games contain violence or competition
Some games create empathy and understanding of others, for example:

Beyond Eyes
Papers Please

A positive perspective from a Buddhist gamer
Jane McGonigal is a futurist, author and Buddhist who has written and lectured about the positive psychological effects of gaming
Here is an excerpt from one of her lectures at a "Buddhist Geeks" conferance: Is Super Mario a Buddhist?
Her tips for gaming:

Don’t play more than 21 hours a week.
Playing with real-life friends and family is better than playing alone all the time, or with strangers.
Playing face-to-face with friends and family beats playing with them online.
Cooperative gameplay, overall, has more benefits than competitive gameplay.
Creative games have special positive impacts.

While we playing games we are prisoners of that and limited opportunity to escape from it. Life has same bondage. The unwholesome or wholesome is depends not on the activity itself, but which type of habit it generate.

Maybe Mr/Mrs Shrawaka likes to explain it more, this "The unwholesome or wholesome is depends not on the activity itself" and what generates a habit, how does it become one and how to abound it.


text:
Does any canonical sutta say you can attain enlightenment *while* chanting?
I've heard a couple of mentions (but seen no direct reference) that there is a (presumably canonical) formal list of certain activities that you can attain enlightenment during.  I'm guessing it's the "sudden" the kind of enlightenment which is being implied in this list (not "gradual").
This list includes formal sitting meditation, and chanting. Yes, you can apparently attain enlightenment right in the middle of a chant you are doing.
Can anyone point at a particular canonical Sutta that says this?  Also, I do not recall even one Canonical reference to any arahant claiming they attained their full enlightenment during chanting. And this includes the Theragata, and Therigata. Can anyone else remember a person in the Canon who said they were enlightened during chanting?

I posted an answer here, over at Sutta Central Forum:

... in the Aṅguttara Nikāya The Book of the Fives, Sutta 26, "Liberation", the "five bases of liberation" are listed.
Number three is "Reciting the Dhamma". The pali term for "Reciting" is "sajjhāyaṃ karoti", which can also be translated as "chanting", however the chanting referred to here must be deeply understood by the one chanting. That is to say, the type of chanting here is not as in incanting a mystical, magical spell in an arcane language, where you don't know what the words mean, where the power is inherent to the sound of the words.

If you closely examine Vimutt’āyatana Sutta chanting takes you only the 1st leg of the journey, but if you continue you will get to the destination. The speed at which you get there can vary based on you past pratice and perfections. Those who got enlightenment during chanting most likely progressed though the other stages to arrive at the destination in very quick succession. Pāsādika Sutta mentions that the recitation should be with meaning developing developing 7 sets or 37 limbs of awakening (bodhi,pakkhiya dhamma).
The complete route is as: reciting > joy (pāmujja) > zest (pīti) > tranquillity (passaddhi) > happiness (sukha) > concentration or collectedness of the mind or mastery over the mind (samādhi) > the knowledge and vision of reality (yathā,bhuta,ñāna,dassana) > repulsion and dispassion (nibbidā,virāgo) > the knowledge and vision of liberation (vimutti,ñāna,dassana). These much overlaps with the 3 trainings (3 division of the Noble Eightfold Path) and the 7 enlightenment factors in the 37 limbs of awakening.
(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta and (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta imply that this is through free process (need of intention and volition) when you get to joy (pāmujja).


text:
Is Lord Buddha's way applicable to escape from the 'Plato's cave'?
In this Answer for escaping the analogy as shown in Plato's cave.

Socrates remarks that this allegory can be taken with what was said
  before, namely the analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided
  line. In particular, he likens our perception of the world around us
  "to the habitation in prison, the firelight there to the sunlight
  here, the ascent and the view of the upper world [to] the rising of
  the soul into the world of the mind" (517b).

He shows two analogy.
1). Analogy of the sun.
2). Analogy of the divided line.
Is this two has any relationship with Buddhist two truths(Conventional and Ultimate)?
conventional truths is believing worldly things.(eg. the car Is). If so what is the " Divided line"?
Or else, What is then 'Majjima Patipada'(Middle path)? Why Middle?

It can be tempting to draw parallels between several philosophers to derive a perennial common ground, but it's tough enough to understand one let alone two. It leads to too much thought about the world of man and little insight into the reality of all things.  See also, (http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/plato.html)

“We must not allow other people’s limited perceptions to define us.”-Virginia Satir "For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen." -Douglas Adams "Realists do not fear the results of their study."-Fyodor Dostoevsky from 'halyale's intro'

I'm not sure why this got so many down votes.  It is a very valid question.  If this site is going to take up a discussion on topics on comparative religion (i.e. whether or not Jesus was a Buddha), there's no reason why questions of comparative philosophy can't also be entertained.  In fact, I'd say that this is actually an important question because it really gets at the heart of the difference between Buddhism and Western philosophy.
I don't think you can draw a perfect parallel between Buddhism and Plato Cave, but there are some fleeting similarities specifically between what is written in the Republic and the use of koans in Zen Buddhism.  In Plato's cave, we find Socrates advising Glaucon that the most effective form of study "has a power of drawing and converting the mind to the contemplation of true being". Knowledge of the sciences has the double use of being functional (as for the military leader) and revelatory (for the philosopher).  It is at once pragmatic and soteriological. For the philosopher, study of a single aspect of reality reveals a kind of universal truth.  Socrates for example, uses the perception of fingers giving rise to a conceptualization of unity.
In the sciences, we study one specific aspect of reality. The value in the scientific method is in it's keen ability to narrow the focus of an experiment, be able to control for variables, and draw conclusions.  Zen koans are also extremely specific.  Koan literally means "public case".  Their scope is as narrow as a legal decision.  A koan is given to alert the student to a very specific aspect of reality. Just as Socrates uses the external sciences and geometry, the phenomenon addressed by koans can often be a matter of external sense perception.  The Buddha Holds Out a Flower, Hsiang-yen's sweeping, and many other koans use an isolated case of sensory perception as a means of revealing something about the nature of reality.
While external nature is revelatory in both systems, it's the difference in approach that really distinguishes Buddhism from the methodology used by Socrates.  Over and over again in the Republic, Socrates' philosopher is using his discriminating mind - his reason - as a means of apprehending the truth.  He thinks about the ramifications of his subjects.   Consider the following passage:

Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the idea of
  good, and unless he can run the gauntlet of all objections, and is
  ready to disprove them, not by appeals to opinion, but to absolute
  truth, never faltering at any step of the argument --unless he can do
  all this, you would say that he knows neither the idea of good nor any
  other good; he apprehends only a shadow, if anything at all, which is
  given by opinion and not by science; --dreaming and slumbering in this
  life, before he is well awake here, he arrives at the world below, and
  has his final quietus.

The man liberated from Socrates' cave is a rational being of intellectual understanding.  The philosophy that rises out of his study of science lives in the world of conceptualization.  Contrast that with the student of Zen.  The value of his study isn't based on what Buddha's flower means intellectually, but rather in the actual perception of that flower in a mind marked by emptiness.  The student of Zen isn't concerned with the philosophical implications of why Hsiang-yen was liberated when the rock hit the bamboo.  A student of Zen, in a state of emptiness, wants to hear the "tock" for themselves.  The kind of sensory experience used in Zen can only be had through deep meditation and the emptying the mind of forms.
The western philosophy uses the mind to escape the cave.  Zen uses no-mind.

I think you may heard, If someone escape from the cave and come back to tell others what he found. then the others react to him by murdering.

Well, in Zen they just think you're crazy.  ;-)

So, Load Buddha says Every person is a mad ('Sabbe puthaggana ummaththaka'). except those who have escape.

This site isn't for "a discussion on topics": it's for questions which potentially have a single/true/specific answer ... and "Is Jesus considered to be a buddha?" has a pretty clear answer for what it's worth.

I agree with you. The first sutta in 'sutta nipatha' shows what is it. some quote in this answer.

Right, but "Is Lord Buddha's way applicable to escape from Plato's cave" has a clear answer too.  It's definitely 'no'.  The discussion is in why the answer is no.

To use the "mind" and to use "no-mind" could perfectly well mean exactly the same: the "mind" signifies the ability to perceive the abstract ideas whose particularization is the material world, and "no-mind" signifies transcending the mode of the mind that perceives only the particulars. Is not all philosophy a quest to embed the particular into the universal, not only conceptually but experientially too, like the hand of the mind touching a stone... so to speak...?

I think that it is a serious misreading of both Buddhism and Platonism to try to conflate these different metaphors. They are given in very different contexts to very different audiences with very different sets of assumptions.
For Plato, the analogy of the cave isn't just a dramatic fable about abandoning falsehood and coming to see the truth, but instead is a parable that is deeply intertwined with his metaphysics. For Plato, objects of the physical world are but mere shadows cast which are cast by abstract concepts called forms. For example, all the chairs in the physical world are but mere crude reflections of a single perfect immaterial form called the form of chair, which resides off in the world of forms.
In this context, Plato's cave allegory is about abandoning the physical world of mere reflections and instead turning towards the contemplation of these immaterial forms, and ultimately, to the highest form known as the form of good.
The Buddhist understanding of the two truths is fundamentally different from this in many respects. In Buddhism, the two truths aren't two different levels of metaphysics, but rather two different levels of inquiry. Conventional truth is done from the perspective of ordinary language and human perception, and ultimate truth asks deeper questions that go beyond that. For example, if I look at a car and think "That's a car" I am working on the level of conventional truth, and if I instead look at that same car and after reflecting on it think "a 'car' is merely a name which we give to a collection of parts' then that is ultimate truth. But at the same time, there is only one car that I am looking at. Conventional truth and ultimate truth are two different perspectives we can use to look at things, not two layers of reality as is the case for Plato contrasting the world of forms with the world of matter.

Have you check the drawing. the philosophers are blind by seeing the light. hence they cannot find the path. " This is all unreal" .

I think that it's perfectly possible that "two different levels of metaphysics" means "two different levels of inquiry". The Platonic world of forms is a tuning of the mind to a mode of perceiving the particularization  of ideas into concrete, tangible realities. That way the mind is in effect "emptied" from the "noise" of fragmentation and is filled with "eternal" unification principles, i.e., abstract principles to which our minds may or may not be tuned.

Here is the Middle path leads to Escape.
The Seventh Principle: The Absolute in its absoluteness – Paramartha

This is the principle which states that awareness (vidya) is the
  inherent condition of Being itself. There is no 'Being' beyond the
  awareness of that Being. This means that awakening (or
  'enlightenment') is already a done deal. Nothing 'in Being' needs be
  awakened, or cleaned up, or changed – made more spiritual, more aware
  – for it must already Be. Which means that the world of Samsara, just
  as it is, already is Nirvana, and vice versa. Mundane existence is
  simultaneously absolute transcendence. Ignorance dawns as Gnosis.

To Achieve  this have to follow the path witch has two ways:

your name means hearer, and yet no sound-hearer has such views? Further, if this is already nirvana, then what is liberation? And so how does one "escape from plato's cave"?

@SamReeve "No sound, No hearer" it is Nirvana.

Then what for Nirvana?

It's been a long time since I read Plato, so beware this answer may be based on childish misunderstandings and bad memory.
As mentioned here the "shadows" which people see in the cave are a metaphor for "real" objects perceived by the senses, which are shadows of "ideal" or "spiritual" objects.
So if we're in the cave and if we see for example a (real) horse, Plato wants us to understand/believe that there's such a thing as an "ideal" horse, of which the real (visible) horse is a projection.
I think that this is similar to some Buddhism doctrine but actually almost the opposite. Buddhism says there's no ideal horse, in fact there's never even a real horse, instead there's just some assemblage of bones and guts and so on. I suspect that the Anatta doctrine of Buddhism might be the opposite of Platonic Idealism: Anatta would say there's no self in the world, maybe also no horseness (no horse-ideal or no soul-of-horse) in the alleged horse , etc.
Buddhist "escape from the cave" might be to understand that the cave is just an analogy, an idea with little or no basis in reality.

This is what we have to get alert on. All the philosophers get caught on this point. They draw the line. (Divided Line). (There is/ There is not).

If someone believe he is buddhist. what is the basic beliefs?

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth."Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta"

This drawing   clearly show there is a path to escape.


text:
Computer Feedback in Meditation
Are there any meditation computer  feedback programs out there? Like Biofeedback.
What could they do? Allow a teacher much insight into a student? Allow a meditator to know when wandering is happening,  when subtle thinking is happening or to know when reality is seen directly or with concepts?
Would this be a helpful tool to be used all the time, only  sometimes or never?-(Perhaps because it creates a duality, it creates aversion, it's unnessasary, it's not in the Pali Canon or anything).

Biofeedback programs just take data such as heart rate, blood pressure, etc... and display them on a screen so that the person can see them. The underlying theory is that if a person can directly see what's going on, they would be better able to adjust themselves to slow them down.
Because these devices cannot directly access the mental activity of the meditator, I don't see how they could be of much use. Certainly if one is developing some form of calm abiding it might be useful to an absolute beginner, but once they start making progress, even stopping to check the machine readout would be comparatively distracting and would erode one's concentration.

I've heard of some meditators who use tools like EEGs. Of late these models are becoming pretty cheap, USD 100-500, which was unthinkable even a few years ago. They can't be very accurate at this price but they are there, see for example Neurosky Brainwave.
At least in theory they can reveal whether thoughts stray frequently or stay in one spot, and we can train using the feedback to move brain waves to certain areas and stay there. I don't immediately see how this will add any more than novelty value to my meditation practice, since I already know the familiar zones my brain hits by observing the breath and other bodily signs. If I was more curious I'd probably read up on the possible patterns of breaths and their associated brain states, as far as I know the advanced Buddhist meditation literature is pretty encyclopaedic about such patterns.
Of course, such tools might be very useful - having never tried one I can't be certain.
A lot of reviews I've read claim these don't work very well. They seem to be mostly marketed for kids with ADD, but the geeky meditator is an emerging sub-category.
If someone I knew had one around I'd try it since I am curious, but since I know it'll probably be a useless toy on the shelf after a few weeks, in the spirit of letting go, I've skipped buying one for myself.

There is a device called a muse. It is a personal EEG. I purchased it and have been using it for months. This device is now invaluable to my practice. You wear the device while meditating, and use a mobile app that listens to your brain and translates the level of activity into natural weather sounds. If your concentration is good and you are focused the weather is mild, if you are thinking or distracted the weather is more severe. You can calm it by bringing your attention back to your breath. This device does exactly what it claims to do. The more you use it the better it gets also,as there is machine learning that builds a profile specific to your pattern of neural activity. After two months the detection is so precise that the weather noise accurately detects nearly every thought that I have while meditating, it is incredible. If you have issues with a wandering mind, or getting lost in planning or lamenting while meditating, then this device could certainly be of good use to you.
Here is a link to what I am referring.muse website


text:
Breath patterns in texts
What is the canonical reference if I wanted to read about breath patterns and their mapping to specific mind states?
A while back I came across an online text which contained some very hard-to-remember tables of breath sequences. It was, if I remember correctly, a Visuddhimagga style Theravada text. It listed breath sequences such as a 2s-4l-2s breath sequence (s-short, l-long) followed by 2s-2l-2s etc. and mapped them to specific stages on the way to Jhanas and nanas.
It also had explanations about the kind of person who would get a certain sequence - for example a person who's upheld sila would get so-and-so breath pattern as opposed to a person strong in samadhi etc.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
I'm open to such texts from any tradition.

Very interesting question. I hope someone has an answer.

Definitely something I would expect in the Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga)..

@Ahmed that's my thinking too but I don't know the book very well, and merely scrolling through the PDF was unsuccessful in discovering this sort of section. It can't be very obscure since I read it on the Internet. I recall reading that less than 20% of Buddhist texts are translated and available on the Internet.

Added an answer @JoseB

The breath patterns you are mentioning (2s-4l-2s breath sequence (s-short, l-long) followed by 2s-2l-2s) is generally found in Yoga / Pranayama than in Theravada Buddhism.
Nevertheless, Anapana Sutta does mention about the long and short breaths. The breath is considered a bodily fabrication and it is tied to the body. (If you stop breathing then you are dead.) In meditation you have to calm your fabrication, out off which the bodily fabrication generally cease before mental fabrications. As you get concentrated your bodily fabrications also slow down hence shorter breaths. When you come out of meditation your breaths become longer as you start creating fabrication. If you start thinking and pondering (verbal fabrications) again your breath becomes longer as these fabrications influence bodily fabrications.
Kamabhu Sutta, Culavedalla Sutta & Rahogata Sutta covers more on the 3 fabrications out of which bodily fabrication is tied with the breath and breathing process.

Thanks Suminda, yes Hatha Yoga does manipulate the breath, but I was referring to automatic patterns. No choice or will involved. You are doubtless aware the breath will automatically morph during meditation because it is tied to the mind states. Sometimes it thins, sometimes it stops, but I've observed near the jhanas certain obscure breath patterns can start automatically. The lungs can bellow out, or the breath can  become very fast or loud etc. The book I remember was definitely Buddhist. I find in these practical matters meditators of all traditions will have overlap, esp. with Hinduism.

In Katsuki Sekida's book Zen Training - Methods and Philosophy, the author talks about bamboo breathing.  Essentially, the way the practice works is that you exhale in smaller, segmented breaths much like in the way a stick of bamboo is segmented.  This has a couple of applications, specifically for Zen.
First, Sekida states that bamboo breathing helps build "internal pressure".  That's a phrase he invents in the book, but the way he uses the terminology and the phenomenology he attaches to it makes it sound an awful lot like mushin.  I'm personally not a fan of using his method for emptiness meditation - I think that a single deep, natural abdominal breath is better - but he seems to have some success with it.  I think his main reason for employing this technique is to maximize the time the body is completely stable.  In the conventional way of a single breath, you only get that space of pure nonaction (i.e. not breathing) at the very end of the breath prior to inhalation and to a lesser degree before exhalation.
Second, and I'm in more in agreement with Sekida here, he applies this type of breathing to working with the turning phrases of koans.  For instance, say you were working with Nansen's cat.  Your exhalation pattern might be segmented along the lines of "Kiiiiiiillllls [stop] theeeee [stop] caaaaaaat".  Again, I'm not sold on it, but it does make sense.
Sekida actually does a lot with breathing in his book.  I mean, the dude spent almost sixty years watching it so he does have a lot to say on the subject.  He even brings in ideas like lung capacity, recovery breaths, etc. etc.  If you're interested in the place of breathing from a Zen perspective, his book is worth a look.

Thank you I will be sure to look it up. The active manipulation of the breath is new to me - usually that isn't very Zen or popular in Buddhist styles.

Nope.  That's for sure!


text:
Is the next Buddha the same entity/being as the previous Buddha, or another discrete being who comes to the same realizations as the previous Buddha?
I do not have a strong theoretical grasp of the concept of rebirth, so I am wondering:
Is each Buddha that has existed/will exist the same being, reincarnated? Or is each Buddha a totally unrelated person from the previous Buddhas and Buddhas to come, who just happens to realize all of the same truths that the previous Buddha realized?
Thank you

Anatta - The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the  belief in atman (“the self”). The absence of a self, anicca (the impermanence of all being), and dukkha (“suffering”) are the three characteristics of all existence (ti-lakkhana).

Yes, they are totally different beings.
But Buddhism is saying that the very nature of your question is incorrect... that there is no self nor no-self. That these individuation of consciousness into selves is by itself incorrect for myriad reasons, one of them being that the 'new Buddha' could not exist without the 'old Buddha' ... and even the 'old Buddha' won't exist without the possibility of the 'new Buddha', someone to help This is especially because in order to become a Buddha, one's resolve for helping others (compassion paramita) must become completely pure, including taking the 1st Mahayana Vow to "not enter Nirvana until all beings are saved." We must look to the Mahayana to explain the concept of Buddahood because a Buddha is certainly different from an Arhat who would rather abide in emptiness (which is still helping beings) but that is another argument entirely..
Anyway, you won't understand till you are Enlightened yourself (not that I am) because the illusion of self-and-other is from whence your question comes in the first place.
Also, there is the perspective that bodhisattvas are nirmanakaya manifestations of the Buddha. So if you became Enlightened, it might be because you are a projection body of a Buddha (who has a spiritual parent as well)! Don't let this discourage you from practice though: this and the previous illusion mentioned are important at the Ultimate level of reality and in the relative senses of things, the answer reigns that yes, there is a relative person who mustered up the characteristics necessary to become a bodhisattva/Buddha and escaping forced rebirth and afflictions, consciously able to manifest myriad powers and help others according to causes and conditions.

I would comment that the first Mahayana Vow was not taken by Buddha Gotama because not all beings are saved.

Next Buddha is a totally unrelated separate person to previous Buddha. He will realize the same truth as previous Buddha when his(previous Buddha) teachings are no longer among us.
Once someone becomes Arahant, He will never be born again. The whole purpose of being Arahant is not to be born again.
How can previous Buddha can tell prophecy about next Buddha?
To be a Buddha, its saying we have to do lot of good Karma and endless sacrifices. Buddha can see someone's Karma and how these Karma going to effect them. Therefore, Buddha can see whose Karma is fulfilled to be next Buddha and when it happens.
As become a Buddha is so difficult, it's only for great persons who has endless courage and such a kind heart for all beings to preach them Dharma and make them aware of Samsara.

I think it's famously difficult to identity the Buddha; for example, in the Sariputta-Kotthita Sutta

Now, what more do you want, friend Kotthita? When a monk has been freed from the classification of craving, there exists no cycle for describing him.

Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta,

Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.
"Any feeling... Any perception... Any fabrication...
"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

That being so I don't see how it's possible to compare two Buddhas, to ask whether they're the same or different.
Asking the question might presume some Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), which the Buddha denied.

Apparently there's a Trikaya and Dharmakāya doctrine. I don't know, maybe you might want to say that all Buddhas are of the same Dharmakāya -- perhaps analagous to saying that there's no such thing as two different nirvanas. But Dhammakaya is not especially a Theravāda doctrine (except see also the 'Dhammakaya Movement of Thailand').

Which you believe will depend on tradition since it is impossible to determine without insight.
Some believe he is a different being, others that he is a manifestation of the same entity. It does not really matter does it?
The lotus sutra may ease your curiosity, however there were many arrogant disciples who were frightened and could not bear to hear it. If you have a teacher you may want to ask them whether you should read it.

It really does matter with Theravada buddhism. I am believing the above given my answer not because of tradition. But that is how it should be according buddhism teachings. If Buddha is tried to free from re-birth and if we believe he will be born again as Maithree Buddha after some long time, then there is a problem for me. And with all respect, I answered according to Theravada. Not according to Mahayana.


text:
Text request--Abhidhamma
I am looking for a legal, online version of the Abhidhamma in English. Can anyone point me towards some good online sources, especially for the major books of the Abhidhamma?

Just to clarify, you are asking for them translated into English, right?

@Bakmoon, yes, I will modify my question.

The "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" is an excellent translation of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha with extensive explanation / charts by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It can be legally downloaded from:
CMA
There are scanned copies of some of the Abhidhamma Pitaka available at:
Dhammasangani Pali English
Vibhanga Pali English
The Pali versions appear to be legal, the legality of the English versions is questionable.
My strong advice to you is to start with the CMA. Only once you have truly mastered this text should you even consider looking at the original Abhidhamma Pitaka texts.

The Abhidhamma in Practice

From Preface of this book,
This book is not a synopsis of the Abhidhamma which, in itself, comprises seven volumes of the Pali Canon. Here, some aspects of the Abhidhamma have been related to practice. If this little book helps the reader to appreciate that the teachings of the Enlightened One are never mere theories but always stand to reason and can be verified in the crucible of his or her experience, then its purpose will have been served....


text:
Text request--Tibetan Buddhism
I am looking for some legal, online Tibetan Buddhist texts.
I have been studying Buddhism for a long time (although mostly Theravada) and so I am not looking for something at the beginner level.
Something that involves specific, meditative techniques/instructions and/or deals with emotional development would especially relevant to me. A list of major texts would also be appreciated.

Which school of Tibetan Buddhism are you interested in? Each school has its own distinctive practices and their own texts that they cherish.

I don't mean to be proselyte, but I know of a good program were you can get online texts, but it is not for free. If you are interested, let me know. Otherwise, there's no need for me to "advertise" on SE.

@TenzinDorje The question doesn't seem to be asking specifically for "free": it's asking for legal and online.

@ChrisW It's true that the question doesn't seem to be asking specifically for "free", but appearances are deceptive. Moreover, I was afraid of not being in my right place by suggesting a paying one. I just did, though.

The Gelug tradition expounds on the following five types of meditation.
You find here teachings (for free) related to Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim. They must cover the first, second and third types of the five types of meditation I list below. They were given by my teacher.
You also have the possibility to subscribe to the FPMT Online Basic Program. It provides with study material on twelve subjects. You can chose which subject(s) you wish to study. Again, the Stages of the Path (Lam Rim) module relates to the first, second and third of the 5 types of meditation listed below, while the Ornament for Clear Realization, Ch 4 relates to the practice of the four placements (as well as to actual vipassana, meditation on emptiness).
The five types of meditation you find in the Gelug tradition are:

Of the type of Vipassana (i.e. analytical), but not actual vipassana
Most Lam Rim topics are objects of such analytical meditations.
Ani Karin Valham (a quiet inspiring nun and teacher from Kopan, ordained for almost 40 years now) wrote outlines called beginner's meditation guide. It's best is you already know Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length or Greater Lam Rim text. There are other Lam Rim such as Atisha's Lamp for the path to enlightenment and so forth.
Calm Abiding (non-analytical)
In Tibetan tradition, we cultivate calm abiding mostly by focusing on a [mental image of] the body of the Buddha. Not so much on one's breath. Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo, volume 3, explains the practice. Commentaries on this are:
- Samatha Meditation, by Gen Lamrimpa.
- Balancing the Mind, by Alan Wallace.
- Study and Practice of Meditation, Leah Zahler.
- Gyaltsab Je's Explanation: Ornament of the Essence Chapter 1
Actual Vipassana (i.e. analytical meditation on emptiness)
As commentaries to the 2nd part of the 3rd volume of Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo, the FPMT advises these:
- Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom.
- Insight into Emptiness, by Khensur Tegchok
- Meditation on Emptiness, by Jeffrey Hopkins.
- Emptiness Yoga, by Jeffrey Hopkins.
Four Placements (close to Sathipattana, but not as elaborated as the typically Theravadin practice)
- Maitreya's Ornament of clear Realization (and commentaries by Haribhadra, Gyaltsab Je, etc)
For further study, the four placements are the first of the 37 aids to Enlightenment (Skt.: bodhipakṣa dharma)
Mahamudra
It is meditation of the conventional nature of the mind (clear light - or 'clear and knowing') and its ultimate nature. Exercises such as 'the mind like a mirror', or 'the mind like the sky', or 'four placements without an anchor' are preliminaries to it. One can study The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra from H.H. the Dalaï-Lama & Alexander Berzin. Mahamudra is divided into two: (1) sutra and (2) tantra.

For Karma Kagyu school several legal, online, free, traditional sacred texts are available here.

The Asian Classics Institute is a free resource that has texts from all the Tibetan schools in PDF form, with both the original Tibetan and English translations. They also have free audio courses.


text:
What is the 'key' to these tantrika works?
At the end of this article, First Principles of Buddha Dharma, in the  'Summing Up' section, it says,

In the sense of Dharma being the 'teachings' of the Buddha, the teachings that explain the Path of Awakening, we find them composed in twelve types of scripture.

and,

(12) Upadesa, concerning esoteric doctrines, the equivalent to Tantra ('tradition'), in which the Buddha appears in various archetypal forms, for the illumination of beings. These tantrika works are quite numerous, but not readily comprehensible except for those who have the correct key to their meaning.

What is that Key ?
What is the meaning of it?
Is it a secret of that tradition?

From Lotus Sutra:

He has thus taught this sutra in many places for the sake of the
  sentient beings. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Brahma. Sometimes
  he has appeared in the form of Śakra. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Īśvara. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Maheśvara.
  Sometimes he has appeared in the form of the great commander of the devas.
  Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Vaiśravaṇa. Sometimes he has
  appeared in the form of a noble emperor. Sometimes he has appeared in the
  form of a minor king. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a wealthy
  man. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a householder. Sometimes
  he has appeared in the form of a state official. Sometimes he has appeared in
  the form of a brahman. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a monk, nun,
  layman, or laywoman. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of the wife of
  a wealthy man or a householder. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of
  the wife of a state official. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of the wife
  of a brahman. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a boy or a girl. Sometimes
  he has appeared in the form of a human, or a nonhuman such as a deva,
  nāga, yakṣa, gandharva, asura, garuḍa, kiṃnara, or mahoraga.
  “In this way he has expounded this sutra and saved those in the states
  of being of hell-dwellers, hungry ghosts, animals, and those in difficult circumstances.
  Sometimes he has transformed himself into a female in royal harems.

...

If he is able to save them in the form of a śrāvaka, he teaches
  the Dharma by changing himself into the form of a śrāvaka. If he is able to
  save them in the form of a pratyekabuddha, he teaches the Dharma by changing
  himself into the form of a pratyekabuddha. If he is able to save them in
  the form of a bodhisattva, he teaches the Dharma by changing himself into
  the form of a bodhisattva. If he is able to save them in the form of a buddha,
  he teaches the Dharma by changing himself into the form of a buddha. Thus
  he transforms himself in various ways according to the capacities of those
  who are to be saved. If he is able to save them by means of parinirvāṇa, he
  manifests parinirvāṇa to them.

Thanks, I thought about "Mudra" or 'Yogini' like things.


text:
Why does my mind feel slow to think nearly half day after my meditation?
I would like to know if I should expect any problems after I have done my meditation in the morning for a half hour? For the whole morning afterwards, my mind felt very slow to think of anything. Is that a good or bad sign?

What type of meditation?

Maybe there was so much noise before, that when there is silence, you perceive the lack of noise as slowness.

Breathing Meditation.

I  choose a quiet place to meditate.

I understand you take your breath as your object. But what type of meditation do you engage in? Analytical and non-analytical meditations are not differentiated by way of their object, but by way of the function of the mind (and the factors you "stress").

Re: mind feeling "very slow", "very slow to think of anything" -- when someone tells you something, can you reply immediately without thinking? That's a sign of good meditation.
If your "very slow to think of anything" just means you are going around basically without thoughts, and you can respond to anything spontaneously with no blockages / no doubts - that's good. While, if your "mind very slow" means you can't respond - that means your meditation was basically cultivation of sloth/torpor.
It is said, if your meditation is wrong it can be a cause of being reborn in an animal world! Meaning, if in your meditation you generate "laxity", then you are only training in making your mind dull, like the mind of a cow or sheep! So you need to know what is laxity in real experience, and must be able to recognize it when it arises. Laxity is when your mind is not sharp and bright during meditation. Meditation mind should be very sober, not like a drunk mind or sleeping mind.

Thank you for your reply.
Of course, If someone asked me a simple question, I can reply Immediately.
If the question asked that I need to think than I need to think hard before reply...
I had been doing simple meditation at home almost nearly 10 years. before this I don't have this problem, especialy in this few months...
If I meditate doing well for that 30min, I'll have this issue (Mind Slow) for 3 to 4 hrs on that day, After that become normal.

Just let me explain my feeling for this issue, The feeling is just like when you go to Seaside or Mountain area, you mind will feel relax, happiness & Etc, just like my mind become blank, Empty & would not like to think of somethings...

If I were you, I would practice the four placements for a while, in order to find out what's going on. Focusing to much on cultivating the concentration mental factor might have you bury things, turn away from any object that's not your breath, and burying impedes understanding. You might want to get to understand how you relate to things by practicing the four placements.

@user7061 relaxed like at a seaside eh? Sounds like you're doing okay, your mind is dropping an obsession with thought and activity arising from insecurity. Fearlessness coming from stillness is good.

If "slow to think of anything" means less distracted thoughts then that's good. But if that means your overall awareness/mindfulness decreases instead of increases then you might want to check your meditation technique. A nice effect of meditation is a decrease of the Five Hindrances: desire, ill-will, sloth/torpor, restlessness/worry, and doubt. (ref: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest)

Since this episode when you wake from sleep are you groggy and tired or relaxed and alert?
The lack of activity isn't an indicator of anything, the quality of the mind and body is.
Do you see a decrease in sense desires and aversions? Do you see a decrease in any addictions or obsessive habits, such as checking your phone for notifications?
This can be a very good sign if any of the above positives are true. Otherwise something is seriously wrong with your meditation technique, but not to worry such errors are early corrected.

Because you're grinding through it rather than being relaxed and clear and enjoying it
Simplest way to fix it is after you've done your stuff, take a small break, then focus on the meditation point and notice how it feels as you focus, then drop the focus and rest a second and focus again. Notice that how you focus affects how you feel when you link to it. Try lots of different ways and at some point you'll hit on one where it feels 'exciting' and 'clear', then stick with that onhe