text:
Is there a "good" consciousness?
I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana? Is there a consciousness of nirvana? Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?
I would call that the "good" consciousness, like the good guy in the movies. i.e. salvific.

I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana?

According to the Theravada abhidhamma, yes, it is called a lokuttara-citta, and it is beautiful (sobhana).

Is there a consciousness of nirvana?

This wording is a bit more difficult to answer. Since nirvana entails unbinding of consciousness, it is hard to describe it as being conscious of anything. Still, technically the mind is said to take nirvana as an object; it is probably better phrased as "object of focus", as in "the mind is focussed on/in unbinding", rather than "the mind is conscious of nirvana" - the latter is a bit of an oxymoron, I think.

Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?

"creates" is a bit problematic. lokuttara minds are said to be unconditioned, yet there is clearly a process that leads to them, and that process clearly involves certain specific minds - namely, the mind that realizes the first and second noble truths.  There is a consciousness that is necessary for the attainment of nirvana; I don't think this exactly means that said consciousness "creates" the nirvana consciousness. It is all very technical. In practice, nirvana is the unbinding, so any talk of creation and arising is very much out of place.

hmm thanks, that's something for me to ponder. :)

What is Good? We usually see a person who does  not cause others harm and is basically of an open benificent attitude "good."
Anything can be described as good based on how open and non-harming it is IMO.
Similarly, a state of consciousness which is Good...
There is a mundane level and super-mundane level to this idea.
The mundane level is this: metta aka loving-kindness: being in an overall attitude of unconditional loving-kindness as well as the other brahmaviharas, mudita, karuna, upekkha.
The supermundane level is probably what you were asking about...
Consciousnesses are only a part of the True Consciousness. They are just imitations and second-level projections.
The best way to reach this True Consciousness is to naturally let it appear by never trying to reach it in the first place.
So to answer your question, yes, the best consciousness is the consciousness in which you are free from suffering and dualism. It is also uncreated and unborn (as the sutras state).
Thus, to achieve the best level of consciousness, let go of all levels of manufactured consciousnesses/ideations (including the idea of achieving itself) and only the truest can remain.

ok so freed consciousness is just that. but e.g. kensho - isn't that a change to a specific consciousness? a nice answer, but i maybe want more. i might accept it...

I wondered if there was a "good" (I mean that in a non-technical way) consciousness?

Consciousness exists as a taker of objects. Consciousness works together with perception to cognize an object in the cognitive process.
Consciousness is not a thing. The problem is that we are forced to talk about it in conventional terms using nouns. That can give the impression that there is "something" there but there is not.
Since there is nothing there, there is nothing to superimpose qualities onto such as "good, bad etc.". The act of superimposing qualities such as "good", "bad" etc. onto objects are taught by the Dalai Lama in his book "How to see Yourself As You Really Are" in the chapter "Identifying Ignorance" on p. 45-49 and the chapter "Why Understanding the Truth Is Needed" on p. 63 where he writes:

"The supreme scholar-practicioners i India - Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, and Dharmakirti - understood that the truth cannot be realized without seeing that we superimpose on people and things a status of solidity and permanence that actually is not there. The emptiness of that false superimposition must be understood, and to do this they analyzed phenomena through scripture and through reasoning".

And further:

"When ignorance is overcome, you will have uprooted the mistaken beliefs that superimpose on objects qualities such as beauty and ugliness beyond what they actually have".

I have made a highlights in this above sections.

What sort of cognition is the cognition of extinction?

I am not sure i understand your question correctly. I will try to answer as best as i can.
When dealing with conditioned phenomena both physical and mental they all follow a specific process. That process is  "arising, presence, dissolution".
When doing insight meditation one can observe this process clearly. The dissolution/extinction part of phenomena happens e.g. when the abdomen has reached full extension on the inbreath and then begins to fall. That is the start of the dissolution step. When the falling of the abdomen has finished then the dissolution step has finished and one can clearly see the impermanence of the breath. This dissolution step can be seen in all phenomena and when observed it will grant access to understanding the impermanent nature of conditioned phenomena.
This is taught by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw in his book
 "A Discourse on the Anattalakkhana Sutta" in the chapters "Refuting A Self Apart From the Five Aggregates" and "Why It Is Called Impermanent" both on p. 85-90.
Lanka

disagree, consciousness is a thing as much as it's objects are.

Thank you for the downvote. Consciousness is a knowing, an awareness of an object. Its not a thing. Things dont even exists. Terms as "good" and "bad" dont even exist. They are all conventional concepts. This can clearly be seen in insight meditation.

i disagree that conventional designations don't exist, but it's a matter of perspective - so i'm not so much claiming that you're answer is wrong but that it doesn't answer the question which is clearly about language and its use, existence and so forth. sorry if i offended you.

You have not offended me. Of course you have your right to disagree. Im not pinpointing that. I just thought it was not good to downvote answers because of personal/subjective opinions. The Buddha has said that its okay to use conventional language but not to be fooled thereby. These things such as language are created by humans they are not real in an ultimate sense. Speaking about profound things such as consciousness with conventional language is bound to cause misunderstanding because language is limited.

Anyway i hope you get an answer that you can use. I wish you a good day and may you be well and happy.

ok, sorry... but it has nothing to do with opinions, it has to do with finding your answer unhelpful, due to being so generic / glossed. i'm glad you're not offended, and have a good day :)

Im sorry too if my answer was generic/glossed. That was not the purpose of it. My answer has as its foundation the teachings from the Dalai Lama and Mahasi Sayadaw. I will put in some references to improve my answer.

Answer updated.

thanks, i wasn't saying your teaching was wrong, at all, only that i found it unhelpful in this instance :) !

Its okay:) Wish you a nice day.

Consciousness is like a cup which is holding water. Without consciousness you will not exist. Buddhism talks about four elements and some relgions three elements, and some five as the basic building block of various objects of Nature including humans. Consciousness is the holding structure for these elements. But if you see it objectively it is just a container which is holding you including mind, various sensory organs etc etc. Can you label a container good or bad? You have trillions of cells organized inside your body. What the is organizing principle here?
Nirvana is a realization that consciousness is not the final thing. Infact it is not a thing. Nirvana does not break consciousness otherwise you will die. It is just that consciousness will not manifest again as a body. Upon death it will be merged with the whole or Sunya or nothingness. Your desire gives a shape to your consciousness. For example if you desire to be a scientist in this birth and it is not fulfilled, consciousness will give it a shape in next birth. You might have PhD parents in your next birth.
Nirvana is a direct experience of something beyond consciousness. Call it superconsciousness or Sunya. From that point on more desire and hence no more movement of consciousness.
It is the most difficult concept intellectually to grasp.

Are your answers based on your personal opinion, or are they based on your personal experience, or are they based on doctrine? If they're based on doctrine then could you reference (i.e. link to or cite) the source (the doctrine) which you're paraphrasing in your answer)?

I am born and brought up in India. These things are imbibed in our interactions with wise men. East is not about doctrines its about living them and there are masters to help you. Consciousness also known as chitta can only be experienced and writing about it is not the right thing. I took the liberty of explaining but I dont think consciousness can be defined in an easy way.


text:
What is the easiest way to achieve a state of no physical suffering?
I read that those monks who self-immolated probably felt no pain because they were in nirvana...
Is there a state you can get to more easily than nirvana where you can be conscious and pain-free? If so, how many hours of meditation do you need to get there, on average?

I think the monks certainly felt the physical pain of being burned. Their bodies were real and their pain receptors must have been firing. However, they were likely also of high enough attainment in meditation where they were able to recognize the 3 Characteristics of that pain: it is impermanent (temporary); it is unsatisfactory (suffering); it is not-self (no delineation between the fire and the body...no watcher and no watched). The first seems especially pertinent here.  I am sure others will have much more thorough answers to this question.

@JeffWright a minor quibble; I don't think anyone needs to be of ANY attainment to recognize that pain is unsatisfactory (suffering) :)

i think buddhist meditation teaches the extinction of mental suffering, not physical. here's something to think about: if we didn't experience mental suffering would it matter that we experienced physical suffering at least if it was temporary? i think so, but it's an interesting thought perhaps

Take some Ibuprofen

You can reach states after a couple of years of practice where the "suffering" caused by pain is mitigated to a degree.  The sensation of pain is still there, however.  The only state I've read of where pain might not be felt is in nirodha samapatti.  Here, feeling and cessation cease.  In fact, the consciousness stream temporarily ceases almost as if you were dead.  I don't think you can put a number on how many years (lifetimes!) it would take to reach that state.  It's only available to one who has mastered the other eight absorption (rupa and arupa) and then possibly only to those who have reached the stage of arahantship or non-returner.  See MN 111 for a description of Sariputta entering this state and the Visuddhimagga at XXIII for a gloss of nirodha samapatti.

Cessation also happens as fruition (phala-nana) where there is no consciousness (no mundane consciousness, it is written); so no pain either.

worth thinking that most people define pain as a physical thing, so only formless beings would go without pain how they mean it - having no tactile sense contact

@eudoxos I'm wholly unfamiliar with Vipassana.  I will definitely look into that.  Thanks for the info!

On average, how many hours of meditation do you need to get there?

This can be a tricky question to answer. You see practice and development is different from person to person.
That is because people are different. We have different kamma and have done a variety of past deeds in this life and previous lives. This means that its very difficult to give a broad description of lets say how much time people have for practice and thereby how long it will take for them to develop a strong concentration. Some have a lot of time while others have shorter time. Others have a lot of time to practice but also has a lot of mental resistance that keeps them from developing.
Regarding the mental resistance people can have when practicing the dhamma there are the five hindrances. They are what keep beings from developing in meditation and thereby achieving the focused state you are asking about.
You can read more about the five hindrances and there antidotes here And here is an absolutely fantastic audio dhamma talk on the five hindrances by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. Here is part 1 and part 2.
In brief the five hindrances are:

Sensual Desire (kámacchanda)
Aversion or Ill-will (vyápáda)
Sleepiness – sloth (thina), torpor (middha), sluggishness
Restlessness – worry about the future, regret of the past, anxiety (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Doubt (skeptical doubt) (vicikicchá)

These hindrances can become a barrier for the development of meditation. For example if one has a tendency to have ill-will towards beings, objects or situations this ill-will can give further rise to anger, resentment or hatred in the mind which agitaes and distorts the mind so that it cannot see clearly or concentrate without wavering. In order to develop strong concentration we have to do away with wavering of the mind. The antidote for ill-will is loving-kindness. One should then practice Metta meditation. You can learn more about Metta meditation here.
So you see it depends on the being how long it will take to develop e.g. a strong concentration. There are different factors we can mention e.g. practice of the dhamma in this life and past lives, how much time is available for practice, how intense the hindrances are in that being and many other factors.
The best way to develop the concentration you are asking for is to begin practicing yourself and then see for yourself how long it will take. You are actually the only person that can answer it. A Buddha can also answer the question though but then you have to find one to ask.
Lanka

You cannot attach a time frame but the shortest part for an average being (without prior practice in a particular type of meditation) is through Anapana.
In Nirvana you do not feel the mental pain. In Niroda Samapathi you don't have mental and physical pain.

Jhāna-samāpatti = comprehending samatha-object, no pain.
Phala-samāpatti = comprehending nibbāna, no pain.
Nirodha-samāpatti = no conscious, no comprehension, no object, no pain.
Nibbna = No conscious, no body.
How long to meditate for Phala-samāpatti?
In mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta and nettipakaraṇa said that if the practitioner have gotten appanā-jhāna, then the meditation to enlighten Phala-samāpatti is not going on more than 7 years.
That is the reason why mahāsatipatthānasutta, most of burma-forest-tradition, and most of  thai-forest-tradition, always give ānāpanassati to the newbie practitioner.

Useful question. (Quảng Đức, the man on fire, was protesting the persecution of Buddhists):

I partially agree with SSSD answer. He says the shortest way is through anapana (respiration) style meditation. In standard ten-day vipassana meditation retreats, the first three days is spent learning/practicing anapana. The intention is on this to hone one's senses to accurately practice vipassana. That's what I came to understand its purpose at least. However, I believe--after experiencing reality beyond gross sensations--the quickest method is via vipassana started with anapana. (Anapana should be used as needed.)
A bonus effect vipassana students seem to experience, is the understanding of how physical pain is transient. In other words, it seems that most make a large step to achieving a state of non-reaction, stoic observation of pain.
For instance, after the course was over, one girl mentioned how she was taking a shower during the course. She decided to experiment. She turned the temperature all the way cold...then all the way hot. She observed the frigid liquid pouring over her without aversion. Then she observed the scalding hot water on her, unscathed. Two others noted they had done the same thing during the ten-day retreat.
My experience for truly understanding, at least temporarily, was on "vipassana day." I followed the rules of the grounds: Didn't observe the others during the course, was timely, etc. On the fourth day, after sitting for hours, I really wanted to move. My legs were in very uncomfortable pain. After ~34 hours of meditation (over the 3.5 days),  I just kept observing my breathing as Goenkaji and the teacher instructed. Just before learning the vipassana (body scanning) technique, I had this "storm" of pain well up. Legs began to shake. But it was in those few moments, after learning vipassana, the pain...still present...was observed without reaction. My legs immediately went still.
In about four days (10 hours per day) of anapana and vipassana I did not achieve a complete state of physical suffering. I experienced the state. I sampled a sliver of the pie. I should also mention that I was practicing sitting leading up the course. And before sitting, I went through all the free guided exercises of the Headspace app. I like to be overprepared.
To give you a better sense of how long it might take, before taking the course, I had very poor meditation technique. Ha, it was atrocious. I was mixing methods and taking the easy way out (counting). I was doing that for at least two years, on and off, doing poorly executed self-taught methods. My point is that it's extremely beneficial to follow a formal meditation technique, and finding a teacher will further the value. Otherwise, a state of no physical suffering may not ever happen. (Regardless, the goal itself should not be a state of no physical suffering. It's a darn good reason to start though ;)
So we now know that it may never happen if following poor procedures. Second, one needs to consistently meditate every day. It doesn't necessarily have to be vipassana. One simply needs to sit, and ideally follow a formal technique.
How long until expert level? This does not mean one has achieved a state of no-self and the relinquishment of suffering, but it may give you a better idea of how long it might take. These are based off the 10k-hour rule-of-thumb:
Case 1: Full-Time Job

2000 hours per year (50 weeks per year, 40 hours per week)

10,000/2000 = 5 years.

Case 2: Part-time
Same deal, but 20 hours per week meditating. I made it 50 instead of 52 weeks to point out that it's not a cake walk: it does require concentrated effort...

1000 hours (part-time work-week) per year

10,000/1000 = 10 years

Case 3: Good Student
Meditating the recommended hour in the morning and hour at night. They're such a good student.

Two hours per day

10,000/720 = ~14 years

Case 4: Adam's Original Plan

One hour per day

10,000/360 = ~28 years

Case 5: Ain't Nobody Got Time Fo Dat

30 minutes per day

10,000/180 = ~56 years

Could also knock off a year for every ten years if taking a ten-day (100 hour) course every year.

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:
Can we be sensously aware without consciousness?
I wondered (after this thread) what Buddhists have said about this question.
Can anyone, monks, Buddhas, ordinary people, be aware of a sensation without consciousness of it?
And moreover to link it to that question more explicitly, can such a sensation still be pleasant unpleasant or neutral.
Thanks :) !

Short Answer: No.
Long Answer:
First, you'll need to define what you mean by consciousness.  If we take consciousness as "conscious awareness" then by definition, if you don't have consciousness of something, then you are not sensuously aware of it.
However, it's possible that you may unconsciously register things that impact your consciousness later. For instance, if you get a "bad feeling" about someone, this may be due to you unconsciously registering several factors like quick facial sensations, tones being off-kilter, etc...

Without consciousness, there's no registering, no matter how quick it is.

@SankhaKulathantille it depends on how you define consciousness, and unfortunately that term is very slippery.  I take consciousness to be awareness, in which case not only is there registering (without consciousness), but it seems that the VAST MAJORITY of what we register is not conscious.  In fact, consciousness is the tip of the iceberg and a very miniscule portion of our life and functioning.

For anything to register, contact(Phassa) should happen. For contact to happen, consciousness needs to be present. ex: eye consciousness, ear consciousness  etc. Then comes Vedana and then recognition(Sanna). Consciousness is present in all these steps whether the registering is vague or not.

@R.Barzell yeah thanks, that answers my question though i won't mark it answered without a quote or something - thanks :)

@user3293056 Well both Husserl and Sartre said all consciousness is consciousness of something, although this isn't from a Buddhist perspective, and I don't know if this is an exact quote or the motto of the school.  If you're ok with that, I can edit it into my answer.

The answer is no.
I remember from one sutta, ven Ananda asked buddha about consciousness.
In five skandhas, form, sensation, perception, mental formation, and consciousness (vinnana).  Buddha told ven Ananda that consciousness could not exist alone by itself. It has to be conscious at one of the four skandhas. Ven Ananda asked Buddha further if vinnana could menefest in anything besides those 4 .    the answer was no..(thus nirvana is not part of five skandas, there fore, vinnana cannot take root there)  Every single being from lowest plane to highest heaven are conscious of one of four things, form,sensation, perception, and mental formation.  He also asked Buddha,when would a consciousness cease to exist..Buddha said when the other four skandhas cease.  So to answer your question,  consciousness and sensation is circular dependent (Buddha said many times, vinnana ceases when name and form cease ; name and form cease when vinnana ceases)  name and form is another term buddha often use for five skandhas.
I think i answered ur question and then some..

I like this answer. As I understand it, there are only two things (one thing): The Void, and Experience. Someone I know said, "The Void can't know Itself." Thus, Experience came to be. A hologram of light with no screen and no projector.

i would like to add, from a sutta, Buddha mentioned "empty space in a tight spot"  or "a void in a tight place"  .  Buddha siad Consciousness come to be and end, (in modern term like flashes of light or like a synapse of a brain- series of snap shots.  and in between flashes or snap shots of consciousness,  there is a void in between.  this void he referred to as "void in tight space".  In all of us, this is where we do not have consciousness, a place between synapses.  He said only him had first hand knowledge of this phenomena, not even any would arahats would see it.

@Dean Aikas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html

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


text:
Does final nirvana conventionally exist - especially in the lotus sutra?
Does every tradition, especially ones descended from the lotus sutra and the Buddha's immeasurable life, claim that parinirvana is a conventional existent?
Assuming that it's not a dharma, I don't know.

oh i guess that it is isn't both and neither... hmm

In my experience, zen and tibetan buddhism do not claim that the self of an enlightened one can be completely non existent. In fact a zen master when asked this question might answer "Uncertain." or "yes" or "no". Ask for definite answers is a limiting factor in an unlimited universe.
The following article discusses your question in far more detail than I can:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/

Here is an excerpt that applies to your question: But there is no
  doubt that they affirmed the reality of the self or person, and that
  with scriptural authority they held that the self of an enlightened
  one cannot be described as non-existent after death, in “complete
  Nirvana” (Parinirvana), even though the five “aggregates” which are
  the basis of its identity have then passed away without any
  possibility of recurrence in a further life. These five are material
  form, feeling, ideation, mental forces, and consciousness.
It seems, then, that they thought of some aspect or dimension of the
  self as transcending the aggregates and may have identified that
  aspect with Nirvana, which like most early Buddhists they regarded as
  an eternal reality. In its involvement with the aggregates through
  successive lives, the self could be seen as characterized by incessant
  change; but in its eternal aspect, it could be seen as having an
  identity that remains constant through all its lives until it fulfils
  itself in the impersonal happiness of Parinirvana. Although their
  account of the self seemed unorthodox and irrational to their Buddhist
  opponents, the Pudgalavādins evidently believed that only such an
  account could do justice to the Buddha’s moral teaching, to the
  accepted facts of karma, rebirth and liberation, and to our actual
  experience of selves and persons.

yeah - the unanswered questions. i was trying to frame them in a different way that might leave the question answered and not indeterminate :)

With all due respect, what could anyone do with the answer if they could quantify it or express it in words? It might resemble asking what the theory of swimming is when the boat has capsized and someone is uncertain of how to swim.  On the other hand some Buddhist traditions consider the answers to such questions to be of importance. I am glad you asked the question. I will be glad if no one tries to answer it definitively because we could be swayed to believe that we know the answer.  Thank you.


text:
What community activities do monks in southest asia take part in?
I often read about monks have little free time in their schedules but aside from teaching other monks I am not sure what they do with all their time. I have seen monks in Tibet working in an orphanage and monks in Thailand giving public talks.
Aside from this what involvement with the community do monks have (excluding dana)?

Perhaps you want to generalize your question to cover all monks and not just southeast asian monks

They try to fulfill   "Muni vrutha" - Muni's=Saga's, vrutha=Duty.
refer - Nalaka sutta.
[Nalaka:]  I ask you, Gotama, you who have gone to the beyond of all things. I'm intent on the homeless life; I long for the almsround. Tell me sage, when I ask you, the utmost state of sagacity.
[The Buddha:]
I'll explain to you a sagacity hard to do, hard to endure.
Come now, I'll tell you.
Be steadfast. Be firm.
Practice even-mindedness, for in a village there's praise & abuse.
Ward off any flaw in the heart. Go about calmed & not haughty.
High & low things will come up like fire-flames in a forest.
Women seduce a sage. May they not seduce you.
Abstaining from sexual intercourse,……..

Know from the rivers in clefts & in crevices: those in small channels flow noisily, the great flow silent. Whatever's not full makes noise. Whatever is full is quiet.   The fool is like a half-empty pot; one who is wise, a full lake. A contemplative who speaks a great deal endowed with meaning: knowing, he teaches the Dhamma, knowing, he speaks a great deal. But he who, knowing, is restrained, knowing, doesn't speak a great deal: he is a sage worthy of sagehood; he is a sage, his sagehood attained.

Householder Hugh, interested
the Duties of the monks who are the disciples of the Buddha, and follow his Dhamma-Vinaya faithfull, in what ever country, past, present and in the future, are equal.
Aside of practicing (meditation or involving in discussions, learning, repeating the Dhamma), carry the heritage proper and strive for being worthy for gifts by going after paths, fruits and highest liberation, Bhikkhus have serial duties in regard of their community of monks and teacher, student relations within there. Outside of this, there are NO duties at all, neither teach Dhamma nor others toward lay people and society. (if doing such, for the most, especially if social engaged, it's not seldom related with wrong livelihood and corrupting families, grave wrong doings) When good monks are teaching, then such is always an act of compassion, not even allowed to receive alms in return.
A set of duties of Bhikkhus generally in their community can be found here:
Vatta Khandhaka: Collection of Duties
There are further duties, like to take part on community transactions and the two weekly citing of the Patimokkha, their main rules.
There are countless other duties, related to their requisits, their rules and practice, and to learn all of them, one of the first, starting with ordination.
Lay-people, following the Tripple Gems, are open to give what ever inspired into the great field of merits, the heritage carries of the Bhikkhu Sangha, by their lovable deeds, by lovable words, by lovable thoughts, by keeping open house to them, by supplying their material needs. If they are after much success and eager to stay close in practice and refuge, there are duties given by the Buddha as success for such.
Monks are excpected to stay (SN 16.3: Candūpama Sutta —) Comparable to the Moon at the two times in touch with laypeople, and if not able not getting engaged in any business outside their internal duties, should not leave their community and training.
In fulfillment of ones duties, the Buddha-Parisata (assembly of Sangha and lay follower) do not only to the best for their own, but work also for next generations, that this steam of goodness, deriving from the Buddha, will for many being happiness and as a way beyond, stay long time alive and accessible in this world. May nobody misses to take such seldom gained touch as a precious possibility joining and take part, where ever one is.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment, but only as means to escape this binding wheel)


text:
why the disciples of the buddha introduced the buddism?
I read that the buddha had not wrote anything. He was used to speak Magadha language. Then sanskrit and pali language appeared when his disciples wrote down his life & experiences. I have already asked a question on language. This time i have a question that states 'why buddha didn't wrote anything ?'.

Very clearly i wish to say that 'i do not allow myself to follow any priest or disciple of any orientation 'until unless i find the basic of the orientation calling me in for it'. It may appear rude but i have a question to all the available disciples on this site that 'why they are teaching me or answering my questions when they are not a buddha (they can never be).

I want someone to turn my disbelief into a belief with any known/available logic.

Can you edit your question to clearly state what you want to ask?

(I'll assume the actual question is in the body, not in the title).
Naturally, no one can answer why someone didn't do something but that specific someone (but if you really wanted to know from the Buddha, you wouldn't be asking this here...). But there are practical reasons that could explain.
Writing is not teaching.
While you are writing, you are not doing anything to anyone. Being in a cave for years writing a lot about something, and then having a flood take all your sheets away can render all those years useless.
Writing is not teaching, and it is visible that the Buddha was primarily interested in helping the actual people he actually met and guiding those interested to become masters of the subject, and then, teachers themselves. As any educator can attest, this is the highest form of education.
There wasn't a broad "reading culture" -- though there were written texts -- at that time and place. Thus, there were not many readers.
To be of great value, writing requires an author who knows how to write and many many readers who were trained to read certain language(s). Moreover, writing is taking a chance that not only someone trained to read that language will meet your texts, but also that he will be interested and he/she will understand as it is -- an unreasonable expectation -- since there is no possibility of real dialogue.
Not only that wasn't common as it is today (nor there were any alphabetization goals that I know of), but understanding (and teaching) the dhamma is hard as it is. It is even harder if, before teaching dhamma, one would have to teach how to read. So, it's just a major distraction and the benefits were hardly guaranteed.
Instead he advised people to memorize discourses (real discourses, to real people with real problems) and always welcomed any questions they had -- the suttas are full of FAQs from disciples to disciples, and disciples to the Buddha. That's a real learning setting. And the discourses were texts, though not in written form. Orality, in any case, is not a poor-man's "literacy".

'Naturally, no one can answer why someone didn't do something but that specific someone (but if you really wanted to know from the Buddha, you wouldn't be asking this here...).'. Actually i wonder that why i put my questions here. Very true.


text:
Is it ethical to kill plant life while gardening?
I live in Denmark and here we have gotten an amazing concept called "City Gardens". Its basically a 3 x 3 meter garden in the middle of the city granting city dwellers acces to grow their own vegetables, flowers etc.
Yesterday i got one of these gardens (see picture below). I thought about cleaning it up and plant some new stuff in it but then i saw that there were many small plants and flowers growing in it already.
I do know that the first precept is not broken since it covers life that has a breath and a consciousness. But i was wondering if im breaking any other buddhist ethics or precepts by interfering with that plant life already living there?
Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Lanka

Wow. You cared for them. Let me appericiate what a beautiful thought you have shared. Bravo 'for the strength that you have in you.

Thank you for your comment Jitin. Before i became a buddhist i have worked with gardening and i care deeply about our nature. Nature can provide a natural calming environment for meditation. And gardening actually creates a unique intimate relationship with nature since one can gradually see life processes and life cycles in "real time". It also allows one to really see the characteristic of impermanence. If you ever get the chance to try gardening i would highly recommend it. Gardening can also be having just a single plant at home. Caring for it and watching it grow.

I am blessed that i am in conversation with a person who has a similarity depicting me.

Just edited the title to better describe the question so people (and search engines can find it). Hope that's OK - please roll back if not

@CrabBucket. I think you made it more precise. Thank you.

I added to my answer to mention tiny animals

@ChrisW. Thanks Chris. I noticed that all the time that there are so many tiny creatures in the earth and lot of earth worms. I have decided to just let nature grow and only interfere minimally with it. I love to observe all the animal life taking place in the garden.

I was fortunate to be able to hear a local dhamma talk yesterday about "tending the garden" in our own mind; watching, watering the good seeds, weeding the wrong views. It was interspersed with the monk asking the audience about their own physical gardens as well. Surprising how many people mentioned feeling badly about pulling up "weeds" and destroying them. Sunim gently reminded everyone how when we compost weeds they become part of the earth again and they'll support new plant life. I thought that was nice. :)

Thank you so much for this perspective Robin. Can i ask if this dhamma talk was audio recorded? There actually is a compost here also so i can put the weeds in there, thereby not wasting stuff. I think that is a beautiful view on it, conceptually speaking. I recently heart this saying: "Only lemons can grow on a lemon tree, meaning that only wholesome actions can spawn wholesome results".

@Robin111 That reminds me of the straw dogs in the Tao Te Ching.

Lanka, I'm sorry, there was no audio recording. It's a local Seon temple where they have a monthly day of mindfulness for anyone to attend. In this tradition the monks do gardening and the grounds are just beautiful. Here is their website http://daeyensa.org/ and facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/54986384456/) which has some nice pictures of the beautiful and peaceful outdoor environment there. :)

Buddhist monks
I think that the vinaya forbids monks to dig: see Destroying Vegetation.
That depends on the school/tradition though, e.g. in some countries where the lay society doesn't support the monks, the monks might do agriculture themselves.
Jains
There's some historical relationship between Buddhism and the Jains. Perhaps Gautama studied with Jain teachers before his enlightenment? Jainism takes ahimsa to a level beyond that in Buddhist doctrine, e.g. vegetarianism is mandatory and it forbids the eating of roots etc.
Tiny animals
I think too I read something of someone visiting Tibet a while ago and reporting that people there were careful about how they dug: very slowly, wanting to avoid hurting worms and so on that live in the soil.
Similarly here's a sentence from Wikipedia's description of Jainism,

Strict Jains, including Jain monks and nuns, do not eat root vegetables such as potatoes, onions and garlic, because tiny organisms are injured when the plant is pulled up, and also because a bulb or tuber's ability to sprout is seen as characteristic of a living being.

The introduction to the Buddhist Vinaya that I mentioned above says,

Digging, breaking the surface of the earth, lighting a fire on it, pounding a stake into it are all disallowed. (If such 'earth' is more gravel or sand than 'soil' — and has no living creatures in it — it may then be dug.)

A couple of other perspectives on treating earthworms gently from an early Buddhism.SE question. :)

The Buddha reportedly ate a meal of pork at least once in his life. So one pig had to lose its life. The Buddha ate rice pudding so some cow had to eat the grass to produce milk and some weeds must have lost their life to have grown the rice.
It seems that no matter what we do in life some harm is done. Maybe do less harm would be more sensible. The Buddha advocated the middle way between hedonism and asceticism. The Tibetan Buddhists eat meat. So what are we to do?
Do no harm against life for selfish ends. Do no harm against our neighbor to gain advantage. Dedicate your work to all beings.
In your case you could donate some of the crop to food pantries servicing the homeless or needy.
In another sense there is only consciousness. When we weed the garden in meditation we make room for a new consciousness. When we plant seeds in the garden or consciousness, we are planting the divine seed of awakening.
Being paralyzed by fear of doing harm is not the middle way as I see it.
Perhaps the saying should be Clear your intentions of doing harm. Have an intention of giving life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

Right intention[edit] Right intention (samyak-saṃkalpa / sammā
  sankappa) can also be known as "right thought", "right resolve",
  "right conception", "right aspiration" or "the exertion of our own
  will to change". In this factor, the practitioner should constantly
  aspire to rid themselves of whatever qualities they know to be wrong
  and immoral. Correct understanding of right view will help the
  practitioner to discern the differences between right intention and
  wrong intention. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained
  thus:[19][19][21][31][32]
And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom
  from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.
It means the renunciation of the worldly things and an accordant
  greater commitment to the spiritual path; good will; and a commitment
  to non-violence, or harmlessness, towards other living beings.

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. Especially the advice of giving some of the plants and flowers to others. I know my "nextdoor garden neightbour" offered me some of her spices so i will give her my plants in return. This way they can live on in another place and be cared for.

Glad you received the comments in the spirit they were given. Intention is the key to the rightness or wrongness of some action. Every action is an opportunity to hone our intention so our intentions are transparent, without selfish implications.

"Every action is an oppertunity to hone our intentions." - Well said.

Keep a smile in your heart!

It is all about intention. you must set your intention on peaceable love, fruition of that love in your garden. there are weeds which are essentially herbs, and you may want to leaner a little of them, as they are actually medicine, and food.
On the weekend we had lectures from the venerable Robina Courtin who spoke of a child crying that his shaved head would take the home from his lice. but if you take yogurt, garlic, you kill the bad flora in your gut. If you take sugar, you kill the good bacteria.if you take medicine, you do the same. everything you do, every action is constructive and destructive. and that is beautiful. it is not the action, but the mind. it is vitriol, pleasure in killing, hatred we must steer clear of.
Your intention is to create a thing of beauty, food for others, something lovely and peaceful to provide retreat. I would build on those thoughts. In good health. Do your best. forget the rest.

Thank you for this thoughtful answer. I like this advice "Do your best. Forget the rest".

In AN 4.198  (quotes below from Bhikkhu Bodhi translation), we have the Buddha discussing four kinds of persons existing in the world:

the one who torments/tortures himself;
the one who torments/tortures others;
the one who torments/tortures himself and others;
and the one who does not torment/torture himself and others:

And how is a person one who does not torment himself or pursue the practice of torturing himself and does not torment others or pursue the practice of torturing others -- the one who, since he torments neither himself nor others, in this very life dwells hungerless, quenched and cooled, experiencing bliss, having himself become divine?

Among the characteristics of this person, we find:

He abstains from injuring seeds and plants.

In "What the Buddha never taught", by Tim Ward, there's a rather humorous section describing the workarounds that monks resort to when they need to kill plants or disturb insects, either to collect firewood, or clear the walking path or empty a water bucket full of mosquito larvae. Since they can't ask a lay person to directly do these harmful deeds for them, they resort to innuendo and hints. This irks the author who resents being the lay assassin for the monks. The author points out that in the end, despite all the fussy rules, of course the jungle always gets cleared one way or the other, and the bucket full of mosquitoes always gets overturned.
Thai Buddhists love their meat, but they can't kill animals, so typically butchers in Thailand are Thai Muslims.
I agree with the author, for I think such workarounds miss the point of Buddhism.
Life is precious, and life needs to be respected. There's no need to make a fuss about it, lest it become a rite and ritual. Nor is it right action to pass on the burden of destruction to someone else.
I'm a vegetarian because I respect life, but if I have to clear a garden I'd rather clear it out myself and take on the karmic consequence than get someone to do it for me.

Thank you for the reference Buddho. I too think that it's not good ethics to pass on the burden of destruction to someone else. We ourselves must take the responsibility for that.

@SriLanka You will enjoy reading "One straw revolution" by Masanobu Fukuoka - see free PDF/ebook. A Japanese customs officer has a kensho awakening, and embraces farming and Zen, cultivating his crops without weeding the land by intelligent use of insects and crops. He finds yields are better and healthier with far less effort and violence.

Good question or better Sadhu for being that heedful! In short remember aside of getting support by certain opinions simply the advises to Rahula and simply process according to them. Maybe Atma can provide some food for thoughts and arguments to deny certain views later.

People who worry about sentience of plant life as beings are actually considered delusional.
I will revise this answer when I find which Buddhist text I read this from but just know that if my memory serves me well, then I remember reading a original Buddhist text Q&A about sentience with the answer ending with a list of delusional trains of thoughts: "there are certain people whom think that since plants are sentient they are also beings, like our brothers and sisters, and to eat them would be wrong. This is a delusion and false thinking."
The take home message: just because something is sentient does not mean it is a being.
However, this does not give you license to go out trampling every plant you see (anger karma and an unnecessarily decreased beneficial thing in the world--you aren't eating it you are smashing it away).
I also add that the attitude of care and love that you approach plants with is excellent and definitely beneficial.

Thank you Ahmed for your comment. Even though plant life dont have a breath they are still living things and thereby worthy of care and respect. Also plants and trees provide oxygen for animals and humans by making photosynthesis.

They are worthy of the utmost care and respect.
They breathe like us and perfectly complement our own breath and health.
This might sound like a contradiction to what I said but I talk to my plants sometimes and I do it because they are sentient and can feel and respond to my feelings and wishes.
But according to Buddhism they are not sentient beings and cannot attain Awakening.

Actually all sentient beings might be considered delusional. Wikipedia defines "sentient" as "composed of the five aggregates" (my guess is that plants are not of all five). However, "A tree deva is a deity that 'lives' in a tree." Except for the existence of devas I would have guessed slightly the opposite of what you said, i.e. I would assume that plants are  in some sense "beings" (because they are certainly composed of form, albeit limited by anatta) but are not entirely "sentient" (that they are composed of sensation and even perception, but I doubt mental formations or consciousness).

@ChrisW I agree. I don't know if it is the complentarity of our natures that gives the semblance of a spirit but yes.. nonetheless this animism is reprimanded though in a Theravadin scriptural Q&A I read on the internet through some vegetarian subreddit...

I am too concerned that I am hurting the 'weeds' when clearing my garden. It's hard to find a balance when you want to be clean of clutter in a communal space. For the most part, I have let the weeds flower at least, giving the insects plenty of available food sources. I've been particular about leaving certain plants ie. Ragwort, as I know cinnabar moth caterpillars eat only this. But now the flowers have died off, I'm now just going to have to dig them up. It's going to be a long task, but I'm also looking forward to the end result of a clean patio ready for my friends to come over and enjoy the summer with me in the garden :)

It's not a sin, however, for doing plant killing you would curse yourself and every generation would be affected. If you kill plant life, make sure you plant one; one to one; Theruwan saranayi

A simple answer would be no,
2 things to remember, the modern science is categorizing plants as living creatures. (not that Buddha rejected)
1) it's the "karma" and your intention in your mind does the "karma". unless you are not intentionally hurting any living thing( assume plants are not living things) it is okay. as per your saying, your intention was clean it up and make it more grown
2) it may affect, if you are cutting whole set of trees in a huge jungle, coz,
that would result in, destroying living places for animals, might kill small creatures in the process, and eventually you are helping to pollute the air, by removing it's cleaning agent, which will kill humans. will break first precept
i think now you can decide on your own

Hi Sachyy_J, Welcome to Buddhism SE! We as Buddhism SE encourage our community to use teachings to answer questions and not to base on personal opinions when answering questions. So beware next time to not to include guesses or personal perspective, But if it is necessary directly say that in your answer before mentioning your opinion.

authors: ปรียะ คําโฮง


text:
Will I be considered a real Buddhist if I take refuge alone?
I see myself as a Buddhist and I would like to take refuge. Can I do it alone ? Will I be considered a real Buddhist ? Please excuse my  mistakes, English is not my first language.

Sure. Why not? There is no such thing like baptism in Buddhism. However, for full ordination as a monk, you need to do it under other monks.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

Yes you can take refuge in the triple gem (the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha) alone.
Here are 2 links for you.
The first link describes how you take refuge in the triple gem.

The second link describes how to take the five precepts. They are normally taken after taking refuge in the triple gem.
May you be well and happy and free from mental and physical suffering.
Lanka

You mean taking the three refuges in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_%28Buddhism%29)?
Or do you mean taking the precepts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts)?
In any way, you can take them by yourself.

You need to clarify your motivations.
If you believe the teachings of Buddhism to be true, then you are a Buddhist when you practice Buddhism, and no ceremony in the world will change that.
On the other hand, if just want to label yourself as a Buddhist to others, then the ceremony (and any other paper-work) is the most important thing you can do.

One aspect of taking refuge is your commitment to develop the qualities of the triple gem in you.
Yes you can do it on your own without anyone else involved.
You don't need an external entity to call you Buddhist or declare that you are a Buddhist, it all depends on your cultivation and practice.
(Edited from the Wikipedia link to make it complete)

Having taken refuge in the Buddha a Buddhist should not go for refuge to other deities or teachers salvation and enlightenment. (You are making a commitment to practice the Buddha's path with faith that this reaches the final goal of enlightenment and salvation and setting aside other practice hoping that it will take you there so you are given fair trial to the technique. Setting aside other practices so you have faith in what practice gave you the results. ) You should understand and try to develop the qualities of the Buddha in you.
Having taken refuge in the Dharma a Buddhist should do no harm to other sentient beings. Also set aside other practices, teachings, rights and rituals aimed at achieving enlightenment. Also develop the qualities of the Dhamma in you.
Having taken refuge in the Sangha a Buddhist should not rely on heretics (teachers and practitioners of other forms of rights and rituals aimed at achieving enlightenment and salvation) as means to achieve enlightenment. Also develop the qualities of the Sangha in you.

But one of the gems, the sangha, isn't a community of buddhist people? How is it possible to take refuge on sangha without other people?

Pardon me. I didn't get what you are asking.

The original question was if it is possible to take refuge alone. And you answered that one aspect is to take refuge on the triple gem. But one of the gems is sangha, right? Isn't sangha a community of buddhist people?

Yes. But taking refuge is something on your own than in a community. You can do it in a collective basis also. Sangha is the practitioners who have become monks collectively or as a entity. (E.g. like a company though it is a collection of people. )

What's the old adage, "We don't become Buddhist. We just realize we already were Buddhist".
Becoming Buddhist can be done alone by taking the 5 precepts and being earnest to follow the path; however, the path is hard. Thus, saying you're a Buddhist is really the easy part. Remaining on the Buddhist path is the hard part. At a minimum, you have to live compassionately and align your thoughts with your actions. That's pretty hard stuff and why the Buddha made the Sangha one of the three gems that help us with our practice.
The other reason Sangha is important is that Buddhism is less about knowledge (although that's there) and more about wisdom. Wisdom allows us to gently work in difficult situations and be truly compassionate while others are filled with passions. The wise application of what you know generally comes by interacting with a teacher and other people. Other followers can catch you when you fall and provide an ear when you feel weak. That's difficult to do alone.


text:
Dealing with intense negative emotions
What would you recommend as a short-term fix for someone in serious psychological/emotional pain? If meditation, what kind?
I feel pretty angry/powerless/frustrated right now, or "unenlightened". I don't want a long-term solution, as any long-term goal requires short-term will which I don't feel I have. I find that the problem with overcoming powerlessness is that the process of "overcoming" in itself requires power, which by definition is not present in the powerless person.
So, in other words, how do things ever change or break out of their self-creating cycles? How are these cycles created to begin with? And, more specifically, how the hell do I get out of the cycle I've suddenly found myself in? How do I go from CONCEIVING of it as inescapable, to at least getting to the point where I CONCEIVE of it as fixable by me, and in other words, create something out of nothing, and not stay in this rut? Is it just by not thinking altogether, and deprogramming my mind to the point where I (or God, or the powers that be) can reprogram it again from scratch, but this time with superior software? I know this is a terrible SE question as it's so general, but I just really wanted to vent. I got out once, but apparently fell back again. I have no real clue how either happened right now, as I am totally, totally in the shit. Feel free to judge away, or not.
As a side note: AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: Ok, I've had some time to cool down and am feeling better now. Thanks to both Ahmed & jitin for hearing my rant; I will most definitely give the body scanning/observation technique a try.

The power/strength will not come your way from anywhere. It is in you. You have enough strength to share (i.e. You have shared your thinking, you wrote it to us). Do not seek positive from others. It is in you. You still have a hope (that you will have a satisfying answer).

It is so beautiful of that you understood 'what you need to do instead of giving up. Accept undiluted love for you from me. Wishing good for you. Regards.

Use the body scan emotional release technique.
Be calmly aware.
Don't desire to get rid of it.
Don't try to put it into thoughts (don't try to understand whatever situation this problem arose from). If your mind continues to try to figure it out, just notice that too. Realize that you are NOT your thoughts or emotions. You are the Mastermind, the Overseer, the Watcher. You are Him that sees all!
Just be with your pain and notice how it ever so slightly changes from one place to another, from one color to another, from one feeling to another.
JUST FEEL.
Don't force anything to happen, just FEEL what is.
Eventually, the energies will dissipate on their own and transform themselves into their positive counterparts.
These instructions are ample and I can confidently overcome leftover emotions from rejection, remaining hatred after argument, and even tiredness by using this practice. All these instructions are one step: totally accepting, almost-curious awareness. If it helps, you can prepare yourself by labelling the emotions or freely writing/journalling about them until you are ready to give them up--sometimes with extremely powerful emotions you HAVE to do that as preparation.
Also, don't be so ready to give them up. There is much to learn from great suffering.
Also, this practice is definitely a Buddhist practice of the highest standard (Vipassana) with infinite room to grow and you will be doing The Most Important Thing, carrying on your cultivation throughout your life and even beyond death.

The Discourse on the Stilling of Thoughts (Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta) covers the strategy to deal with such thoughts. The First Discourse on Removing Resentment and The Second Discourse on Removing Resentment deals with anger management. The 5 steps in the process are:
First is that you realise that you have a negative emotion. If this does not happen you will miss the subsequent steps.

You can replace the thoughts with more wholesome thoughts
Look at the downside of such thoughts
Do not pay attention (do breathe meditation)
Calming down the thought process and cause:

removal of cause

The thoughts can be triggered by some sensation in the body. Scan you body for such sensations.
The thoughts when coming in contact with the mind sense door causes sensation and proliferation of thoughts so objectively examine sensation around the head area.

Calming the thoughts

By anchoring your mind on the breath experiencing the whole breath cycle (the impulse to start, the start and the acceleration, the middle and peak of acceleration, the deceleration and the stop of the breath) and then the length also. This calms the verbal and bodily fabrication.
The look and the feeling arising in the whole body to tranquillise the mental fabrications

If this also do not work bring you attention to the upper plate (sensation and arising and passing of phenomena on this area) and place you tongue on it. (You can also try the plate and philtrum or more broadly the upper lip if this is generally the resting area when doing breath meditation.) This may cause a lot of vibrations. (If you generally place you attention in this area when doing breath meditation and arising and passing of phenomena is clear, a lot of old formation will start surfacing.) If your teeth start rattling slowly grind you teeth to stop the rattling. This intense Piti can:

Remove any sensations triggering the negative thoughts and emotions.
Break the polifration of thoughts due re enforcement of sensations created by the irritating from previous thoughts by replacing the sensations with Piti
Dissolve the formations and lighten the Karmic effects of the negative emotions.

Try to recollect the power on which you are unable to focus. Try to accept that there may be people in situations (more worse than your's). Try to accept what you already have with you (although it is very less but it is your's, a man with just one working finger in his whole body and a relaxed mind can always handle every situation(s) with the understanding of the acceptance. May this world is appearing bad and saad place to you but remember it is the only place where you can practice life and yes you can even create a new world (all you need is to accept and set yourself on relax mode first). Thank you for sharing the anger and restlessness. It made me accept that I am a bit thankful to myself for being able to retain peace inside me. From a few bit to maximum of it ,is something for which I practice life. Regards.


text:
Does suffering motivate us to achieve our goals?
Here's an interesting situation.
Let's say we have to persons. Tom and Happy. Both have the same desire: "I want a new car." The strength of their desires are equal. Tom lives in universe A, Happy lives in universe B. Both universes are exact copies of each other, everything is the same, timeline is the same, events are all the same, everything,.. Tom and Happy are copies of each other, clones, but there's just one little difference between the two universes: Tom suffers, Happy does not suffer.
Tom suffers: "I have an old car with bad engine and that's why I'm not happy. I want a new car."
Happy does not suffer: "I have an old car with bad engine and I'm happy. I want a new car."
Both persons want a new car for the same reasons: "Because it's old and has a bad engine."
The only difference between Tom and Happy is that Tom is suffering because of his old car with a bad engine; and Happy is not suffering because of his old car with bad engine. There are no other differences between Tom and Happy and the two universes they live in.
We can see that both Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car: old car with bad engine.
If Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car, both will exert the same amount of energy to get a new car. So, both will do the same exact actions in their universes to get a new car. So, both will get a new car at exactly the same time.
But Tom has one motive more than Happy: Tom is suffering! Does that mean that Tom will get a new car quicker than Happy?! If Tom has more motives than Tom, than it's logical that Tom will be more proactive in getting a new car than Happy? So, the question is: who will get a new car quicker, Tom or Happy?
The real question is: is suffering a motivator? Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold? Or is suffering not a motivator? If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life? What did Buddha say above this? I'm a beginner and I'm sorry if I don't understand, I hope someone can shed some light on this topic. Thanks

I wish to ask 'what is happiness for you ?'. I am asking this because I feel that you do not want to know about suffering but real happiness. If I am appearing valid to you than plz answer it the way you have asked your question (example not from any veda or religious text but you own experience that you always wish to achieve). Regards.

From my own experience happiness is fulfilling our desires. Suffering is not fulfilling our desires. By fulfilling our desires we experience existence (we become conscious). By not fulfilling our desires we experience non existence. If we completely stop ALL desires from arising within our true self, we cannot experience existence (we become unconscious).
Existence is ignorance. On the deepest level, there is no happiness, suffering, nor existence, nor "being consciouss" or "being unconsciouss". There's only our true self, God, which nature is constant "creation and/or cessation of desires".

From God's nature there comes evolution, the process of putting layer upon layer of ignorance around our true self. Evolution made our universe, our brains, everything... So, everything has God inside, and everything is experiencing God's nature on one level or the other. Our brains are "machines" that can experience God's nature on our level. Probably the only ones who can see the ultimate truth. We should spend our lives wisely and take the opportunity to see the truth. If nothing else, it enhances our lives because we cease to suffer unnecessarily.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. Fact is I've never read scriptures or books about this. Has anybody ever heard somewhere the same thing that I'm talking about?

True self, God's nature - doesn't sound related to Buddhism. There is neither a permanent self nor a Creator God in Buddhism.

As per me, you are righ . As per me you have read it 'right'.

In your example you stated that both Tom and Happy had cars that had bad engines.
Tom was unhappy and Happy was okay with it.
So right from the beginning we can see that their happiness did not depend on whether or not they had bad engines but their reaction to it.
Therefore one must apply the same conclusion to the outcome of getting a new car.It's not about who gets the new car first,it's their reaction to it.
Happiness depends on reactions to circumstances.Not circumstances themselves.
Is suffering a motivator?
Yes absolutely.When the Siddhatta saw suffering he decided to pursue the spiritual life.Sometimes living in deva like bliss masks the true nature of reality.That it is impermanent,not self,and suffering.
Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold?
Yes that is why the human realm is the best place to practice the dhamma.One has their fair share of happiness and suffering.It is balanced to some extent.
If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life?
That's like saying bleeding will motivate you to bandage yourself.But if you do bandage yourself,then the bleeding will stop,then how are you going to bandage yourself..??
Removing suffering is the goal.

I think suffering can also be a demotivator depending on the context. Suppose someone that don't have a car and wishes to buy one. But he/she is very concerned about having to learn to drive and getting the drive permit, about the expenses of gas, taxes, maintenance, etc, and all these worries prevents this person from buying it.

I thought about it. I think that suffering is not a motivator.
We believe suffering is a motivator because we don't see the reality as it is.
On the deepest level of our true self, every desire always arises within our true self, independent from pain and/or suffering and/or anything else, from nothing but God, because we (our true self) want it to arise. It arises because we (our true self) JUST WANT it to arise. Our desire is clean, perfect, clear of all impurities. Then, we (ego) attach suffering to the desire: every suffering always arises within our true self, from nothing but God, because we (our true self) JUST WANT it to arise. Our suffering is clean, perfect, clear of all impurities. Then, we, our UNTRUE self, our egos, attach suffering to the desire and mistakenly see it as "Oh, I desire because I suffer". The truth is "I desire because I desire to desire", "I suffer because I desire to suffer" - that's on the deepest level.
But, if we move one step closer to the surface, away from our true self, away from God, closer to our physical world, we desire because of pain (we cannot remove pain, that's just how it is, it's in our nature, it's how our body is made). So, blinded by our egos, because of the nature of our physical bodies, "I desire because I desire to desire" becomes "I desire because I feel pain". The key is to realize that we do not desire because of suffering: we desire because of pain. Suffering comes after pain.
But, if we move completely to the surface, completely away from our true self, completely away from God, to our physical world, we think that "we desire because of suffering". So, blinded by our egos, "I desire because I desire to desire" becomes "I desire because I suffer". That's not true. First, we feel pain. Out of pain we desire to desire and there comes desire. Out of pain we desire to suffer and there comes suffering. It's pain->desire->suffering. We can't see it this way because we are blinded by our ego (and probably because of other layers between our true self and the ego).
If all our desires come from pain, and all suffering comes from pain, it cannot be that suffering intensifies (motivates us more) our desires. Pain intensifies (motivates us more) our desires, not suffering, because our desires come from pain. Suffering is just a byproduct of pain, one more obstacle that we need to overcome in order to remove the pain. Thus suffering is not a motivator. Suffering is an additional ("not needed") obstacle to overcome if we want to remove the pain.
Suppose this scenario:
Tom and Happy go for a walk in nature. They get a thorn in their foot. Both will feel the same pain, but Tom will suffer, and Happy will NOT suffer. Let's see how would both react when they get a thorn in their foot.
Tom will suffer: "Aaaa! No! It hurts! Where did this thorn come from??!! Aaaa! S**** thorn!". He will franatically move his hands, he'll be angry, he'll jump up and down, breaking things. After 15 seconds he will calm down, sit on the ground and try to remove the thorn from his foot. He'll be nervous and angry. He'll find out that his fingernails are not long enough to grasp the thorn. He'll say "Aaaa! S**** thorn! Why did this happen to me?! Why are my fingernails soo d*** short!" and will punch his fist in the ground. Then, he'll calm down, focus on the thorn and eventually pull it out.
Happy will not suffer: "Aaaa! No! It hurts!". He will sit on the ground and try to remove the thorn from his foot. He'll find out that his fingernails are not long enough to grasp the thorn. Then, he'll focus on the thorn and eventually pull it out.
What do we see here? Happy is more effective in removing the thorn than Tom. We see that suffering is an obstacle towards reaching our goals. Suffering is not a motivator. Pain is the motivator. Suffering and pain are not the same. Suffering is always internal. Pain is always external.
In my first example with "the old car", pain is "old car with bad engine". Pain is external. "old car with bad engine" is like a thorn in the foot, the only difference being that a thorn is physical pain, and "old car with bad engine" is usability pain (getting late to work, not safe for driving, unreliable transportation, dirty interior, etc.). Pain is a motivator - that's why Tom and Happy both want a new car.
Suffering is not a motivator. Suffering comes after pain. Suffering manifests in Tom in the form of anger and sadness. Suffering is internal. "old car with bad engine" is pain, anger and sadness that comes out of pain is suffering.
Who will get his new car first? The answer is Happy. The less you suffer, the more motivated you are. Or lets put it this way: pain and suffering is both suffering. If you remove suffering completely, then you suffer less. If you suffer less, you don't have to deal with your suffering to achieve your goals, you have one obstacle less towards reaching your goal, so you're more motivated to work towards reaching your goals if you suffer less. The less the obstacles, the easier the work, the quicker you reach your goal!
Here's something for perspective. Suppose you get a thorn in your foot (or you want a new car; it can be any desire):
Pain Suffering
0    0         You do nothing.
50   0         You remove pain the 10th day.
100  0         You remove pain the 5th day.

So, the more pain, the more motivated you are. Or: the more pain, the quicker we achieve our goals because we want to remove the pain.
Pain    Suffering
0       0         You do nothing.
50      50        You remove pain (and suffering) the 15th day.
50      80        You remove pain (and suffering) the 20th day.
50      85        You remove pain (and suffering) the 30th day.
50      90        You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.

So, the more suffering, the less motivated you are. Or: the more suffering, the more obstacles we have in achieving our goals.
Pain    Suffering
0       0        You do nothing.
50      50       You remove pain (and suffering) the 15th day.
50      80       You remove pain (and suffering) the 20th day.
50      85       You remove pain (and suffering) the 30th day.
50      90       You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.
60      90       You remove pain (and suffering) the 60th day.
60      95       You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.
70      95       You remove pain (and suffering) the 90th day.

So, the more suffering, the less proactive you are. The more pain, the more proactive you are. Or: The more suffering, the more obstacles we have in achieving our goals. The more pain, the quicker we achieve our goals because we want to remove the pain.
We see that pain will always be present. We can do nothing about it. But suffering can be removed. There's no sense in making our lives harder than they already are.
Did I miss something?

Is suffering a motivator?
Yes. Suffering is the motivator that has compelled people to invent many things. Ennui, boredom, curiousity, and love are also strong motivators and have invented most of appliances we have today.
Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold?
Yes. Excessive suffering = death.
Or is suffering not a motivator?
Not-suffering aka comfort, is also a great motivator. For example, here we all are discussing with the blessing of lacking enough suffering to learn the Buddhadharma, a very empowering, enlightening, and complete subject.
If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life?
Right.
In Buddhism, suffering is actually used as a meditation practice in many ways.
One way is the Buddhist self-training process for meditation: if you are extremely attached to beautiful things, go try to tolerate ugly places. If you are very messy, encourage organized behavior/environment. etc.
What did Buddha say above this?
He has said many things including:
"If there was anything else causing as much difficulty as love, Enlightenment would not be possible."
read: if people suffered as much as they did over love, then there would be no clarity of mind to ever see the Dharma.
So, as you can see, the Buddha definitely encouraged us to avoid excessive suffering.
and of course
"the root of suffering is attachment" (2nd noble truth)
Gautama Buddha has crossed to the other side and he is telling us "Hey you, fix your suffering, you are hitting yourself on the head!"
It's like we have a computer virus in us that is causing excessive attachment on things that will not satisfy and fixing that virus is called Enlightenment.
Also, in Buddhism, suffering is considered purifying away your bad karma. This is why many Zen masters would take ON suffering rather than throw it away.
"Everything is empty, so pile more burdens on my back!" --zen saying
The gist that you must understand: purposeful suffering is usually not good, but if we pay attention without complaining there are tremendous learning and growth opportunities contained within our "sufferings"! Buddhism says to not pile suffering/attachment on top of suffering/attachment and you will be the happiest person alive. The problem is that this is a habit developed over countless lives--very very hard to break at the root no matter who you are.
I leave you with this video.

There is pleasure and pain. Also called joy and sorrow.
For e.g. if I'm a sport-loving person, then the pleasure of sporting activities is sufficient to motivate me to participate in them. Here I am "pulled" towards the goal of becoming more physically active.
However, if I'm not a sport-loving person, then the pain of experiencing cardiovascular diseases or other side-effects of a sedentary lifestyle would drive me towards becoming more physically active. Here I am "pushed" towards the goal of becoming more physically active.
The Buddha taught the four noble truths of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering and the path that leads to the end of suffering.
I think you have confused pain or sorrow, with what Buddha describes as suffering (dukkha).
Suffering (dukkha) includes both pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow.
The Buddha explains in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta:

The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is
  suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
  suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation
  from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is
  suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are
  suffering.

As long as one craves for life and existence, one is subject to endless birth, death, rebirth, experiencing endless ups and downs of pleasure and pain, gaining and losing loved ones, having unfulfilled desires etc. Nothing that is joyful lasts forever. Nothing that is sorrowful can be avoided forever. Just imagine undergoing these for eternity without rest. Not just as a human, but also as an animal, ghost, angel (deva) etc.
This is the entirety of suffering (dukkha). Not just the part that relates to pain and sorrow. Such suffering should motivate you to get rid of it, just as the good prince was motivated to leave his comfortable life in search of the end of suffering.

Main motivator for all worldly beings is sensations. You chase after pleasant sensations or pleasures and avoid the unpleasant.
In the above case one person is motivated by craving for a new car and the other is motivated by the goal sans craving. The latter might have a balanced mind in his pursuit keeping things objective but maybe slack as the drive maybe less. The other person may not have the same mental balance but may pursue the goal more vigorously.
Being more vigorous may not be the deciding factor in the achievements of the goal ultimately. Loss of mental balance may motivate non conducive paths like stealing which might in fact hinder the achievement of the goal.

Tom will get the car first
If all other external factors are same Tom will get the car first,
Yes suffering is a motivator
No one in the world likes to suffer. Everyone wants to end the suffering. When Tom is suffering he asks himself, what makes him suffer, because he has an old car , then he asks , what can I do to end the suffering,  he can get a new car , so he works really hard to get a new car to end the suffering, let's look at another example, if you have a slight chest pain (less suffering) you will ignore it and will not go to see a doctor . But if you had a severe chest pain (severe suffering), you would run to a doctor.

If suffering is a motivator, then it does not make sense to
  completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less
  proactive to reach your goals in life?

Approach from Buddhism
Buddha taught us to eradicate suffering. Achieving nirvana will end the suffering. Buddha did not teach us how to reach our goals in life. Goals are things that you make up in your mind to end your suffering temporarily. Every goal has a hidden suffering. Even "Happy(a person in your question)"  suffers (but less than Tom), else he would never buy a new car. Root cause of motive is suffering. If Happy achieved nirvana , he would never want a new car.
If above people get new cars , they will find some other reason soon to suffer thus new motives happen.
Buddha taught us to end this chain-suffering (one after the other) which makes ones samsara.
To do that we have to follow the path to nirvana , not to follow some goals to solve our suffering problem temporarily, its just a plaster to an erupting  volcano of samsara which never ends.


text:
What is Nirvana? What is the practice leading to ultimate happiness in the light of one's own experience?
What is the path or practice leading to ultimate happiness in the light of one's own practice which has lead you to achieving true happiness?

possible duplicate of Can you explain "nirvana"?

That's not my question. I am searching someone who has attained nirvana but still here to answer my question. Regards.

Beyond your title of "what is nirvana in detail" you seem to be asking for someone to chat with (via comments) about happiness and life experience. Stack Exchange has a best answer format which would make such a discussion a poor fit for this site.

Asking for dialogue, not an answer

As I consider putting my question on hold I wish to ask 'is there any other way (available on this site in 'chat' section, related to my question ?

“Happiness is not an ideal of reason but of imagination”

I do not had words to put my question properly. I really really appreciate Sir Suminda for editing my question.

I will jump into the fire of people's objections to posit that there is no achieving of true happiness. My intention is to reveal the truth that does exist beyond the bounds of our human expectation of ending suffering and attaining some new state or place where happiness is forever.
Zen does not look to attain or achieve a state but to awake to what is here. The Buddha replied when asked who he was: Awake. Any path can lead to awakening. The Buddha clearly defined the Middle Way, but it is not the only way. Even Buddhists who followed false teachers found awakening.
The intention is the key. If we intend to promote ourselves and our elusive and illusive personal self, we are bound to fail.
So to relate this to the Buddha's message here are the principles of the eight-fold path. Right intent or intention is here among them.
http://www.buddha101.com/p_path.htm

The eightfold path is Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech,
  Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and
  Right Concentration.

Note that right does not mean right as opposed to wrong. Right can mean when things go in the flow or without resistance (same page further down)

The meaning of Right has several aspects, and includes an ethical, and
  a balanced, or middle way. When things go "right", we often experience
  a special feeling inside which confirms that this is the correct
  decision or action.

Further down the same page about intent

Right Intent:
The second step on the Eightfold Path is Right Intent. This is the
  step where we become committed to the path. Right Understanding shows
  us what life really is and what life’s problems are composed of, Right
  Intent urges us to decide what our heart wants.
Right Intent must come from the heart and involves recognising the
  equality of all life and compassion for all that life, beginning with
  yourself.
Right Intent means persistence and a passion for the journey. Setting
  out to climb a high mountain means you must understand the lay of the
  land and the pitfalls, the other team members, and the equipment you
  need. This is similar to Right Understanding. But you will only climb
  the mountain if you really want to and have a passion for the climb.
  This is Right Intent. The mountain we climb here is our journey though
  life.
To summarise, Right Understanding will eliminate ignorance. With Right
  Intent and correct understanding, we then remove desire, which in turn
  causes the suffering defined in the Four Noble Truths.

I rest here and leave it to those interested to find any other quotes of interest on that page. Thank you for the question.


text:
How can one navigate the experience of Tanha
I have a no close internet friend who just got stabbed.
Now, seemingly there's nothing more to it than he got in an argument, things were said, and the guy stabbed him. So, my friend doesn't want to involve the police, doesn't want to get any kind of angry revenge toward the perp, he just wants to let it be and carry on doing what he was but with less anger.
Now, for me this seems like an amazing attitude, whether or not he's being hypocritical - which he may not be, it's amazing to have that self control and not even thirst for anything - any kind of sick justice or even self concern.
So, I wondered if there was any way to control my thirsty anger at this turn of events? I don't mean I'm gonna beat the perp up (I don't even know who it was) but yeah, it's wrong to feel anger on someone's behalf, right?
Thanks.

Without being judgmental what is happening here is:

you have a perception of right and wrong
you have a perception of what is beneficial and not towards a loved one
you have a perception of you friend as a loved one

The interaction of these perceptions are causing grief and pain.
You cannot just get rid of perception at will. The process to get rid of the perception thus riding your self of the pain is Vipassana Meditation.

ok, thanks, that answered my question i think - i was talking about very coarse obstructions which the beginning practice of meditation is designed or whatever to help with, thanks :)

Good to know that this was helpful.

The answer has already been chosen, but I really wanted to provide a personal experience that may help.
Back in my 20s, I was in a Buddhist temple and witnessed a woman getting stabbed and raped. I was able to help her get away, but the angst from that 5 minute event haunted me for years. I would wake up in sweats and even get into fights with abusive men simply because I was still so angry.
What I finally did was go into deep meditation and picture the event as a bubble that would float away. I then pictured myself without that bubble. I (mentally) let it go.
It goes back to what the Buddha first called the Forefold Truths, or the "4" in early language. First, you watch anger, emotions, (suffering) arise but instead of attaching to them, you understand that they are just something that's separate from you. You then use meditation to let them go and when you fully let go, you then have a chance at nirvana or total freedom. Keeping that practice of seeing, understanding and letting go is then the eightfold path.
In essence, being Buddhist is being at peace.

both answers are correct.


text:
Philosophical and Doctrinal Differences between Theravada and Zen, and its effects
The difference between Theravada and Zen may be like night and day. I favour Zen over Chinese Mahayana because I don't quite prefer the Pure Land beliefs. Hence, I want to compare these two.
I already know that in Theravada, one seeks Nirvana and it is sufficient to become a Arahant which is already difficult enough to attain. However, in Mahayana, one aspires to go in the path of the Bodhisattva.
However, philosophically and doctrinally, what are the major differences between Theravada and Zen? Please elaborate.
For e.g. Zen has Buddha Nature and Emptiness which do not feature in Theravada. Compassion also features more strongly in Zen than Theravada. Zen also has Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth? On the other hand, Theravada strongly emphasizes the Four Noble Truths, Three Marks of Existence, dependent origination and the Noble Eightfold Path. I'm not sure how important these Theravada doctrines are to the Zen tradition.
How do these differences in philosophy shape the differences in mindset and world views between the two?
For example, are Zen Buddhists more compassionate towards the suffering of others, while Theravadins are more detached from, and thus more apathetic towards the suffering of others?
Another example: Are Zen Buddhists more in touch with their emotions in terms of compassion and appreciation of the Buddha Nature and Emptiness in nature and in the world around them, compared to Theravadins who may want to be detached from their emotions?
The philosophical and doctrinal differences may also influence differences in terms of practice. Any examples of this?

The difference is an entirely different canon!  Theravada follows the Pali canon whereas Zen pulls most of its philosophical underpinnings from the Mahayana sutras and its own oral and written traditions (i.e. koan collections, writings of folks like Dogen and Hakuin, etc.).  That being said, I don't know how you would begin to explore what the effect on mindset would be.  I would also wonder if it even makes sense to make that investigation.  So much depends on the practitioner and their own development along the path.  I've known practitioners of Zen who were total, intellectualizing jerks and Theravadans who were oceans of compassion.
Outside of the obvious doctrinal differences, another rather ironic difference between the two camps is the practice of meditation.  Jhanas, as described by the Buddha in the Pali canon, don't often make an appearance in Zen.  I say ironic as the word Zen itself is a twice removed transliteration of the word jhana (i.e. jhana/dhyana -> ch'an -> zen).  In practice, Zen does not emphasize or pay much attention to being in, say, the third jhana over the second.
I'm a little taken aback by your statement that Theravada Buddhism doesn't emphasize compassion to the degree Zen does.  If anything, the opposite is true.  You find all sorts of meditations on the cultivation of compassion and loving-kindness in the elder tradition (the Brahmaviharas for instance) whereas Zen doesn't take the same practical, directed approach to its development as found in the Pali canon.
Lasty, emptiness does factor into Theravada.  See the Maha and cula sunnata sutta for just two, albeit less emphatic, explorations of emptiness.
And to reemphasize, so much of this depends on the practitioner.  I don't think it's helpful to view either school as monolithic.  Setting one against the other isn't necessarily helpful or, in my opinion, even possible.

You're right. I almost forgot about Metta that is in Theravada.

I think the implication is that being on the Bodhisattva path inspires more compassion than on the Arahant path.

Maybe.  In practice, however, I'm not sure how tenable that is.

To add to this good answer, I think Zen is more nihilistic and more evangelical than Theravada at the same time: "everything is empty, so pile an extra bunch of burden on my back!"

Many structural models, like dhyana, are ironically "skipped" (in the very rigorous manner that Theravada beautifully emphasizes) and unconventional techniques--bordering on assault--are used. Zen is like a computer programmer (teacher) hacking his program (student) to the solution (Awakening) whereas Theravada uses a procedural, complete method of penetrating through the ego. Zen requires the right student and a compassionate master.
Books are not enough and is why you see a bunch of "intellectualizing jerks" reading Pirsig that actually don't know anything about the rest of Buddhism.

Having practiced Zen for almost ten years now, trust me when I say that Zen uses a clear, progressive methodology for undermining the ego.  That's exactly what koans set out to do.  And I think those instances of "assault" get a little overblown.   As per nihilism, emptiness is form and form is emptiness!  There's no nihilism there!  But you are right on the ball when you say that a compassionate master is required.  And ain't it ironic how many intellectuals get attracted to Zen?  Didn't they read the documentation???

It's, in a way, like comparing apples and oranges. Theravada means teaching of the elders; all it means is taking the Pali tipitaka and commentaries as more or less orthodox, and denying any teaching that contradicts them. Within the Theravada, there are many Zen-like practices, and many practices wholly foreign to Zen.
Zen, on the other hand, is I think fairly ill-defined, and means quite different things to different people. At its core is the concept of "meditation first", hence the origin of the name itself. As such, and because there really isn't a Zen canon, it doesn't necessarily fall outside the Theravada at all.
In practice, of course, there is much difference, but this can be attributed more to the specific Zen and Theravada teachers than the core principles. Zen teachers tend to take a comparatively lax view of the precepts, e.g. white lies and moderate alcohol consumption not breaking the precepts. They also tend to shun textual 'truth', which some may consider a defining difference. But even the Theravada clearly espouses the view that it is only through meditation that one can come to the truth and enlightenment.
The point is Theravada is defined by its doctrine (the Pali canon and commentaries), whereas Zen is defined by its approach to doctrine (i.e. meditation over study). That might be simplistic, but it indicates that they are not a very good pair for comparison. Thich Nhat Hanh, for example, has stated the importance of the Pali canon in his writings, IIRC, which makes him potentially a Theravada-following Zen teacher.

Agreed.  And I'm glad you pointed out that the two aren't mutual exclusive.  Sheng yen was another Zen proponent of the suttas and their importance in reinforcing one's practice.  There are also countless Zen practicioners like myself who dive into the Pali canon simply because it is so much more acessible (in translation and in content) than much of the Mahayana canon.

My research and practice of meditation in this area is something I have internally debated for many years also. Comparing Zen, which is extracted from the Mahayana Tradition comparing it to my first love and study of the Theravada tradition.
Firstly the major differences that I have traced between Mahayana and Theravada is that Mahayana, is essentially a revised and blended system. Mixed with Taoism and Confusion (i don't think I spelt that correctly but anyway). There are many mystic and magical things written and adopted within Mahayana that are not present with Theravada which is the written adoption of what was taught originally by Gautama Buddha.
Whether you follow one or the other, or Zen or Vajrayana it doesn't matter, as long as you yourself are compassionate and a good person.
The major difference I have discovered is the approach to your own salvation. Theravada emphasizes you cultivate through meditation and compassion towards Buddhahood and then when you have reached where you can, you help others. Like climbing over a tall wall, you get up and then help other get up there with you.
Mahayana on the other hand has the opposite approach, first you help others as you travel the path so that they may reach their own enlightenment.
With Zen the approach seems to be neither here nor there with the path. Adopted from Ch'an with the Japanese strictness and systematic approach it focuses on a very deep foundation of meditation through which you achieve clarity. With this clarity one then is able to see things in a different light and able to help others.
If I were to classify myself I would be Theravadin, however I practice Zen style breathing meditation.
If Zen and Mahayana and Theravada where a venn diagram they would all overlap with each other with with areas distinct to each.
The only thing I can recommend, which Gautama Buddha himself teaches, is that you study and practice meditation. I believe that if you study deeply into one of doctrines and understand it, then you will be able to study the next and so forth.
Always comparing will cause confusion and distress in your mind and you won't be able to understand any of them at the end of the day.
As the Buddha said, question everything and make sure that it aligns with your own morals.
I hope this helps.

I think you meant "Confucianism", though I don't know what Confucianism and (Zen) Buddhism might have in common.

They don't, i was probably unclear in that bit. Buddhism has the ability to blend and merge with other belief systems. So it has transformed as it was adopted the further east it travelled, combining with local traditions, and in Japan that was the blending of Mahayana and Shinto.

Today it has become difficult to distinguish the Gautama Buddha's original teachings from what has got added. This is clearly seen in your post. In a comment like this I cannot go into detail as to what they are. In ending your post, you have given your take on the Kalama Sutta which is different to how Bhikku Bodhi has interpreted it.

The difference in teachings is that Zen is based more on Mahayana ideas, such as Two Truths and Six Paramitas. (Theravada's interpretation of two truths and paramitas is very different from Nagarjuna's interpretation).
In my experience, understanding of Two Truths (according to Mahayana) helps to abandon rigid ideas and develop insight; and the system of Six Paramitas helps to use daily deeds as practice. I'm not a specialist in Theravada, but I don't know there any similarly effective system.
Finally, Zen emphasizes the reliance on direct prajna rather than on the scriptures. Perhaps that leads to wider use of various skillful means.
As people are different, I prefer to not make generalizations comparing practitioners of Theravada and Zen. Though maybe dogmatic people are attracted more to Theravada, and nihilistic people are attracted more to Zen. Sometimes it seems so.