text:
Following the Dhamma without taking refuge
A lot of people, especialy from the west, like to follow the Dhamma (Kamma laws, meditation, metta, etc.), however they worry about taking refuge, because taking refuge is seen as an official entry point in Buddhism, where your old religion should be abandoned, for Christians for example, they feel like if they take refuge they will be turning their backs on Jesus.
So the questions are: Can a person follow the Buddha's teachings without taking refuge? Can someone attain enlightment without taking refuge?

I used to be a Christian and my Christian parents are one of the most kind and generous people I know. I still respect Jesus but one day I felt I need to change something. I (mentally) thanked Jesus for being my guiding light through my childhood and teenage years and I told him that I found another teacher who I believe will make me a better person. I think that Jesus is beyond jealousy so I guess he accepted my farewell.

Yes you can practice without taking refuge, or doing a lot of other things. Proper meditation is enlightening in and of itself. I'm pretty sure you can become enlightened, possibly even a paccekabuddha.              Can you tag someone in a question to get their attention? like is it possible?

ps- im pretty sure thats how a lot of us on here started.

Can you follow the Buddha's teachings (Kamma laws, meditation, metta, etc.) without taking refuge?
Absolutely! Whatever elements of Sat-Dharma you can incorporate in your life are going to be beneficial. It does not have to be "all or nothing". However, the extent to which you follow Sat-Dharma is the extent to which you benefit.
Can someone attain enlightenment without taking refuge?
The world does not care about official ceremonies! :) What matters is your determination. To attain enlightenment, in your heart you have to be fully committed to the spiritual quest. That's the true meaning of taking refuge.
Does taking refuge in the Triple Treasure mean your old religion should be abandoned?
Regardless of your cultural background, the spiritual quest has one goal: completion. Taking refuge implies unwavering commitment to that, above worldly quests and goals. The tri-ratna is a further development of this idea, with Buddha taken as an inspiration of someone who successfully made it, Dharma taken as a guidebook, and Sangha as companions. However, despite an instrumental role of tradition, the only real working basis is one's own fundamental sanity.
What is the main benefit of taking refuge?
It is like when you lived with a girlfriend for 5 years, and finally you two decided to make it official. If love and commitment were NOT there to begin with, the wedding ceremony can't improve anything, and if love and commitment were there all the time, the ceremony does not change anything. However, in your relationships with external world, you can now firmly say "I am a married man, and she is my wife" -- which makes things simpler and gives you a sort of strength.

In his book "Le bouddhisme: une philosophie du bonheur?" (Buddhism: a philosophy of happiness?), Philippe Cornu says this about the refuge ceremony (my translation):

There are as many Buddhist rites as there are schools [...] Among all, taking Refuge or the act of going for the Triple Refuge is the most fundamental of Buddhist rites, which serves as the link between all the traditions. To go for Refuge is the profession of one's faith and the founding act by which one marks his entry in the Buddhist path. One thus places his faith in three objects of refuge: the Buddha as a perfectly enlightened being and the principle of Enlightenment; the Dharma, the teaching and its application by way of practice; and the Sangha or the virtuous community, in this case the âryasangha, the community of those who have obtained Enlightenment and not the entirety of the faitfhful. [...] "to turn towards" Refuge as the model to follow, is an internal decision, the fruit of a conviction that the Buddhadharma is the appropriate spiritual path to follow, that one chooses to follow, and  the realization that Enlightenment is potentially attainable in the short or long term. Nothing in this "conversion" of the mind is externally visible [...]
Contrary to baptism or the Judaic rites of circumscision that take place shortly after birth, the Refuge stems thus from a strictly personal commitment, and the act of taking Refuge, which consists of repeating the spell of the Triple Refuge with a firm, confident and clear intention, must be renewed regularly, at least once a day, [...] individually this time, without ceremony or ritual. Why repeat incessantly the precept of Refuge? Because of the impermanance and because of the fact that our mind is quick to forget its spiritual commitments.

As far as I can remember, at least in the Pāli canon, there was nothing explicitly prohibiting people from following the teachings without taking Refuge. On the other hand, I don't believe that this encourages a "one foot in the water one foot on the ground" attitude. It's rather that the act of taking Refuge was considered a matter of fact decision for those deciding to follow the Buddha, because the canon is packed to the brim with examples of people taking Refuge after a discussion with the Buddha- both monks and lay followers.
Benefiting from something and actively pursuing that thing are 2 different matters. There are for example Christians who've integrated Zen meditation into their practice, and they see absolutely no problem with it (and rightfully so) because they're just benefiting from a certain Buddhist teaching, they're not commiting to Buddhism.
It seems to me then that a person cannot "follow" the Buddha's teaching without taking Refuge (as far as people that that do have the possibility to go for Refuge are concerned of course). However one can still definitely benefit from it in various ways.
Attaining Enlightenment without taking Refuge is possible. According to Buddhism, innumerable Buddhas and arahants appeared in ages where there were no Buddhist teachings, and can still appear (paccekabuddhas). But just because this is possible doesn't mean that it's an easy matter since reaching Enlightenment is already a very difficult task for Buddhists. People who are very spritually advanced can do it without following Buddhism, normal people (pretty much all of us) cannot.
The guiding principles concerning Refuge is thus, as I understand it, intention and commitment. Taking Refuge is just a technique to help a practitioner retain his commitment to the teachings, nothing more. It has no value in and off of itself. If a person is serious about following the Buddha, Refuge will naturally follow if there are no obstacles to it.

As for abandoning one's old religion due to making an "official" entry into the Buddhist path, that's pretty much what has to happen. A person cannot be, for example, Muslim and Christian at the same time. It's the same with Buddhism because its "endgame" is irreconciliably different from the one that Abrahamic religions have.
On the other hand this doesn't mean that former Christians have to abandon and "betray" Jesus or the entirety of Christian teachings. A number of teachings point to the same things as in Buddhism and those practitioners will benefit from them. Jesus' life, even with his holy nature taken out of the picture, can be an interesting study for Buddhists.  The Buddha did not harbour enmity against other religions and if I remember correctly advised his newly "converted" disciples to not sever friendly relationships with their old teachers. From this we can see that while severing links with the teachings of one's former religion is necessary, there's no incitement whatsoever towards taking a negative attitude against them.
Within this light, taking Refuge and entering the path must be a well-reflected upon decision, if one is hesitating about doing it due to considerations about the former religion then one shouldn't do it until that hesitation is dealt with.

The answer is a definite yes according to the Pali Suttas (Buddhavacana).
Bhagavaa Buddho (Bhagavaa) is the Buddha in the Suttas.
The truths he pointed out to the world is the Dhamma of Bhagavaa.
These truths apply to all beings, including humans.
No label is required to shape one's life according to these truths.
His fundamental advice was to refrain from all evil. (sabba paapassa akaranam)
The evil here is what is considered as evil by the society one lives in. This was advice given to the Kaalaamas in the Kaalaama sutta.
Buddhism, Buddhist etc. are labels which have no meaning in Buddhavacana.

Refuge is the only way of practicing Buddhism.  Yes, you can learn about Buddhism before taking Refuge, but if you are serious about Buddhism you cannot progress along the path without taking Refuge.  Why?  Because nowhere in Buddhism can you practice without a teacher.  Even Buddha's still acknowledge the connection to their own teachers (e.g. Chenrezi and Amitabha).  Without a teacher or guru, your ego will be your principle guide - as we see with the extraction of core Buddhist teachings like yoga or mindfulness - those practices taken outside of the Buddhist construct are simply serving a worldly agenda - yoga for the sake of good health and vitality alone contradicts the idea that Samsara is suffering and we need to abandon self-cherishing (not that taking care of yourself is bad, but it boils down to your motivation, therefore anyone could practice yoga but to what end?)  Similarly, mindfulness was only ever meant to be practiced in order to observe our mind and keep it on a moral track and also, in the broader context, of assimilating the view of emptiness into our view by observing the nature of mind.  Mindfulness taken outside of this framework only serves the purpose to which it is applied, which (without a teacher or guru guiding us) is likely going to be ego.  We see this in all the self-improvement workshops that take elements of mindfulness and other meditation practices but place them in a secular context to make them more universally acceptable - for instance, being mindful in the workplace.  Essentially, that agenda is only serving whatever the employer's agenda is.  Which is probably not Buddhism (e.g. selflessness / abandonment of self-clinging).  In fact, we often see mindfulness meditation being used in the context of "self" improvement, which is the total opposite of Buddhist ideology as the "self" is the root of all suffering.
In short, why would you want to practice Buddhism without taking Refuge?  Either you are a theist and believe in a God - therefore Buddhism is not for you anyway - or you are an atheist but don't acknowledge that self-cherishing is the root of suffering and so want to practice elements of Buddhism to bolster your self-identity.  Or, you are simply too proud to follow a teacher - in which case any real blessings of practice will never enter your heart.
You can learn about Buddhism without taking Refuge but you cannot be a Buddhist without taking Refuge.  Ergo, you can practice calm-abiding, but only in the context of testing the water to see if Buddhism is for you or not.  To extract an element of Buddhist practice with no intention of ever taking Refuge is not Buddhism.  It's something else.  We see this in the hugely popular workshops of people like Kabat-Zinn - who studied Buddhism but maintained his Judaeo-Christian beliefs and stripped any reference to Buddhism in his mindfulness workshops.
The teachings are very powerful and attractive to people, but it all boils down to motivation.  At the heart of Buddhism is loving-kindness for others and the abandonment of self-cherishing.  When you take Refuge, that is the core of what you are taking Refuge in - "From this day forth, I take Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha in order to achieve Enlightenment for the benefit of all beings".  So, by default we can assume that anyone who doesn't want to take Refuge but still wants to engage in Buddhist practices is only doing so for their own benefit alone.
Without a guide, we are lost in an ocean of suffering.

Householder Konrad, interested,
Going for refuge, seeking refuge under the Tripple Gems - without such any long lasting success:
No, not really, only Paccecabuddhas would be able to practice the Noble-Path without refuge. Just think on how many livetimes the Bodhisatta hardly tried, and how good he tried in relation to western/modern people today, who think such might be possible, easier. At times the Dhamma of the Buddha is still vitally alive by the Sangha of the Buddhas good following monk, even such a person, having such potency or having reached the path, as well as those who had won the path in previous existance, would seek out for the refuge under the Tripple Gems, eventually join the Sangha also outwardly.
Some issues on that matter on faulty refuge or no have been answered here: How does one become a lay Buddhist?.
Today there are many how think "love and marriage" can be seperated, seeking after avoiding certain duties that come from relationship and also hold on greedy on old habits, views and relations, but all those popular approaches, often hardly neglecting monasticism and renounced life, would, how much what ever thought practiced, not equal only taking refuge into the Buddha, his good Dhamma and his straight following disciples on the road of homelessness.
So again in short to the two questions:
Can a person follow the Buddha's teachings without taking refuge?
Generally no. Only a very seldom Paccecabuddha-canditate could, and he would not having get known our current Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha.
Can someone attain enlightment without taking refuge?
Again: Generally no. Only a very seldom Paccecabuddha-canditate could, and he would not having get known our current Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha.
So good to hurry, seek out and nourish inwardly and outwardly the Tripple Gems and ones relation tendency because not even difficult to trace this days but also fast disappearing for the most. No more tracing is already a sign for one to possible have lost the track of Upanissaya (strong condition), which relays on paccaya (causes given) from ones past and present actions by thoughts, words and deeds.
Hurry up if feeling, seeing, seriousness would bring great long term happiness and beyond.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


text:
Overview of Buddhist lists
Is there a book/website that gives an overview of all the Buddhist lists and explains what their elements mean, and shows how the lists are connected to each other?

As a matter of fact, yes! Here it is: http://www.thedhamma.com/buddhaslists.pdf
I highly recommend it.

Over 600 lists. Wow.

Good answer. I was actually going to vote to close this but I'm glad I didn't. Thank you

Leigh Brasington has a good page on this. ;-)

I saw that one, but I wanted something more complete, like Snyder's book.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Enlightenment vs nibbana/nirvana
What is the difference between enlightenment/awakening and nibbana/nirvana? And how do these terms relate to parinibbana/parinirvana?

Enlightenment, or Bodhi, refers to coming to a direct realization of the truth. Nibbana is the timeless state of perfect peace and happiness which occurs as a result of attaining Enlightenment, and it will occur immediately after attaining any of the four stages of enlightenment, and can be re-cultivated as well.
Parinibbana in common usage today refers to when a fully enlightened Arahat (one who has overcome all attachment and will not be reborn) undergoes bodily death. Instead of being reborn, they enter into Nibbana again, only this time they stay that way.

Does it mean that "to be enlightened" and "to be in the state of nibbana" refer to exactly the same state?

@michau I'm not so sure about other traditions, but in the Classical texts of the Theravada school, the direct seeing of the truth occurs slightly before the attainment of Nibbana itself. The time lapse is inconceivably small though, so there really isn't any practical time difference. However, even though they are conjoined, they still refer to different things. Just as the taste and the texture of an apple occur along side one another inseparably and yet are different things, Enlightenment and Nibbana are distinct things that always go together.

Thanks, but how come can they be distinct, if one is a translation of another (according to this answer: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2565/760)?

@michau I think that answer was using the term somewhat loosely. The translation of Nibbana is extinguishment (of craving, according to context.) Enlightenment is a translation of Bodhi, not Nibbana.

It's not correct to say Nibbana is a result of attaining Enlightenment. Nibbana is uncaused. The mind takes Nibbana as the object which eradicated the fetters.
See the answer to this question.
http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/216/how-does-stream-entry-occur

@SankhaKulathantille Nibbana itself is uncaused. However, the attainment of Nibbana is caused. I was talking specifically about the actual attainment of Nibbana, so it is correct to speak of it as arising from a cause.

[A Mahayana perspective]
There are two components to Enlightenment: Realization (insight, awakening, Bodhi) and Liberation (unbinding, Nirvana, loss of form).
Very strong and talented people, with very few mental/emotional obscurations, determined on becoming Enlightened, and therefore diligently cleansing their minds from even slightest traces of unenlightened tendencies, attain both Bodhi and Nirvana at the same time. We call this "Sudden Enlightenment". Gautama Buddha and some famous Zen masters of the past belong to this category. When such person dies, we call it Parinirvana.
People of middling capacity(for enlightenment), with predominantly emotional obscurations, determined on unraveling the mystery of Enlightenment, and therefore diligently doing their own independent analysis, but slightly lazy about their practice, attain Realization first. Informed by the insight into the nature of phenomena, they continue working on their Liberation asymptotically, often for decades. We call this "Sudden Awakening / Gradual Cultivation". Most of the modern realized teachers belong to this category. When speaking of these we prefer to not use the honorary terms Enlightenment/Nirvana/Parinirvana.

Nice delineation of what has always seemed to me to be a spectrum.

Nirvana is a direct perception of emptiness and liberation from samsara. In the Mahayana tradition, a fully enlightened being such as Shakyamuni Buddha has gone beyond nirvana, removing all subtle obscurations, and has become omniscient. A more direct answer to your question is one difference between nirvana and enlightenment is omniscience.

I have been trying to understand what 'omniscience' would mean practically. One definition would be literally "knowing everything" which seems self-contradictory. Another would be "able to see in to anything one puts one's mind on", which seems plausible, aside from seeing into closed spaces no one has ever perceived, etc.

In Theravada I think (my ill-informed impression is that) it might mean "knowing anything" (though not "everything at once"), especially anything that might help to teach someone (knowing someone's current state), and anything past (to understand kamma), though possibly not everything future.

In the Diamond Sutra the Buddha says "I know the mind of every sentient being in all the host of universes, regardless of any modes of thought, conceptions or tendencies." This is possibly what is meant by omniscience.

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


text:
Buddhas vs bodhisattvas vs arhats vs devas vs brahmas
What are differences between these entities? I understand they all are entities that they posses some abilities that normal humans don't have. Are there any other similar entities that might be easily confused?

Buddha is a completely self-enlightened one (without help from another Buddha, direct or indirect).
Bodhisattva (in Theravada) is a being on its way to enlightenment.
Bodhisattva (in Mahayana) is an awakened being who vowed to indefinitely stick in Samsara for the sake of others.
Arhat (in Theravada) is a completely enlightened person (thanks to a Buddha's help).
Arhat (in Mahayana) is person who has attained Peace (of enlightenment) for him or herself, but not willing to give it up for the sake of others.
Deva is a non-human being invisible to the human eye.

Are (some/all) devas enlightened?

No, they are not. Deva-worlds do not have the right conditions for attaining enlightenment. Not enough "meat" to chew on.

Sammasambuddha - Omniscient and has attained nibbana(enlightenment) on his own without the teaching of another. Preaches the Dhamma and guides other beings to Nibbana. Had cultivated Paramitas in three ways for a minimum period of "Sara(4) Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya" as a Bodhisatva. More than one Sammasambuddha cannot exist in the world at the same time. Always male.
Pacceka Buddha - Not omniscient. Has attained nibbana on his own. Cannot preach the Dhamma that can guide others to nibbana. Had cultivated Paramitas in two ways for a minimum period of "Dwi(2) Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya". Many Pacceka Buddhas can exist in the world at the same time only if there's no Sammasamubuddha and no Dhamma in the world. Always male.
Arahath - Not omniscient. Attained nibbana under the guidance of a Sammasamduddha and preaches the Dhamma to help others attain nibbana. Had generally cultivated Paramitas for a period of "Eka(1) Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya". This period may vary depending on if it's a normal Arhahth disciple or one of the 80 great Arahaths. Many Arahaths can exist in the word at the same time. Can be either male or female.
Bodhisatva - A being who is still cultivating Paramitas to attain Nibbana through one of the above three goals. Can be either male or female.
Devas - Not omniscient and not necessarily enlightened. They are divine beings who have done good deeds in the past and born in heavens as a result. They usually enjoy a long life span. Unlike humans, they don't get sick and don't deteriorate as they age until the last moment. Can be either male or female except for Brahmas who have no gender. They are born spontaneously.

All Sammasambuddhas, Pacceka Buddhas and Arhanths are similar in enlightenment with the above mentioned differences. There are no other similar entities to them.

Are Brahmas a subcategory of Devas?

Yes, but that is if by 'Deva' you mean all divine beings. Usually we call the divine beings who belong to the sensual world as Devas and the divine being who belong to the non-sensual world as Brahmas. More details here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Actually Paceccabuddhas do teach but in brief and in general terms like from one Theravada example after 4  Paccekabuddas received meals for 4 days from a King at his palace when the King asked them for a teaching they each gave a short sentence on one day, together it was: "Overcome greed, overcome aversion, overcome delusion, overcome restlessness." Notice the going from general unwholesome state to a specific probable personality problem of the King, restlessness. Aversion is anger,  fear and sadness, a general term.
After each Paccekabuddha gave a brief sentence the King thought critically that brief statement was not very deep. But after thinking that again for on the 4th day he thought of all four statements and realized that their own teaching was deep. The early Hindu Brahman scripture the Rig Veda in a sutra from about 1000 BC talks about "recluse monks with soil colored robes who travel with the  wind". Paccecabuddhas wear brown robes and use their psychic power of levitation to fly back and forth from their forest caves for their one meal. This is every evidence for Paccekabuddhas is Asia over 500 years before Buddha.
Thai Arahat forest monk Achan Mun who had psychic clairvoyance and telepathy took his hermit monk students for a group meditation to a large cave high up in the mountains of Northwest Thailand. He said that this had been the cave of a group of Paccekabuddhas. This is evidence that for over 500 years over a very wide area of Asian mountains there were many thousands of Paccekabuddhas.
I think that the ancient tradition of pre-Gautama Buddha meditating hermit yogis from Afghanistan to Southeast Asia very probably began with inspiration from the Paccekabuddhas. Thus the Paccekabuddhas are important in preparing the way for a teaching Buddha who teaches the full direct  Dhamma (Dharma).


text:
Are there any living enlightened people?
Is there any person who is widely believed to be enlightened by Buddhists, and who confirms that himself/herself?

In Buddhism, bragging of one's achievements is bad tone and is frowned upon. According to Vinaya, declaring oneself Enlightened is a major violation that leads to expulsion from Sangha. That's probably why reports of people getting enlightened do not make headlines.

Didn't Buddha himself confirm that he was enlightened?

Actually, it is boasting of attainments that you yourself haven't attained that get you the boot (see the Pārājika).  And of course - there are plenty of folks who are enlightened!

It is at the time of their death when they can't hide the truth anymore. For example, bodies of accomplished Tibetan masters can stay warm up to 3 days after death - 16th Karmapa died in a hospital and it was all documented by doctors.

Ajahn Maha Boowa said he was enlightened and described it in some detail in a dhamma talk called "Shedding tears in amazement with the dhamma". Until his death, in 2011, no one dared to destitute him from monkhhod.

@Andrei volkov    i don't think so .   The rule is not to claim false achievements                  http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

@jathin There are two rules listed: this one (pārājika 4) about false claims; and another one (pācittiya 8) about making any claims whether true or false to a layperson.

I cannot comment on the other answers yet due to lack of "reputation points" on this site, but to add to Crab Bucket's answer, yes, Daniel Ingram is a a well known taboo-buster in the subject of claiming enlightenment.
As of today (1/17/2015), he still claims arahatship, he never rescinded his claim.
During the genesis of his (Ingram's) original community (the Dharma Overground), there were a lot of practitioners who made strides in attaining varying depths of awakening. A lot of them went on to spawn their own communities and do their own thing.
He originally started a community called the Dharma Underground, which was meant to discuss hardcore meditation practice (hardcore meaning no nonsense and down to earth), but later decided to open it to the public as the Dharma Overground!
The original Wetpaint community had about 500 people but it multiplied exponentially producing all sorts of awakened individuals.
Check out Buddhist Geeks for sure, I'm also pretty sure hardcore (regular) meditators at various retreat centers also make good progress in becoming awakened, but often do not recognize their progress due to unrealistic models of attainment, and plus a lack of willingness to talk about maps and models.
Cheers.

As Andrei says in the comments talking about achievements are taboo so it's difficult to know. However Daniel Ingram (Theravada practitioner) is a taboo buster about this and openly claims in his book Mastering the Core teachings that he is an ahrat. So basically that he is enlightened.
That might seem like massive hubris and just in bad taste but if you listen to any talks by him he is massively engaging on the subject and convincing. I recommend listening to an interview with him on the Buddhist Geeks podcast (numbers 6, 9 and 11). In that talk he claims that there are a significant number of people either enlightened or well on the way. He names some American monasteries and particularly the Insight Mediation Centre as a place that you might bump into these people. He claims that although no-one is going to admit it publicly, if you a a serious practitioner and physically go there with particular issues or experiences of your own then those people will be more forthcoming on their own experiences. This accords with my own limited experience. In a well established relationship with a teacher or more experience practitioner then people will be a lot more forthcoming.
As a further interesting point, Daniel Ingram does say that our models of enlightenment are a mess (he's a provocative kind of person). So when we are casting around and trying to spot who is further down that path then we might just be looking for the wrong kind of things. He particularly says that being enlightened and being a very saintly kind of person wouldn't necessarily be the same thing.
As a note - I don't think Daniel Ingram still claims he is an arhat (not sure). He has a new edition of his book coming out so it will be interesting to see where he is at. Also I'm not necessarily saying Daniel Ingram is right, but just that he has some very interesting views in this area and I frankly like writing about them.

I'm slightly confused - he used to claim he was an arhat, but does not claim that anymore? Is it possible to stop being enlightened?

@michau He could have been mistaken!!! Once you arhat then that's it. The comment on this answer gives more details http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/172/is-it-possible-to-recognize-a-person-who-has-achieved-arhatship/173#173

The taboo is about making false claims    http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227/4pk.htm#ch-----4

@CrabBucket "He particularly says that being enlightened and being a very saintly kind of person wouldn't necessarily be the same thing"; what, do you reckon, does he mean by that?

I am reminded of the saying:
"Those who know, say not. Those who say, know not."
If I say "I am this" or people say "He is this" then I am further bound into the snare of identifying with the human experience.
If you are aware of your breath and you are in awe of a sunrise, what is to say that you have not awakened in this moment...even if in the next moment there are worries and concerns crowding in?
That is why the Mahayana school emphasizes seeking the enlightenment or reducing suffering of all so that the yoke of self seeking diminishes.
As Roshi Shunryu Suzuki says about the practice of meditation, we are both mahayana and hinayana.
This strikes a chord within me. We seek enlightenment but to whatever degree we experience we dedicate it to the benefit of all sentient beings. Thus we are not trying to attain a goal to go somewhere we are not, but glide on this river of peace effortlessly moving on the river of being back to where we have always been. This feels like a big burden off the shoulders. It does not condone laziness, but the meditation extends beyond sitting and the sitting is something one would not give up for something in this world.

To answer your question: "If you are aware of your breath and you are in awe of a sunrise, what is to say that you have not awakened in this moment...even if in the next moment there are worries and concerns crowding in?" - Well, it is not possible to become UNenlightened, so whatever you describe, it is not enlightenment/awakening.

@michau Yet can you see how ascribing a permanent state to someone who is still a being is contrary to the concept of anatta? If one is only in the moment and in the next moment an entirely new "non-self" or composition of elements, then how would this permanent state be possible?

@AlexiaL Enlightenment is not a permanent state. After somebody's parinibbana it doesn't make sense to say that this person IS enlightened.

Out of the 7 billion people on this planet. there should be thousands if not more of enlighten people, some of them were born that way, others became awaken spontaneously (like the Buddha), and others became awaken after a long spiritual training (such as in zen and Buddhist and kabbala) training.  Most of the enlightened people do not call themselves enlightened or keep it a secret except for a few students. One of the persons which do publishes his enlightenment is John De-Ruiter. After meeting him in person and reading his stuff, I think he may be enlightened. Unfortunately, the only way his suggested for other people to become enlightened is is to be around enlightened people as much as they can.

I'm not saying that there is or isn't, but concerning the self-confirmation of such, this is not so straightforward as it may seem, considering a system where enlightenment is concerned, in part at least, with the transcendence of conceptual self-hood:
From Chapter 9 of the Diamond Sutra: “

What do you think, Subhuti? Does an Arhat think like this, ‘I have
  attained the fruit of Arhatship.’?” Subhuti replied, “No,
  World-Honored One. Why? There is no separately existing thing that can
  be called Arhat. If an Arhat gives rise to the thought that he has
  attained the fruit of Arhatship, then he is still caught up in the
  idea of a self, a person, a living being, and a life span.

While it is true that the sutras tell us that the Buddha attained enlightenment, it is worthwhile to remember that when he first declared this that he was rejected by Ājīvaka Upaka, who just shook his head and walked away at this bold claim. When he later got to Deer Park and the monks addressed him by name, he did not right out declare arahantship, he said instead that that is not the proper way to address the Tathagata. This subtle, and non-trivial difference reflects the fact that he never went out "to declare", he went out to teach, which is clear, as is revealed the well known story of the conversation with Brahma just post attainment. The difference at play is about the primary intention behind the activity, teaching for the sake of others (to an appropriate audience) vs. making a self-declaration.
Remembering that these monks in Deer Park could not resist attending to him, after he instructed that it is improper to address the Tathagata by name and as friend he simply made statements like, "The tathagata is this... the tathagata is like that," and avoided speech like, "I am this, I am that," He does say, "I will instruct you," But this is less of a self declaration than a promise of activity.
So, to be direct with your question, coming out as the tathagata was, in fact, a problematic situation for the Buddha. It was one that was met and conquered, but it was still problematic.

The Buddha could somehow properly say that he was enlightened, so why should that be a problem for other enlightened beings?

The above example was from the Ariyapariyesana Sutta. ((I wish these comments allowed for longer responses)) It should make sense that 1) attaining perfect, final, complete and absolute enlightenment is no easy accomplishment, and that 2) becoming widely recognized as such (by ultimately unenlightened beings) would be a huge hassle, not easy to accomplish. You will not find people like this very often. However, there are plenty of people who are regarded by their communities as highly accomplished, they typically don't declare it themselves.

Instead of wishing that comments allowed for longer responses, you can edit an answer to add to the answer any clarifications/improvements you think necessary. And, it might be better to phrase an answer as an answer, instead of phrasing it as a rhetorical question. And, as you mention in comment, there are many examples in the suttas of the Buddha's referring to himself. And SN 1.25 says, "That monk still might use such words" etc.

I'm used to reddit, where editing after the fact is, at least in my understanding, bad form. So I think I brought in the notion that it is "just bad form" to do so here. I appreciate your answer. My professional training has me accustomed to asking questions to get people to answer them for themselves, this crops up from time to time :) Something to keep my eye open for, thanks for pointing that out.


text:
Modern vs traditional Zen
According to David Chapman, modern Zen was basically invented by D.T. Suzuki, and doesn't have much to do with original Zen or even with Buddhism in general. Is this true? Is modern Zen closer to other Western Buddhist traditions than to original Zen?

Just finished reading Chapman's post-- he's spot on and the scholarship is good (for non peer reviewed blog posts, but still). I count 4 questions here, differences between korean Seon, Chan and US/Japanese Zen seems to warrant a question of it's own.

I narrowed the scope of this question, and moved my other questions here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3129/modern-and-original-versions-of-chan-and-seon

Why to create some "old" and "new"? What are you doing now? That is basic Zen. Is it modern or ancient? Booom! Background of this page is white.

There's some argument that Zen itself is amalgam of Buddhism and Taoism, if not basically Taoism in Buddhist clothing.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Zen

Someone else will answer this better than me, but I'll get the ball rolling.
Chan is the form of Buddhism that came to dominate Buddhist life in China up to the time of the communist revolution. It was a lot of meditation, mixed in with a lot of Pure Land Buddhism, scholarship and the whole gammut of Buddhist practices, including prostrations, repentance, everything.
Chan was then transmitted to Japan via Dogen around the time of the Kamakura era. At this point, Zen is radically simplified, loses the Pure Land component. Dogen is a medieval Japanese monk-- he's a nice guy, but no one is going to mistake him for a modern Oxford or Tokyo University intellectual.
Also at this time, when Japanese nobles needed to send their kids to school, they would send them up the road to the Buddhist monk, who knew how to read. While they were there, the parents figure the should also learn about calligraphy, tea ceremony and things that upper class Japanese noble kids needed to learn. This created the confusion about Zen's connection to these Japanese cultural arts. (And this confusion was later exacerbated by apologists for Zen, who wanted to appeal to skeptical, but nationalist countrymen in the revival or preservation of Buddhism)
Next big event is the Meiji reformations, where the Japanese imperial government, in a policy hostile to Buddhism, initiated reforms allowing (demanding?) that monks marry, eat meat and so on. From this we get the idea that Zen has nothing to do with strict morals, renunciation, vegetarianism, celibacy, and so on.
The last big event is the educated class in Japan learning pretty much everything that the Europeans knew and being heavily influenced by essentially European ideas. (among them ideas of the age of enlightenment and the protestant reformation) Not bad mind you, as a 3rd party, I could care less if the Indian ideas imported into Japan were being diluted of their Japaneseness by mixing with European ideas.
And the person to bring that "pre-westernized" Zen to the US was DT Suzuki. Before anyone had a chance to start mixing up western progressive ideas with Chan (as filtered through Japan), it had already been done.  DT Suzuki Zen removed anything that looked like religion from Zen.

"Original Zen", it is said, was started as an act by Mahākāśyapa (one of the original 5 disciples of Gautama Shakyamuni. He gave a knowing look to Gautama when he held up a flower.
The genealogy of Zen traces from that moment, to an Indian monk (Bodhidharma) who's master told him to go to China. That's the mythology anyway. For the full scholarly picture read John R. McRae (d. 2011).
From this single "transmission" down through the present, the message- stripped of all pomp and circumstance (orthodoxy) has not changed one iota (on itoa):
Practice* until you "see through" to your Original Nature (have a kensho experience - preparing for this using the precepts and other "expedient means" and "skillful devices" (koan study) to season/ripen your consciousness) then practice continually for the rest of endless time (we're always just beginners) to integrate that seeing through into all activities.
Side note: The kensho (enlightenment experience) is just the first part of training and is not even considered anything special. That is why an affectation in Zen for enlightenment is "Ordinary Unexcelled Enlightenment". It's what you use to "carry water and chop wood" (daily activities lived in the present moment).
*Varies based on time, geography, school (Rinzai, Soto, other), and teacher.
EDIT:
Andrei pointed out that I only answered your first question. As to your second question- I know of no Buddhist traditions I consider originating in the West. All are flavors (not schools in the traditional sense but more like genealogical lines from prominent masters) of Eastern traditions. See here for more on Buddhism in the West.

Good answer, welcome to the site. We could use more Zen & Mahayana practitioners here. /|\

That said, the question was "Is modern Zen closer to other Western Buddhist traditions than to original Zen" - do you want to address that explicitly? E.g. by showing how they are neither same nor different... because both are empty? ;)

I like your thinking Andrei. The full expansion of what you said is the tetralemma: Not same; not different; not both same and different; not not the same and not different.

Exactly, I wanted to say that of course, just didn't want to sound pedantic :)

I don't mind pedantic. It's part of my (Original?) nature! Here's more:This full expansion is called the tetralemma.

And actually, you hit upon a very key aspect of Zen. No half measures! Take Care!

I don't know what it's called.

@AndreiVolkov In case that wasn't obvious, my question is about the conventional truth about the relation of Zen and Western Buddhist traditions. The fact that both are empty isn't particularly interesting, given that everything is empty. ;)


text:
Did Ledi Sayadaw invent a vipassana technique?
According to the currently available historical sources, did Ledi Sayadaw invent his technique of meditation, or did he learn it in the caves of the Sagaing Hills? Is there enough information to tell which possibility is more likely?

Any areas you think I should improve on my answer?

See also the conversation in: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/29585/discussion-on-answer-by-shwe-lan-ga-lay-ledi-sayadaws-anatta-dipani-in-englis

Though there is no definite record who his teacher was, it is said he learned it from someone else when he was in the Monywa region in the side of Lak-pan-taung Mountain. Also there is reference that this is the Traditional Burmese method. This is mentioned in the VRI and pariyatti.org biography. VRI teachers Vipassana as handed down in the Ledi linage. VRI may be drawing on works by Sayagyi U Ba Khin (E.g. The Clock of Vipassana Has Struck page 71 also makes reference to this.) It the strong belief of this tradition (which I also very much involved and practice) that he learned from a linage handed down from the Sona and Uttara who came as missionaries during King Asoka's time.
The Wikipedia entry (originally sourced from On saints and wizards Ideals of human perfection and power in contemporary Burmese Buddhism by Patrick Pranke page 461) mentions Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills.
Hence this was not exactly his creation as per biographical references above. But the book The Birth of Insight in in page 7 says otherwise though. So there is no proper or consistent way to determine what exactly is right,  though previous case may be right. There are parallel of the technique to some extent in other linages too.

For eight more years he remained there, teaching and continuing his
  own scholastic endeavors, until 1882 when he moved to Monywa. He was
  now 36 years old. At that time, Monywa was a small district center on
  the east bank of the Chindwin River, which was renowned as a place
  where the teaching method included the entire Tipiṭaka, rather than
  selected portions only.
To teach Pali to the bhikkhus and sāmaṇeras at Monywa, he came into
  town during the day, but in the evening he would cross to the west
  bank of the Chindwin River and spend the nights in meditation in a
  small vihara (monastery) on the side of Lak-pan-taung Mountain.
  Although we do not have any definitive information, it seems likely
  that this was the period when he began practicing Vipassana in the
  traditional Burmese way: with attention to Ānāpāna (respiration) and
  vedanā (sensation).

Source: http://www.pariyatti.org/Resources/Treasures/VenLediSayadaw/tabid/205/Default.aspx, http://www.vridhamma.org/Teachers-2

Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained
  being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills, which was honeycombed
  with meditation caves and dotted with forest monasteries. For how long
  we do not know. Verbal accounts state that two monks brought the
  practice of Vipassana to this area at the time of the Buddha. It is
  just as likely that prior to the eighteenth century in Burma, as
  elsewhere in the Theravāda world, it was generally believed that it
  was no longer possible to attain enlightenment and hence nibbāna
  through vipassanā or any other means during the present age.
The earliest known challenger to this assumption is that of a monk
  from the Sagaing Hills in Upper Burma named Waya-zawta whose movement
  ﬂourished during the reign of Maha-damma-yaza-dipati (r. 1733–1752). A
  young scholar-monk named Medawi (1728–1816) began writing vipassanā
  manuals in the vernacular. Couched in the language of abhidhamma,
  these are the very earliest ‘how-to’ vipassanā books we possess from
  Burma. Medawi’s earliest manual was completed in 1754. Ledi's lineage
  comes from this line, whereby his main teacher was King Mindon’s royal
  minister U Hpo Hlaing (1830–1883), who was notable for his avid
  interest in western science and eﬀorts to reconcile this new
  perspective with abhidhamma. This synthetic approach was passed on to
  his protégé, the scholar-monk, U Nyana, who later became famous as
  Ledi Sayadaw, arguably the most signiﬁcant promoter of vipassanā in
  the modern period.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledi_Sayadaw, http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/9290/3151 (page 461)

Could you say more about other parallels of the technique in other lineages? I'm aware of just Achaan Dhammadaro's and Achaan Maha Boowa's techniques as reported on Kornfield's book "Teachings and Meditation Instructions from Twelve Theravada Masters".

EDIT: of course also Sunlun's method, with its effort of overcoming pain, can be considered vedana contemplation.

See also the conversation in: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/29585/discussion-on-answer-by-shwe-lan-ga-lay-ledi-sayadaws-anatta-dipani-in-englis

Please note, none of the original references you quote mentions now that Ledi learnt the techinque in a cave in "Sagaing Hills".

The only still live is in: http://www.vridhamma.org/en1997-10: "Ledi Sayadaw, had become proficient in the study of pariyatti. He went on to learn the technique of Vipassana still being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills"

And, Pranke at page 461 does not say that "Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills".

This page is the start of the bio. Parnke's other works also contain in some for of the other. E.g. Champions of Buddhism: Weikza Cults in Contemporary Burma
By Kate Crosby, Patrick Pranke, Juliane Schober, Niklas Foxeus, Keiko Tosa, Thomas Patton, Celine Coderey, Steven Collins

Please check your references and see if they speak about Ledi Sayadaw having learned at Sagaing Hills.

It is wikipedia which used this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ledi_Sayadaw&oldid=591180349) as primary reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ledi_Sayadaw&oldid=591180349#cite_note-1) I am just quoting it.

Regarding my previous comment, please note that http://www.vridhamma.org/en1997-10  -> http://web.archive.org/web/20161022042450/http://www.vridhamma.org/en1997-10


text:
Is it possible to become UNenlightened?
Is it possible for i.e. an Arhat to become unenlightened after he reached the state of Nirvana?
What if an enlightened being gets a severe brain injury by some cause leaving him with amnesia.
Could it affect one's enlightenment in any way?

The thought must have occurred to early thinkers because they have a special category for people who have achieved "non-retrogression," i.e. people who are so accomplished on the path that they will not backslide and are permanently enlightened.

getting amnesia while enlightened would be an interesting occurance. if i were to speculate, that person not being an Arahant but enlightened, they may begin through curiosity to head towards indulgence. Though at first, from what ive heard would be exactly the same, so perhaps all previous notions of how they became that way would create the conditions to become a pacceka buddha. It is however highly speculative. But now i wonder, an Arahant would be most likely to become a pacceka buddha if it worked like that. But again its all speculation.

@ANonimous: A Pacceka Buddha attains enlightenment by himself. So an Arahanth who can't remember the past cannot become a Pacceka Buddha. Besides, amnesia has no connection with Pacceka Buddhahood.

so if he doesnt remember being helped, which in his personal experience would make it like he didnt get help... that wouldnt be the same underlying condition for a Pecceka Buddha as one who has reached that level remembering no help? what if he continued on in practice perfectly with no more help remembering no help... i think he could be one in the sense of his own experience. to us he would not be one, but to himself he would, creating a conundrum and endless sources of debate among humans. But im just speculating, haha.

That would be similar to saying that you are a spontaneous being, if you forgot who your parents are. :)

No! Once you attain Nibbana, the defilements are annihilated without the possibility of return. Just like uprooting a tree instead of chopping it down or trimming it. So it can never grow back from roots. Nibbana does not depend on the condition of the body or any other thing. It is uncaused, unborn and permanent. Venerable Moggalana was beaten up by thugs until his bones were pulverized. Still his mind was at perfect peace. One Arahath thero in Sri Lanka was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil by the order of a King. That even caused a Tsunami in sri Lanka. But he was still at perfect peace when his life ended.
Take a Sothapanna person as an example. He can die 6 times before attaining Arhathship. If death itself is not going to affect his attainment, how can brain damage affect it?

The amnesia was more of an example for that matter. Maybe one could develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after an accident or the brain takes damage directly and one ends up with a mental illness. I found this link and the study mentioned in the article states that people involved in a traumatic accident (causing one to have a trauma) have a 65% increased chance to end up with schizophrenia and even a 439% increased chance to suffer from organic mental disorders.

No method of physical damage can cause mental trauma to an Arahant. Because there's no attachment, aversion and ignorance in the mind. You cannot recreate them even if you mince the brain matter.

This type of thinking can occur when you believe that the mind and Nibbana are byproducts of the brain.

That is true, but if these disorders can affect one's mind state while not being enlightened, why would it not effect one's mind state when one is enlightened? I don't believe the mind is a byproduct of the brain though, but if the mind wasn't affected, than how could these people end up with these mental illnesses?

It is the same case with other physical objects which can affect your thoughts. Take anger for example. Lets say you are relaxing on the beach having a nice time. You are thinking of happy thoughts. At that time there's no anger in your mind. But does it mean you have eradicated anger? No! It is only dormant in your mind. If someone suddenly slaps you, you can get upset and angry. But if there's no dormant aversion to spark up in the 1st place, nothing can make you angry. Brain damage is a physical factor that can stimulate the dormant defilements. It can't create something out of nothing.

Allright, I agree. I either don't believe something would arise out of the blue.

No, an Arahant cannot become unenlightened. Does that mean that an Arahant will automatically be free from illnesses that affect the mind? I don't think so. They will always be free from the three unwholesome roots of greed, hatred, and delusion, but I think it is a serious mistake to translate that into physical claims about Arahants.
Interestingly enough questions similar to this were a point of controversy between the Theravada school and other early schools. Some of the other schools claimed for example that an Arahant was physically incapable of having sexual arousal, and so could not have a nocturnal emission. The Theravada school rejected this, saying that such a thing is purely physical.
Arahants can still experience the purely physical aspects of things without having unwholesome mind states. If you inject an Arahant with adrenaline, their heart rate would increase and they would undergo all of the reactions of a person with fear, but the difference would be that there would be no aversion in the experience, even if they might physically present the signs of it.
Similarly, I think that an Arahant could have what are usually refereed to as mental illnesses, although I think that term is somewhat misleading in the case of an Arahant. Perhaps the term neurological illness would be more appropriate. If they get Alzheimer's disease, then they would undergo all the memory problems and such, but throughout all of this there would be no greed, hatred, or delusion in the mind.
Someone mentioned PTSD. I think an  Arahant could have PTSD as well, having the flashback experiences and the physical arousal that goes along with it, but again, without greed, hatred, or delusion.
That's just my take on it.

Late but nevertheless very good answer.

Perhaps PTSD is some kind of unhealthy attachment to the traumatic experience. Some psychological counselling that's intended to 'cure' PTSD includes teaching people to 'live in the moment' instead.

It's possibly worth adding to this that although the Theravadan school states that once a being is an Arhat they can't regress this wasn't a universal view within the early Buddhist schools. Both the Pudgalavada and the Sarvastivada schools did maintain that an Arhat could indeed regress from that state. So for those schools it would have been possible to become unenlightened. This was the fifth point in some versions of the five points of Mahadeva which are a number of debating points about the qualities and attributes of an Arahat. However since these schools have since died out this concept of unenlightenment would be of historical interest only.
Just as a reference note this is from An Introduction to Buddism by Peter Harvey (page 97 in the second edition).

If I am to add to the existing answers, it is like a singularity where all conventional laws break down. So what happens beyond on in this state cannot be communicated through conventional wisdom or language.
Nirvana is the experience beyond the singularity. Once you experience it you have experienced it. You cannot unexperience it. Say you have gone and see Rome. This is a fact. Is it possible to turn back time so you have not seen Rome. Not possible. Likewise once you have seen what is beyond the singularity you cannot be made to be brought to the state where you have not seen it.
Also you experience Nirvana when you are in Pala Samapathi. When you come out of it you don't experience it but the fact you have seen it will not change. Since you know how you got there you can get to it when you want. This experience has a lasting impression / imprint on you. So your ways will change once you come out of the Samapathi.
To further elaborate. The lasting impression is like once your where in Rome had a life changing experience. This sticks.


text:
Does Pure Land Buddhism ever have a Buddha other than Amitābha as the object of devotion?
Does Pure Land Buddhism ever have a Buddha other than Amitābha as the object of devotion? Or is Pure Land Buddhism by definition a devotion to Amitābha and an aspiration to be reborn in his pure land? I'm aware there are a lot of other Buddhas so I just wondered if they were ever the focus of this tradition.

Any specific type of Pure Land, or any Buddhism with Pure Land elements? I'm reading up on Shin right now, they seem to only care about Amitabha. Chan, Vajrayana included Pure Land sutras & elements as part of a larger system. So Bhaisajyaguru (Medicine Buddha) was/is venerate and presides over a pure land that you can be reborn in to. In Vajrayana & Chan there are so many Buddha's and Bodhisattvas all competing for mind share, these Buddha with Pure Lands didn't get as much specific attention.

Amitābha Buddha has two attendant bodhisattvas: Avalokiteśvara and  Mahāsthāmaprāpta and they all are present in meditations based on visualisation used in the Pure Land Buddhism (as well as in Vajrayana).

Yes, there is other Pure Land in Buddhism other than Amitabha Buddha's. It is called the Pure Land of Lapis Lazuli of the East. The Buddha that resides there is called Bhaisajyaguru Buddha or Medicine Master Buddha of Vaidurya Light. In order to achieve rebirth there, one must practice the recitation of the Buddha's name. For the rest of one's life.

The primary object of devotion in Pureland Buddhism is Amitabha, but there is secondary devotion to some other figures. I'm not sure if secondary devotion to other Buddhas is common, but Avalokitesvara is usually held in high esteem in Pureland.

+1 thank you. However isn't Avalokitesvara an emanation of Amitabha?

@Crab They're related sometimes in stories, but I've never heard anything like that.

Says here on this probably unauthorative site that Avalokiteshvara is the earthly manifestation of Amitabha Buddha http://buddhism.about.com/od/thetriyaka/a/avalokiteshvara.htm

That isn't correct. Avalokiteshvara is the boddhisatva Guanyin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanyin

In Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu, Amitabha Buddha is the sole object of devotion, because to be devoted to Amitabha Buddha is seen to be devoted to all the Buddhas, in spirit and practice. Reciting Nembutsu is seen as fulfilling the aspirations of all the Buddhas, including Shakayamuni and Avalokitesvara.
From "What Kind of Buddha Is Amitabha?", A Discourse by Dharma Master Huijing, Xiamen, China; October 2006:

Moreover, to recite the name of a single Buddha, Namo Amitabha Buddha, is equivalent to reciting the names of all Buddhas. When we recite Amitabha’s name, the Buddhas of the ten directions will come to praise, protect and encourage us. So there is great wisdom in choosing to practice this teaching.
After we learn this practice, there is no further need to recite the names of Bodhisattvas Avalokitesvara and Mahasthamaprapta. If we only recited Amitabha Buddha’s name, Avalokitesvara and Mahasthamaprapta would happily become our friends, even brothers. They will safeguard us, the way a shadow follows the form that cast it. For the name we recite is the name of the one who sits on top of their heads.
We should realize that Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara’s goal is to guide suffering beings to recite the name of Amitabha Buddha, who will deliver them to the Pure Land. Otherwise, Avalokitesvara would be saying, “How tired I am! You are still reincarnating and suffering. Lifetime after lifetime, again and again, I still have to save you from pain and peril. But if you recite ‘Namo Amitabha Buddha’ this very lifetime, I can relax!” That’s the aim of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara.

Individuals in other Pureland sects throughout East Asia revere other Buddhas. But, if you notice, my quote above is taken from a modern day Chinese master. This is because some Chinese Pureland masters reference the works of Master Shandao, the Chinese Master whose work was translated into Japanese and inspired the Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu sects (he taught exclusive Amida recitation). Some masters are making an effort to return this teaching and legacy to places like China and Taiwan.
In the same essay I quoted above, you can find this idea:

...So our school is not some Japanese Pure Land school. Our school of the Fundamental Vow teaches the 18th Vow of Amitabha Buddha. What does the 18th Vow say? It speaks only of Amitabha-recitation. Master Shandao said, “Shakyamuni Buddha’s underlying wish is none other than for beings to recite the name of Amitabha single-mindedly and exclusively.” The 18th Vow is called the Fundamental Vow. Thus “Amitabha-recitation, according to the Fundamental Vow” was taught and transmitted by Master Shandao.
What is the purpose of the Fundamental Vow? And what is the reason for Amitabha’s attainment of Buddhahood? The goal is that all sentient beings can be reborn in the Land of Bliss merely by reciting Amitabha’s name. Therefore “Shakyamuni Buddha’s underlying wish is none other than for beings to recite the name of Amitabha exclusively.” Recitation of Amitabha Buddha’s Great Name of a Myriad Virtues is specified in the Fundamental Vow; it is also the only practice mentioned there.

(Source URL: http://www.pureland-buddhism.org/PureLand/Teachings/What%20Kind.aspx)
So, it all depends on what practice someone chooses.

Short answer, no. Although we revere Sakyamuni, he is not the focus of Pureland. However, the devotion to bodhisattvas is something else. Mainly, there is Kuan Shih Yin Pusa, Ta Shih Chi Pusa, and the rest of the "ocean-wide lotus-pond assembly" of bodhisattvas in the Pureland.
While there are other Buddhas in other pure lands, and people have paid reverence to them, that is not the definition of what we call Pureland Buddhism. Rather, that would be a secondary practice. Or it might even be part of Vajrayana Buddhism.

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


text:
Should Buddhists avoid Amazon and Starbucks out of concerns about tax avoidance?
Recently companies such as Starbucks and Amazon were accused of avoiding paying UK tax. Many people were quite upset about this and people began to boycott those companies involved. From a Buddhist perspective is there any problem with this? The companies are not stealing nor are they breaking any laws - tax avoidance is perfectly legal as opposed to evasion which is not.
I appreciate there are many arguments that could be made against this practice around fairness, justice, social responsibly etc... However I'm interested in the Buddhist angle - perhaps thinking about the precepts or maybe broader concepts such as karma and dependent origination or another aspect of Buddhist thought that I'm not aware of.

If a boycotted company goes bust, thousands of employees will lose their jobs immediately...

I do not see why a company should not do proper tax planning. Any sensible person / entity should do it as you should protect your earnings from various elements including the King (Government). As you said tax evasion is the issue as it is not legal.
Buddha mentioned you have pay your taxes (Raja Bali) also. This should be within the bounds of the law hence as tax planning is not illegal hence it is acceptable to protect one's hard earned money. In case of a corporation, the shareholder's wealth.
Following on Right Livelihood touch based on some of these issues.

I think the answer is No. You can, but due to your personal views and believes, it has nothing to do with Buddhism, from a Buddhist's perspective you should take care of your actions, they will receive the results of their kamma (if any). Focus on what you do and left undone as the Buddha taught.
Another thing is that these days almost 99% of the companies do some kind of tax planning that involves similar practices, you just don't know it.
In an extreme example imagine if someone says: I will not pay taxes because the government is corrupt, that is wrong, as a citizen you should pay taxes and the politicians will face, sooner or later, the consequences of their actions.

Buddhism exists because it gained government patronage.  It isn't a system for liberation from the government and it's taxes. Thats relatively recent ideology.

Actions of a Bodhisattva in High Places "Good man, if a Bodhisattva
  has achieved command, becoming the ruler of a great nation, he should
  treat every one of his subjects like an only son. He should teach them
  to discard evils and do good dharmas. He may have an evildoer rebuked
  and beaten, but will not take his life. He levies one sixth of
  people’s wealth as taxes."

And in the minor precepts:

(21) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept fails to pay taxes
  for his business and runs away, he has committed the sin of
  negligence. Without rising above this impure act, which is conducive
  to continuing his cyclic existence, [after death] he cannot avoid
  going down an evil life-path.

Both quotes from the Upāsaka's Precepts, which is sort of precepts for non-renunciates.
So not only does Chinese Buddhism support the of paying taxes, it supports a tax rate of 16%
The precepts are written at a pretty high level, so I'm going to say that they are written to be read as rules to be followed in principle, not as rules that you can carefully nitpick.
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html

From a Buddhist perspective is there any problem with this? The companies are not stealing nor are they breaking any laws - tax avoidance is perfectly legal as opposed to evasion which is not.

It's difficult to say why they avoid paying taxes. We cannot know the exact reason so this is based purely on theory.
The most obvious reason for why they are avoiding taxes would be because they want to maximize profit. If that is the case one could argue that their actions are based on the unwholesome root of Greed. In this case they are creating unwholesome kamma for themselves.
It could also be that they want to earn as much money as possible so that they can give as much money as possible to charity.

Should Buddhists avoid Amazon and Starbucks out of concerns about tax avoidance?

It depends on one's intention. If one's intention is to contribute to he upkeeping of tax avoiding companies so that they can earn more money then one should probably avoid buying at those companies since it will create unwholesome kamma for oneself.
If one's intention simply is to buy a cop of coffee then no problem.
One can also view it from the perspective of the company, i.e. from the perspective of the people who are doing the tax avoiding and thereby creating unwholesome kamma for themselves. One could minimize their ability to create unwholesome kamma for themselves by choosing to not buy from these companies. If more people choose not to support them it might end up in them choosing more carefully how they conduct their business.
There are probably many more perspectives than i mention here. These are just the ones that were most important for me to mention. Again this is purely theory since we do not know the reason behind tax avoiding. It could simply be that they need the money to open up another office building so that more people will be able to get a job.

If you want to do so as an act of protest against their practices that's a good thing in my view but I don't think you can make it mandatory. It seems to be a general principle in Buddhism (at least in the Theravada school) that an act isn't intrinsically evil unless it involves harm in terms of clearly evident causation rather than in terms of indirect contribution.


text:
Is Siddhartha Gautama the last recognized Buddha?
Does Siddharta Gautama happen to be the last person to reach Buddhahood?

I think that it depends on which sect/branch of buddhism one is looking at. I know that in Nochiren Buddhism, Nichiren Daishonin is often referred to as, "The Buddha of the Latter-Day of the Law."

Yes, if you think in terms of a fully enlightened Buddhas. Maytrea Buddha will be the next. However, there are also private Buddhas. Most of Buddhas are private Buddhas. They are enlightened, but they don't teach the Dhamma.

are you revering to paccekabuddha's?

pacceka buddhas = private buddhas

To add to @konrad01, private Buddhas don't occur when the dispensation of a Buddha is still there. Hence the last Buddha is Siddhartha Gautama.


text:
How does one know that he's reached a Jhana level in Metta meditation?
When someone practices Metta meditation towards a beloved person using a phrase,

e.g. May xx be be free from enmity and danger

what is the counterpart sign (nimitta) in this method and how does the practitioner identify whether he's reached a Jhana level?

I don't think that is possible

It's definitely possible. You can reach Jhana's for each phrase for each person using this method.

Indeed, Jhana can definitely be reached, why don't you post it as an answer?

Whether Jhana can be reached or not was not my question. My question was how to identify if you've reached that level? For that I don't know the answer.

Mettā jhāna.
How to know.
You should have continuous concentration with out any distracting thoughts for starters.  Only after one attains should one reflect if they attained.  Basically that means until you consistently get continuous concentration for one to three+ hours according to your determination at will, then you should reflect on the jhāna factors in the heart area.  The five factors are:
Applied thought
Sustained thought
Joy
Happiness experience
One object (repeated one pointedness of mind on one object..no distractions)
You can see lesson seven in my pdf at http://Subhuti.net.tf about the technicalities regarding jhāna.  Although it mentions breath meditation, all jhānas are the same.  The Vissudhimagga actually explains jhāna by using the Earth Kasina as its primary example.  The only difference is the meditation object and whether it is expanded.  Metta has a visual object too and it can be expanded in range or a single person/being or group of beings or direction.  Metta can be quite complex in the numerous ways that one can do it.  Please see The book  "Knowing and Seeing" by Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw for details.

This URL is unavailable (404). Does the PDF still exist somewhere/elsewhere?

An alternate copy of lesson 7 is currently at https://plus.google.com/+BhikkhuSubhuti/posts/P4EopMD5M5T

IMO, you are mixing apples and oranges. Metta meditation is practiced towards "the state of brahmas" (AN 4.190 and AN 3.63), not one of the Four Jhanas. The "state of brahmas" (brahmapatta) is a state of non-dualistic unity with the world. The way to attain it, is through progressively expanding the context of Metta meditation, starting from yourself, to include a closest person (e.g. mom), then friends, then neutral people, then enemies, then all the world. The sign of having reached the state of Brahma are the thoughts like "I am God", "I am all this infinite Universe", "I am True Goal of all religions and the Real Meaning of Love" etc. It is a very powerful experience.
While Four Jhanas are much more localized around oneself, esp. one's emotional state. Like you say in your question, The First Jhana can indeed be practiced with a help of a phrase, that helps one focus on the topic of meditation (in case of the first Jhana the topic is one's actual state of successfully having separated oneself from unwholesome dharmas). However, from Second Jhana onward, the target state of rapture/bliss/equanimity must be generated directly, with no help of discursive thinking.
To emphasize one important point: Four Jhanas are "mastered", not "reached". They are not states/levels you automatically find yourself in. In other words, you don't practice something towards Jhana level X and then "reach Jhana level X". You practice Xth Jhana itself. After having mastered First Jhana, you then practice Second Jhana and so on. The sign of having mastered the First Jhana is ability to successfully do the First Jhana at will at any time, that's it.

Thanks I think I got the point. It's the same vitakka, vicāra, pīti, sukha, ekaggatā as mastered in other techniques you experience in 1st Jhana. I don't think I can agree with the first paragraph though. My understanding is that you are born in Brahma realms after death once you master Jhana levels through meditation.

@dmsp Brahmalokas (realms) are not Brahmapatta (state)


text:
How to ordain as a Theravada monk?
What is the most prominent way to ordain as a monk? Like who's involved, and how to contact the respective person to ordain?

This answer may give you some guidance.

Hmm, I was more hoping for an answer which point out the more practical side of it. It is actually a stage too far to what I meant, and it is actually about the requirements more instead of the pragmatic side and that is what I was looking   for.

Take a look at the links in the end. They are a bit more pragmatic. If you want more pragmatic than that, I suggest contacting a monastery directly & visiting them. Good luck.

Which tradition, which country? If it's for you personally, what sort of level of renunciation are you looking for? (the gamut runs from Shin priests who carry on a mostly regular lay-like life, vs monks in a monastery and inbetween, like in Chinese monastics that also teach and work in hospitals.)

Sorry I think this is too broad really. It would be better targeted at a particular tradition. I'm voting to close this

That is not a "to broad" question at all, and it would be good to reopen it. Maybe Nyom @ChrisW or someone else in charge, like to take a look at it.

The community thought this was too broad, perhaps because it varies depending on the school/tradition (e.g. "monastics", "Shin priests", etc.). If the OP wants it reopened they could specify a tradition (e.g. perhaps Theravada) and/or perhaps a country.

Given this question perhaps it's safe to assume that the OP meant Theravada.

The I. Mahākhandhako: The Great Khandhaka gives most knowledge on not only how the Sublime Sangha got into arising but also how it leaves access for those wishing to make use of the Sublime Buddhas Boundage, (Re-)Legion, toward Unbond.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or other world-binding trades but to escape from this wheel: access to real refuge]

Thank you Bhante:)

Householder Jordy van Ekelen, interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
my person would not answer how to become, ordain, in what ever tradition, but in regard of the Savaka Sangha, the disciples of the Buddhas, his Sangha of monks.
While it is relatively easy to ordain here or there, it's not that easy to ordain under the real Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
First of all one has to meet the Tripple Gems and perceive them correct (see on how to become "Buddhist"). Other than just taking refuge, to become a member of the Sangha one needs to have a valid preceptor and a valid procedure. If one ordains under an actually "non-bhikkhu", although he could nevertheless practice good if right perceived and no doubts, one would not have become a valid member of the Sangha (a case most relevant in regard of certain Bhikkhuni ordinations today, for example. Once the lineage died out, there are no means to reestablish a Sangha of the/a Buddha).
If not sure, if having doubts, reasons for doubts, and desire to become a full member of the Budddhas Sangha, it's good to fist seek for going forth as a pabajjita, homeless (usually called Samanera) if meeting a single monk who is perceived as valid and correct member of the Sangha. Later on, if desiring (note that it is not needed to fully ordain to live the holy live toward Arahatship and as Arahat), one can look out for a proper Sangha to ordain (since there are 6 qualified Bhikkhus needed to perform the ceremony) and should of cause always hold up the wish "may I meet the opportunity" or "if meeting the Savakasangha, and given the chance to ordain, I will".
The problem when ordaining incorrect/invalid is that one would be burdened by doubts and so easy be disturbed in regard of remorselessness.
There is/would be also no problem to went into homelessness, asking for the 10 precepts, and practice as wanderer under the Tripple Gems, or even as wanderer, yet not met the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha at all (like for example Ven. Maha Kassapa left home without Nissaya/teacher). If having the right aspiration, aim, to leave home, right Upanissaya, the wish "if there exist those/he who knows the way to liberation, may I meet them/him" the teacher/Sangha will go out forward to one, meeting on half the way.
If fully ordaining under a group of thieves (groups which maintain a copy), and also perceiving the right Sangha as wrong, it could be very dangerous in regard of ones possibility to ordain since one having gained "Bhikkhu-hood" by thief, could no more be ordained in the Sangha. Something that one should take care of if leaving home as wanderer or Samanera: if giving others to think that one is a Bhikkhu of the Buddha for bellies sake, using the Sangha-heritage without being given so, one counts as one having gained by thief and would be no more ordained in this lifetime.
Similar situation is critical if one, coming from another sect, returns to this sect without disrobing.
There is, how ever, not much a problem if not ordained with doubts that this is the right group, even if wrong. Once meeting the right, valid, one could join them.
In regard of detail requirements for ordination, which is not necessary always good in study much, one can look here as a source giving much information: Nissaya
As for what to do, wishing to ordain, if meeting a member of the Buddhas good Sangha, the Sangha or someone related to it: Simply ask devoted, bowing down, three times for leaving home under the Buddhas discipline, and if wishing also to gain full ordination at the same time. Let the rest be the matter of those actually in change.
If no reaction on it, repeat the wish, even daily and if having doubt that you are taken serious, after a good time of patient (note that a adherent of other sects would be observed minimum 4 month before full ordaining, if his attitude ans aspiration is right and old teachers/teachings abound. Most of western would count as such Aliens, so nothing that requires to feel disregarded, but the Bhikkhus duty to do.)
who's involved: first of all, you, with the right aspiration and perception and as for ordaining as Samanera a valid preceptor, as for ordaining as Bhikkhu, a chosen valid Nissaya (mentor/personal teacher), a valid preceptor, a valid Sangha of six valid Bhikkhus, and a valid place (Uposatha-place, within valid Sema/borders), and a valid Ordination - action.
how to contact the respective person: seek out for a valid perceive-able member of the Sangha of the Buddha, and ask for such three times in a devoted way, asking for taking refuge under the Gems and for going forth under them, and possible full ordination in the Sangha of the Buddha.
What is the most prominent way to ordain as a monk?: merits, inclination to what leads to long lasting happiness. It is strong condition (Upanissaya), caused by strong condition causes (-paccaya) of the past and present, which lead one most prominent to ordain as a homeless under the Buddhas teachings, among his straight following disciples and begins with the first highest blessings, to desire for, is not gained, ripen yet:

[The Buddha:]
  Not consorting with fools,
  consorting with the wise,
  paying homage to those worthy of homage:
      This is the highest protection.
Living in a civilized land,
  having made merit in the past,
  directing oneself rightly:
      This is the highest protection.
Broad knowledge, skill,
  well-mastered discipline,
  well-spoken words:
      This is the highest protection.
Support for one's parents,
  assistance to one's wife and children,
  consistency in one's work:
      This is the highest protection.
Giving, living in rectitude,
  assistance to one's relatives,
  deeds that are blameless:
      This is the highest protection.
Avoiding, abstaining from evil;
  refraining from intoxicants,
  being heedful of the qualities of the mind:
      This is the highest protection.
Respect, humility,
  contentment, gratitude,
  hearing the Dhamma on timely occasions:
      This is the highest protection.
Patience, compliance,
  seeing contemplatives,
  discussing the Dhamma on timely occasions:
      This is the highest protection.... (Mangala Sutta — Protection)

It's very, very seldom that a Buddha and his teachings arise in this world, even more seldom to get in touch and even more seldom to have the conditions for such a possibility to get in touch gained, so don't waste time if this auspicious change and kusala mind is met, since nothing last aside of the highest gain.
If missing conditions yet, strong desire to gain them by efforts, nourishing this possibilities outwardly and inwardly, associating with that headed toward liberation or already freed, will have it's desired effects, sooner or later, even if caught in household outwardly, at least secure at the break up of this body, if having strong faith that house (the six senses) is no refuge and nothing worthy to give into, aside providing, maintaining for the gaining of independence from it one day.
Mudita
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Thailand or Srilanka right now are the best places to do so, where they most adhere to the vinaya. In Thailand, there are still great masters available that can develop your practice. The biggest and most powerful movement is at dhamma.com/en. You wont be able to ordain at Master Pramote's temple but you could not far and go to see him regularly.

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


text:
Does practice build good kamma despite wrong action?
I ask this question in the context of one who does wrong action and gets right results anyways, which happens a lot. Someone with a pretty good understanding of Kamma but to my knowledge it doesn't usually work like that.
So, wrong action produces right results regularly, a lot of times ends up on top and in a better situation even through challenging circumstances... practices diligently.
What is known about this phenomenon?

You say it is a wrong action. Therefore you already know that it is wrong. Many do not even realize that there actions are wrong, when they take from others (greed) and perhaps hurt others as a result of the 'wrong' action.

Let me put it this way.
If you steal, you temporarily get ahead in wealth, but if you get caught you are looking at some jail time and returning what you stole, legal fees and all kinds of other headaches in the process. This would means you are worse off than before on average for thieves.
Like wise this extends to many other situation where you can temporarily get ahead in life to fall back to worst situations later on.
Also some may get away but if you look at the average over a majority you take one step forward and then two steps back in many of these situations.

Indeed, kamma comes in many forms and ways. There is no way telling one is has to suffer more or less for it's deed.

There is no such thing as instant Karma. We sometimes might have an impression that one action directly led to some result but we really cannot know it for sure.
The world we experience now is a result of karmic seeds we planted during countless of lifetimes. Results of some actions ripen for centuries, some ripen for weeks. Imagine you have a Karma to win the lottery - you never played it so there were no conditions for the karmic seed to ripen. You did lots of bad deeds in your current life and one day you decide to play the lottery for the first time. The seed finally ripens and you win the lottery. Then you think that your immoral deeds have some connection with the winning and conclude that you can still be immoral if good things happen to you anyways. The truth is that these things are not connected at all. Every bad deed will plant a seed which will give you suffering in the future. Every good deed will bring something positive. The trick is that we don't know when exactly.

my understanding of karma was cause and effect as far as external situations were concerned. the internal (as far as i know) that transmutes through death translates into personality builders from what i would think... wherein the kid grows on top of that and of course dependent origination loses its dependant factors and hanges leading to more kamma being built... like... i find it hard to see how you would kammicly be "supposed to win the lotto"... but if you play all the time your chances are kammicly strong...

i'll just be straight... in a worldly sense, i have not fulfilled m obligations because practice got in the way... so it would seem that (cause and effect) a negative outcome would be expected... yet time and time again things seem to work in my favor despite others input...

although the worldy things are not neglected entirely... just off meditating and contemplating when i should be doing other things some of the time... haha

We engage in various thoughts, speech and physical actions. We are aware of some things happening to us. It is quite difficult to see the relation between all of them. I disagree with your statement "wrong action produces right results regularly". If by "right results" you mean positive events occurring, this is the result of positive actions you have taken in the past.
In the Sutra of Instructions to the King it says:
When the moment comes to leave, 0 King,
Neither possessions, friends nor family can follow.
But wherever beings come from, wherever they go,
Their actions follow them like their own shadow.

as mentioned by Patrul Rinpoche in Words of my Perfect Teacher.

In short: No, because wrong action cannot, and does not EVER, yield "right" results. A wrong action taints the outcome of that action; the quality of an action is born in the intention that led to that action. The difficulty in practicing right action comes from our misperception of the results of wrong action as being desireable, which is not the same as right.


text:
Did Buddhism oppose Vedic religion?
At the time of Tathagat Buddha, Hindu religion in its current form did not exist. However, there were Vedic teachings. These teachings were based on blind belief in the authority of the Vedas. There were many different schools of philosophy opposing Vedic teaching, e.g. Akriyavada, Niyativada (determinism), Ucchedavada etc.
As far as I know, the Buddha opposed Vedic religion. He opened a strong camp against it and freed people from the exploitative teachings of Veda. He expounded equality as opposed to the Vedic teachings which discriminated between different classes.
Is it true that Buddhism (since time of Buddha) opposed Vedic (and later Brahminical) religion?

In his Great Minds of the Eastern tradition lecture series Grant Hardy identifies 6 orthodox schools of Indian philosophy (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Mimāṃsā, Vedanta). He also identified 3 heterodox schools

Cārvāka (materialist)
Jainism
Buddhism

The heterodox schools are those who reject the authority of the Vedas. So based on this then Buddhism was opposed to the Vedic religion.Interestingly the Buddha came to be seen as an avatar of the god Vishnu in some forms Hinduism. I guess that it's better to have the Buddha inside the tent chanting out then outside the tent chanting in (or words to that effect).

very nice. but forgive me for not understanding the last sentence. Would you please explain or rewrite in more simplistic way?

@sangharsh i was just being a bit frivolous. It's a play on this quote from Lyndon Johnson http://izquotes.com/quote/241192. It means that it was better to have Buddhism inside Hinduism than outside of it causing trouble. The quote might not work in this sense so you are absolutely right to pick me up on it

Just one thing I think I should note. The teachings relating to Karma and Moksha actually have nothing to do with the Vedic religion, but were derived from the Shramanic tradition of asceticism. Buddhism is one example of a religion derived from this tradition, and Jainism is another. It was Hinduism that borrowed these ideas.

@Bakmoon That's actually different to what Grant Hardy said. It's possible that I've misunderstood, misheard or he is simplifying but I've asked the specific question here http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3120/157 about the origins of this term. I'll happily correct my answer in the light of the answers there (hint, hint, please post)

@Bakmoon great answer for above question. I don't think Grant Hardy is wrong. I think I misunderstood/misremembered. I've amended my answer accordingly

From my reading it appears he didn't oppose Vedic religion though he dismissed the Brahmins of his times as being false Brahmins.
In the brāhmaṇavagga of the aṅguttara nikāya 5. 20, and the Dhp. 26 the Buddha reframes what it means to be a Brahmin, to one who is pious, celibate, free of mental defilements etc. - namely all the qualities of an arhat or other members of the Ariyas.
In the AN brāhmaṇavagga he debates several Brahmins, and shows a superior understanding of Brahminical history, and teaches that the present fallen state of Brahmins was not always so. In old times, per the teachings of the ten Rishis (Aññhaka, Vàmaka, Vàmadeva, Vessàmitta, Yamtaggi, Angãrasa, Bhàradvàja, Vàseññha, Kassapa and Bhagu) the meaning of Brahmin was equal to what the Buddha teaches, but over the years it had decayed to the point of being riddled with flaws.
I don't want to quote lengthy sections of the chapter on Brahmins here, but suffice to say, he wasn't opposed to the Vedas.
In AN 5.20 he mentions mastery of the Vedas as a notable feature of a good Brahmin, but by reading other suttas in the vagga we see it not the only criteria. If anything, he emphasises pious conduct and freedom from mental defilements a lot more.

The Buddha disagreed with Vedic teaching in certain respects, but he wasn't opposed to everything. He rejected the idea that there was any sort of intrinsic value to people's Varna, or caste, and he rejected many of the teachings which had some Brahmins of the time had understood from the Vedas (For example, at the time of the Buddha, some Brahmins taught that the creator God Brahma was eternal and all powerful) but that doesn't mean that the Buddha opposed himself to absolutely everything related to the Vedic religion of the time.
For example, although he rejected the idea that the Vedic rituals had any bearing on obtaining enlightenment, he never said that it is somehow wrong to preform the Vedic rituals. In fact, the Buddha had lay disciples who were Brahmins, and it seems reasonable to assume that at least some of them were functioning as priests.
In other words, the Buddha opposed the aspects of Vedic religion which were bad, but didn't really have much of an issue with the more neutral matters of Vedic religion.

The Buddha taught a different doctrine to the Vedas but did not "oppose" the Vedas. MN 95 says:

Sirs, the recluse Gotama holds the doctrine of the moral efficacy of action, the doctrine of the moral efficacy of deeds; he does not seek any harm for the line of brahmins.

MN 95

Check out the link : Why did Lord Buddha reject the Vedas?
Excerpt from the above answer :

In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:
Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati
  Bhooripanjo.
People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high
  and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands
  Dharma and does not waver.
Sutta Nipat 503:
Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema …….
One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative,
  intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.
Sutta Nipat 1059:
Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam……
One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic
  Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly
  things.
Sutta Nipat 1060:
Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja…..
I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards
  the world and becomes free from sins.
Sutta Nipat 846:
Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso….
One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by
  hearsay and delusions.
Sutta Nipat 458:
Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi
I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets
  success.

I can't confirm these quotes and translations. For example I found the first quote at around Sutta Nipata 796 (not 192) ... and the English translation of that given here is quite different (contradictory really), saying, "A person undertaking (holy) vows goes high and low—
they waver, fettered by conditional perceptions.
But one who has learnt well and the Dharma penetrated
goes not up and down—
that one of wisdom profound."

I know little bit Sanskrit. I see couple of words like "Vedehi", "Vedagu" in most of the above stanzas. Those words  refer to The Veda. I also see words like "Brahmanam".

In the MN 95, the Buddha hints that even the learned brahmans themselves are unsure whether the Vedas are true, by their own empirical validation:

"And among the brahman seers of the past, the creators of the hymns,
the composers of the hymns — those ancient hymns, sung, repeated, &
collected, which brahmans at present still sing, still chant,
repeating what was said, repeating what was spoken — i.e., Atthaka,
Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja,
Vasettha, Kassapa & Bhagu: was there even one of these who said, 'This
we know; this we see; only this is true; anything else is worthless?'"
"No, Master Gotama."
"So then, Bharadvaja, it seems that there isn't among the brahmans
even one brahman who says, 'This I know; this I see; only this is
true; anything else is worthless.' And there hasn't been among the
brahmans even one teacher or teacher's teacher back through seven
generations who said, 'This I know; this I see; only this is true;
anything else is worthless.' And there hasn't been among the brahman
seers of the past, the creators of the hymns, the composers of the
hymns... even one who said, 'This we know; this we see; only this is
true; anything else is worthless.' Suppose there were a row of blind
men, each holding on to the one in front of him: the first one doesn't
see, the middle one doesn't see, the last one doesn't see. In the same
way, the statement of the brahmans turns out to be a row of blind men,
as it were: the first one doesn't see, the middle one doesn't see, the
last one doesn't see. So what do you think, Bharadvaja: this being the
case, doesn't the conviction of the brahmans turn out to be
groundless?"
MN 95

In MN 95 and DN 13, the Buddha did not accept the authority of the Vedas. This makes Buddhism a heterodox (nāstika) school.
In Dhp 279 and many other suttas, the Buddha taught all phenomena is not self. This also makes Buddhism a heterodox (nāstika) school.
In MN 38, he taught six types of consciousness which dependently arise based on the six media of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind i.e. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, mind-consciousness etc. He taught that consciousness does not occur independently of these six media. This disagrees with the concept of Cosmic Consciousness (Aparokshanubhuti 58) in Advaita Vedanta.
In SN 7.9, he rejected the notion of varna/ caste by birth, stating "don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct," when someone asked him about his (Buddha's) varna/ caste at birth. That contradicts Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 and BG 9.32.
In SN 7.7, he said that austerities does not make one pure and chanting mantras do not make one a brahmin, stating instead that accomplishment in conduct or virtue, and knowledge determines a brahmin.
In SN 7.21, he rejected the view that purification rites using water can wash away sins, stating instead to dip oneself in the shores of the lake of virtue, to purify oneself.
In DN 31, he rejected the ritualism behind the Vedic bath prayer ceremony practised by a young householder by the name of Sigala and put a new spin on it.
In MN 92, the Buddha stated that feeding the Sangha generates more merit than the Vedic fire sacrifice (yajna), while AN 9.20 states that undertaking the five precepts generate more merit than feeding the Sangha.
In SN 42.6, he rejected the use of funeral rites to help the deceased go to heaven, stating instead that it is a person's deeds during their lifetime which determines their outcome, and not rituals performed after death.
In SN 42.3, he rejected the view that a warrior performing his duty to fight in war, will allow him to go to heaven after death, if he gets killed in battle. This contradicts BG 2.38.
In AN 8.39, he forbade taking of a life and in AN 4.39, he denounced animal sacrifices. This may have conflicted with animal sacrifices that may have been practised in his time.
In DN 2, he forbade his monks from doing fire oblations or fire sacrifices, practising astrology, reading omens, interpreting dreams, calculating auspicious dates for marriages, consecrating sites for construction and worshipping the Sun etc.

Good answer about the Buddha having a different doctrine than the Vedas but MN 95 shows the Buddha did not "oppose" the Vedas.

Buddhism does not oppose any relations like psychiatry or psychology does not have anything to do with other organised religions. Buddhism in a way is a treatment for stress and misery like psychiatry or psychology. Applying Buddhism you realize the root cause and cure yourself of misery. Unlike psychiatry or psychology the final solution your get is stable and permanent.