text:
Law of Karma in the Buddha's own words
Where can I find the law of karma and rebirth in Buddha's own words?
Which scripture mentions it explicitly, as told by Buddha, and accepted by all sects of Buddhism?

Ven Bodhi discusses this matter and quotes relevant suttas in his "In the Buddha's Words" chapter V "THE WAY TO A FORTUNATE REBIRTH".
The following list, which was posted on SuttaCentral, is a greatly expanded version of Ven Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words list:

Since i've found Ven. Bodhi reference list, i've been expanding it and here's what it's grown up to thus far. Hopefully someone will find it useful and continue to expand it as one gets more familiar with the Nikayas corpus

The links to the actual texts can be found in this posted list (as a part of a much longer one).
Most (if not all) of the texts are available on Access to Insight as well.
I cannot vouch that the view on kamma presented in these suttas is accepted by all sects of Buddhism, but it at least should be so for Theravada.

The Law of Kamma
(1) Four Kinds of Kamma (AN 4.232)
(2) Why Beings Fare as They Do
  after Death (MN 41)
(3) Kamma and Its Fruits (MN 135)
(4) Kamma sutta - old and new kamma (SN 35.145)
(5) Sivaka sutta - other causes (SN 36.21)
(6) Devaduta sutta - kamma is only personal (MN 130)
(7) Mahakammavibhanga sutta - the workings of kamma are not simple (MN
  136)
(8) Vipaka sutta - violation of 5 precepts leads to states of woe and
  what they are (AN 8.40)
(9) Tamonata sutta - 4 types of people in the world (AN 4.85)
(10) Saleyyaka sutta/Veranjaka sutta - conduct determines realm of
  future birth (MN 41/42)
(11) Panatipati sutta (AN 4.214)
(12) Acintita sutta - workings of kamma are incomprehensible and
  should not be pondered upon (AN 4.77)
(13) Vanijja sutta - success and failure are results of quality of
  offerings to holy people (AN 4.79)
(14) Dasadhamma sutta - kamma is individual (AN 10.48)
(15) Apayika sutta - false accusers of celibates go to hell (KN :  It
  48)
(16) Abhinhapaccavekkhintabbathana sutta (Upajjhatthana) - kamma is
  only personal, everyone is an owner of their actions (AN 5.57)
(17) Acela sutta - on one who experiences the results of kamma (SN
  12.17)
(18) Nibbedhika sutta - kamma is intention (AN 6.63)
(19) Angulimala sutta - arahant’s bad kamma gets exhausted in the last
  life (MN 86)
(20) Lonaphala/Lonakapalla sutta - developed holy way of life
  alleviates bad kamma; salt simile, jail simile, goat butcher simile
  (AN 3.99 or 3.100) see (25)
(21) Janussonin sutta - who is born where based on morality (AN
  10.177)
(22) Jhana suttas 1,2 - jhana relation to rebirth in heaven (AN
  4.123,4)
(23) Metta suttas 1,2 - brahmaviharas relation to rebirth in heaven
  (AN 4.125,6)
(24) Ariyamagga sutta - 4 types of dark and bright kamma and its
  results (SN 4.235)
(25) Sankha sutta - bad kamma gets lost in immeasurable brahmaviharas
  (SN 42.8) see (20)
(26) (Karajakaya) Brahmavihara sutta - bad kamma gets lost in
  immeasurable brahmaviharas (AN 10.208)
(27) Yodhajiva sutta - warrior which kills is reborn in hell (SN 42.3)
(28) Talaputa sutta - actors are reborn in hell for enhancing asavas
  in people’s consciousness (SN 42.2)
(29) Sangama sutta 2 - the verse seems to suggest that one’s rewarded
  with exactly what one has done oneself (SN 3.15)
(30) Samannaphala sutta - sequence of rebirths is linear (DN 2)
(31) Cula-Punnama sutta - where persons of integrity and no integrity
  end up (MN 110)
(32) Culakammavibhanga sutta (MN 135)
(33) Parikuppa sutta - 5 deeds which lead to hell (AN 5.129)
(34) Sukkhamala sutta - bodily, verbal & mental misconduct lead to
  hell (AN 3.38)
(35) Ekamsena sutta - bodily, verbal & mental conduct consequences in
  this life and the next (AN 2.18)
(36) Kukkuravatika sutta - bright, dark, bright & dark, neither dark
  nor bright types of kamma and its results (MN 57)
(37) Annataro brahmana sutta, Janussoni sutta, Ekamsena sutta - the
  future is determined by conduct (AN 2.6-8)

Since then I also found these:

Pansu suttas - rebirth in human or deva realms is rare (AN
56.102-113)
Mahasihanada sutta - 5 destinations (MN 12)

Maybe some day someone will volunteer to extract from these suttas relevant excerpts and compose out of them a coherent readily available text.


text:
Did the Buddha Meditate?
This may come off as a very strange question. From small days I have been taught Buddhism, not in the way it should have been, but in a way which took most stories and teachings for granted.  Those who know Buddhism know that Lord Buddha attained enlightenment on a Vesak Poya day (a full moon in May). According to Theravada teachings (and maybe even Mahayana I am not sure) what came next was seven weeks of very "Holy" or special events/activities concerning Lord Buddha. First of which was the "Animisa Locana Pooja" where the Buddha was believed to have shown gratitude to a Bo tree. Later on was a week named "Ruwan Sakmana" where the Buddha meditated while walking. This I found very strange. A Buddha is a person who has found the ultimate liberation from all the sorrows, one whose kindness and compassion has no bounds. Laymen meditate to basically calm themselves and to improve "Maithri"/ kindness. Why does an enlightened being meditate? I doubt a Buddha would just meditate to pass time! My opinion is that a Buddha does not meditate because he does not need to do it anymore. But does a Buddha meditate?

Is it possible he was never not meditating?

Are you talking about before Gautama Awakened or after (and thus became known as a Buddha)?
Before he Awakened, he practiced meditation very intensely particularly the 8 samadhis, as did all other Enlightened masters.

After becoming Buddha

I can't find the reference at the moment but if I recall correctly, the Buddha continued to meditate after enlightenment for two reasons, according to the Theravada tradition: (1) To dwell in a pleasant abiding here and now (jhana) (2) to set an example for his followers

One reference to jhanas is towards the end of the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha (in verse 9 of part 6, in the section titled "How the Blessed One Passed into Nibbana").

Does make sense when you say that it was to set an example.

According to Theravada, Arahants still experience physical pain although they do not experience any aversion (dosa) to that pain; At the end of the Buddha's life he experienced back pain as is mentioned in this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html#fn-2 Again, I don't have a reference but I remember hearing that at the end of his life he experienced back pain constantly unless he entered into a meditative absorption, including the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha samapatti) It was said that he bore any painful feelings mindfully.

In fact, the Buddha meditated everyday. All Arahaths meditate whenever they are not busy with teaching or day to day activities. But it is not to get rid of any defilements like ordinary beings. Instead, they attain a state called the Nirodha Samapatti.
It's like going home after busy day at the office(the world of Sankhara). Nirodha Samapatti is a pleasant abiding.
If I remember right, the Buddha attains the Jhanas after every sentence he speaks, when he gives a sermon.
The Buddha's Daily Routine

Buddha would get up at 4.00 a.m. and as soon as he had had a wash
  would sit down to meditate for an hour. From 5.00 to 6.00 a.m. he
  would look around the world with his mental eye to see if anybody
  needed help. At 6.00 a.m. he would put on his robe and either go out
  and help the needy or beg for food....

Thank you for the answer. I think a Buddha or an Arahath does not have to do anything that is routine. I feel like an enlightened being feels pleasant at all times irrespective of what ever he/she is doing. But then again meditation can be focused for the betterment of other beings and in that case it does make for a Buddha to meditate. However, as I have said, for a person with a boundless kindness and compassion, I doubt that they require to carry out mediation for the betterment of others. It is all very confusing but I am intrigued!

An I too have read the scriptures. I am not looking for a reference but for a justification

@DonaldEdwards Yes they have to do routine things while they live. Ex: eating, brushing, bathing, washing etc. Whether they attain Nirodha Samapatti or not, they don't feel any suffering. But think of it as going home after work as opposed to sleeping in the office :)

Going home after office is a bliss no doubt about it! but all I am saying is they already have attained the most supreme bliss and do not have to do anything else to feel pleasant. I must be annoying at this point I am sorry. I am just not convinced yet. I just think questioning Buddhism is the best way to really learn it. thanks anyway

@DonaldEdwards That's ok! They have attained Nibbana but when they do daily activities, Nibbana is not the object of the mind. It is whatever they are doing or talking about at the time. There's a big difference between taking Nibbana as the object of the mind vs taking a worldly thing as the object of the mind.

Oh yes that is quite convincing. Please do share your thoughts with my latest question http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/14022/animisa-locana-pooja-is-it-really-what-it-is

The link is mislinked; i.e., it doesn't link to anything about nirodha samapatti but to a page about the Buddha's daily routine

Do you have a reference for the buddha's morning routine you mention?

clicked the link?

The most obvious and in detail is in a sutta describing Bhuddha's parinibbana process.  Process monitored and confirmed by Ven Anuruddha.   When Buddha closed his eyes he enter jhanna 1 - 2 -3 -4, and then infinite space, infinite consciousness, no-thingness, neither perception nor non-perception, cessation.  and then from cessation to neither perception nor non-perception,  no-thingness, infinite consciousness,  infinite space,then jhanna 4 -3 -2 -1 .   and then again from Jhanna 1 -2 -3 -4 , and when he left jhanna 4, his 5 skhanda was over.
PS.  (I noticed Buddha never once called infinite space, etc. a 5, 6, 7, 8,  9 Jhanna ever.  He always used their full names.  )   only called the entire group as arupa Jhanna but when it comes to individual level, Buddha called them their full names.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the Sutra where The Buddha says that he has taught only a fraction of what he knew
I read somewhere (don't remember where) that the Buddha mentioned, that he has taught only a fraction of what he could discern with his eye of wisdom (about existence). Does anyone know which Sutra describes this?

My question is identical to the one you have linked. Although not sure if I should delete this one, or just leave it as is.

That sutta (or, at least, one of those suttas) is sometimes summarized as "a handful of leaves".
Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, etc.

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


text:
Animisa Locana Pooja. Is it really what it is?
This is probably by far the most interesting theory that I have heard (Yes a theory or you may call it a story. I just don't have a reference to back this up!) about the life of Gautama Buddha.  The "Animisa Locana Pooja" was a act of gratitude. This is what I know and have been taught. Lord Buddha stared (wish I had a better word for this) without blinking at the Bo tree that gave him shelter during his enlightenment. But is it really the reason why he kept looking at this tree? For one whole week? I met this really interesting guy when I went on a pilgrimage that asked me these questions. And all I had to say was "Yeah he was being an example to us all by showing how to show gratitude". Then the man asked "Son, Buddha is possibly the most perfect being we know, at least from a Buddhist's perspective. Couldn't he have been a better example by showing gratitude to his father perhaps right after enlightenment? Even as normal people whenever we achieve something the first person that we tell to are our parents. If you win the Nobel prize for literature would you rather show gratitude to your parents/teachers or your pen?"
I would be lying if I said I wasn't annoyed at this point. "Do you mean that as an insult?" I asked. He burst into laughter and said "Yes, but not an insult to Buddha but to the person who came up with the gratitude story. Son, he never showed gratitude to the tree. When Buddha attained enlightenment, at first, he felt that he had been liberated from all of the sorrows. But there was still doubt within himself as to whether he was actually a Buddha or just an Arahath. So he sat facing the tree. Using all his past lives experience and knowledge he looked at the tree and imagined that it was another Buddha and started a mental conversation with this imaginary Buddha to convince himself that he himself was a Buddha". Honestly I was astonished! Was this man lying to me? To be honest I sort of do believe he is correct but I just could not ask him where or how he found this piece of information. What do you think? Is it what it is?

"Animisa Locana Pooja" was indeed an act of gratitude to set an example to the world. It was also done to sanctify the tree as it would become the symbol of the Buddhahood.
The story your friend has told seems to be his own imagination. King Suddhodana was doing all he could to keep prince Siddhartha in lay life. So showing gratitude to him for aiding in the quest of attaining Buddhahood is out of the question. In any case, the Buddha later visited his father and saved him as well.

But there was still doubt within himself as to whether he was actually
  a Buddha
  Blockquote

The Buddha is omniscient. He has no doubts and needs no 1 week long mental conversation with a tree to know something :)

Do you know a reference to "Animisa Locana Pooja" in Tripitaka?

I would look in the commentaries. Not the Tipitaka.

But my issue is whether attaining enlightenment happened suddenly in one day or even a moment. If enlightenment occurs in stages there can be a possibility of Buddha having certain doubts. King Suddhodana did keep the prince in the shadow but to chose a tree over a parent to show gratitude sets a wrong example when it comes to precedence right? If I show gratitude to my table/desk/book when I pass an exam rather that to the parents who said I am studying too much and go do a job, people would think I am nuts perhaps. I mean no insult in anyway and I thank you for you intellectual feedback.

Ah but your table, books, pens are provided to you by your parents. This is different. King Suddhodana was actively trying to prevent price Siddhartha from reaching the goal.
Enlightenment happens in stages, but it can happen very quickly too. Read the story of the Bahiya thero
In any case, a Buddha is a Buddha. Once you become a Buddha, there's nothing more to attain and certainly no doubts

It won't look any better if I bought them myself eh? Has Buddha himself explained why he did the Animisa Locana?

Passing an exam is a trivial achievement compared to attaining Buddhahood. So no one would complain if you don't show special gratitude towards your table, pens and books. Besides the Bodhi tree provides shelter for life. It's a much greater service.

Well then one can argue why not show gratitude to the sun which gives life to the tree which is a far far more greater service.

It doesn't work that way. if we apply the same thinking, a student should show gratitude to the parents of his teacher, instead of the teacher himself

@SankhaKulathantille Lord Buddha got aid from trees and the sun simultaneously. Teacher and the parents is not a suitable analogy in this case

@Heisenberg Not really! The tree provided shelter from the Sun. Teacher/parents analogy is suitable as the argument was that the sun is a reason for the existence of the tree.

@SankhaKulathantille I partly agree and disagree. I just feel the Buddha could have attained enlightenment with or without the tree. For a being who conquered the mind what harm can some sun light do?

@Heisenberg It's not about the ability to attain a goal even under unpleasant situations. It's about showing gratitude to something that made life pleasant while you strive towards the goal. ex: if you are journeying somewhere and if someone offered you food when you are hungry, instead of thanking, do you belittle it by saying "I could've reached my destination with or without your food".  He hadn't conquered the mind until he became the Buddha. :)

@SankhaKulathantille Belittling a person is not the same as belittling an object. Thanks for the response though

@Heisenberg it's belittling nonetheless :) Enlightened being don't do that. Besides it's also about sanctifying the tree as a symbol of Buddhahood

@SankhaKulathantille showing gratitude to a an object implies a certain emotional connection to the object itself which doesn't make sense. Even I was brought up to believe the traditional definition but I have read nowhere where Buddha talks about sanctifying the bo tree. However, the  previous Buddhas have been associated with a list of different trees which were supposedly "sanctified" as a consequence of providing shelter. To go with this tradition a bo tree was chosen by the writers of the scriptures. It was that important Buddha would have said it himself

@Heisenberg "showing gratitude to a an object implies a certain emotional connection" - this is because you are thinking in terms of how a  non-enlightened person would feel :) It doesn't imply an emotional connection when it comes to enlightened beings.
"To go with this tradition a bo tree was chosen by the writers of the scriptures" - I have never heard this and find no issue in using the Bodhi tree as a symbol to represent the Buddha.
Haven't you heard of how the Anandabodhi tree came to be?

@SankhaKulathantille It is not just a symbol. People do "Bodhi pooja" expecting good things to happen.

@Heisenberg "in order that people might make their offerings in the name of the Buddha when he was away on pilgrimage, he sanctioned the planting of a seed from the Bodhi tree". If you do that, it is good Karma for you. And it is possible to channel good Karma towards achieving something

@SankhaKulathantille It may apply for bo tree planted by himself. But how can it apply to all bodi trees growing in all places of the world?

@Heisenberg It was planted by venerable Ananda. Not all fig trees grown in the world are considered Bodhi trees. Usually the sanctified saplings of the descendants of the original Bodhi tree are considered as Bodhi trees


text:
Total number of beings in the entire space as we know is constant? Increases? Decreases?
I am a being. So are you. According to Buddhism there is not soul and maybe there is nothing called myself which makes this a very tough question to ask. I am living my sansara. A never ending thought processes taking different forms (Human, Deva etc). This thought process or sansara does not overlap with any others or does not branch out. My theory is that the total number of beings (may not be the best word to use) or sansaras of different thought processes (again maybe wrong use of terminology but I hope you get the picture) does not change unless someone attains nibbhana/ becomes an arahath. Is this correct? or can it reduce without it being due to the passing of an arahath? Can it by any chance increase?

Consider the possibility that the universe is infinite, hence the number of beings are also infinite. (Infinity - 1) is still infinity

I highly doubt infinity exists in the physical world. If it is infinite then there is no possibility of talking about an increase or a decrease.

The number of humans is finite, the number of animals is also finite even if we cannot say the exact value. Scriptures say approximately the number of devas that existed those days as well. So I cannot see how you can say its infinite

i.e the number of devas in this world system. But the scriptures don't say that the number of world systems are finite.

@SankhaKulathantille So according to you there can be infinitely many world systems. And in each world systems there may have been Buddhas as well. And maybe even two Buddhas existed simultaneously in two different world systems? (I don't know whether the world "simultaneously" makes sense when comparing two world systems)

@Heisenberg as I've heard, the Buddhas only appear in "Magul Sakwala". In today's terms it corresponds to the milky way. So it's unlikely that there are more than one Buddhas at a time. If you ask this as a separate question, you might get more information/opinions

That's interesting. Will come up with a question in a while

In DN 9, the Buddha advised not to speculate on certain types of questions:

“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that the cosmos is eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“Then is it the case that the cosmos is not eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless?”
“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that the cosmos is not eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“Then is it the case that the cosmos is finite … the cosmos is infinite … the soul & the body are the same … the soul is one thing and the body another … after death a Tathagata exists … after death a Tathagata does not exist … after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist … after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless?”
“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“But why hasn’t the Blessed One expounded these things?”
“Because they are not conducive to the goal, are not conducive to the Dhamma, are not basic to the holy life. They don’t lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That’s why I haven’t expounded them.”
“And what has the Blessed One expounded?”
“I have expounded that, ‘This is stress’ … ‘This is the origination of stress’ … ‘This is the cessation of stress’ … ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’
“And why has the Blessed One expounded these things?”
“Because they are conducive to the goal, conducive to the Dhamma, and basic to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That’s why I have expounded them.”

There is no mention of the number of being in lower realms hence there is a possibility that in a given universe there are infinite beings. Also the number of universes are infinite hence even if there are finite being in a world system the infinity of world systems will make the number of being infinite.


text:
Are there problems from mixing different sources of teachings?
I discovered Buddhism by reading and practising the Theravada teachings. As I wanted to make some progress, I started looking for a teacher who could guide me and direct my practicing.
So I decided to go to a local Mahayana School near my home, and I've been going there for two years now. Until this time I've still been practicing both Theravada teachings and Mahayana. Also I discovered about the S.N. Goenka Vipassana movement and did some courses (retreats).
I would like to know if is there a problem from mixing different sources of teachings in my practice? I saw many famous teachers who searched different teachings, till finding their way to enlightenment.
Is it inappropriate mixing different sources of teachings, and could it disturb/confuse my practice? I would appreciate seeing different perspectives, and their own experiences from other practitioners.
Thanks :)

The Teaching is just one but there might be many interpretations. That's why the Buddha advised us to always verify a teacher's words, no matter how famous or well respected he is, against the Buddha's original Words in the Suttas and the Books of Discipline:

1) “Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘I have heard this directly from the Gracious One, friends, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
2) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that monk,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that monk.’ This, monks, is the first Great Referral you should bear in mind. ~ DN 16 ~

There will probably be some contradictions.  I have heard Nicca Sukkha Atta to describe Nirvana by Dhammakaya Movement which I quickly dismissed.  It's polar opposite of anicca dukkha anatta.   From my study, Buddha never said a anything to be Atta (or self).   From war drum sutta, Buddha said not to lend ear to new lectures.  However, if you want to listen to the other schools make sure you chose carefully.  Just like santa100 said, verify it first.  it is a sensitive subject.  you never want to criticize food eaten by people from different cultures than yours.  They will get offended.

In Samyutta Nikaya Sutta 16.13, the Buddha warned that the true Dhamma would remain unadulterated for 500 years after his passing into Nibbana. Thereafter, it will become very difficult to distinguish the true Teachings from the false. Why? Because although many of these books contain a lot of Dhamma, some adhamma (i.e. what is contrary to the Dhamma) are added here and there. These alterations scattered throughout the text are only noticeable if one is sharp and very well versed in the earliest 4 Nikayas. Otherwise, one would find it very difficult to distinguish the later books from the earlier ones.
The Buddha likened this to gold trading. The market for gold will be strong when people are confident that it is pure, but if we come to a time when it is possible to make fake "gold" which is difficult to distinguish from real gold, people will be reluctant to buy. So it is that if the Dhamma becomes polluted with adhamma (ie what is contrary to the dhamma), people will start to lose interest in the Dhamma.
For example if someone tells you that it is necessary to have kamatahan, whether it is a well known monk or layman, then he/she spread and promote an adhamma.- - a falsehood. If I write, what I write for your eyes and ears only it is a ‘kamatahan’. But what I write is open to one and all, thus it is open and transparent.


text:
Is Buddhism the Way of Truth?
I mean, free from misguidance, from being wrong and misdirected?
And if it the case, where is the evidence?

The spirit of the Buddha's Teaching has always been: "To come, practice, and experience it for yourself". He had long abandoned the ego to prove anything to anyone:

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.' ~ AN 8.53 ~"

to answer and accept an answer to this question we first have to predicate that the Buddha was an arahant, that is

Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.
Knowing, the Blessed One knows; seeing, he sees. He is the Eye, he is
Knowledge, he is Dhamma, he is Brahma. He is the speaker, the
proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the giver of the Deathless, the
lord of the Dhamma, the Tathagata.

arahant is one, whos mental fermentations are ended, abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising

It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie.

Sutava sutta (AN 9.7)
So, being an arahant the Buddha could not tell lies  when preaching the Dhamma and addressing questions, because all that he did consciously
and if we accept that the Buddha's realization is genuine and his own knowledge is truthful, so he himself wasn't deluded, then his Dhamma must be as truthful

I think the obvious answer is "No." Zen, as always, put this well with the famous "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him" quote. No tradition, set of teachings, or community can remain "free from misguidance, from being wrong and misdirected." All religions fall into these categories, and are comprised of and maintained by human beings, who are by nature susceptible to delusion and error. Buddhism is a large and ancient religion, and as a result the amount of obvious bullshit you can find floating around out there under its name is enormous.
Buddhism's advantage is that the Buddha was himself clearly aware of this problem, and repeatedly emphasized the need for his teachings to be validated empirically rather than accepted on faith. As a result, there has always been a healthy current of empiricism within Buddhist teachings.
Stephen Batchelor's entire output is dedicated to excising this spirit from the various institutional traps it's been caught in over the history of formal Buddhism; I'd recommend you look at his writings if you are interested in more discussion along these lines.

Your skepticism is correct and healthy.
Buddhism is subjective and objective. It is about you and your experience. And it generalizes that experience among all humans because we are all similar thinking beings. We all have a brain and a heart.
But along with skepticism, there are practices of Shamatha and Vipassana. Practice them. Don't worry as they are not black magic practices ;) but they give you a first hand experience of the observation of your mind and things around you.
I would suggest you start with those practices along with your skepticism and start reading from various sources and be sure to organize your sources and thoughts.


text:
Similarity between creation in Abrahamic religions and beginning of life in Earth mentioned Agganna Sutta?
I was recently listening to a sermon on Agganna Sutta that was on Youtube. I will share my thoughts and questions on the Agganna sutta in a different post. Let me share few passages first and then get to the question.

At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness.... And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with color, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or heated butter and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey (1)
Some of the creatures of light (the Abbhasaras) who had curiosity and
  a greedy nature began to dive and taste the savory Earth's substance.
  At that moment, the creature found out that it tasted so delicious.
  Thus, greed started to seep in and it ate the substance voraciously,
  greedily, also calling its comrades (who were flying above and on
  earth) to join in the feast. Not long afterwards, the creatures began
  to eat greedily, and due to the huge amount of the mud substance they
  could feed on it for a very long time

And this is about the story of Adam and Eve.

Adam is told that he can till the ground and eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of which he is prohibited from eating. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be Adam's companion. However, a serpent tricks Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. God curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes 'the man' from the Garden of Eden.

According to what I learned from the Agganna Sutta Buddhism is about taking our selves back to where we came from (Brahmas) but not stopping there and attaining Nirvana. In Abrahamic Religions it is also mentioned that people should strive to go back to the initial innocence of humans (Adam and Eve to be particular).
I find it strange to see that all chaos began from eating something that they were no supposed to in both teachings. Whether it was meant to be metaphorical I do not know. Shed some light to this if you can.

In buddhism eating anything is not forbidden. Is it the the desire to experience also and the creatures evolved to have the respective faculties like the tongue. These experiences increase carving and lust which worsened the conditions of beings.
Also according to Jesus lived in India by Holger Kersten, abrahamic religions were influenced by Buddhism. Hence there can be similarities. Some may be pure coincidence. As Buddha mentioned his teaching is not previously taught it is unlikely to be influenced by any other religion.

The story of creation comes from a time that was way before Jesus and is mentioned in the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. True it does not forbid eating anything but I think lord Buddha have advised to avoid eating certain types of meat. Not because it is a sin for some other reason I do not know.

And Abraham himself existed about 1500 years before Buddha so I doubt it was influenced by Buddhism.

There are many web sites on the 'net where the suttas are collected, but some people recommend http://dharmafarer.org/ as a source for "in-depth analysis" of a sutta.
Here then is Dharmafarer's translation and analysis of the Aggañña Sutta.
Instead of or as well as listening to a sermon on YouTube, you can read the sutta[s] yourself.
The Dharmafarer version includes many footnotes and much introductory text: it might be worth just reading the sutta first (to know and/or understand what's being discussed) and then reading the introduction and so on.
In the introduction, it says,

5 Buddhist humour
Like the Aggañña Sutta, most of the suttas mentioned above [3] belong to the genre of religious humour.
  15 The humorous language and imagery of such suttas is understandable as they deal with well-established
  ideas and norms, taken seriously especially by those who used them to legitimize their affluence
  and position in society. Like the Brahmana,dhammika Sutta, the Aggañña Sutta criticizes the brahmins
  saying that they have forgotten their past, resulting in their degeneration from an ideal way of life.

The two narratives are, on the surface level of a temporal sequence of actual events, quite different;
    but when read as parables using stories of the past to make a contemporary moral point,
    they complement each other perfectly well. (Collins 1993a:320)

Richard Gombrich, in his Theravada Buddhism: A social history from Benares to Colombo, remarks
  that the Aggañña Sutta is “an extended satire on brahminical ideas, full of parody and puns… As a debunking
  job I think the sermon is serious: its main aim is to show that the class system is nothing but a
  human invention”; however, “I cannot go here into all the reasons why I think that the positive statements
  in the myth are satirical and not meant to be taken literally.” (1988:85). In his book, “The Buddha’s Book
  of Genesis” (1992a), Gombrich goes on to elaborate on the significance of the Buddha’s humour in presenting
  a parody and pastiche of brahmanical claims, teachings and practices.

This isn't the only time Richard Gombrich argues for a non-literal interpretation; but read the sutta and see for yourself.
Anyway, this ties into your question: according to this interpretation, any "similarity" might be, not between this story and the Abrahamic Bible, but between this story and brahminical ideas.

Also I don't know what you mean about "strive to go back to the initial innocence of humans". As far as I know, Christianity teaches that people are saved or justified from original sin by Christ, and not especially as a result of their own striving. Yes, Christians are supposed to avoid further sinning which would distance them from God, but so far as I know Buddhism is unusual (compared with Christianity at least, though Judaism and Islam may have a different view) in putting the responsibility for salvation on the practitioner (i.e. on each Buddhist), instead of on the (Christian) Redeemer.

I find it strange to see that all chaos began from eating something that they were no supposed to in both teachings. Whether it was meant to be metaphorical I do not know.

In this sutta I guess it's an allegory for desire and for physicality/coarseness (whereas in Genesis it's, what, an allegory for knowledge-of-good-and-evil, duality, loss of innocence, and disobedience, maybe free will and ego).
If you compare any two stories in the world you're likely to find some similarities: e.g. there's more than one person, they're on a planet, they eat and talk to each other, wear clothes, live somewhere, go places, and use things and lose things etc.
These two stories don't seem to me a very close/remarkable coincidence.

This is a very good question. So I do not understand why it would have been downvoted.
In addition to Chris' answer I would like to comment (I would do this as a comment, but I don't have enough reputation) that it would be much worth also reading the Patika Sutta (D 24), which is cited in the referenced exposition on the Agañña Sutta.
There the Buddha declares that

There are, Bhaggava, certain recluses and brahmins who declare it as their doctrine, that the beginning of things was owing to a debauch of pleasure.

but this is only one of a range of possibilities he enumerates about how beings might remember what they think of as the "beginning of all" or come to regard it that way by tradition although they have actually forgotten it, but the Buddha claims to remember even more and tells about it.
Another quite interesting idea (through remembrance) of origin that comes after is that:

There are, Bhaggava, certain recluses and brahmins, who declare as their traditional doctrine, that the beginning of things was owing to a debauch of mind.

(and is maybe quite pertinent as well to some states of mental existence in such internet realms as these, and how these beings come down to "fall from grace")
So while these remembrances retellings could certainly provide some good moral lessons, that could help remind one of better states that had been before, and also the reason why they were lost, so as to motivate one to return to that purity of old times, the real answer the Buddha gives elsewhere and repeatedly is:

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.

SN 15.3: Tears
See also: Samsara
So to answer your question directly,

I find it strange to see that all chaos began from eating something that they were no supposed to in both teachings. Whether it was meant to be metaphorical I do not know. Shed some light to this if you can.

this is not how all chaos began, but just some periods of relative purity and "order", after which by excessive debauchery that relative purity was again spoiled and lost, and a new episode of grosser chaos was set rolling again, and again, and again, this is happening, on individual as well as greater and more universal scales, as long as one has not found the way out.
But according to the Buddha the reason was not that "they were not supposed to", and there is no external watcher behind who brings disaster as a punishment, but just the nature of existence in this world which continues for each individual as long as the ignorance about and behind these mechanisms is not seen through.
As the Buddha taught it is craving that is the ground for all becoming (and all the suffering that comes with it, from refined and subtle to more grosser and grosser forms), and ignorance of these mechanisms which leaves the craving to continue untouched and continuing in our mental streams, so such episodes from the past are just some illustrative samples that could remind us and also inform and inspire other religious traditions to uphold their moral ideals, and provide for their stories of origin, as they have recognized and observed similar things to their varying extents and the depravity that comes generally from unfettered sense desire and the purity that can be cultivated from restraint and abstinence. And so this seems to be a quite universal theme in all more developed ethical and religious traditions.


text:
Four Noble Truths contradicting?
I don't even like to post a question like this but I just want to share a misconception that people from other beliefs have regarding Buddhism. Please what this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ws36pd-Q0.
 What this person says is that according to the third noble truth sorrow can be eliminated by getting rid of desire. And when desire is eliminated there is no reason to have a fourth noble truth which talks about the 8 fold path. This is just absolute illogical and misleading statements. But I just do not have the proper knowledge to make my Muslim friends understand why this is wrong. Please do share your views. Thank you

good answers below.   I just want to make a comment, Buddha only used the word "Tanha" in negative context only. However, compare to "Chanda" Buddha used it in both positive and negative contexts.   This is just to spark intellectual curiosity in Buddha's lectures.  Both words Tanha and Chanda can be roughly translated to "desire" in English but may not be 100% right on.   Answers below still apply to "chanda" as well.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_(Buddhism)

If you compare suffering to a sickness, the first noble truth would be knowing that you are sick. The second noble truth would be knowing the cause of the sickness. The third noble truth would be knowing that the sickness can be cured or knowing that there's a healthy state. The fourth noble truth would be knowing how to cure it or knowing how to reach that healthy state.

I did not watch the video but ...
If you take education there are different levels of education. The level discussed in kindergarten and university is quite different. Similarly when some concept is presented. The most systematic form of the path is the rendering in the Noble 8 Fold Path.
Anyway 3rd Noble truth is eliminating unsatisfactoriness by ridding yourself of craving and clinging and the 4th is the method to do so. In ridding yourself of craving clinging you also rid yourself of the unsatisfactoriness.

Maybe he's not entirely wrong.
Or at least, whether he's right or wrong might not be the same as whether you can usefully "make my Muslim friends understand why this is wrong".
A discussion which includes a reply like, "What you said is just wrong! The truth is that etc.", might not go very well in real life, 'human nature' being what it is.
It might be better to have a discussion which includes replies like, "What you said is interesting and there may be some truth in that.", and which then goes on to add to (augment) or shed more light on what they said.

FYI the 'Four Noble Truths' are spelled out in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta,

Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

You can double-check what the third noble truth says here on buddha-vacana.org site, which has a word-by-word translation (try using the mouse to hover over each word of the Pali), which I could translate as:

And this surely, monks, cessation-of-suffering noble-truth: that very desire not leaving a remnant dispassion/nirvana cessation abandoning giving up release freedom from attachment.

I think he's saying that giving up desire is the cause of cessation-of-suffering ... or more specifically, not the cause of cessation but the state of cessation -- the truth of cessation, the state of cessation, the reality or conditions in which suffering has ceased, is the state of freedom from attachment.
The fourth noble truth is the practice: it's how to do that.

Your friend says, "when desire is eliminated there is no reason to have a fourth noble truth" -- however, how to practice "desire is eliminated" isn't obvious. Specifically, before the Buddha became enlightened he tried to practice some extreme austerities before deciding that didn't help, and that the Middle Way (and, in more detail, the Noble Eightfold Way) was better, was the way to be taught.

Let me try another simile for the four noble truth:

A car crash is painful
A painful car crash is conditioned by (i.e. it happens when there is) uncontrolled speed
There's truthfully no danger of the pain caused by a car crash, when the car isn't speeding
The practice for not speeding is to avoid using the accelerator and to use the brakes.

So I think you're friend may or not be right.
If he's saying something like, "I can safely drive a car without brakes, because I won't be driving very fast", perhaps that seems true theoretically, but the problems with that statement ought to be obvious.

If you want to talk with your friend about states of being in which "desire has been eliminated" it might be worth considering this answer too.
I think it says that different schools (or practitioners) of Buddhism may have different ways of living. If you don't mind my saying so (and because you added the comparative-religion tag to your question), there are different branches within Islam too, for example Sufism.
That answer (i.e. what Bhikkhu Bodhi writes about the Mahayana) is probably easy to misunderstand, though, and it isn't the first thing to be learned about Buddhism. I thought the first thing to be learned about Buddhism was the Four Noble Truths (I thought that was the first thing to be taught), but for some second opinions on that, see the answers to How to explain what Buddhism is? ... and note that when Suminda's answer says "three trainings", those three training are actually a synonym for the Eightfold Way, i.e. for the fourth noble truth.
And so, although your friend might say, "there is no reason to have a fourth noble truth", in a sense the fourth noble truth is the practice of Buddhism.

The Third Truth indeed says that desire/craving/taṇhā/thirst can be eliminated. But it doesn't say how! It's not easy -- desire is tenacious, self-perpetuating, deeply embedded in our psyche. That's because it is inherently a matter of attraction -- satisfying desire feels good, and we want therefore to repeat it. And every time we do repeat it, it gets stronger.
So eliminating desire is not easy -- you can't just wish it away. Anybody who has tried to lose weight or quit smoking knows that well. And eliminating all desire is a lot harder.
In general, because you can name and describe a goal does not mean you can "just do it". On the stock market, the old saying is that the trick is "buy low, sell high". Sounds simple. But how to do that consistently fills whole bookshelves, heck, whole libraries.
So getting back to the Four Truths -- how to eliminate desire is the Fourth Truth.

I see two misunderstandings with his statement.
He seems to take a sequential reading of the four noble truths as instructions, where the third would instruct to "remove desire" and the fourth would instruct to "follow the eightfold path". Then he argues that one who removed the desire on the third step, does not need to follow the eightfold path -- hence, it contradicts itself.
That reading is alien to buddhists, insofar as we are talking about one who hasn't satisfied the third noble truth (end of dukkha). It has been noted that the four noble truths mirror medical diagnosis: recognizing disease/symptoms (there's dukkha), identifying origin of disease (craving), determining if a cure is possible (there's end of dukkha), and if so, prescribing medicine (the eighfold path).
While he may be right that one who has satisfied the third truth no longer needs the training (e.g. an arahant), it doesn't seem to me that this is what he meant. The problem on the core of his argument is that he, as many others, identify "abandoning desire" and "having desire [for nirvana, for buddhahood, for learning dhamma, etc]" as contradictions. The contradiction, however, does not exist. If anything, it tells us a limitation of language and perception, not a limitation of the subject of matter.
For example, consider methods like vaccine: generally, a way to introduce a virus to train your immune system. Another way of explaining it would be "something that makes you ill to make you healthy". For another example, consider body workout: generally, a way to improve strength and build muscles. Another way of saying what it is would be "exercises to make your body weak and cause repeated damages to your muscles so you can be stronger and have more muscles".
Apparently, these are contradictions. But only in appearance, caused by mixing method and long term goals as if they had the same "semantic status", and while ignoring the process underneath. These examples, thus,  tells us a limitation of language and perception, not a limitation of the subject of matter (i.e. it does not debunk workout or vaccine).

To second everyone else.
Paraphrasing the Truths:

Dukkha must be understood for what it is.
Among the conditions responsible for the arising of Dukkha the unsatisfied thirst is a necessary condition.
In the absence of the unsatisfied thirst Dukkha does not arise
Here is how the thirst can be eliminated, step by step, from coarse to subtle.

Couple things to note here:

Dukkha is not sorrow
Tanha is not desire
The roots of Tanha run deeeeeep and in most cases can't be cut momentarily
The entire attitude to existence must change, down to very subtle/fundamental assumptions

So yeah, in one sense they are right - if you have reached the goal you no longer need to follow the path. In the other sense, they should not speak about "eliminating the desire" so lightly.

The 4NT can be seen as 2 pairs of cause and effect: first pair is about suffering, second pair is about ending suffering:
1st NT: suffering: effect             <--- 2nd NT: craving: cause
3rd NT: end of suffering: effect  <--- 4th NT: the 8FNP: cause
It also can be seen as the 4 concrete steps to be taken: to comprehend, to abandon, to directly experience, and to develop:

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of stress.' Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended.' Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before:' This noble truth of stress has been comprehended.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' [2] ... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress has been abandoned.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress has been directly experienced.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress has been developed.' ~ SN 56.11 ~


text:
Sallatha Sutta and modern psychology
The Sallatha Sutta, famous for the idea of two arrows, has the following passages that are less often discussed. I am particularly interested in interpretations of the highlighted words and how they might relate to the modern psychological concept of decentering, defusion, disidentification or a metacognitive stance. (See modern passage below.) Both personal opinions and references welcome.
Sallatha Sutta, SN 36.6, Thanissaro Bikkhu translation
About the "uninstructed person"...

Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it as though joined with it.
  Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it as though joined with it.
  Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it as though
  joined with it. This is called an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person
  joined with birth, aging, & death; with sorrows, lamentations, pains,
  distresses, & despairs. He is joined, I tell you, with suffering &
  stress.

And later about the "well-instructed disciple", the same structure, for example...

This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined
  from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains,
  distresses, & despairs.

The Nyanaponika Thera translation is a bit more condensed here and uses "fettered" instead of "joined"

When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral
  feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks,
  is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old
  age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is
  fettered by suffering, this I declare

Bikkhu Bodhi (not online) uses "attached" and "detached"...

"If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a
  painful feeling, he feels it attached. [209] If he feels a neither-
  painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. This, bhikkhus, is
  called an uninstructed worldling who is attached to birth, aging and
  death; who is attached to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
  despair; who is attached to suffering, I say.
If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a
  painful feeling, [210] he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-
  painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is
  called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death;
  who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
  despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.

From the point of view of Buddhadharma of the Pali Canon, is it reasonable to say that the highlighted words (in the negative sense -- disjoined, not fettered, detached) have roughly the same meaning as the modern psychological concept in this passage from a 2002 paper by Teasdale.

Particular importance has been attached to the shift in cognitive set
  known as “decentering” or “disidentification,” in which,
  rather than simply being their emotions, or identifying personally
  with negative thoughts and feelings, patients relate to negative
  experiences as mental events in a wider context or field of awareness.
  For example, a patient’s perspective on thoughts and feelings of
  worthlessness might change from one in which they are experienced as
  the “reality by which I am condemned” to one in which they are
  experienced more as “passing thoughts and feelings that may or may not
  have some truth in them.

this may be off topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-moW9jvvMr4

I think they're related but not identical.
I think the Sallatha Sutta can be paraphrased along the lines of, "physical sensations lead to feelings (I feel that I like this, or that I don't like this) which lead to attachment (I want this to continue, or I want this to stop)" -- which means that, now you have two problems, i.e.

an unpleasant physical sensation
not getting what you want.

That's what's meant by,

"... So he feels two pains, physical & mental".

I think the reason given for the second pain is,

... he is resistant. Any resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him.

So I think this is an example of clinging or attachment causing suffering.

He does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling.

Instead he ought to see that the feeling (and sense-contact) is impermanent, that it arises and passes away, and not be attached to it.

Whereas a disidentification or decentering which you quote from the 2002 paper by Teasdale seems to me, not exactly the concept of 'detachment' or of seeing impermanence, but more specifically the concept of 'anatta' or 'non-self'.
For example, the article "No-self or Not-self?" suggests that any concept of self is a cause of suffering.
There's a description of decentering in the Gaddula Sutta,

It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next to that post or stake.
"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

I think there are two related concepts:

Detachment from the clinging-aggregates (perhaps by observing arising-and-passing-away, which is an object of vipassana meditation)
Learning to avoid the view that, "This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am".

Yes, the idea of defusion from the third wave of CBT is a secular rehash of anatta.

Simply put it, a joined person - identifies sensation with self and is attached to it hence creates becoming in the future hence a joined person remains stressed. The opposite is true for a disjoined person.
With regard to the instruction this is in a different context using the same wording implying if your are (dis)joined with sensation you are (dis)joined with birth, aging and death. A joined person is so due to the fact he is not conversant the the pratice and has no proper instructions to pratice. The implication of this is there is self identification with sensations. When he does pratice property the gets disjoint from birth, aging and death. It is implied you disidentify with sensation.
Multiple authors translate the same into different english words.
Self identity in Buddhism has a very precise meaning, that is the mis identification of the true nature of the 5 aggregates resulting from clinging arisen through craving. [Cūla Vedalla Sutta also in other suttas] E.g. if you see someone as beautify and get a present sensation by seeing such a person and you cling to this the identity view arises; similarly if you that something is absolutely under one's control and permanent hence think this should be like this or not like this or stay the same, now and in the future, and should give me these types of experiences, then identity view arise. I am not sure if the modern psychologist is taking the same view when he mentions "identify personally", but it seems to be somewhat compatible as disidentification seems to mean as not being averse or clinging to thoughts and merely seeing them as mental events, i.e., not considering the thoughts as the self [thoughts are permanent and not dependently arisen hence craving for permanent existance of thoughts], or the self as possessing the thoughts [control of throughts through agency which is permanent and not dependently arisen hence craving for thought to be and not to be], or thoughts as in the self [control and possession of thoughts through agency], or the self as in the thoughts [non changing controllable part within the thoughts which is permanent and not dependently arisen]

i see some resemblance between the ideas behind the statements

feelings of worthlessness ... experienced as the “reality by which I am condemned”

and

Monk, whatever one stays obsessed with, that's what one is measured by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified. Whatever one doesn't stay obsessed with, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified.

Bhikkhu sutta (SN 22.36)
generally i agree that the dhammic idea and the concept of disidentification bear similarity
the terms disjoined, fetterred, detached in this context i understand as meaning being dissociated from psychological phenomena, and from personal experience i can attest that physical pain is endured much easily when you don't associate with it, don't take it as your own and assume an observer and bystander attitude towards it instead

Three types of feeling a person get when senses are at work:

He thinks thoughts and emotions are valid states and therefore flows along with it. That is joined.
He can watch thoughts and emotions  but there is a sense of frustration just like a person who been chained but wants to break free since he has no control on them. That is fettered.
There is complete silence. Even if pain and pleasure arise he is not affected by them. That is detachment.

These are three stages of evolution for meditators. But dis-identification is (2.), I guess, because senses are still powerful.

These are my thoughts based on my experiences. That is how how I see people around me. It helps me in my interactions with them.


text:
Can meditation change your hormone and neurotransmitter system?
Meditation can cause a lot of rest and peace. But can it also change the levels of hormone and neurotransmitters? Do they increase or decrease? I tend to think that fe your adrenaline is getting down and perhaps your testosteron. So can you become less 'male' or 'female' of it?

So far I have only one first-hand report of a practitioner diagnosed with ADD due to dopamine re-uptake problems, who says meditation helps him regulate the levels of dopamine.
From buddhist theory we know that the Four Jhanas meditation is intended to produce joy, which should correlate with the functioning of the reward mechanism of the brain, which is primarily dopamine-based. So another way to see the Jhanas, esp. the first and second one, is as mastery over one's dopamine levels by taking control of the reward mechanism.
As far the levels of other hormones and neurotransmitters, I can only assume they get "better", but there is nothing I know first-hand. A nice book on the topic seems to be Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness but I have not read it.

from my personal experience, joy from meditation has exact feeling as when I take opiate but without crash landing or feeling down after.  And given history of stokes in my family, I try to get brain MRI regularly every 5 years.   I have a friend who is a neuro-radiologist to help me read my film.  (I did my best to meditate while i was in that  loud banging tunnel of MRI scanner).  I think it had effect on my brain that control breathing....i forgot the name of it.  it showed slightly brighter than normal..  not much but just a notch.  he said typically that part of the brain would show brighter when activity is slow such as someone who is rescued from drowning or someone is taken very small amount of cyanide or when brain activities are slowing down (no need for large amount of O2 in that moment).  I do not know if it has anything to do with my meditation but there it was.  But, the over all finding was "normal".

I am reading an interesting book, "The molecule of more" recommended by a life-coach. It is basically dividing major brain chemicals into 2 categories.  First is the so-called "desire circuit", aka dopamine, and the second is referred to as H&Ns (here and now) - serotonin, oxytocin, vasopressin, endorphins, etc.  Dopamine, which drives desire, or wanting is always present for anticipation, motivation and something called "reward prediction error" - basically you get a hit of dopamine when an unexpected (surprise) reward happens.  Although it would seem that dopamine is the bad chemical from a Buddhist perspective, given its strong tie to desire,  there is another key role for dopamine, the control circuit.  The authors describe this as dopamine vs. dopamine.  To sum it up, it allows us to add delay to our reward-seeking for a better future...maybe call it sila (control of mind).  A highly-motivated Buddhist might say, "i will not get nirvana today, or tomorrow, nor in this lifetime, but after 7 more human lives I will definitely obtain the unexcelled freedom!"  This is dopamine working the pre-frontal cortex.  Dopamine of immediate pleasure-seeking is substituted with long-term goals, and as Andrei points out it's "mastery over one's dopamine levels..."
As per meditation (concentration) itself, it might help to strengthen the control circuit, though I would think concentration had a specific goal for Buddha, ie, entering the jhana..if one fails, dopamine would stop flowing, causing a person to feel bad.  If concentration never achieved its purpose, effort would cease - kind of like me.

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


text:
Does meditation giving you 'joy' because there is lack of suffering, or does it give something positive?
Let's say that the summon of meditation is enlightement or nirvana. It is supposed to be a good 'thing'. But is it good because there is no suffering any more, or did you get something instead of it that is good in itself?

Meditation involves mastery over the mind (concentration) and to know things as they are (wisdom).
When developing concentration the the Jhana Factors arise of which one is Joy. Also when wisdom increases the Enlightenment Factors develop out of which Joy is one. Meditation does induce Joy and in progress where one stage you encounter is Joy: Upanisa Sutta, (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta, (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta, etc.
Nirvana is the final goal. There is no Joy associated with it but is a good thing as there is no suffering but Joy is included in suffering as it is impermanent, can come to an end, pass away, fade away, cease, change as described in Raho,gata Sutta.

In that sense, would you say that people should consider (as a goal) freedom from samsara an antonym of joy?

The feeling of Joy can come to and end hence the suffering of parting. Freedom from Samsara is Nirvana in which there is no feeling or perception. Hence the presence of feeling and / or perception is the opposite of freedom from Samsara.

Both. Meditation when done properly will allow one to abandon the Five Hindrances (greed, anger, sloth/torpor, restlessness, doubt); and give rise to the Five Jhana Factors where each factor counters a particular hindrance:

Applied Examination to counter sloth/torpor
Sustained Examination to counter doubt
Joy to counter anger
Happiness to counter restlessness
One-pointedness to counter greed.

It's important to notice that meditation alone will not lead one to nibbana. It's only 1 out of 8 limbs of the Noble Eightfold Path, which a practioner will need to train to perfection.

I feel like I'm on small dose of opiate.  My guess is that it increases dopamine release but not to the point that i dont have enough of it to function normally when not meditating (no crash landing or withdrawal)

This does not answer the question.


text:
Why did Dr. BR Ambedkar convert to buddhism?
Me text-book and dad(historian + buddhist) told me that the father of the indian constitution converted into buddhism towards the end of his life.
Can anyone please tell me why he did so?
Tnx for all the help

i think Wikipedia articles on the man and on the Dalit emancipation movement give some insight into his reasons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar#Conversion_to_Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement#B._R._Ambedkar
they appear to be primarily socio-political rather than existential and spiritual

Ok, tnx for the facts

In his Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, Dr. Ambedkar states: The history of India is nothing but a mortal conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism. As Ambedkar saw it, the crucial conflict was not between Brahmans and non-Brahmans, nor between Aryans and non-Aryans, nor was it a conflict between the Vedas and the rest of Indian tradition. Rather it was between two world views, both generated within India itself.
“It was not within my capacity to be born in a particular religion. but though I was born as Hindu, I will not die as a Hindu.” This was the declaration of Dr. Ambedkar made by him as early as 1935 at Yeola in Nashik district in Maharashtra. He made this declaration after his dis-illusion of Hindu reforms due to experiences with the Satyagraha at Mahad to drink water from the public lake, burning of Manusmruti, Kalaram Temple Satyagraha for temple entry and treacherous behaviour of Gandhi at Round Table Conference and subsequent coercive Poona Pact.
It was Maha Thera Bhikkhu Chandramani Thera, the Most Senior Buddhist Monk in the country, who gave deeksha to Dr. Ambedkar. He was of Burmese origin but was resident in India for 40 odd years. After his own conversion, Babasaheb converted all the rest of half a million people by Trisaran, Panchasila and 22 vows.
This was a historical event in more ways than one. Never in history half a million were converted to any religion at one time and never had conversion been effected by a lay Buddhist and never ever the Hindu Gods and goddesses were denounced by 22 vows which became the inseparable part of rite of conversion to Buddhism in India, and never before it was declared that all and every Buddhist lay person was authorised to convert other willing person. There used to be rite of Upasampada for conversion as a Bhikku, but for lay Buddhist there was traditionally no rite. Ambedkar started this, as he believed one of the reasons of disappearance of Buddhism from India was absence of such a rite.
If one could ever call someone a Bodhisatva, it is Dr. Ambedkar. The next Buddha due to appear is said to be Maitreya (Skt; Pali: Metteyya), a bodhisatta currently residing in the Tusita heavens. It is said that at a  time in future when human lifespan is 80,000 years, once the teachings of the current Buddha have long been forgotten, he will be reborn as a human being, rediscover the Four Noble Truths, and teach the Noble Eightfold Path once again. This is mentioned in the Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta (DN).


text:
What were the last word of Lord Buddha according to different schools of Buddhism?
I am a Theravada Buddhist.i am curious to know about Lord Buddha's Last words according to different schools of Buddhism.

I believe the Buddha expressed the Dharmaparyaya of the True Law (the Lotus Sutra) before becoming completely exctinct. Best regards.

Welcome to Buddhism SE!  Yvain. Thanks for the answer.

handa'dāni bhikkhave āmantayāmi vo, vayadhammā sankhārā appamādena sampādethā ti.
Disciples, this I declare to you: All conditioned things are subject to disintegration - strive on untiringly for your liberation. (Mahāparinibbāna Sutta)

The Buddha in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (Digha Nikaya Sutta 16) advised the monks assembled around his death bed that they should take the Dhamma-Vinaya as their teacher after his passing- or, in brief, the Dhamma is the TEACHER of every Buddhist. We  are all disciples, be it monks or Upasaka, Upasika…
Also in this Sutta he said that…

without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace whatever is said as ‘Dhamma’,  in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: ‘Certainly, this is not the Blessed One’s utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.’ In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it.

As per the Sutta, there are four points by which one can know of oneself that one is a sotapanna:

“Buddhe aveccappasādena samannāgato hoti” - one is endowed with unshakable confidence in the Buddha;
“Dhamme aveccappasādena samannāgato hoti” - one is endowed with unshakable confidence in the Dhamma;
“Sanghe aveccappasādena samannāgato hoti” - one is endowed with unshakable confidence in the Sangha;
“Ariyakantehi sīlehi samannāgato hoti”- one is endowed with the moral precepts cherished by the noble ones, i.e. the five precepts.

Thus in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Supreme Buddha says…

"This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.”