text:
Can software development benefit from mindfulness?
Can software development benefit from mindfulness?
As I'm software developer and as I want to register for Vipassana meditation so far I couldn't because of time but still thinking if I could go for it.
Today I found that meditation and eventually mindfulness can be beneficial for my profession or others. Even I was thinking that my focus will improved and I could study hard and well.
Though it's titled software I think it's beneficial for other fields too.
So let me share if software development benefit from mindfulness?

See related question: "Being mindful sitting/working on a computer".

@Lanka When he found restlessness doesn't mean he isn't calm also sensation because of conscious with what he doing actually. He distracted from track. So he need to pay more focus to his work. Suminda answered well. So if mind would wander then not possible to do any work. Not only while sitting on computer but wherever we do work and that's why my opinion is for all other jobs and not limited for computer related. Thank you.

@Lanka Welcome @-}-- My pleasure to share Dhamma.

Yes, such mindfulness has brought you tools like the wikiwikiweb.  Go visit.

SD Times explains that in Converging software development and mindfulness (emphasis is mine):

Software development requires concentration and focus, an understanding of designing, coding, languages, and programming and how they all work together. It can also require comprehension of technology, science, engineering, and math. Clearly, a lot of brainpower goes into being a software developer.
In order to keep that brainpower in a positive flow, it’s important to train mental clarity, the science and techniques behind the mind to avoid stress; this can all be done through mindfulness.
Mindfulness promotes your emotional intelligence (EI) – strengthening mental resiliency, building a clearer mind, and embracing a happier inner self – all helping to create a brighter outlook. Enhancing all of these emotional traits and raising your self-happiness translates to better confidence, improved communication skills, and greater interpersonal relationships.
However practicing mindfulness is not the goal itself, but rather a means to reach your goals.
Numerous studies have shown that changing one’s inner landscape (values, emotions, thoughts) through brain fitness can free the mind of anxiety, pressure, and negativity. Remove this mental clutter and replace it with greater EI and you’re left with enhanced creativity, greater aptitude for thinking, and a better ability to stay within the present and task at hand. For a software developer, having a clear, balanced and focused mind can be a tremendous asset while striving to produce high-quality software and aiming to balance work with life.
Hopefully you see how mindfulness, if it becomes part of your life routine, can help you become a more efficient software developer. But where do you begin? [etc.]

So my personal opinion is that I'd say it not even beneficial for only software development but also all of professions and when people seeking how to deal in their business or which field they want to choose(with aware of precepts) for example a question A Good Career for a Buddhist?
So with only awareness of precepts one can choose any job and Mindfulness can be more beneficial to achieve one's goal.

Yes, every profession gains from mindfulness, even the butcher — the butcher will eventually abandon his profession, if he perseveres in his mindfulness, and stays true and honest to himself. A software engineer has more to gain from mindfulness than the butcher or the hunter, as he will only deepen the love for his special skill.
Personally, being a self-taught software engineer and weirdo, I have some visions which I have been working on. Some time ago already I started noticing that whenever the visions, which are sometimes extremely clear albeit partial, become muddy or foggy or I get distracted by excitement, I need to switch over to blockages in personal or family life, or go help a friend with something important. When I have spent some time and effort doing that, the visions soon reappear and become clear again so I regain my confidence and are able to continue working on extending and solidifying them once again.
I used to almost panick when, after such “recovery”, they would continue to get blurred again over and over. By now however, I have almost fully accepted this pattern. I am left knowing that whenever it reoccurs, it is a reminder of some defilement that hasn’t been resolved.
Mindfulness on its own is useless, it has to serve the ultimate purpose of restoring orderliness of the mind space, so that we gain our natural superpowers. Because IT is such a mind-space oriented field, it should be obvious that mindfulness is critical in IT. Would you enjoy working with an engineer who lacks clarity of mind?
After all, the binary system was borrowed from Taoism and yin-yang, and Taoism is definitely quite close to Buddhism when it comes to mindfulness and wisdom and diligence.

Benefit for what? In what way, Nyom Swapnil? To keep many from practicing right mindfullness for a real benefical way, or to make software more desireable for benefit in the world. Software and IT has so much success on the marked, because it gives people the illusion that they can control things so that they will propably never see anicca and lose many, many factors on right view, wordily and beyound. Just look at gratitude, respect... click, click, click...
Mindfullness and concentration, the path structur in and of it self, is fundamental base for any development. If one follows that, he will have success in any work, but for what benefit, what aim.
One is sure, the EightfoldPath, that gift and generosity was not meant, shouldnot be misused for low aims likewordily gains, althought it is all what the Dhamma is used for in most cases: success in things which are not benefical, for low gains and to pull people into the world.
But if one realizes, while getting cracy while programming, this is suffering, that is the cause, that the cessation of the cause and this is the right path to cessation of delusion, yes in that case, having right mindfulness and proper attention, it can be of great benefit. So when suffering arises with it, and the path is known and understood, and if real benefit is known: Yes it can.
So far, IT in this dimension, had not really helped many since it's appearing and if it would be a real support, the Buddha would had written the final code.
So it's importand to know that Dhamma is not given for one's goal, but "just" one's noble goal.
It's good and not wrong, to use the skills also for the maintaining for ones live of noble benefit, but it's unwise to misuse a generous gift to use it for ones greed.
And it's good to be mindfull and know: this intent is for Nibbana and this for the world. The world becomes hoter and hoter if mindfulness is wrong used, not to sprak about bound.
Note also that the IT-world has by far not even the moral and ethic of the notmal world and bussiness and is place of thieving No. One. People living in the IT world seldom having much base for the first training section of the path and really less of them would even investigate their mind because not trained in the basics and mostly not guided by good teacher, taking just where and what they want. Gratitude got lost, good language got lost, respect got lost, moderation got lost... IT did not brought any global benefit at least and the amount of conflicts and skill in war has increased: it's originated to win over others, it did not come into existence out of compassion for one self and others, yet it could and does make the streets where people used to live, more silent and the marked full of beings.
Normal and humble people react like when sitting in cars: in delusion they have now all under their controll become the ugliest people in just a secound.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant to be used for commercial use or other wordily gains.)

Johnan I already mentioned that with awareness of precepts. And benefit is successful career or business as if we living mundane life and in this modern world. We can be happy ourself with mindfulness. I honestly tried to put efforts and nothing else. Thank you.

It's good to have a work that does not require wrong doing. It's geat if putting an effort to be mindful and heedfull to keep precepts also in every job, it's possible to lead a great householderlive with Nyoms work, and my person trusts, that he is1 allwaly most eager in his good effort. May Nyom stay in good assosiation wise and alway seek wise and makes his Vipassana retreat soon, put it most high in all what Nyom can do for himself and Dhamma, but Fhamma on the top, make merits, visit Monks, look after livelihood in tune.

Nyom @Swapnil , Seek after all of the highest Blessing/Protections, (here book with explaining as raga/saddha-charita , (here good book for householder to explain), stay with the wise, better seek after wise. And Livelihood. Abhivādana-sīlissa
Niccaṃ vuḍḍhāpacāyino
Cattāro dhammā vaḍḍhanti
Āyu vaṇṇo sukhaṃ, balaṃ.

Johnan Thanks for source and I'm agree with you but when I think of Buddhism or even techniques and knowledge I felt it's all about life and want to use for our life to be happy, successful, peaceful and not greedy. Buddhism for well being. I understand what you have to tell and I tried to help. Thanks a lot.


text:
How do you master (control) your mind with Buddhism?
I'm a Hindu and don't know much about Buddhism. Many people say that Buddhism is the art of cultivating the mind, which I feel includes methods to control and discipline the mind. I have poor control of my mind; I cannot concentrate on any work for a good amount of time as my mind keeps wandering away.
I'm addicted to pornography, I watch porn everyday and masturbate. This causes my penis to hurt. I want to stop this habit but can't. I try not to watch porn but my mind keeps driving me to watch porn.
These are not the only problems, I'm facing lot of problems in my life caused due to lack of control of my mind. I know Buddhism suggests meditation for the control of mind. Is that enough, or what are the other ways and methods to master the mind, according to Buddhism?

Buddhism teaches to see the causes of problems.
Then we can see what can be done to change those causes. Changing causes, we will change the results. Thus problems will be solved.
Buddha Gautama explored the problem of suffering (dissatisfaction, dukkha), found the causes, and found that the causes can be changed, and how to do that.
Basically our problems look like a vicious circle. Feeling dissatisfaction, we try to battle it with developing more positive feelings. But we do that with self-pressure, and as a result we get dissatisfied again.
Think for example of chasing pleasures. We overuse sex, and then the penis hurts. We drink too much alcohol, trying to battle dissatisfaction, but we end up feeling hangover, weak and sick. We gamble, to get excitement, but that leads also to more losses and pains of heart.
So what is the solution?
Instead of fighting the fire of vexations by adding more vexations, we can rather stop and let them pacify.
Our mind gets uncontrolled when it's tense. Because it's tense, it feels uncomfortable. Feeling uncomfortable, the mind wants to switch to something else, more pleasant.
That's why habits of chasing desires get their rule over the mind. If we try to apply more force to control the mind, we probably add even more tension. The mind is already tense, so when we add even more tension, the problem might become even worse.
That's the vicious circle, samsara.
In order to stop it, we should drop chasing desires. We should accept what we feel, and let the tension dissipate.
So we do not really want to control the mind, rather we try to help the mind to relax, and thus to regulate itself more naturally.
We practice the Three Highest trainings:

Wisdom (prajna) - seeing how things happen, mainly by watching causes and effects.
Calmness (shamatha) - letting the mind to relax, to calm down and come to natural contentment, like in childhood, when we felt no dissatisfaction and didn't need chasing desires.
Discipline (shila) - trying to act from the wholeness of the heart, rather than from impulses of bad habits and delusions.

Gradually the mind becomes less and less involved in the circle of samsara. More and more time it remains calm and satisfied, and that is felt as a great relief.
Usually we might think that desires such as sex etc. are pleasant, but in fact those desires are typically mixed with dissatisfaction. There's always some tension, uneasiness - even in pleasant experiences.
Eventually, when you release those tensions and uneasiness, it feels so liberated and satisfied that we don't need those desires anymore. Simple easiness of liberated mind is more pleasant than worldly pleasures, because they were mixed with tension, dukkha.
So that is the way for us, laid out by Buddha. We drop tensions and attempts to force ourselves, to coerce ourselves, to artificially blow desires. Then we realize that our dissatisfaction came exactly from our own forcing and coercing.
We let it go away. So forcing and coercing cease, chasing desires ceases, and finally dissatisfaction ceases. We discover unlimited easiness of life without oppositions. It's so wonderful that we don't need anything for ourselves anymore. Everything is already so perfect!
So we just start to share our happiness and wisdom, like Buddha Gautama did. We don't just dwell in pleasurable samadhi, as some Hindu teachers think. In Buddhism it would be called dwelling in solitary peace - a condition of highly developed concentration, but not the true liberation yet. Solitary peace is still attachment, still a result of the division between self and others. In true awakening, there's no division, and that is called compassion (karuna). Then we feel no tension, no dukkha - in complete easiness and non-attachment, we just have nothing to do, but what is natural to do - gets naturally done. Our body does that - helping others to find the same cessation of samsara, coming to sukkha of liberation, nirvana.

One can master the Mind by gaining experiental knowledge about The Five Hindrances and when to apply the corresponding five remedies to them.
The five remedies, can be found in the The Noble Eightfold Path, p. 63-66, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, and are as follows:

Replacing the hindrance with its opposite, e.g. replacing hatred/ill-will with thoughts of loving-kindness.
Contemplating the arisen hindrance as vile and ignoble, since it has entered the mind without permission or any control.
Shifting attention away from the hindrance.
Shifting attention onto the hindrance and thoroughly contemplating it by investigating its causes and conditions for arising together with its characteristics.
Removing the hindrance with force, just as a strong man would pin a weaker man to the ground.

The Buddha says in the quoted sutta below, that if one learns how to use and apply these five remedies then one will no longer be the subject of the mind. One will become it's master;

"... This bhikkhu is then called a master of the courses of thought. He will think what- ever thought he wishes to think and he will not think any thought that he does not wish to think ...".

The Blessed One said this:
"Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is pursuing the higher mind, from time to time he should give attention to five signs. What are the five?
(i) "Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then arty evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the aban- doning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a skilled carpen- ter or his apprentice might knock out, remove, and extract a coarse peg by means of a fine one, so too...when a bhikkhu gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(ii) "If, while he is giving attention to some other sign con- nected with what is wholesome, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should examine the danger in those thoughts thus: 'These thoughts are unwholesome, they are rep- rehensible, they result in suffering. When he examines the danger in those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are aban- doned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a man or a woman, young, youthful, and fond of ornaments, would be horrified, humiliated, and dis- gusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung around his or her neck, so too...when a bhikkhu examines the danger in those thoughts.. .his mind becomes stead- ied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(iii) "If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them. When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give atten- tion to them, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concen- trated. Just as a man with good eyes who did not want to see forms that had come within range of sight would either shut his eyes or look away, so too...when a bhikkhu tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(iv) "If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought- formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to sin- gleness, and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might con- sider: 'Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?' and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: 'Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?' and he would stand; then he might consider: 'Why am I standing? What if I sit?' and he would sit; then he might consider: 'Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?' and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture one that was subtler. So too...when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(v) "If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought- formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind. When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied inter- nally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. }ust as a strong man might seize a weaker man by the head or shoulders and beat him down, constrain him, and crush him, so too...when, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, a bhikkhu beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind.. .his mind becomes steadied inter- nally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
"Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwhole- some thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delu- sion, then when he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, any such evil unwholesome thoughts are abandoned in him and subside, and with the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. When he examines the danger in those thoughts...When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them...When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts...When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, any such evil unwholesome thoughts are abandoned in him...and his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. This bhikkhu is then called a master of the courses of thought. He will think what- ever thought he wishes to think and he will not think any thought that he does not wish to think. He has severed craving, flung off the fetters, and with the complete penetration of con- ceit he has made an end of suffering.
-- The Middle Length Discourses in the Majjhima Nikaya, MN: 20, Bodhi Translation

Buddhism is a path of self-realisation & self-help. Buddhism teaches the basis of faith in the Buddhist path is the personal experience of suffering & the resultant aspiration or wish to be free from suffering. Buddhism teaches pornography & other extreme sensual pleasures (such as gambling, drugs, alcohol, etc) cause addiction, anxiety & suffering, not only to oneself but to others.
For example, pornography is an entertainment industry manufactured to give the impression the people engaging in pornography are happy & that pornography brings happiness. But, in reality, many pornography actors have drug problems & have even committed suicide due to their work.
In your situation, you are already coming to the self-realisation your life has problems & suffering because of pornography. This self-realisation itself is the way to control your mind; by constantly thinking how pornography is harming & ruining your life.
When the powerful urge to watch pornography arises, you can clench your fists, bow your head, consciously breathe & say to yourself, over & over again: "No, no, this is harmful; this is poison; this is ruining my life". You must endure & endure and wait for the urge to intensify & pass. You must constantly think to yourself: "This urge is impermanent; this urge will pass away; this urge is not me; I am not this urge; I must wait for it to pass away otherwise I will reinforce the urge".
This is how the Buddha himself practised, as described in the Dvedhāvitakka Sutta.

In terms of harmless meditation you can do on your own, metta bhavana (cultivating kindness) might help. Here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html is one good guide (specifically section 11) but you’ll find many other sources on the net.
It’s more about developing maitri/metta than concentration as such but considering what is at the root of masturbation, especially excessive masturbation, it will help you by developing good will towards others and away from yourself. It will also help you concentrate.
There is a concept in Buddhism called the Three Unwholesome Roots or Three Poisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons
The Three Poisons are:

moha - delusion/confusion
raga - greed/sensual attachment
dvesha - aversion, ill will

These each have their opposites, positive roots that counter them

prajna - wisdom/insight
dana - generosity
maitri (metta in Pali) - kindness, friendliness, good will i.e. what you cultivate in metta bhavana

Read up on these and consider how the negative roots are divisive and involve perceiving a separate self, pulling things from the world into that separate self, and seeing others as threats/competitors in the context of this pulling into the self.
Then consider how the positive roots concern unifying and working towards the good of all, focusing on adding to the pot rather than drawing from it, sharing with others and taking care of others’ needs.
Ask yourself if you had to describe yourself to a woman you fancied, would you prefer to describe yourself as a consumer or a producer, a taker or a giver? Do you want to feed the world or do you want the world to feed you?
In terms of pure concentration, mindfulness of breathing is very effective. Maybe it’s better learned from a teacher but there will also be guides on the internet.
Good luck. When I gave up smoking, I decided to not punish myself if I started again but simply to stop again, no matter how many times it took. And it worked. I haven’t had a single cigarette in 13 years. So don’t beat yourself up if you fail at first. Just keep working on your practise.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Continuity of memories as a proof of the existence of self
Buddhism denies existence of any Self.But I think I can prove the existence of Self as fundamental by the logic of continuity of memories.
I define Self as someone who remembers the past essence.
Examples to demonstrate the applicability of the definition above:

Buddha. Buddha is the essence of Gautama. Buddha's knowledge is
immortal. Who remembers this essence? My answer will be that Self
remembers Buddha. And moreover because Buddha's knowledge is
immortal, that self becomes immortal and therefore fundamental.
MySelf. I exist. I can remember my past essence that Truth is
Supreme. Who remembers this essence of me ? My answer will be that
my Self remembers my essence.

Therefore we see that self can be found as someone who remembers past essence.This self is imperishable.

If you hit your head somewhere and experience amnesia, or lose your memories due to Alzheimer's Disease, then do you cease to exist?

Whose "self" are we referring to? The isha upanishad self?

@ruben2020 That is the exact question scientists are asking.

@Kauva I am referring to the self which is continuous across the rebirths...I do not know what do you mean by Isha Upanishad self.

Hello Dheeraj and welcome to Buddhism SE. Our format is a Q&A-site meaning a question needs to be asked. The post, in its current state, is merely a statement. Please ask a question. Post is closed until edited. For inspiration see; "How do I ask a good question?" and "What types of questions should I avoid asking?".

See, there's 1. the reference to self as in a singular identity ... apart from being just a portion of a collective. 2. the reference to self as in the essence of all around us as described in the isha upanishad. 3. the reference to self as in the various disciplines of psychology where self is described as a portion of the conscience and personality. I think I see what you're asking now though.

Which 'you'? The you that at 69 will likely become more conservative and less social? Or the you that at 5 had no concrete notion of Self, or the question the 'you' of about now poses? The me of 5 minutes ago had no knowledge nor memory of your question. There is a self - a self that is dependent on conditions - dependent on mother and father for birth, food for existence, conditions for death.
This is a conventional 'you' and such a notion is fine - convenient and useful within conditionality. The Buddha argued agaisnt an independent, permanent, unconditioned You - the soul or Atman, however envisaged.
Self is 'obliterated' through one link: of only those things which are observed directly by the senses (mind is included as a sense in the canon), all things are observed as subject to conditions for arising, subsisting and ceasing - subject to change.
Things that are subject to conditions, impermanent - as all that is observed is - cannot be the basis of a permanent and independent Self. (it's a tough switch to thinking.. for me for example, I kept 'summing up' all experience into one exact thing - but that is the process of making a permanent Self from an objective experience that only provides impermanent objects as building blocks!!). As such, if you think it, it's not Self.

Bodhidharma asked, “Can each of you say something to demonstrate your
understanding?”
Dao Fu stepped forward and said, “It is not bound by words and
phrases, nor is it separate from words and phrases. This is the
function of the Tao.” Bodhidharma: “You have attained my skin.”
The nun Zong Chi stepped up and said, “It is like a glorious glimpse of
the realm of Akshobhya Buddha . Seen once, it need not be seen again.”
Bodhidharma; “You have attained my flesh.”
Dao Yu said, “The four
elements are all empty. The five skandhas are without actual
existence. Not a single dharma can be grasped.” Bodhidharma: “You have
attained my bones.”
Finally, Huike came forth, bowed deeply in silence
and stood up straight. Bodhidharma said, “You have attained my
marrow.” (wiki)

Silence is as close to Self as you will get, as language is instantly limited by Gödel (and/or also being conditioned). Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism have sticking points, and whether the ultimate is seen as having a capital U gets a lot of chat, but at the very least, for the things that are the seen, the heard and the sensed, Self is at best an approximation of things as they are - subject to a frame of reference, relational, and dependently originated.

You existed a moment before and the moment before that and the
  moment before that moment and so on.

No. The experience of life the moment before has vanished, forever. It did not "exist". It was only a "temporary existence". Therefore, it cannot be construed as "existence" or "non-existence". It is something that arises & ceases. Its an impermanent phenomena. Importantly, it was only an experience of life, that is, an experience of one to five aggregates. It was not a "Self". "Self" was only an idea imputed on that experience.

You can be sure that you were present before this moment because you remember your past.

Memory arises in the present. Most experiences cannot be remembered however. Also, what is remembered is not the same sense of 'self'. For example, the mind can think back to the past and think: "Was that really me in the past? How could I have been like that & how could I have done those things?". For example, since "I" become a Buddhist & experienced some mental transformations, I struggle to identity with things from the past. Today, I am a completely different person, to the point that the old 'self' has completely died. In other words, there are actions I did in the past which would be impossible for me to do today. This shows the idea of 'self' is a changing thing.
Note: This is unrelated to how the idea of 'self' can completely vanish in the mind; leaving only the experience of life. Life without self (which is peaceful).

Remembrance of past is the continuity, which is YOU.

No. It is not YOU. It is only the remembrance of life; the remembrance of the five aggregates. Please refer to the Khajjaniya Sutta, which states:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
  not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.

You took birth , you loved your parents , events happened in your life

No. There is no idea or thought of "self" when a baby is born from its mother. The idea of "self" only arises when the mind matures & is able to start identifying with things. Modern psychology studies this. A mentally retarded or brain damaged child may struggle to develop a coherent idea of "self". "Self" is a thought. Please refer to the Mahāmāluṅkya Sutta, which states a new born child has no thoughts of self-identity:

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him?

all that contributed to your evolution as a Self.

This has some correctness. There is no inherent self but self is something that evolves. This shows self is not anything permanent or real but something that evolves & changes.
Being such, self can also devolve & disappear, such as in very old people who have dementia or in enlightened minds.

Rising of Self can be considered suffering

Very good. The Buddha taught the arising & conceiving of self is suffering (SN 12.15; SN 5.10) & a disease (Ud 3.10; MN 140). This is why it is not a self but is only suffering & only a disease. The Budddha said: "The world calls a disease 'self' " (Ud 3.10). Self is not a real thing but only a name, like calling a child 'John' or 'Mary'. There is nothing inherently real in the name John or Mary.

but one can not deny that you exist

No. 'Self' can be denied because it can be experienced to not exist. But life or the five aggregates cannot be denied. The original question is confusing 'self' with 'life'; confusing the 'name' with the 'thing'. Life is the thing. Self is the name. The name is not the thing. The name is only a name. Self is only a name given to a suffering disease. When the body of a child is hungry for food, the body cries. Later, when the child is older & can think, the mind develops the idea: "I am hungry". This shows self is the arising of suffering; is the arising of disease. 'Self' only arises when there is hunger & craving.
The rest of the question is just more non-sense & is produced by lust & fear. The question is a disease born from suffering.

I am seeking preservation of that higher Self which regulates the memory. Although as a child I may not have an identity but as an adult I have the identity and based upon my identity I will get future rebirths...In fact I received this birth because someone remembered my past karma... Who is that Self who remembers my past karma? Who is that Self which will remember my current karma?  Who remembers the fruits of our actions... In short who remembers Buddha ,as he is eternal? Because the one who remembers Buddha must also be eternal.

This is not a debate forum but what you wrote is wrong. The self cannot regulate the memory which is why brain injury & old age cause memory loss. Also old identity does not cause rebirth because rebirth actually means the arising of new identity. 'Rebirth' in Buddhism means the arising of a new identity after the old identity dies. For example you are a husband. This is identity. Then your wife divorces you. Your identity as a 'husband' dies & the mind is reborn with the suffering identity of a 'divorcee'. That is rebirth. The birth & death of different 'self-identities', each being delusion.

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


text:
Being at peace with mental phenomena
In an answer to Non-attachment as object of meditation, there was an interesting idea that the essence of many advanced practices is

to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field - without either suppressing it or getting carried away by it.
... You don't get attached to either the thoughtless state, or to any individual thought (or emotion)

If so, then what should you do when a delusion, e.g. an attachment, comes to your phenomenal field and starts to develop?
Should you be at peace with it and let the attachment develop?
It seems to be a question worth some exploration, because we could use various approaches, each might have some merit:

Just watch, in a non-attached way, how the delusion develops. Eventually it could help to realize, through direct experience, how the mental processes work. Perhaps that realization could lead to liberation from such delusions.
Or we might wish to dissolve somehow that development of the delusion which came to our phenomenal field. Perhaps that might help to reform our mental habits directly.
Maybe it could be reasonable to combine those two methods, in accordance with particular circumstances? Then when should we use this or that approach?

From personal experience:
If we don't counteract we might become a hopeless victim of the developing delusion, creating an object-subject tension. But counteraction should not create opposition or more tension, but a middle way in solving the slight or major disturbance. How it is done varies from mind to mind.
I never understood the 'letting go' part - repeated as a mantra everywhere - one can let everything through, but if one does not chase the thieves of delusion, anger, wrath, ignorance away that arise during life and rarely ever during meditation, he or she will eventually succumb to them.
That is why  often meditation was advised as a remedy to counter the pollutants in life, by conscious mental effort to tame the incessant monkey of the jumping mind. Difference  between rigour and mindless drill is often confused.
It was - I think - always a question of discipline supported by inner truth.  In worst cases we may start recognizing the pollutants as regular in our mental continuum, thus not even recognizing them as something opposed to development and realization.
I would argue that:
Ad. 1: If we simply observe the arising delusion we might be swept in, with poisons developing, if we counteract we create opposite tension, making psychological space for it to fill it later; Perhaps the method is to find higher grounds in mental state (as if climbing a mountain), and then neutralizing the poisons with light effort by analysis of causes and conditions and supporting the analysis with scriptural thought and "good speech, good thought, good action"; If the thoughts are polluted, the speech is polluted, is the speech is polluted so is action, it works the other way around: good action improves thought and speech by synchronizing them.
Ad. 2 Dissolving mental habits is difficult if they are long-lasting, clusters of these are difficult to immediadately cut through (although it happens sometimes) one has to find not the opposition and be stranded in duality but something akin to trancendent Third, that neutralizes both; Between love an hatred, for example, one finds a paternal and a maternal mind towards beings that feel both releasing oneself from the duality.


text:
Who remembers the Buddha?
Buddha is eternal. His knowledge is eternal. His experience is eternal. His fruits of actions are eternal. And we know that past Knowledge , past experience ,past actions are remembered by Self.
So my question is who remembers the past existences of Buddha ? Is it the Self?
If it is the Self then that Self must also be immortal because Buddha is immortal.
EDIT: This was naive attempt to ask a genuinely logical question "Who remembers the Buddha?"
I guess I have found an answer in the Manual of Buddhism by Spence Hardy.
It is the Brahma who remembers the Buddha. I quote from p.88:

The beings who will in due course become Budhas are called Bodhisat.
  They are numberless ; but the name, in common usage, is almost
  exclusively confined to those who have become avowed candidates for
  the high office. When many ages have elapsed without the appearance of
  a Budha, there arc no beings to supply the continued diminution of the
  numbers in the brahma-lokas. This excites the attention of some
compassionate brahma, who, when he has discovered the cause and the
remedy, looks, out to see in what world the Bodhisat exists who will
next become an aspirant for the Budhaship ; and when he has discovered
  the Bodhisat in question, he inspires him with the resolution that
  enables him to form the wish to become the teacher of the three
  worlds, that he may release sentient beings from the evils of
  existence. The ages that succeed this period are divided into three
  eras; in each of which we have legends of Gotama.
  1. The era of resolution (1). 2. The era of expres-, sion (2). 3. The era of nomination (3).

Wikipedia remembers the past existences of the Buddha. So is Wikipedia immortal or eternal?

Essence of Buddha can not be stored anywhere except in the consciousness. Consciousness of Self.

Buddhism teaches consciousness is not-self, impermanent & subject to disease, such as when people experience impairment or loss of sight, hearing, memory & ability to think clearly. Read about it here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html

And we know that past Knowledge , past experience ,past actions are remembered by Self.

This is false because the mind only can remember via memory a small proportion of past actions.

Self must also be immortal because Buddha is immortal.

This is false because the ancient scriptures show the Buddha heavily rebuked & admonished deluded monks of wrong view that regarded the Buddha to be a self (e.g. SN 22.81; SN 22.87).
The Buddha is actually the Dhamma (truth of nature; truth of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self). Buddha is emptiness (sunnata). The Buddha is reported to have said:

Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.
Vakkali Sutta

You state some ideas which aren't proven. You just postulate them as axioms. On such basis it's possible to prove anything you want.
For example:
White is a color that is not colored. White can be of different luminosity (brightness). When its luminosity is low enough, people call that color black. Therefore, what people call "black" is actually white.
So we can prove with reasoning that white is black, or that black is white. I did that in various ways in childhood. Likewise, we can prove anything else.
It all depends on how we choose meanings of terms, their borders, and which axioms we postulate.
In your model, yes, there is Self, and it must be immortal.
OK. Congratulations.
Now the question is, how practical that system is.
It is just like: should we really call white "black"?.. or call black "white"?..
Buddhism explains a system quite different from yours. It says that "existence" and "non-existence" are mental constructions, and both are somehow illusory.
For example, does the shape of a waterfall exist?
If we say it exists, then the next moment streams of water slightly changed, drops of water moved, and that previous shape doesn't exist now.
If we say that the shape of a waterfall doesn't exist, then what would we see on a photograph?
So in reality it does not absolutely exist, but it is not absolutely non-existent.
Likewise, everything else both "exists" and "doesn't exist" at the same time.
Buddhism explains that existence is illusory.
Memories are impermanent. So if "self" is based on memories, it is impermanent.
Buddhism explains such things very thoroughly, not for the desire to claim or to prove something, but in order to uproot the habits of attachment to illusory self. Those habits cause suffering. To cease creating suffering, we study "self", and we find there is no permanent tangible self.
If you can postulate some imaginary idea of constant self, OK, but why does it matter? There are ideas like Truth or Justice, which must be "constant", otherwise we couldn't refer to such ideas repeatedly (in the same way). But having constant imaginary ideas of Truth or Justice, it doesn't mean we actually experience constant perfect Truth or Justice.
Buddhism is about experience.
If there is some imaginary constant idea, but the self you experience is impermanent, then what's the sense?
Isn't it better to study Buddhism and discover the illusoriness of ideas of existence and non-existence, which enslaved us in dissatisfaction?
The purpose of Buddhist teachings is liberation from dissatisfaction. These teachings work, by guiding us to seeing the reality beyond mental constructions. In order to do that, it's useful to put our obsession with constructions aside, and practice meditation - to develop direct experience of the reality.

The Buddha did not, in the canon (eg MN63), place any weight on knowledge with regards to whether the world is eternal or not, whether the Buddha 'exists' or 'does not exist', 'both' or 'neither' after parinibbana - there are 14 questions to which the Buddha provides no answers on purpose (his objective is only the cessation of stress/suffering).

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha, the best of teachers,
  Who taught that whatever is dependently arisen is
  Unceasing, unborn,
  Unannihilated, not permanent,
  Not coming, not going,
  Without distinction, without identity,
  And free from conceptual construction. - Nagarjuna

In discussing dependent-origination as a whole, is as close to a description of Self as you will get. But local realism (to use the modern Physics term for Self, or any theory of things which have self-referential properties - properties independent of observation), is unlikely.. here's a recent experiment! local-realism
If you are interested in understanding a philosophical, logically consistent argument against the validity of Self or Essential existence, as formulated within the Buddhist sphere, Mulamadhyamakakarika from part 2, with the commentary, is very educational!
Plato's Parmenides is the exact mirror of the above linked text, as it argues for One or Self from within logic, so is a useful counterbalance. It is interesting Plato himself dismembers his argument so effectively that it is hard to see why he dos not abandon it at the end of his writing the text - it all ends up being so contradictory!!

So my question is who remembers the past existences of Buddha ?
You're assuming there is a "who".
People do that with "God", e.g. "Who made the world? That "who" must have been God! The world exists, therefore God exists!"
Buddhism teaches that [almost] everything is impermanent, e.g. it comes into being and ceases. This (list of impermanent phenomena) includes all contacts with sense-objects -- sights, sounds, and ideas.
Buddhism also teaches that you should avoid seeing these impermanent things as "self" because that view (view-of-self or identity-view) leads to suffering.


text:
Sanskrit Resources
I have been using the Pali Digital Reader to learn Pali (it is a wonderful resource!). Does anyone know of any similar resources for sanskrit? An online software/plugin/reader which makes translating from Sanskrit to English easy and quick?
I am studying Sanskrit a lot and spend hours copy pasting words from the sanskrit into the online sanskrit dictionary. I was hoping there is something similar to the Pali Digital Reader out there which would make this process easier?
Any help or advice at all is very much appreciated. Thank you so much in advance for your help!!!

There’s plenty of great software for Sanskrit (here, for example) but I read there is yet anything corresponding to the Pali Digital Reader.
You may also find useful Digital Corpus of Sanskrit.


text:
Buddhism 101? Any first steps one should take to begin their journey as a buddhist?
Good day to all! Total beginner here hoping not to bother. I was wondering if there are any suggested reads, talks, podcasts or videos one in my starter level should dive into to understand a bit more about buddhist philosophy.
 I've only watched a few video modules on buddhism and have become quite interested in establishing it as a way of life. Unfortunately there are no buddhist temples or centers in close proximity, so getting information through those means is improbable.
Thank you.

We have compiled some material for beginners in the help center of this site.

Possible duplicate of New to Buddhism

Finding your path to enlightenment is a personal experience. Everyone's journey is different. But they all start with the first step of seeking refuge in the jewel.
The "jewel" of Buddhism consists first of the seeking refuge in the Buddha. Learn about Siddartha Guatama (Shakyamuni Buddha)- his life and his general philosophy. These days that can be quite a task in and of itself as there is so much available for study. Aside from his life I'd look at his spot in actual history. Read about the ancient history of eastern religion and Buddhism's place in the mix.
If you're sufficiently enticed then learn more about the discipline by seeking the second point in the jewel: the dharma. Here we examine all the teachings and texts and techniques of Buddhism itself.
The last of the 3 aspects of the jewel is the sangha. You seek refuge in the others within the Buddhist community. In short - taking refuge in the "triple gem" means taking refuge in Buddha as founder, dharma as truth, and sangha as mentor. This is essentially how one "declares" himself a Buddhist. Then the real work starts.
After seeking refuge you become a student. Ideally you would seek a teacher within that sangha. At this point everyone's path diverges. Many take oaths as students and commit their lives to following first the 5 precepts. Some will do this within a monastic community and others within their everyday lives. It's all very flexible and the Buddha himself even warned against becoming mired in tradition and technique.
If you're not fortunate enough to have a nice Buddhist influence within your community in which to turn then I'd recommend acquiring a copy of the Upanishads and the Dhammapada. The first contains some of the most ancient religious writings on our planet coming from the Vedas and the second is the actual teachings of the Buddha. One can build a sturdy foundation of knowledge in the dharma by merely digesting the isha, katha, and brihadaranyaka upanishads. I prefer the translations of Eknath Easwaran as my sanskrit is bad.
good fortune and namaste! damyata datta dayadhvam.

Understood, although I am curious as to why the Vedas are included in Buddhist teachings, if they pertain to Hinduism?

It's a very interesting story actually. I'd urge you to study the intertwining histories of all religions as they appeared and spread through the near east, middle east, and far east. You'll find common roots in all - and specifically what beliefs were brought with the arya as they crossed the hindu kush into the indus valley and met the existing civilization there. It's also important to study the influence of confucianism as well as Lao Tzu and Taoism as all these ideas embrace and define the contours of the philosophies espoused by the Buddha and the dharma.

@AMAC I too read have translations of several Hindu scriptures, but I don't think that "the Vedas are included in Buddhist teaching" ... that recommendation (the Upanishads) seems to me an idiosyncrasy of Kauva Aatma; they're not "Buddhism 101".

The Upanishads definitely contradict Anatta. So the Upanishads cannot be considered Buddhism 101

A classic book for a beginner to read is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, which can be downloaded here.
The Basics of Buddhism podcast series by the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (BSWA) seems to be good. Ajahn Brahm, who features in some of these podcasts, is also a famous speaker on Youtube.
Two good beginner articles to read are The Buddha and His Dhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi and An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Tricycle's Buddhism for Beginners has some nice articles.
If you want to feel close to a Buddhist community, watch the live and recorded videos of the BSWA on their Youtube Channel. During the live sessions, you can submit questions. Sometimes they have live events like the five precepts initiation ceremony on Wesak Day and the occasional monk ordination ceremony.
You can learn the basics of Buddhist meditation as taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu either using the booklet or the Youtube videos. You can join the online meditation courses also, where you could have interaction with other course participants.
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has also written many great answers on this website, which would be helpful to a beginner. His YouTube channel also has many good videos for beginners.
When you want to deep-dive into the teachings of the Buddha, use the accesstoinsight.org website's Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings. The book "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi is also highly recommended.

I was wondering if there are any suggested reads, talks, podcasts or videos one in my starter level should dive into to understand a bit more about buddhist philosophy.

Books
There's a good amount of great books in english about Buddhism. There's also a great amount of bad books, so I suggest starting with introductory books written by monks.
These books may vary in content according to the school they belong to. However, a book introducing the Noble Eightfold Path would probably be good, since this it is shared by all buddhist schools, being the core doctrine of Buddhism. One option here is Bhikkhu Bodhi's The Noble Eightfold Path.
Other suggestions of introductory books can be found in the question Introductory books to Buddhism.
Discussion
Three noteworthy places to discuss Buddhism on the internet, where monks also participate, are the wheels forums and SuttaCentral:

Dhammawheel: A Buddhist discussion forum focused on Theravada Buddhism
Dharmawheel: Companion site to the above. A Buddhist discussion forum focused on Mahayana Buddhism.
SuttaCentral: a portal of translations of buddhist texts, featuring a section with discussions and Q&A. Focused on Early Buddhism / Theravada.

Videos
The youtube channel we here are more familiar with is yuttadhammo's channel, since he is a former moderator of this very site. He is a Theravadin monk.
Authors
It might be interesting to get a sense of english authors with some notoriety in various traditions and look for their books, interviews, dharma talks, etc. For example, Thích Nhất Hạnh and Shunryu Suzuki on Zen Buddhism, the Dalai Lama on Tibetan Biddhism and Bhikkhu Boddhi on Theravada Buddhism. These are all well known in western buddhist circles (I'm assuming you are located in the west). You may also be interested in materials by authors with titles such as "roshi" (japanese zen), "rinpoche" or "tulku" (tibetan) and "sayadaw", "thera", "ajhan" or "bhikkhu" (theravada).
There's also plenty of non-monastic/lay authors who publish excellent material, but I suggest being careful here, as there's a lot of dirt with jewels and it can be hard to distinguish between them when one is beginning.

Buddhism: A Layman's Guide to Life (All is english, except introduction is thai)
http://www.watnyanaves.net/uploads/File/books/pdf/buddhism_a_layman_s_guide_to_life.pdf
The Pali Canon: What a Buddhist Must Know
http://www.watnyanaves.net/uploads/File/books/pdf/the_pali_canon_what_a_buddhist_must_know.pdf
CONSTITUTION FOR LIVING (English+Thai)
Buddhist principles for a fruitful and harmonious life
http://www.watnyanaves.net/uploads/File/books/pdf/a_constitution_for_living_thai-eng.pdf
But if you would like something very deep:
Teaching & Training (2012 Edition)
(a concise introduction to the Pa-Auk Sayadaw’s teachings compiled by his foreign disciple)
http://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/books/MNY%2001%20Teaching%20and%20Training%20-%20042015.pdf
and:
http://122.155.190.19/revata/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=8&Itemid=111

Is that Thai layman's guide typical of a Buddhist lifestyle in SW Asia? I found the Introduction marvelous and then I gasped at how regimented and prescriptive it was after that. My first logical reaction was to declare it dictatorial and dismiss it as such. But I reminded myself that these guidelines supplant actual experience for those in a monastic environment. Are these followed in such an exhaustive manner by those in SE Asia who are not living a monastic life? I am just curious.

Don't believe your western lobbyists. Thai military force the democratically elected government out because they can not control the  country's escalating political crisis, almost 1 year. People died more than 126 between almost 1 year because of that crisis. The elected government call for their post protester mob to fight with pre protester mob, that protested corruption of elected government, 0.7 trillion bath in 2 years, and that trying to pass the Amnesty law for Thaksin Shinawatra. The  elected government protester mob had done to protest by  firing the building  around thai in 2010.

Our royalty and military very love and trust the meditated bhikkhu very much. They also protest none vinaya strictly monk, too. In the normal rule, we almost had been took dhammakaya bhikkhu to be the great patriarch. But the coup with new king, force to let meditated bhikkhu who is vinaya strictly, to be the great patriarch. The military just try to return the public forests, that were corrupted by mafias around thai.

Oh my friend I am very sorry. I was not talking about politics at all. I was only asking about the very detailed, regimented aspects of the Buddhist guide. I know nothing about the politics of Thailand - I was interested more in the culture. Please accept my apologies for being unclear. I have made no judgment about the politics of Thailand. I visited Phuket once and they were all very nice to me. I rather enjoyed my time there. namaste.

I'm sorry, too. I can not understand your message. I am a thai and my english is terrible. The answer should be "People must be the good layman, before meditate. So I show those books to you", right?

Oh your english was fine. I was not clear. I appreciated the links you gave. They were very interesting.

Reading the Buddhism topics on Wikipedia and thoughtcoare a good starting point. There is a nice Zen Buddhist sangha at Treeleaf.org that has a very good fund of information.
With the web, we're not restricted in our search for enlightenment. However, remember, reading is only an intellectual exercise, one needs meditation to go deeper into the spiritual aspect.

"establishing it as a way of life".  OK, you're seeking faith, sweet!  Step number 1.  Every steps comes out from this step, make your faith stronger.  Break it and make it again.  Temper it like because it is literally your strongest weapon. This is what the analysis is for, what the experiences are for. All practice and fruit come from this ground.
Step 1. Read about the buddha's life.
- Google it, read about it, rejoice in the all the awesome stories.  There are a bunch of YouTube cartoons.  I really like a whacky cult movie called laws of the sun, take it with a grain of salt.  Anyway...
Afterwards, here's a link for concrete conceptualization...http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/The_Six_Supernatural_Powers_of_Buddha
Step 2. Read about the Buddha Dharma(laws of nature he discovered and gave to the world for our ULTIMATE PROSPERITY)
- Do your googling and what not.  Once you see what most people are saying, I recommend this article and website https://puredhamma.net/dhamma/buddha-dhamma-non-perceivability-and-self-consistency/
Also lawsofthenature.com
Step 3. Attract/Find your Sangha
My honesty recommendation is to apply steps 1 & 2 as a life-integrating practice, and your subconscious will attract to your sangha in time.  Might already be happening and you don't even know it.  Anyway, you can of course stick with forums.  Bring up Buddha in conversation and see where the buddha's take you.
Be curious, be humble, be vigilant, be empowered.  The whole world, including myself roots for your success.
Warmly,
Lobsang Donyo


text:
What interaction did the Buddha have with his family after leaving?
I know he did some teaching with his mother in the heaven realms but what other incidents are mentioned in the cannon?

Apart from Dhammadhatu's answer regarding the Buddha's son Rahula becoming a monk, there are also other interactions with his family, like the founding of the order of nuns due to the insistence of his aunt and foster mother, Maha Pajapati Gotami, who became the first nun.
Also, his wife, Yasodhara later became a nun and his half-sister Sundari Nanda also became a nun.
And, not to forget one of the Buddha's most well known disciples and personal attendant, Ven. Ananda who is also his cousin.
While his father, King Suddhodana did not become a monk, he too had some interaction with the Buddha, when his grandson Rahula became a monk, leading to the new rule being created, that nobody would be ordained without their parents' permission.

When King Suddhodana heard that his beloved grandson had become a monk
  he was deeply grieved. The king said, "When you left home it made me
  sad. When Nanda left home my heart ached. I concentrated my love on my
  grandson and again the one I love has left me. Please do not ordain
  anyone without their parent's permission." To this the Buddha agreed
  and never ordained anybody after that without their parents'
  permission.

He taught his son Rahula non-harming at 7 years old & when older meditation & full enlightenment.
The teachings to his son are here: Advice to Rāhula: Four Discourses of the Buddha.
These teachings basically make up the entirely of the Dhamma.


text:
Is reiki harmful or not (is it harmful to advancing in the path)?
Is reiki practice (energy practice) harmful? Is it harmful to advancing in the path?
I'm asking, not about getting a treatment, but about doing a course in it: and getting into this whole reiki thing and maybe treating others with it.

It's definitely a distraction.  There's something be said for the whole-hearted practice of a single path.  The more we pursue, the more scattered our attention, and inevitably the less directed our efforts.  I would also have to ask after your motivations.  Are they to heal or are they to simply to become someone who can heal?  Is what's driving you down that road curiosity, compassion, or perhaps something more sinister and insidious?  Lastly, just something is true for reiki practice doesn't necessarily mean it would transfer well into Buddhist practice.  Generally, the more ideas we have in our heads about what practice is, what it should look like, and how it should feel the more likely we are to run into dead-ends and obstacles.

"Single path" doesn't mean practising one teaching. Many teachings can become single path, helping each other. For example, in traditional Zen practice, after the initial awakening monks often were advised to travel to other teachers, to experience different styles and sides of the path. Likewise, in martial arts or qigong, when you try a new, unusual style, it shows you things from another perspective, creating 3D vision and leading to deeper insight.

I'd agree with you to an extent.  Practicing tai chi certainly helped my Zen practice, but this was only after sitting on the cushion for ten years.  I don't think you can overstate the importance of first following one path, under one teacher, for a period of time.

I practised mostly on my own, gathering pieces of wisdom here and there, and only in 2003 I met Sheng Yen. Studying with teachers like him for 10+ years might be OK. But from my experience I'd say that practising on my own has its benefits too, especially when you don't meet very qualified teachers.

Yeah, I guess I sometimes take it for granted that people are going to have access to a good teacher.  That's that good ol' New York City bias of mine peaking through!  We sometimes forget that the rest of the world ain't like us; most people don't have eight Zen roshis within 50 miles!  ;-)

From reading American Zen websites it seems to me that the majority of Roshis aren't very competent. Some steal donation money, some cheat with female students, some lie and abuse power, and most of them have wrong views like: "Nonduality view is not for daily life", or "Awakening means unity of all universe", or "Zen teacher is someone appointed as Zen teacher" etc. Trying to "follow one path, under one teacher" with them during 10 years might result in having 10 years of misguided practice.

Hah!  Sounds a lot like Japan!

Basically, Reiki is healing by means of feeling energy and letting it to harmonize. It might help to be healthier, to develop inner and outer harmony, and therefore to advance in Buddhist practice more easily.
For example, it can happen that if our feelings are coarse, we remain tense, and our practice of calming does not go well. But if our feelings are subtler, the harmony is deeper and calming practice progresses better.
In Tantric Buddhism, energy practices are a part of the training. In Zen they are used for good health and swift progress.
Therefore I think that Reiki is not harmful in itself. It might become a distraction, but also it might become somehow helpful on Buddhist path.

Reiki harmeful or not ? is it harmeful to advancing in the path?

In the famous Maha-parinibbana Sutta, there is a passage where the Buddha explains to the wandering ascetic Subhadda, that "in any doctrine & discipline", that does not contain the Noble Eightfold Path, enlightened beings cannot be found.
That is very important since it shows that only teachings that contain the noble eightfold path can lead to freedom from suffering, to Nibbana.
The quoted passage can be found below.

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e., Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?"
"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."

I'm not sure that it's effective (see e.g. Is Reiki scientifically valid/proven?).
So although it may be harmless (e.g. having no effect) it may be a distraction from any other treatment or activity (or non-activity) that is effective ... and it that sense (i.e. as a distraction from what's effective) I'd guess it may be harmful.


text:
Metta towards a non-sentient entity or substance (e.g. rice)?
Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice?
If not, why not?
Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object ... for example, might speaking kindly to a sealed jar of cooked rice cause it to rot more slowly (as suggested by Masuro Emoto's rice experiment)?

Masuro Emoto's rice experiment was to put cooked rice in three sealed jars: then say hateful words to one jar, loving words to another, and ignore the third. Allegedly the rice jar to which were said loving words does well (rots more slowly), and the ones you ignore and say bad words to will do less well (they rot or grow mouldy more quickly than the other one).
Edit :  the experiment didn't work  - i also added two slices of the same apple next to the rice  -  and even the "good" rice and apple got rotten a bit faster

This question was discussed on Meta: What about the 'rice experiment' question?

does rice have buddha nature?

Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice?
Not that I know of.
If not, why not?
This essay says,

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

Rice isn't a "living being", and one does not have "social contact" with rice.
Also I don't think that rice is capable of "suffering" (because it isn't sentient; it's inanimate), and so it's not a suitable object for "metta".
Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object
I don't think so. I think you're asking that the rice last longer before spoiling, that it be less impermanent; and I don't remember seeing doctrine which I could construe as saying that "wishing that something were less impermanent is enough make it so".
Conversely there's doctrine about doing rather than wishing: saying e.g. if you want a long life then you should do things which are conducive to long life (not just wish for it).
Perhaps being careful about preparing the rice you care for, and doing something such as cleaning the jar more carefully or sealing the jar more tightly, might show an experimental effect.

thank you for uploading the question again  -  I added apples next to the rice doing the same thing (its a known variation of the rice experiment)  and until now they are both in similar shape and the one i say good words to is even a bit worse

Metta is practitioner's consciousness that thinking to make happy consciousness arise in the other lives. (sukhī attānaṃ pariharantu)
Rice never have happy consciousness arising.
Masuro Emoto's rice experiment was just utuniyāma. That experiment was just regular of nature. It doesn't mean rice has consciousness arising.

Metta is practiced in order to overcome the feeling of negativity and alienation towards the world in the practitioner's mind. The grudge towards the world is replaced with compassion for the people. If this negativity is not removed it remains a drain of emotional energy and precludes attainment of Jhanas.
Since no-one normally has grudge against rice or apple, Metta towards it is a nonsensical concept.


text:
What does the word 'nimitta' ('sign') refer to in SN 47.8?
SN 47.8 (Pali here) is translated as such:

Bhikkhus, suppose a foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook were to present a king or a royal minister with various kinds of curries:
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty, bland.
That foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook does not pick up the sign of his own master’s preference: ‘Today this curry pleased my master,
  or he reached for this one, or he took a lot of this one, or he spoke
  in praise of this one; or the sour curry pleased my master today, or
  he reached for the sour one, or he took a lot of the sour one, or he
  spoke in praise of the sour one; or the bitter curry … or the pungent
  curry … or the sweet curry … or the sharp curry … or the mild curry …
  or the salty curry … or the bland curry pleased my master … or he
  spoke in praise of the bland one.’
That foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook does not gain gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses. For what reason? Because that foolish,
  incompetent, unskilful cook does not pick up the sign of his own
  master’s preference.
So too, bhikkhus, here some foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
  comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in
  regard to the world. While he dwells contemplating the body in the
  body, his mind does not become concentrated, his corruptions are not
  abandoned, he does not pick up that sign. He dwells contemplating
  feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent,
  clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and
  displeasure in regard to the world. While he dwells contemplating
  phenomena in phenomena, his mind does not become concentrated, his
  corruptions are not abandoned, he does not pick up that sign.
That foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu does not gain pleasant dwellings in this very life, nor does he gain mindfulness and
  clear comprehension. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that foolish,
  incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu does not pick up the sign of his own
  mind.

Suppose, bhikkhus, a wise, competent, skilful cook were to present a king or a royal minister with various kinds of curries: sour, bitter,
  pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty, bland.
That wise, competent, skilful cook picks up the sign of his own master’s preference: ‘Today this curry pleased my master … or he spoke
  in praise of the bland one.’
That wise, competent, skilful cook gains gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses. For what reason? Because that wise, competent, skilful
  cook picks up the sign of his own master’s preference.
So too, bhikkhus, here some wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending,
  mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the
  world. While he dwells contemplating the body in the body, his mind
  becomes concentrated, his corruptions are abandoned, he picks up that
  sign. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind …
  phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having
  removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. While he
  dwells contemplating phenomena in phenomena, his mind becomes
  concentrated, his corruptions are abandoned, he picks up that sign.
That wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu gains pleasant dwellings in this very life, and he gains mindfulness and clear comprehension. For
  what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu
  picks up the sign of his own mind.”

What specific thing does the word 'nimitta' ('sign') refer to above in SN 47.8?

In the same sutta, buddha said:

tathā hi so, bhikkhave, bālo abyatto akusalo bhikkhu sakassa
  cittassa nimittaṃ na uggaṇhātiฯ.

Then said about satipaṭṭhāna:

evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacco paṇḍito byatto kusalo bhikkhu
  kāye (=base, object) kāyā-nupassī (=sati-cetasika) viharati ātāpī
  sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃฯ

So:
cittassa nimittaṃ (base[=object] of consciousness) = satiya paṭṭhānaṃ (base [=object]  of sati).
The other name is kammaṭṭhāna (base[=object] of cetanā).
P.S. Sati must arise with consciousness.
I'm sorry for my first mistake answer.

I think Buddha speaks about sincere attention to the process.
Without sensitivity (sincere attention), you pretend to spend time in the practice, but do not concentrate the mind, do not abandon corruptions.
In Zen it's explained as losing the balance between calmness and alertness.
Calmness not balanced by alertness leads to states of dullness, "like a stone that uselessly soaks in water", "like dry piece of wood devoid of life".
Correct meditation should have attentive, sincere attitude.
Likewise, a skillful cook pays sincere attention to doing everything so that the food will be prepared well.

this is how i understand the sutta,
(1) A chef may know how to cook according to a cook book, but a great chef would continuously monitor and evaluate his clients according to pallets and mood of the day and adjusts his ingredients accordingly.  (where a unskilled chef would just do the same over and over without adjusting his skills)
(2) Similarly to monks (or those who practices mindfulness), a skillful practitioner would constantly monitor and evaluate results. Something that unskilled people are lacked.  Unskilled people would practice mindfulness and  (if) does not gain pleasant dwellings in this very life, nor does he gain mindfulness and clear comprehension he would not pick up on that sign that he is not gaining results.
so sign in this context as i understand it is lack of self monitor of result and progress (there for, he would not adjust his practice accordingly.   )


text:
What's the end game for Buddhism?
I try to sit back and look at things more objectively. This is how I see things right now:

we are awareness made flesh. with all the senses and limitations associated with being a human flesh creature.
our bodies are on a 75 year camping trip. We're roughing it with these senses and subject to the ravages of time which normally doesnt affect us.
in our normal forms, as awareness, we only sense vibrations and "warm" events give us resonant vibrations and harmonies. events other than that cause discordant vibrations and we are repulsed by them.
when our bodies die we go back to being awareness. That is our only rebirth or afterlife.
man has the capacity to move beyond rebirth, but it will never happen until the human race is homogenized physically and mentally. this just happens with time.

So I have a definite dispute with the Buddha over the feasibility of working towards an end-goal of Nirvana. Has anyone ascended to date? I believe the true definition is nirvana after death and better lives while alive.
Why is this not a more feasible end result? What is wrong with my reasoning?

If you want to ask about reasoning beyond Buddha Dharma, no need to clutter the question with a lot of arbitrary ideas. And if you want to check how reasonable your ideas are, try to analyze their causes point by point. E.g., start with: "how could awareness be made flesh?" etc. Then some more clarity might develop.

good point I will do that. I am trying to find the contours.

Your question comes from the belief of eternalism. Buddhism rejects the view of an eternal soul or awareness.
Rebirth occurs until one uproots craving. Elimination of craving is the end game.

ahhh. I knew there had to be some reasoning and argument against this because it was so obvious. thank you for putting me on the right track!!

after further review I remain unconvinced. Eternalism is denied on purely ontological reasons (he says nothing is eternal therefore there is no eternal ______ ). I dont think this denies my point at all. If the universe is constantly expanding and contracting for 10 to the 160th power years (expend rest contract rest) then it's really not eternal. Only as eternal as the ether within which our awareness exists. His denial of Nihilism was based solely upon his explanation of Karma which I also find somewhat lacking. Can you offer actual reasoning to support it?

What do you mean by "awareness exist"? There is no lasting awareness. Awareness is simply an aspect of a momentary experience.

When we create some arbitrary models of reality (ideas), it might be good enough for writing fiction books. But if we want to discuss real situations, we should rely on proper knowledge.
The Dharma of Buddha was derived from experiential observations, it was not just arbitrary construction of ideas. Therefore it is suitable for discussing our human situation.
Arbitrary ideas are not useful, because they are not based on real phenomena. For example: "man has the capacity to move beyond rebirth, but it will never happen until the human race is homogenized physically and mentally".
Unless you prove such ideas, starting from observable phenomena, I see no reason to waste time discussing them.

The first four premises (e.g. "we are awareness", and "our bodies", etc.) seem to me to be examples of identity-view and eternalism, and incompatible with Buddhism's anatta doctrine.
I don't recognize where the fifth premise ("homogenized physically and mentally") comes from; and don't understand why it's a premise.
So far as I know, the "end-game" is:

End of delusion and of suffering (dukkha) and rebirth (samsara) for "oneself"
Developing the mind of a Buddha or Bodhisattva (i.e. enlightened and able to liberate others)

I think these (two) end-games correspond to abandoning "afflictive obscurations" and "knowledge obscurations", e.g. as introduced in this answer to the question "What is Nirvana (mahayana)?"


text:
What is meant by "Practice the truth thy brother is same as thou"?
We are different. Our upbringing is different.Our sanskaras are different. We are made up of sanskaras therefore every self must be different. Yet Buddha says Practice the truth that thy brother is the same as thou.
It would be great if someone can explain what is meant by the above statement of Buddha?

He is simply affirming as a truth/truism that your brother is the same as you. It's reminiscent of Jesus' "love your neighbour as yourself" -- possibly because of the (originally) Christian background of the writer Paul Carus (who wrote the 1894 The Gospel of Buddha which you're quoting).

The closest message of the Buddha that I can find to this, is Udana 5.1:

When the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:
Searching all directions with your awareness, you find no one dearer
  than yourself. In the same way, others are thickly dear to
  themselves. So you shouldn't hurt others if you love yourself.

There's a similar message in the Dhammapada: All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

@ChrisW I like this other site better for the Dhammapada, because it tells the associated stories: Dhp 129 and Dhp 130

There is another close match. In the book  "The Udana"  by D M Strong following message is said by the Blessed One on page 92:"Should a man not exert himself on every occasion,not exist for another.Not live for the sake of others.Truly, he does not live the holy life."

All sentient beings naturally want to be satisfied, yet we typically feel dissatisfaction in our lives. (It is explained in the Four Noble Truths).
Despite our different backgrounds and conditions, we all are equally sentient beings, our minds work by similar principles: we meet problems, we want to solve them.
The root problem comes from illusory oppositions. For example, we divide situations into "me" - "them". Trying to solve problems, we try to make a solution "good for me".
That view - "good for me" - creates attachments. Losing what is "good for me", we feel not just small pain, but suffering, exaggerated by our clinging to "good for me".
And when something hinders our "good for me", we start to hate it.
Thus the oppositions in our view lead to ignorance, attachment and hatred. Also they lead to pridefulness, envy and laziness. And all the other vexations and delusions.
Therefore, in order to liberate from vexations-delusions, we should drop illusory divisions. We should drop our dependence on the view "what's good for me", and instead discover the natural way, beyond oppositions.
That absence of oppositions between all beings is called karuna (compassion), and it is another side of prajna (wisdom). With prajna-karuna we don't separate anyone; we act naturally, for the benefit of all. Without mental blinkers, we are free from ignorance, unhealthy attachment, hatred and so on.
For training in that, it's useful to practice the truth that our oppositions are illusory, deluding and enslaving.

I couldn't find evidence that the Buddha said that.
I wanted to find a more accurate/modern translation than the one you're using. The Sutta known as DN 5 - To Kūṭadanta is the only one I found that mentions Kutdanta ... and it (like the one you referenced) also starts by mentioning "sacrifice" ... but the one you referenced talks about Nibanna and Anatta whereas DN 5 is longer but talks about other things.
The text you quoted is from The Gospel of Buddha:

The Gospel of Buddha was an 1894 book by Paul Carus. It was modeled on the New Testament and told the story of Buddha through parables. ... The work was assembled from existing English translations of Buddhists texts, with significant amendments and reworkings.

Maybe it's good (or was good) as an introduction or overview Buddhism.
It may be reading too much into it, however, to assume that it's Buddhavacana, and to ask questions like, "What did the Buddha mean when he said this sentence?" I think you should treat it as Paul Carus' interpretation (not exactly translation).
For a perhaps more-accurate introduction or translation, people on this site have recommended other books such as In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon.
I could point to other Buddhist sayings which are like but yet unlike the one you quoted. I agree with Simon's answer, that this phrase you quoted seems inspired by the Christian New Testament.

Logically it makes sense to me. We are made up of sanskaras. I am found where ever those sanskaras are found. Therefore those with common sanskaras are like brothers who are almost the same.Just like two flames which are different yet same because the arise from the same fuel. In other words you must recognize that another man of same character and product of same karma is same as you. Therefore he said practice the truth thy brother is same as thou. I was also not able to get hold of the true translation.

Yes it's possible to make sense of it, in that way. But "I am found where ever those sanskaras are" might be an example of "identity view" not of anatta ("not self"). It might also be inspired by an "all religions have something in common" kind of sentiment. And it sounds to me Mahayana (e.g. about "sentient beings"), and is not exactly something you'd find in a sutta of the Pali canon.


text:
Should we bath after funeral?
Here in India we bath after funeral, But my prior question was "What is funeral law of Buddhism?" and  answerer said that when he lived in a forest monastery in Thailand, dead monks & residents were cremated on a pile of wood in the forest & they would practice meditation on the burning corpse. Therefor I think no need to bath but let me know should we bath after funeral?

Buddhists usually cremate the bodies. But there's no Buddhist funeral law. You may or may not bath before, after or during the funeral if you see any health benefit to it.

@BonnWarapol Bath after funeral is proper, if bath make wholesome consciousness arise.
But bath after funeral is not proper, if bath make unwholesome consciousness arise.
Thanks again for invaluable answer and time

Bath after funeral is proper, if bath make wholesome consciousness arise.
But bath after funeral is not proper, if bath make unwholesome consciousness arise.


text:
Can Buddhism lead to eternal happiness?
Does Buddhism propose the possibility of any state of consciousness which feels better than neutral?
Many buddhist teachings I have heard so far (mostly by Alan Watts) seem to point to an "ideal" state of consciousness which feels neutral or maybe even not at all, as there is no conscious.
Does Buddhism claim to have some path to "eternal happiness" and more than "non-suffering"?

That's a very common misunderstanding of what Buddhism is after.  Western authors (especially some of the early dabblers in Buddhism like Watts) had a very difficult time expressing Buddhist ideas in the parlance with which they and their audience would be familiar.  Consistently, concepts like "voidness" (e.g. shunyata) get mistaken for ideas like nihilism, inertness, or Stoicism.  You'd half expect the Buddhist ideal to more resemble Mr. Spock than Shakyamuni!   I think this is even further compounded by the Pali and Sanskrit languages which often use prefixed negations to express positive qualities (e.g. ahimsa or non-harming).  Based on that linguistic trope, it's very easy to think that Buddhism is only interested in a state in which negative qualities are absent.
Not to get caught in the weeds over what Buddhism is after (and you might want to stay away from words like "eternal" on a Buddhism Q&A site!), but let me assure your that liberation is anything but neutral.  There are positive states like the seven factors of enlightenment (of which "joy" is one!), the compassion, equanimity, etc. of the Brahmaviharas, the sweetness of meditative absorption, among many, many others that are of paramount importance and have to be cultivated with just as much zeal as one uses to overcome their negative views and behaviors.

Buddhism teaches "non-suffering". The whole path is about abandoning suffering & its causes therefore to have any other motivation (such as to find 'happiness') will not actually work.
This said, to not discourage people, the Dhammapada does explicitly provide the assurance that: "Nirvana is the highest happiness".
The result of "non-suffering" is a bliss the ordinary person who has had only ordinary experiences cannot imagine.
However, to imagine what Nirvana might be like, imagine the feeling of relief that occurs when you urgently need to & do urinate. This is a very blissful feeling from the release from suffering.
Even the idea of "neutral" is better than ordinary happiness. However, when the ordinary person thinks about "neutral", they think about depression rather than lucid sparkling clear purity.

The Dhamma is "Akaliko": without time. It points to that outside Time and Space. Time and Space are ways the mind works, just as 'turning' is the way a wheel works.
So the Dhamma points to that which is indescribable by the mind. It is not-mind. There is no 'eternal' there. There is no 'infinite' there.

I think of akaliko as meaning timeless (e.g. "ever-present") and immediate (e.g. without "delay") and maybe without duration (without beginning and end).

Buddha taught everything, included better feeling consciousness, is suffering (dukkha).
Those teaching disclaim  "consciousness which feels better".
But the the path (magga), to abandon that whole suffering, has arise with better feeling, in every step.
So someone think wrong that "Buddhism lead to eternal happiness". Because if buddha taught about "consciousness which feels better", so he shouldn't taught that "better feeling consciousness, is suffering".
P.S. In commentary said that magga happy feeling and phala happy feeling  are suffering, too. But tanha can't desire them, so the practitioners have not to vipassana in magga and phala.

What is my wrong, that they vote down me? I want some complain to modify the answer.


text:
Is buddhism athiestic?
Sorry, I'm a beginner to Buddhism but at least from whatever I have heard buddhism seems atheistic. But I've also heard claims like the Buddha is higher than the 'devas' and all that. Does buddhism believe in god? are there any suttas which can prove otherwise?

Buddhism teaches about higher consciousness such as Deva or gods.
However, Buddhism does not teache a one creator God or one and only god overpowering you.Gods can help you like any other human can help you but not with eliminate your suffering, unfortunately.
==================
Scattered throughout the suttas are references to as many as thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during their long wandering through samsara. These range from the extraordinarily grim and painful hell realms all the way up to the most exquisitely refined and blissful heaven realms. Existence in every realm is temporary; in Buddhist cosmology there is no eternal heaven or hell. Beings are born into a particular realm according to their past kamma. When they pass away, they take rebirth once again elsewhere according to the quality of their kamma: wholesome actions bring about a favorable rebirth, while unwholesome actions lead to an unfavorable one. And so the wearisome cycle continues.
The realms of existence are customarily divided into three distinct "worlds" (loka), listed here in descending order of refinement:
The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless jhanas.
The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen realms whose inhabitants (the devas) experience extremely refined degrees of mental pleasure. These realms are accessible to those who have attained at least some level of jhana and who have thereby managed to (temporarily) suppress hatred and ill-will. They are said to possess extremely refined bodies of pure light. The highest of these realms, the Pure Abodes, are accessible only to those who have attained to "non-returning," the third stage of Awakening. The Fine-Material World and the Immaterial World together constitute the "heavens" (sagga).
The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which experience — both pleasurable and not — is dominated by the five senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the animal and hell realms.
The information on this page was assembled from a variety of sources. In the interests of economizing space I have not attributed each fact to its respective source.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

in which suttas or whatever does buddha talk about devas

I edited my post to include answers to your question -)

There is faith in the Dhamma, the Buddha and the Sangha. Faith is based upon observational proof as described in MN27 and Kalama. 'devas', heavens, hells - are subject to the same Dhamma as people, just living under different conditions (longer time span, material/immaterial). They are scattered around the Pali canon, but MN1 gives a nice list, and sums up Buddhist opinion on them.

I have heard buddhism seems atheistic.

Correct. AN 3.61 states happiness & suffering are not caused by a creator god, such as Ishvara, Yahweh or Allah.

But I've also heard claims like the Buddha is higher than the 'devas' and all that.

The gods are the kings, queens, politicians, billionaires, etc, or very special spiritual people who have extraordinary love or psychic powers. In short, the 'gods' are merely people.
For example, the story in SN 11.5 about the deva (benevolent) & violent (asura) gods debating how to rule people is obviously powerful people debating political methods (such as democracy vs communism).
This is found in Judaism (a punishing violent god) & Christianity (a forgiving loving god).

Does buddhism believe in god?

In the ordinary sense, no, Buddhism does not believe in god.

are there any suttas which can prove otherwise?

AN 3.61 says happiness & suffering are not due to a creator god such as Ishvara, Yahweh or Allah.
SN 12.44 and AN 4.45  (at the very end) say the world is created by ignorance & the mind.

down vote for "gods are merely people"