text:
Theravada and Mahayana - The Crucial Differences
I struggle with the idea that Buddhism has two warring schools and wonder why they cannot make peace.
What are the issues on which Theravada and Mahayana cannot agree?
Just bullet points would be fine. I'm not inviting an argument about who is right, just asking for the facts. A summary of key doctrinal differences is what I'm after, if this is possible.
Issues such as which scriptures are authentic may be omitted since this is not a doctrinal difference, but differences in the interpretation of those scriptures would have to be included.
Thanks.
EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. They make fascinating reading. The question has been answered well enough for my purposes.

Possibly related -- in this topic I questioned an essay by Ven. Bodhi which described some alleged differences -- the answers in that topic tended to disagree with that description.

What other questions are allowed now?

@Lowbrow If that comment was a question to me, I didn't understand your question? I allowed PeterJ's question (the OP), as being an example of Questions asking for an answer to a controversy

I asked this question too but it wasn't allowed if I remember correctly. No worries though, it must be hard doing your job as we all change over time.

I did like this question's adding, "I'm not inviting an argument about who is right". Some of the site-specific policies defined on Meta were meant to avoid users starting sectarian arguments, by making arguments and some types of comparison off-topic, figure that's my job. I am sorry my "moderator" decisions and/or the way I write seem harsh sometimes, thank you for the "no worries" too!

You've got a sound question, but in a forum occupied by Theravadin/Pali followers. Agent Sankha, Dhammadhatu and Suminda are working for Theravada/Pali - their descriptions of Mahayana are all faulty, whilst Andrei for Tibetan-Buddhism - also, well, faulty. I believed you incline towards a scholastic study of subject with logical reasoning, it's hard here @PeterJ. To decipher the Morse code from all the "secret agents" (hahaa!) I suggest your enforcing the answerers must proclaim what schools they stood with and what Sutra/Sutta they studied, in the beginning of the answers

@Mishu米殊  - It's all fine. The 'morse code' is decipherable, and proving useful. Where people are coming from is usually pretty obvious.

@Mishu米殊 You may not want to, but you could post another answer of your own, if you think the existing answers are incomplete -- an answer which should avoid implying that other schools are wrong or inferior -- an answer which simply lists the differences (i.e. "theravada says this whereas mahayana says that"). Thanks.

i think @ChrisW e.g. that part of the confusion stems from bad scholarship. it is true that mahayana buddhism called its alternatives the "lesser vehicle" -- my religion is better than your religion. and its true that early buddhists would claim that the mahayana wasn't buddhism. ime one does, and should, learn to just take that for granted, rather than get worked up by it. pretending theirs no difference is probably not helpful though, at least if there's a right and wrong answer

@Mishu米殊 i added a blurb, but won't always do -- just put it on my profile instead. i mean, all answers should state what teaching they are basing their answer in

I doubt the schools are warring in fact, I kind of doubt whether they're even really competing. Historically those schools belong to more or less different regions, geographically, don't they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism#/media/File:Buddhist_sects.png

@ChrisW - They are certainly warring on this website. I chose the word deliberately so as not to belittle the importance of the dispute or underplay the damage it causes. I can see why a different word was suggested but 'competing' is too weak for me. Competition may be healthy, war never.   .

Just like with any other religion, when the author of the teachings is no longer alive to clarify what is authentic and what is not, the followers of the teachings will naturally come up with different interpretations and also mix things up with teachings of other religions or belief systems. Even in the time of the Buddha, Devadatta was able to have his own faction of monks. So Buddhism having different schools today is nothing to be surprised about.
The Mahayana school branches out to truck loads of many other schools like Vajrayana, Zen, Pureland etc. It seems to be a natural consequence of not being shy to change the original teachings of the Buddha.  So these days when you say 'Mahayana', it's hard to get an idea of what you really mean.
But if you want to compare the fundamental practices of Mahayana with Theravada Buddhism, here are some differences:

Mahayana puts emphasis on attaining Buddhahood or becoming enlightened while another Buddha is alive. Theravada puts emphasis on working to become enlightened as soon as possible and actually making use of the Dhamma preached by the Buddha to do so, even when he is not alive anymore. Theravada tradition generally discourages those who aspire to become Buddhas out of ego or due to their lack of understanding of the enormity of the task. However, it does give blessings to handful of people who have proven their worthiness through mastery of the Dhamma at the highest level, if they have that aspiration.
Mahayana seems to give precedence to the quality of compassion. Theravada gives precedence to wisdom. Compassion is practiced as a supportive quality of the mind for the cultivation of wisdom.
It appears that Vipassana meditation, the meditation that leads to enlightenment is mainly practiced in the Theravada school. Comparatively, Mahayana school seem to give precedence to chanting, rights and rituals.
Vegetarianism appears to be a requirement in Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism keeps to the word of the Buddha and leaves it up to the individual and does not view one's food preference as an important factor in attaining enlightenment.
Theravada tradition as a principal tries to understand the teachings of the Buddha without changing them to suit the popular worldview of the time. As a result, it is widely regarded as the school which is closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.

Thanks. This seems to be a fairly typical view of Mahayana so is useful. Whether it is a correct view is not really the point here, it seems to summarise a common view and explains quite a lot. . .

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I think it's also important to strength the claim of Theravada being closer to the original teachings. There are many sutras chanted and used in Mahayana practice, which are not attributed to the Buddha. This does imply that these teachings are of lesser quality

@user279311 That claim is just an assertion - a Mahayana follower could just as easily assert that the Mahayana scriptures not attributed to the Buddha are more refined through the generations of masters since the Buddha. Such statements contribute nothing, they only feed the flames of "us versus them".

Better move this discussion to chat section if you guys wish to argue any points

Traditionally from Mahayana perspective, the contrast with non-Mahayana is an important part of the teaching, so the differences is something we study in-depth, in order to understand and avoid non-Mahayana mistakes. For each of the following points, there's a traditional elaboration, explaining in detail how and why each side says what it says.
In non-Mahayana, your primary goal is Nirvana for yourself, in Mahayana your primary goal is to help others.
In non-Mahayana, they recognize that self is not real (Anatta), but still consider other phenomena real. In Mahayana, all phenomena are interpretations-imputations.
In non-Mahayana, the practice is focused on removing emotional obscurations. In Mahayana, both emotional and mental obscurations are removed. In Mahayana there is a strong philosophical component designed to remove conceptual obscurations.
In non-Mahayana, Nirvana is ultimate peace. In Mahayana, Nirvana is not-abiding, having understood ultimate equality of Nirvana and Samsara, beyond peace.
In non-Mahayana, the rules and precepts are understood literally and must be followed strictly. In Mahayana, it is the "spirit" (the purpose) of precepts is what's really important, the letter of precepts can be broken when it conflicts with their purpose.
In non-Mahayana, Dharma is understood literally, in Mahayana it is understood as conceptual construct metaphorically describing subtle truths about our lives and our reality. Concepts are mere models, but if look deeper you can "get" what they point at.
Mahayana accepts most pre-Mahayana teachings but insists that they must not be understood superficially. Superficial understanding of pre-Mahayana teachings and rejection of deeper insights is what characterizes non-Mahayana.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

good answer, and i liked the inclusion of the fourth paragraph. i'm surprised there's been no mention of the atman doctrine here, is it not held by early mahayanists?

Mahayana vs Theravada, crucial differences
Declare--
My position is of Mahayana the Chinese lineage, selected Sutras I studied, all or parts: Agamas (& some Pali Nikayas), Perfect Enlightenment, Avatamsaka, Surangama, Lotus Sutra, Lankavatara, Saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra, Mahayana Parinirvana, Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra, Diamond Sutra, Platform Sutra, Prajna Paramita (by Kumarajiva), Madhyamaka, Mahisasakas Pratimoksa, Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, Bodhidharma Bloodline Sastra, Samayabhedo-paracanacakra-śāstra, Śariputraparipṛcchā... Path of Liberation (the Pali Vimutti-magga is translated from Chinese) and meditation sutras/abhidharmas, etc.
On Theravada knowledge, parts and/or by scanning/skimming: Nikayas (or from Chinese Agamas), Buddhism SE, almost all the entries on Theravada in Wikipedia incl. its Abhidhamma, Dhammawheel, articles by the Bhikkhus such as Thanissaro, Buddhadasa, Brahm, Bodhi, Sujato, Henepola Gunaratana, Ashin Dr. Nandamalabhivamsa, Walpola Rahula, etc.

A. Scriptures
1) Mahayana inherits scriptures (excl. Tantra texts) encompassing the Three Turning of Dharma Wheels expounded by the Buddha himself in his 45 years of teaching, i.e., 1st the Agamas, 2nd the Prajna Paramita Sutras, and 3rd the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras. This saying records in almost all the Vinayas and some Sutras such as:

Three Turnings of the Twelve Sections of Dharma Wheels… attained perfect enlightenment for Buddha-hood — Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, translated by Mishu 米殊

Theravada inherits scriptures of the four Nikayas which almost equivalent to the Agamas, however Sutras of the 2nd and 3rd Wheel Turning are missing.
2) Mahayana records in the Agama that the Sutras collected after the gathering of 500 Arhats in the Seven Leaves Cave were written down on white cloth to keep:

Mahakasyapa then selected 40 realized ones among all, relaying from Ananda to have the four Agamas, 1 Madhyama Āgama, 2 Dīrgha Āgama, 3 Ekottara Āgama, 4 Saṃyukta Āgama… each [was written] on 60 rolls of plain cloth. The Bhiksus said, “use these to write in the four scripts (perhaps the Brahmi, Prakrit, Kharoṣṭhī and Armanic scripts), let these be spreading in the world.” …individually writing the 12 sections of the Buddha Sutras, with the Vinayas and Dharmas ready… meeting Maitreya Buddha… for liberation… — Parinirvana Sutra, Agama, translated by Mishu 米殊

According to this plus several Sutras and Mahayana tradition, the four Agamas were spread immediately to lay the foundation, the 2nd and 3rd Turning mainly the Bodhisattvayana/Mahayana Sutras were reserved for approx. 100 years later, waiting until the new generation of disciples matured and Bodhisattva-teachers born to the world after the Buddha's nirvana.
Theravada says writing was not available 2500 years ago and only transmitted by oral recitation. The four or five Nikayas are all that the Buddha taught, nothing more.
3) Mahayana (of the Chinese lineage) preserves Sutras, Vinayas, Sastras and Abhidharmas from all the Early Eighteen Schools. All the scriptures are served as reference instead of presiding over any particular school.
Theravada inherits Suttas and works from the Vibhajyavāda (meant the separatist, a sect active esp. around 300CE teaching different/ newly interpreted doctrines that contradictory to the Early Eighteen Schools). In addition, Theravada its original name was Tambapaṇṇiya (meant Ceylon School), its scriptures and works are from the Mahāvihāravāsins (monks of a monastery in Sri Lanka) only:

The Mahavihara Theravādins of Sri Lanka are descendants of the Sthavira Vibhajyavādins in South India who used the Pali language... — Vibhajyavāda, Wikipedia

4) Mahayana (of the Chinese lineage) receives the scriptures written in Prakrit, Kharoṣṭhī, Gandhari and various Sanskrit scripts, translated to Chinese by Indian Buddhists worked together with the Chinese.
Theravada keeps the scriptures written in Pali, which according to the Theravadins, was close to or same as the Buddha's mother-tongue. However, according to the Chinese sources, that the "Pali" was Sinhalese:

...會誦集結三藏教典，並以僧伽羅文字將經典寫在貝葉上成書，首次將三藏集結成書面。[9]... 在公元五世紀，覺音尊者到錫蘭大寺學習，將僧伽羅語的五部尼柯耶轉譯為巴利語及作注釋。
...reciting the Tipitaka, and use Sinhalese to write the scriptures on
  leaves, collecting the Tipitaka as the book for the first time... in
  500CE, Buddhaghosa studied in Mahavihara of Ceylon, translated the
  five Sinhalese Nikayas to Pali and wrote the commentaries. —
  Tipitaka, Wikipedia

B. Doctrines
1) Mahayana (excl. Tibetan-Buddhism) teaches the 8 consciousnesses, incl. the Tathāgatagarbha-consciousness (如來藏識) or Alaya-vijnana. As quoted the Ekottara Āgama of Sarvastidava stated:

...此名阿赖耶。谓爱阿赖耶，乐阿赖耶，欣阿赖耶，憙阿赖耶。
...this is called Alaya. Said, loves Alaya, enjoys Alaya, rejoicing
  with Alaya, exhilarating in Alaya

Theravada teaches the 6 consciousnesses. Its consciousness is in an instant arising-ceasing mode. In order to facilitate the gap between the death of consciousness before the arising of the new consciousness its Abhidhamma invented the term Bhavanga, to stitch the two instant moments. It rejects Aalaya-vinnana, though similar sutta found in Pali Anguttara Nikaya (no. 128?):

...众生爱阿赖耶（aalaya-aaraama），乐阿赖耶（aalaya-rata），欣阿赖耶（aalaya-sammudita）
... the sentient loves aalaya, enjoys aalaya,
  rejoicing with aalaya, exhilarating in aalaya

2) Mahayana teaches the intermediate state between death and rebirth. Theravada rejects the intermediate state. However, to answer how can a dead consciousness re-arise again (much like an extinguished fire cannot re-ignite) it puts the Bhavanga to mend the fault.
3) Mahayana teaches the Samyaksaṃbuddha discovered the Dharma that was taught by all previous Buddhas, he also has to receive the "mark" (endorsement or prediction) from previous Buddhas. This designates a world-system can only have one Samyaksaṃbuddha at one time.
Theravada teaches the Sammāsambuddha only required to be self-awaken. It has no difference from a Paccekabuddha in terms of self-awakening except a Paccekabuddha doesn't teach. It is not certain how Theravada ensured multiple Sammāsambuddhas not spontaneously appeared in the world by requiring only self-awakening.
4) Mahayana teaches the Samyaksaṃbuddha with three kayas (bodies), and there are infinite Samyaksaṃbuddhas in the universe with the myriad of world-systems. Theravada teaches only one Sammāsambuddha in the whole world/universe.
5) Mahayana teaches 10 stages of enlightenment. An arhat is equivalent to the 7th stage, who realized Anatman, but still not realized Emptiness. Whilst before the 7th stage are called Bodhisattvas, after the 7th stage called Mahabodhisattvas who mastered the Dharani.
Theravada doesn't have the 10 stages, with arahant as the highest enlightment. It also doesn't have Bodhisattva, only the Buddha before being Buddha was a Bodhisattva.
6) Mahayana teaches great many meditation methods. Though mentioned both in the Agamas/Nikayas, the ānāpānasmṛti, contemplation of foulness/ compassion are different from the Theravada's. Methods are such as White Skeleton, Dharma Door of Hearing, the 25 Doors in Surangama, and 12 meditations in the Perfect Enlightenment... etc. Theravada teaches anapanasati, vipassana and metta-bhavana... etc.
Mahayana scriptures covered all the meditation methods in details the Theravada has few paragraphs on, except the Goenka Vipassana, Mahasi "noting" and abodmen breathing which Mahayana scriptures not covered as that not categorized in the Buddha's teaching.
7) Mahayana the final goal is to attain Buddha-hood, all sentient have the potential to be the Buddha for all have the Tathāgatagarbha. Theravada the final goal is to be an arahant, Buddha-hood is the business for the Buddha only.
8) Mahayana teaches the path to Buddha-hood and one must track the path of a Bodhisattva. The training of a Bodhisattva is to serve all sentient beings, and help them to arrive at liberation. In order to serve, a Bodhisattva must learn and master all worldly skills and resources, this in turn helps to cultivate wisdom. Hence a Bodhisattva doesn't necessary be an ordained Bhiksu but can be in any walk of life.
Theravada the path to liberation is to reach arahantship and then go for nibbana. Hence only being fully ordained can have hope, the laypersons are just worldly followers working for better rebirth.
9) Mahayana accepts Hinayana (arhatship) the beginning stage of the path only, encourages one to reach the graduation that is Buddha-hood and Nirvana.
Theravada takes only the Hinayana goal and graduated as that.
10) Mahayana teaches not eating meat which is an extension of non-killing, following the teacher as the Buddha never ate meat.
Theravada does not teach not to eat meat, but only teaches not to kill by oneself for eating the meat.
11) Mahayana teaches 5 precepts and 6 paramitas. One of the 6 is prajna-paramita (wisdom) therefore Mahayana also engages in metaphysics and philosophical contemplation. However Theravada teaches 5 precepts but not the 6 paramitas therefore often dismisses discussions by citing the poison arrow parable, emphasis is on liberating from suffering.
12) Mahayana teaches the ultimate as Suchness (Tathata), which is a fluid proposition as styled by Nagarjuna's "neither one nor different" (不一不異); it is not nondualism, nor Advaita Vedanta whose founding father Adi Shankara was born in the 8th century, 1000+ years later, making the Buddha copying any ideas from the future is absurd! Theravada teaches that the ultimate is an objective absolute reality, that nibbana is unconditional and nondual - transmundane.

Thank you for the answer. Is this still "a post yet awaiting elaboration"?

Very helpful - Thanks.

I've finished the elaboration @ChrisW. Need to add a lot of references with quotes because this post is against the tide of favorite. Apart from backing with references I run short of ideas to shield from the enraged mass

the only point i'm unclear about is whether theravada says that there are no bodhisattvas? i thought it was a three vehicle system, just that theravada doesn't teach the bodhisattva's vehicle

@user3293056 Bodhisattva is the rehearsal to Buddha-hood. As Theravada said the goal is Arahant, not Buddha-hood, it implies there no place for Bodhisattva. However, it does call Gotama the Bodhisattva before he's the Buddha. It just shows Theravada had conflicting doctrines, many. Example, another conflict I stated in B.3), that if Buddha is only required self-awakening, logically many self-awakened Buddha could appear at the same time. However, it states only one Buddha for the world at one time, also self-contradictory

@sorta_buddhist this question is not about whether these Mahayana followers' perspective on Theravada Buddhism is right or wrong. Even what Mishu said in her last comment is also wrong, but we are not supposed to argue about it.

The main difference is the vehicle. In Mahayana, everyone aspires to be a Buddha. In Theravada, many aspire for just Arahathship than being Buddhas.

It appears Mahayana believes non-conceptuality is the highest thing.

There's a lot of downvoting going on here, even for one sentence answers. Yet this answer seems important and correct. .   .

Buddha taught Dhamma. In Dhamma there exists no divergence. Every discrepancy is poorly understood human work.

either Dhamma or Dharma ;)

Both, Andrei ;)-

Theravada does not deny that there will be future Buddhas: the 'conflict' is whether the Buddha vehicle was instructed -- or just said to exist.
Though it gets a bit -- or less -- convoluted with the Lotus Sutra; it claims that Sakyamuni only taught the Buddha -- or one -- vehicle. The teaching of three vehicles was only a trick, or skillful means, because not everyone is or was ready for the truth.
Some Mahayanists will emphasize different teachings and Sutras.

So, in Mahayana -- unlike Theravada -- the Buddha taught how to reach liberation without a Buddha.
That sounds a bit like a paradox: how others can reach his nirvana. But not as knotted as how there can be happiness without a self.

nb I was asked to show who says "solitary buddhas" can appear with a buddha's teaching. An outline of the fourfold teachings p100 [translated by Daiichi Shobo], in the sectioned titled "Tripitaka Dcotrine":

Next I will explain the Stage of the Pratyekabuddha, or self
  enlightened. On meeting the Buddha when he appeared in the world he
  [the Pratyekabuddha] received the teaching of the Twelvefold
  Conditions of Dependent Origination [pratitya-samutpada]...

Emphasis added.

Through meditating on the twelvefold cponditions of dependent
  origination they realize the principle of the ultimate truth.
  Therefore they are called "those who achieve the realization of
  conditioned". Those who are called "self-enlightened" appear in a world
  where there is no Buddha. Living alone on a solitary summit, they
  meditate on the changing nature of things and realize by themselves
  the non-originnation [of all things]. Accordingly they are called
  "self-enlightened". Although the two names are different, they are
  the sane in regards to practice...

Emphasis added [p102].
So, two types of "Pratyekabuddha" realizing the same "truth" and at the same "stage" -- but one while a Buddha's teaching is still present, and so "called" self enlightened. I believe I have read that this was a Chinese gloss due to the similarity of 'Pratykebuddha' and 'pratitya-samutpada'.
I have seen no mention of the difference outside the 'Tripitaka doctrine'.

Do you mean 'Three Turnings'?

no @PeterJ i mean the three vehicles of buddhahood, arthatship, and solitary enlightenment.

read this if you like @PeterJ it may seem like a small point, but the difference -- between Theravada and Mahayana -- surely does lie in which vehicle or yana is being followed

The article states - "Yana is determined by capacity and propensity of the "precious human body" wrought by merit, not by a specific teaching or lineage..."  This seems correct to me. So for me these are not 'vehicles' but levels of attainnment or degrees of ambition. I haven't come across them as 'three vehicles' but perhaps they may be seen as such.

yeah maybe @PeterJ depends who you ask -- but vehicle is the standard translation

It is vehicle. Or you may like to replace with "means". Like from Heathrow  (samsara/ sentient) going to Oxford Street (nirvana/ buddha), you can take the tube (sravakayana, merely a passenger), the car (bodhisattva-yana, self-driving and carrying passengers), or motorcycle (pratyekabuddha-yana, riding by and with himself)

is this answer ok dyt @Mishu米殊 i believe that that some claim pratyekabuddhas can be enlightened through the buddha's teaching but are nevertheless "solitary buddhas", neither teach the dharma nor really learn from it

The impression I got is that the Theravada view of a pratyekabuddhas is -- they discovered complete enlightenment, by and for themselves (not from another Buddha) -- cannot occur during another Buddha's sasana (e.g. cannot occur now while we're still in the sasana of Gautama Buddha) -- but is not a sama-sam-Buddha though, because, they don't (or can't or won't) teach others.

I don't quite get you ... dyt? You said "some claim pratyekabuddhas can be enlightened through the buddha's teaching" this is incorrect, from Mahayana view. Pratyeka must 1) be self-awakened and not learning from any Buddha; exist only when the 2) Samyaksaṃbuddha's teaching has completely disappeared from the world. Pratyeka and Samyaksam cannot co-exist in the same time frame of the same world-system

i'll post up a reference later / tomorrow @Mishu米殊

No, not two types of "Pratyekabuddha" realizing the same "truth", it's one type but two names, like a phone called mobile also portable. It's possible a would-be Pratyekabuddha did go to the Buddha's lecture in one or many of his past lives, but at the very life he has enlightenment, there must be no Buddha nor the teaching. And the only mean he got enlightened is by contemplating the 12 Nidanas, hence his is called Pratyekabuddha (緣覺佛); because he is self-awakened without a teacher, and doesn't teach, he is also called a Solitary Buddha (獨覺佛)

more or less what i meant @Mishu米殊

The difference between scriptures matters because the basis of scriptural authority matters.  The scripture for the Tradition of the Elders is the Pali Canon and commentaries that make up the Tipitaka.  The scriptures of the Greater Vehicle school include the writings of anonymous authors who, more or less, held what were effectively seances during their meditative states to attempt to communicate with the Buddha and buddhas of distant past eons.  The Lotus Sutra involves Shakyamuni Buddha discussing his bodily death in the past tense, so it is clearly not a historical documents pertaining to the actual Buddha of history.
Mahayana texts are much more flexible in their interpretation, by design.  The Vimalakirti Sutra suggests that a layman can be wiser than the historical Buddha's disciples were in their own lifetimes.  The Lotus Sutra seems to imply that a future Buddha can be a young girl, or a dragon.  The Mahayana school emphasizes "emptiness" and "non-dualism" especially in Zen.  (In Zen, Shakyamuni Buddha is almost never quoted verbatim or cited as an authority.)
Other than source of scripture, I would say that the greatest difference is that Mahayana sects teach a "living" Buddha who sees present-day followers and can answer prayers; whereas a more ancient understanding of "tranquil extinction" precludes that possibility.  The Rathaputta Sutra (and the Pali Canon in general) tells us that nobody, no matter how holy, has a savior or protector from sickness or suffering (so, implicitly, don't ask).  However, the closing chapters of the Vimalakirti Sutra tell us that devout readers will have spirit guides who protect them from exploitation or harm.
As beautiful as both traditions are, it is inevitable that some differences of opinion would arise.  If you introduce new writings as sacred, and change the meanings of key concepts, the more conservative adherents might think that you don't really believe in the faith and founder.  However, in this case, both schools of thought are completely Buddhist; both believe in the Four Noble Truths, their twelve aspects, and the Eight-fold Path.  Both believe in the Three Jewels, the ten good actions, the three poisons, the six perfections, the three marks of existence, and the eight difficulties.  Therefore, neither school of thought is Wrong View.  The only thing that is Wrong View is denying the Law of Karma according to the Buddha's Dharma.

Theravada and Mahayana are not warring factions.
There are only two main differences between them.
The first is that Theravada teaches to achieve arahathood, while Mahayana teaches to cultivate the full perfections to achieve full Buddhahood, and helping others become liberated along the way. In this answer, we see that Mahayana does not really delay liberation.
The second is that Theravada is very orthodox and sticks to the original nearly-verbatim teachings and monastic rules given by Gautama Buddha, while Mahayana has free creative expression to expand on the teachings and employ newer metaphors to express the original teachings of Gautama Buddha in different ways, and also to relax the monastic rules. Please read this question, this answer and this answer.
There is another comparison between the vehicles in this answer.

Well one of the most famous lack of understanding from the 3 main indian philosophers who invented mahayana by speculating on 1 of the abidhammas, is about their fantasy of the buddha nature, especially the claim ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened'' remains false, no matter how much they love to push for the contrary.
it is as if nibanna is raising your arm, those people would fantasize thus '' human has am arm, being enlightened is raising an arm, a human has the potential to raise an arm, therefore a human has the potential to be enlightened''.
The people who claim that ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened''  fail to understand that the potential to be enlightened has nothing to do with only being alive. The potential to be enlightened is about cultivating the right behavior, which  is just  lots of energy to cultivate guarding the senses, cultivate lots of samadhi and lots of wisdom, but that's already too hard for the indian philosophers and they even explicit refuse to do so and clinging to their speculations that they can be good people by not training their minds.
It turns out that Following the path is what builds the potential for the nirodha of delusion, greed and aversion.
here is the points on they already struggle [and that's way before putting the ''intellectual understanding'' into practice, so no chance they will get the practice successful, even for doing meritorious activities.]:

the buddha says that puhutjjanas are not enlightened
the buddha says that puthujjanas have natural underlying tendencies for 7 things
the buddha says that puthujjanas have anuyasas not for nibanna and the things he claims are good, but The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance.
the buddha says that puthujjanas do not have natural underlying tendencies for lack of delusion  lack greed, lack of aversion, all the good things he says are good
the buddha says that anybody who cultivates the ''7 factors of enlightenment'' ''do not decline'' (from nibanna), like so
The limb of wisdom that is mindfulness,
the limb of wisdom that is investigation of the Norm,
the limb of wisdom that is energy,
the limb of wisdom that is tranquility,
the limb of wisdom that is concentration,
the limb of wisdom that is equanimity.

These, monks, are the seven conditions
that lead to non-decline.
https://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.025.wood.pts.htm#p1
ie they ''slide towards nibanna''
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.037.wood.pts.htm#p1
“Mendicants, suppose a tree slants, slopes, and inclines to the east. If it was cut off at the root, where would it fall?”
“Sir, it would fall in the direction that it slants, slopes, and inclines.”
“In the same way, a mendicant who develops and cultivates the noble eightfold path slants, slopes, and inclines to extinguishment.
And how does a mendicant who develops the noble eightfold path slant, slope, and incline to extinguishment? It’s when a mendicant develops right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go. That’s how a mendicant who develops and cultivates the noble eightfold path slants, slopes, and inclines to extinguishment.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.152/en/sujato
same thing with the ''four qualities", from which ''a monk is incapable of falling away and is right in the presence of Unbinding'' https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html
Even lay followers have their "Seven points of behavior on which a lay follower may decline or not" https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/07/an07-029.html

the buddha does not say that a human is ''on the verge on the unbinding'' just because this human is alive

So anybody who cultivates the ''7 factors of enlightenment'' has the potential to be enlightened, because ''having the potential to be enlightened'' means only being skilled in those ''7 factors of enlightenment'', ie fighting the bad inclinations that puthujjanas have naturally.
Anybody who does NOT cultivate those ''7 factors of enlightenment'' does NOT have ''the potential to be enlightened'', because ''having the potential to be enlightened'' never ever means ''just being alive'', and is inclined towards bad things.,
Most people you see around you do not have this ''potential to be enlightened''. most people you see around do not even care about that.
Anybody who claims that ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened'' speaks falsely and you will never ever progress on the path  by listening to their creative lies.
That's the most famous wrong view they keep spreading. The next wrong view they love to spread is their obsession with non-duality. Sometimes they get so confused that they have a hard time  fantasizing about the difference about mahayana and advaita. Sometimes the Mahayanists even say they do not see a difference between the two, that's how bad it gets.
With their wrong view comes their wrong practice, with their obsessions about objects
The last fantasy of their doctrine being the fantasy of the ineffability of nibanna. This puts a mysterious veil on their doctrine, allowing their appalling ''crazy wisdom'' and puts their audience in awe. But at the end of the day, they remain only puthujjanas who love to speculate ad nausean to the point of creating super long suttas  which have nothing to do with the dhamma.
However all their wrong views are pretty normal. Daydreamers will always cling to their love for fantasizes and will always try to salvage them.
It did not take long for people to be confused about the dhamma and after few generations after the death of the of the buddha, people already did what they love to do :  speculating about what arahants can do and cannot do. Today they say 18 schools have been created, with people creating subschools, subsubschools, then schisms and sometime even slight mergers.
If all those schools survived, today you would have to read 18 abidhamma pitakas, 18 vinnaya pitakas and 18 sutta pitakas and you would be left just as confused as you are today... It would be horrible.

To summarise, this answer says in its first paragraph that there's a mahayana doctrine about "buddha-nature" that "everybody has the potential" -- after which, there is a long bit intended to contradict that (i.e. explaining why you think that particular invention/speculation/fantasy is wrong), which says that it's not everybody who has the potential, but only those who have the right inclination, which is not most people.

Lastly it identifies, as being typical mahayana confusions: "non-duality"; "distinguishing mahayana from advaita"; something (unspecified) to do with "wrong practice" and "objects"; and the ineffability of nibanna (leading to confusion and, maybe, awe-struck superstition).

I promised not to argue but I really cannot follow the argument here. Nor am I sure why you assume I'm confused. But it's a useful answer that sheds light on the disagreement so thanks.  .  ,


text:
Can Mahayana and Theravada learn from eachother?
What can those following the Theravada learn when studying the Mahayana as the Mahayana see it?
What can those following the Mahayana learn when studying the Theravada as the Theravada see it?
Is it possible for individuals to use different concepts and arrive at the same goal even though those concepts are misinterpreted by many people in both schools?

While I appreciate the good will, all answers to this would have to be individual opinions - and I'm afraid that leaves us outside the format.

Maybe you can ask, as Theravada or Mahayana practitioner, what have you learned from the other school? This would make it experience-based.

What else can we give but opinion? You mean we should remember that it is just are opinion? It's my opinion that you are reading this as each word goes by in this  sentence.  How do you feel right now? Whatever you are experiencing, that's your opinion.

I read that theoretically a "good" answer is "based on" something, either "a reference" or "personal experience". One way to ask this might be as a [tag:reference-request] question, "can you give me any references to people who've talked or written about the benefit of learning from more than one school?", for example. Or ask for personal experience perhaps, "If you studied with more than one school, how is that good or better?" -- that would match Andrei's second comment-suggestion (though it's a bit of an open-ended polling question, seems alright though).

Another possibility can be to identify "a practical problem you actually face", the one you asked seems quite theoretical -- general, broad, universal.

Also the first two questions kind of obviously go together. The third could possibly be a whole question of its own (not that I could answer it) -- or that third one might be "blind men and the elephant" situation, difficult to answer with certain clarity in its current form, it's asking about "some individuals from two schools misinterpret different concepts, is it possible to use different concepts to arrive at the same goal", which might mean whatever you want it to mean IMO: different concepts...

The question is an unexploded bomb. I would say Thervadans could learn some metaphysics from Mahayanists, but would not dare say more.  .  .

Learning -- If by this word within infinite spiritual domain, you mean as ," a type of simple but pure(dedicated towards goal) practice to understand, feel & get established into dhamma(Right teaching)".
Then yes, One can follow any path(householder or homeless or mix like this and this) and will be able to arrive at the same goal through learning.
Goal-- means to achieve state of enlightenment.
It's the behaviour through which it can be said that the stated person/s above or below were either stream-enterer or enlightened ones.
Assuming that you are not a blind fan of buddha to the extent that you call only Gautama the buddha to be an enlightened one, whereas there are still other respectables like this 1, this 2, this 3 etc., there might be others of whom you would have heard in your locality as well. Along with this as per buddhism, once stream-entry occurs- journey will definitely end at same goal.
Even if you are, dhamma teaches us to respect other philosophies as well.
So here is my experience till now,
What can those following the Theravada learn when studying the Mahayana as the Mahayana see it?
My Ego remains satisfied with only a small portion of  theravada but when I see in my locality, it's the mahayani and other similar religions who wins my emotions by showing so much generosity by helping poors, providing free food, free medicines etc. whereas theravadins remain buisy in free abroad travelling  and this becomes a greatest learning for me without the need to even look at mahayani texts or of others.
Is it possible for individuals to use different concepts and arrive at the same goal even though those concepts are misinterpreted by many people in both schools?
As far as practicality of life is there in this modern world, mahayani wins over this race also because of it's vast support in every direction and for almost every type of person(even for the bad-asses, there is tantra way to deal with them as per mahayani texts). Even if this tantra way might not be approved by theravadins, still end purpose of this way is only to change bad behaviour of bad••• ones ,i.e. enable others to have an 'insight like in theravada'.
What can those following the Mahayana learn when studying the Theravada as the Theravada see it?
Still, when it comes to the fastest way of rectifying defiled behaviour pattern within, it's the Theravadin way as in this, we directly deal with the behaviour within our body by temporarily ignoring outside world like various types of Vipassana, whereas in Mahayani way, one may take vows to rectify outside world temporarily,  like here -- even these vows might differ & hence thereby increasing samsara cycle. Still, end goal is same ,i.e. to get enlighten and help others too.
::::::::::::: That's All for now ::::::::::::
Can Mahayana and Theravada learn from each other?
In short, Learning never stops till enlightenment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is 'crazy wisdom'? (no uninformed guesses please)
I'm looking for a slightly better theoretical understanding of "crazy wisdom", as if that's possible.
I've seen two superficially-sensible mentions of it on this site.

here --

If you knew what is "Spiritual Snobbism" and "Spiritual Ego" and why they are extremely dangerous, you would appreciate why some teachers go a loooong way towards shedding off any traces of that, even at the expense of hurting their public image (Trungpa) and making fools of themselves (Dalai Lama). Scandalous behavior is part of a longstanding and very respected tradition called "Crazy Wisdom" that aims to "transcend the dualistic view of repulsive and nonrepulsive" in student's mind and melt the spiritual ego.

here (quoting Chogyam Trungpa) --

The rest of The Hundred Thousand Songs deals with Milarepa's development as a teacher and his relationships with his students. Toward the end of his life he had completely perfected the transmutation process to the point where he could be called the Vidyadhara or "Holder of the Crazy Wisdom." No longer could he be swayed by the winds of hope and fear. The gods and goddesses and demons, his passions and their external projections, had been completely subjugated and transformed. Now his life was a continual dance with the dakinis.
Finally Milarepa reached the "old dog" stage, his highest attainment. People could tread on him, use him as a road, as earth; he would always be there. He transcended his own individual existence so that, as we read his last teachings, there is a sense of the universality of Milarepa, the example of enlightenment.

I suspect it's specifically-Tibetan, perhaps there are some pretty eccentric Zen teachers too.
So some questions:

Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"?
What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one?
Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)?
Does it have any limits, precepts, actions that wouldn't do? And why not those, to be clear?
If someone appears to be, for example, homeless, drug-addict, alcoholic, prostitute, thief, con-man, bully, rather mad -- are these states distinguishable from crazy wisdom?
Is there any particular reason to call it "long standing and very respected" -- is the principal reason, that some people are very respectful of everyone? Or is it, not that they teach a new dhamma but that they're willing to bring that to a new unpromising audience? I don't know.

If my questions sound insane and horribly rude, it's I must be deeply ignorant of the subject ... sorry! Hoping to learn better.
I gathered that Trungpa for example did hurt his public image -- stories I've read of him, presented as an exemplar of crazy wisdom behaviour, are at least a superficial reminder of remarkable or 'anti-social' behaviour of other people one can meet -- social outcasts; 'underdogs'.

Please no "answers" from outside the tradition.

What is Crazy Wisdom?
See Wikipedia.
Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"?

In the case of ordinary craziness, we are constantly trying to win the game. We might even try to turn craziness into a credential of some kind so we can come out ahead. We might try to magnetize people with passion or destroy them with aggression or whatever. There’s a constant game going on in the mind. Mind’s game- constant strategies going on- might bring us a moment of relief occasionally, but that relief has to be maintained by further aggression.
In the case of primordial craziness, we do not allow ourselves to get seduced by passion or aroused by aggression at all. We relate to these experiences as they are, and if anything comes up in the midst of that complete ordinariness and begins to make itself into a “big deal,” then we cut it down- without any special reference to whether it is good or bad. Crazy wisdom is just the action of truth. It cuts everything down. It doesn’t even try to translate falseness into truthfulness, because even that in itself is corruption. It is ruthless, because if you want the complete truth, if you want to be completely wholly wholesome, than any suggestion that comes up of translating whatever arises into “your terms” is not worth “looking into.”
On the other hand, the usual crazy approach is completely up for that kind of thing – for making whatever comes up to fit into your thing. You make it suit what you want to be, suit what you want to see. But crazy wisdom becomes completely accurate out of the moment of things as they are.
~Chogyam Trungpa, Crazy Wisdom

-- So the key difference is, ordinary craziness is acting out of Ego's overwhelming passions, aggression, and delusions - and "crazy wisdom" is acting out of enlightened mind but without concessions towards deluded samsaric ideas about right and wrong.
Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)?
To cut through student's samsaric attachments and neurosis.
What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one?
Please see Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche's "Guru and Student in the Vajrayana" (original post on Facebook is here).

The term 'crazy wisdom' comes from Trungpa, but it's not a specifically Tibetan (or even a specifically Buddhist) concept. I'm reminded of a story about a Hindu monk (I forget which one, sorry) who woke up in the middle of the night to find a thief rifling through his meager possessions. The thief took off like a startled deer, the monk gave chase, and they ran through the streets like madmen until the thief lost his footing and fell. Then the monk pounced on him and said: "Hey, you! You forgot to take my blanket. Here!" And the monk shoved his blanket into the thief's hands and walked off.
The story goes on to say that the thief threw off his bad ways and became a devotee in his own right, but that's not the point of the monk's actions. It wasn't calculated to have that effect. Perhaps the monk saw someone in desperate straights and wanted to help; perhaps the monk saw the irony in the situation and decided to have some good-natured fun. Crazy wisdom always has this sense of someone who is aware of the desperate attachments of those around her but who does not fall into them. She does not embrace or reject them; does not condemn or condone. She simply helps the attachments play themselves out to their own ironically irrational conclusions, so that the other person can see the irony of it.
Most people are caught up in their own attachments and in the attachments of others. The want for themselves, and they are willing to do poorly by others to get it. The truly crazy are bound by attachments like a straight-jacket. They cannot help but do poorly by others because they cannot see that their attachments are mere attachments; their attachments are their immutable reality. 'Crazy wisdom' is the ability to act without attachment in the conscious presence of attachments.
One has to be careful in spiritual communities, of course, because spiritual communities are often vulnerable to crazy people pretending to have crazy wisdom. For instance in the Tibetan community, for whatever 'crazy wisdom' Trungpa himself had, his son (the Sakyong) is merely crazed, yet too few of the devout members of that community see it. There is an extent to which one must overlook the human failings of a teacher in order to appreciate a teaching, sure. But that should be a conscious and judicious application of grace for both the teacher and the student, not a blind expression of fealty. But... people have to see that for themselves, so...

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


text:
Can bad karma be created and paid back in the same lifetime
My father was mentally very unwell. As a result my mother worked to support her children. We grew up embarrassed by my fathers behaviours and effectively excluded him from our lives even though he still lived in the house with us. To be fair though, he was not capable of interacting, mostly staying shut in his room during the day, and living nocturnally.  My mother who was a very kind person found solace by having a relationship with a married man whilst my father was at home . On leaving home, marrying and having my own children, I became reflective and angry and confused so for a short while I cut my mother out of our lives. Now, my own children grown, have done the same to me. Am I witnessing Karma in action? Does Karma that’s played out in the same lifetime mean that you won’t have to carry the consequences into you next lifetime? I see so many examples of direct cause and effect in my own life that I hope that if I deal mindfully with my feelings as a result, that I am paying Karmic debt now .. not in future reincarnations. Is this possible?

Sue. While I am not suggesting you write an auto-biography, your post is lacking in information. However, making assumptions based on what you wrote and offering mere speculative examples based on what you wrote:

Your mother was probably lonely and without support.
Having an affair with a married man was possibly a way to have a relationship or gain some companionship and physical affection without the perceived threat of a committed relationship that impinged upon her family and a duty of care she felt she had towards her disabled husband.
If you cut your mother out of your life because she had a affair with a married man, this can be perceived as both reasonable and unreasonable.
HOWEVER, IMPORTANTLY, you should list or define (to yourself) the reasons why you cut your mother out of your life because these are the actual causes of why you cut your mother out of your life.
You should then list or define the reasons (to yourself) why your own children cut you out of their life.
These reasons could be related to the mental attitude you had for cutting your mother out of your life; such as you having a lack of forgiveness, a lack of tolerance, being demanding, having a lack of understanding, being morally overzealous, etc.
Or the reasons for your children's decision could be due to their own unwholesme mental attitudes.
The point is the reasons & causes are either your mental tendencies, your children's mental tendencies or a combination of both.
Buddhism teaches various mental attitudes & behaviours are either: (i) wholesome; or (ii) unwholesome.
If you get angry a lot or criticise a lot, this can be unwholesome. Therefore, others may reject or avoid you for this.
In summary, its all about current attitudes, habitual tendencies & behaviours rather than past & future lives.
Therefore, if you have habitual unwholesome qualities that are not changed; the same rejection from others may occur in the future.

There is merit in much of what you say. To be fair to myself I am very open to learning through helpful critiquing. I have not written a ‘biography’ because I see both sides of everything much of the time so it could have become too complex to read. I appreciate your time

I will sit and thoroughly work out why I cut my mother from my life for a time. It’s a very thought provoking exercise.

Ok. Best wishes.

Thank you. I did what you suggested. I discovered. I did not judge my mother, but her affair ( she was working nights till 7am with a Chinese family who accepted my mother as second wife and loved her very much) stopped me from being protected from the madness of my fathers night excursions. On marrying very young, my husbands family offered me normality . I bought into their judgement of my own unusual family. Interestingly, my husband subtly turned my own children against me to elevate himself and put me down. I believe I’ve witnessed karma in action on this occasion and many more.

We practise Buddhism to develop a heart of pleasant emotions. Old karma is merely something we use various methods to resolve; so we come to a heart of peasant emotions. With metta

Now, my own children grown, have done the same to me. Am I witnessing Karma in action?

The Buddha specifically warned against trying to speculate about the workings of karma:

“There are these four inconceivables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
  [...]
  “The [precise working out of the] results of kamma.…

AN 4:77
So it is futile and unhelpful to speculate about karma.

Does Karma that’s played out in the same lifetime mean that you won’t have to carry the consequences into you next lifetime?

Yes, according to the Buddha in AN 3:100:

“Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

In short, karma may manifest quickly, in the same life. Such manifestation will necessarily mean that you won't carry it to your next rebirth.
The earlier caveat still applies: you can't know with any certainty or precision whether that has happened. To wit, you don't know if what you experienced is the result of karma gained from ignoring your mother, and whether it is manifestation of all the karma you might have gained from that action. In fact, you can't know how much karma - if any - you gained from those past actions.

I see so many examples of direct cause and effect in my own life that I hope that if I deal mindfully with my feelings as a result, that I am paying Karmic debt now .. not in future reincarnations. Is this possible?

I recommend you read the entire Salt Crystal sutta. The Buddha taught that people who are more advanced in their practice will experience karma more immediately, and in that sense "purify" their karmic burden more quickly.
This may or may not apply to your situation, and it's inadvisable to contemplate it too much, much less to get attached to such notions.
Regardless, according to the teachings of karma, if some karma manifests in any life, it is thereby extinguished. Therefore, indeed, if you experience a karmic result, that karma has dissipated.

Laozi, this has been a very skilfully explained answer.i will read the Salt Crystal.

Laozi. I read the Salt Crystal and whilst I will not pay to much attention to it by either feeling elevated or put down, I feel great hope and caution at the same time . In my life I am constantly experiencing, bizarrely intricate replications of my own bad deeds, thoughts and words, happening back to me. It’s very thought provoking.

It can be a result of many factors:

Consequences of how you treated both your mother and father
If you raised your children merely with food but without taking the time to instill moral values in them.
Your current and past behavior with your children
Children becoming genuinely busy in life after getting jobs or getting married
Consequences of Karma in a past life

What you can do about it?

Ask forgiveness from your mother for how you treated her in the past. Whether she cheated on your father is not really your business. It's her Karma. She is still your mother in any case.
Treat both your parents well and with respect as much as you are able
Without getting into emotional arguments try to talk to your children nicely and ask if there is a real reason behind them cutting you off
Practice Upekkha(equanimity) like all parents should when their children leave them after growing up
Practice Satipatthana mediation to counter your sorrow and expectations. It  is the best meditation if you are interested in depleting Karma(Vipaka) and reducing the making of new bad ones within this life itself.

Nope, it is just the result of being born into a mixed up family.  You were coping as best you could and that may not have had the best effects on you.  At least you can see your problems and try to do something about them.  See everyones point of view and try and make amends.  Of course I would say that as I don't believe in reincarnation.

An equal possibility. Fortunately I am content to sit with this without concern. Probability has shown itself too many times in my life to need to choose the answer. It chose me.

Possibly it's this passive response to problems that has caused the situation in the first place?  There aren't many problems that can be solved by waiting for them to sort themselves out.  Just a thought.

Very insightful. But it’s served me well . I’m happy in the face of what others would call adversity.

I should clarify that. I am very capable of seeing both sides of the situation very clearly. In the case of my children cutting me out of their lives I struggled for a long time wanting them to connect. I sent many messages of love and openness ( and still do) to listen. It was a struggle until I realised that the best thing I could do was be happy in myself, and hope that their choice to not have me in their lives was a positive thing for them. I have learned to master my own feeling of ‘need’ and reconciled myself to learn to be content without them in my life.

I think I understand "kamma" as having two meanings.
One is that it's description of how the present situation (as you see it) came to be -- it results from a (vast) lot of different factors, and not only from your own intentions but other people's too -- for example, whatever your parents' intentions were at the time, had effects and side-effects on you and what you learned from them.
In English there's a phrase "unintended consequences" -- there are, also, "intended consequences" -- so I think of the law of kamma as a law of consequences. It's a very general law? I think it's said that kamma is so complicated than only a Buddha can really understand how it has worked in particular cases.
The other defines kamma as "intentional action" which I think means that we're not helpless to affect the future. The future -- what will happen, how we might feel about and react to that, what we'll do -- is something we have some effect over.
So for example you can intend to be harmless and so on, altruistic, be kind to the people around you -- that is "intention" -- and, acting on that intention should have good (kammic) result.
I think that the four brahma-viharas are recommended as a 'right' way to interact with (a position from which to interact with) people socially.

Sue Hamilton
What you called Karma is actually result of Karma ..or the response recieved from commiting a Karma.  Karma  is a verb not a noun this is a century old mistake ..o k   now
What you did is  DEED
Response you recieved ..is REACTION
Now I ll explain
 When you do something you pay then and there not later not in next life
How
Whatever you do,  would intensify your habit of doing that
Next time you would commit the same crime with much ease ,  not so difficult.
That is the price you pay for a bad deed.
That is ...it becomes  easier to repeat


text:
What should we accept? What should we let go?

What is it to let go in Buddhism?
What is it to accept in Buddhism?
What are the things we accept?
What are the things we let go?

Why?
How?

What do Buddhists scriptures have to say about it?

What is it to let go in Buddhism?
Is that the Noble Truths?
So

recognise suffering
associate that with (recognise that as arising with) craving and attaching
let go

It's also a past-tense, is it, i.e. -- "suffering having been known in the past, it was dropped".
What is it to accept in Buddhism?
I'm not sure it is -- does acceptance imply a specific view of a specific "thing" accepted (which may be contrary to the doctine of things being empty), also of a "me" doing the accepting?
Realistically, though, maybe monks accept what "necessary" (i.e. the "requisites").
There's also conventional wisdom (to be accepted) -- like from here:

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view...

So an excess of "nothing exists" is wrong too.
So I suppose that "accepting" in Buddhism is, at least, not rejecting being kind and so on.
What are the things we accept?
Should accept good advice, probably.
What are the things we let go?
Bad habits. And heedlessness.
Why?
How?
Liberation from suffering -- personal welfare and the welfare of others.

Accept the truth; all created things are impermanent, all created things are not self.
Let go of what is not yours, the stress & ill.
The semantics of acceptance and letting go of things are fairly mundane.
However the term letting go appears in texts in not so mundane context like; 'eye is not yours, let go of it' the relinquishment of the clinging based on misconception about 'the eye' is what is referred to as i understand it.
Letting go is talked about as a release in the general sense of releasing as in letting something go and disconnecting, ie;

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

You should accept The Eightfold Noble Path:

Right view
Right resolve
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right Concentration

Everything that goes against that, should be rejected. FYI, The Eightfold Yoga System has the same injunctions. In Yoga, the first two steps are called yama (that what should be accepted) and niyama (that what should be rejected).

And what is right effort? It’s when a mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind, and strives so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise. They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen are given up. They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have not arisen do arise. They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are fulfilled by development. This is called right effort.
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8/en/bodhi

What should we accept? What should we let go?

Every evil never doing
and in wholesomeness increasing
and one's heart well-purifying:
this is the Buddhas' Sasana
(Dhammapada, 183)

I am not sure there is a difference between letting go and acceptance ,If there is a let go ,there has already been acceptance.And its not directed towards anything specific, its basically all that manifests, everything including the sense of a self that needs to accept and let go.
Expressed well here in the Na Tumhaka Sutta

I am not going to quote a sutra, but I am trying to let go of everything, including letting go.
:)

This is not an answer to any of the questions about letting go, just personal testimony. I can see that you have a Buddhist (probably Zen) background, but this forum is for helping people understand and apply Buddhism. Your answer is too short, and too cryptic.

Hahaha!!!! There are so many reasons why I think your comment is hilarious, but I'll let you figure those out for yourself - how is that for short and cryptic? ;)


text:
How are metta and dana related?
In accord to Dhamma, What is appropriate to give oneself?
What is appropriate to give to others?
Does dana ever go to oneself? Could
 oneself be  seen  impersonally as another that needs  dana? How is    metta and dana related or not related?

'Dana' can be a 'test' of true 'metta'. For example, the Christian Bible refers to 'metta' without 'dana' as being something 'dead', as follows:

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not
provide for his physical needs, what good is that ? So too, faith by
itself, if it is not complemented by action, is dead.…
James 2:16

The Pali suttas often refer to 'dana' as follows:

... devoid of the stain of stinginess, freely generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishment, devoted to charity, delighting in giving and sharing
SN 11.11

'Dana' can show we have true metta towards others rather than the fake metta of politicians, virtue signallers and social justice warriors.

That which is conducive to dissipation of stress is an appropriate gift, both to oneself and others.
Compassion and sympathy for oneself can be seen as dana if one 'gives oneself a break' or an opportunity to be put in a favorable situation for example. However we don't say that we give to ourself what is already ours to give lest it is supposed to be given to a person/group of our choosing. Therefore in general i don't think it is an appropriate expression and use of the term Dana.
Metta and dana are related in that both Dana which is an act and the base sympathy are based on right views, they are both dispersive of ill.
There are other ways of explaining the relation between giving and good-will like;
One who sympathizes is provoked to give. Development of giving is a support for the abandonment of greed, anger and delusion; the development of metta is for the abandonment of those same qualities.

Metta is the highest form of dana. According to Okkha Sutta:

Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, if someone were to give a gift of one
  hundred serving dishes [of food] in the morning, one hundred at
  mid-day, and one hundred in the evening; and another person were to
  develop a mind of good-will — even for the time it takes to pull on a
  cow's udder — in the morning, again at mid-day, and again in the
  evening, this [the second action] would be more fruitful than that
  [the first].


text:
Can we use Piti as a meditation subject?
Can we use Piti as a meditation subject?
There are 40 meditation objects are given in Visuddhimagga as follows.
Ten recollections; ten foul objects; ten kasinas; four sublime abidings; four formless absorptions; one resolution into elements; and one perception of the filthiness of food.
My question is whether we can keep four form absorptions as a meditation objects, but specifically Piti as a meditation object.

Anything can be used as an object of meditation.  Hell, you could use a chocolate cake if it tickled your fancy.  But just because you can use anything, it doesn't mean that you should.  The best objects are those that are consistent, stable, repeatedly accessible, and don't give rise to additional mental formations.  The breath is most often used because it checks all of those boxes quite easily.  Piti can meet those same requirements, but until you hit the 1st jhana, it is entirely too unstable and inconsistent.  It can also give rise to clinging and attachment which would ultimately prevent you from moving past the 2nd jhana.

The breath is consistent and stable?

Piti can be used as a meditation subject.
When one is moving from the 2nd Jhana to the 3rd one notes the Piti and gradually suppress it. In this instance, ones focus it the Piti.

Similar to dishonesty about attaining jhana, clinging to rapture & jhana leads to rebirth in hell. Therefore, the Lord Buddha did not teach those who have unshakeable permanent faith in Him to "keep rapture" as meditation object. Instead, the Buddha taught those with unshakeable permanent faith to view impermanent alien diseased rapture with Right View.

There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality,
  withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by
  directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds
  satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling
  there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he... goes
  to hell
AN 4.123

There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded
  from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana:
  rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought
  & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected
  with form, feeling, perception, fabrications & consciousness, as
  inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an
  affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns
  his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his
  mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is
  exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of
  all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
  Unbinding.'
AN 9.36

But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

Unbound means non-attached and not telling lies.

parinibbāyati means Nibbana

you seem to not understand. "unbound" means "not attaching to rapture"; viewing rapture as impermanent. But your question is about attaching to rapture. AN 4.123 says the mind can be unbound while experiencing impermanent diseased alien rapture. But in your question, you want to keep rapture. Therefore, your question lead to rebirth in hell and not Nibbana.

Teachers like ie Leigh Brasington teach directing attention away from the breath to a pleasant sensation when such a feeling has spawned so that it may grow in intensity.
One can't just use joy as a meditation because it has to be brought about by directing the mind to a theme for the purpose of joy and withdrawing from the theme when achieved.
Also piti is only a factor in the 1st and the 2nd jhanas (by 4 fold classification). The 3rd and the 4th are without piti.

For reference; Leigh Brasington's Practical Guide to Jhana, Sutta dealing with directed and undirected development ie SN47.10


text:
Who am I? Who am I without past memory?
Who am I? Am I my memory? For example, I am hindu. I am engineer. I am Rajput.
Who am I without past memory? Am I my past memory? I am engineer. I am hindu.

Buddha says we are emptiness. "Indian", "engineer" are mental concepts. Parts of your memory could be damaged in an accident and temporarily or permanently erased. That would affect your knowledge of yourself and other things. You might lose your mental concepts concerning our identity. A similar thing has happened to one of my bosses, due to being overstressed. He had a mental breakdown and completely forgot all his knowledge of engineering.

I think that Theravada Buddhism teaches that there isn't a good answer to this question, that it's not a good question to ask.
See this description of Right View especially where it talks about "a thicket of views".
Also that things you might consider "self" (e.g. body, feelings, etc.) are impermanent -- and also (impermanent) is every put-together thing -- and so it's better not to view those as "self" ("self-views" are unsatisfactory or lead to suffering).
See also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

It is Not your experience..

Please who are you

Is this not the question we are all asking, the answer to which is enlightenment?

sabbe dhammā anattā

The attachment, aversion, and ignorance is you. This ignorance could be gross (fetters) or subtle (anusaya)

Nice bro but you explain these word

The notion "I" is the ignorance and due to that, we have the grasping. (upadana)https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35497

I am nothing.
Live in this moment .
You are  nothing

Right view: "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing etc." I think that a statement like "I am nothing" is yet another self-view (like "I am everything", "I am eternal" etc.). I think the Buddha warned that literally any/every self-view (including "I am nothing") is unsatisfactory or leads to suffering.

Nice bro .... you are right


text:
Have I invented this statsitic on Theravada enlightenment?
A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population: please correct me if that's how often the vehicle occurs -- though I struggle to completely understand the concept of a "solitary" seed or fixed yana. Either way, that one million figure is -- I think -- an expression of how it is more unique than arhatship.
Or, have I invented the statistic in bold? Anyway:

[a]s of 2016 Thailand had 39,883 wats (temples). Three hundred-ten are
  royal wats, the remainder are private (public). There were 298,580
  Buddhist monks, 264,442 of the Maha Nikaya order and 34,138 of the
  Dhammayuttika Nikaya order. There were 59,587 Buddhist novice monks.

Thailand's population is about seventy million, which works out, if you ignore 'turnover', as one in two hundred being monks.
So that, depending on how you understand the numbers in the first paragraph, suggests in monks, no less than one in a thousand are already arhats. Likewise, assuming they don't get stuck on the first step, in which case more still, about one in a hundred are stream winners.
Is that completely wrong?
Does it make sense, do you know, to say that there are e.g. three thousand sages in Thailand? Three hundred saints?
How does it compare with success in the English speaking nations?

I don't fully get what you ask, but to give my 5 cents: 1) A pratyekabuddha cannot exist when a samyaksaṃbuddha is present, nor when his teaching is still available. 2) prat can only get self-awakening without a teacher. 3) many prats can arise in one world-system but sam can only be single. 4) Mahakasyapa was a prat before therefore was able to enter prolonged 9th dhyana waiting for Maitreya, Mahakasyapa was predicted to be a samyaksambuddha hence a prat's enlightenment is not complete and perfect as a sam. 5) As the world becomes more deteriorated, the enlightenment chance is diminishing

This inference of the amount of attainments seems unsubstantiated. Those Thai monks are also split into factions where one will hold that Buddha lives in Nibbana and be in disagreement with others. All the factions can not be considered as equally valid traditions with right views, likely to produce the four types of contemplatives. There seems to be relatively little consensus on matters of doctrine among the Theravadins.
If you look at buddhist forums you should readily see how much disagreement there is and things aren't much better in the monastic circles afaik. From what i've seen there is usually a demand for conformity of views, at least in the small communities whereas the larger communities will tolerate a broader range. If one is ordained in one tradition one may or may not be considered to have a valid ordination by others.
The assumption that 1:1m can be a Buddha, if that is what you expressed, i don't know how you inferred it but we are about 7billion+ nowadays and the general consensus is that there has only been one Buddha in the last 2600 years. Furthermore nobody is expected to attain Buddhahood any time soon. Based on this alone one could assume that it is far more of a rarity than 1:1m.

A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population

Ven. Bodhi's note from "In the Budha's Words":

A paccekabuddha is one who, like a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha, attains enlightenment without the guidance of a teacher, but unlike a Buddha is unable to guide others to enlightenment. According to commentarial tradition, paccekabuddhas do not arise while the teaching of a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha exists in the world but only in the periods between the arising of Buddhas.


text:
What is happiness?
Please don't tell book answer
Please don't tell Buddhist explain
Please give answers from your true experience
Buying car is happiness ?
Buying bike is happiness ?
Buying home is happiness?
Achieving government job is happiness?
Happiness is dependent on something?

I think
Happiness is dependent on something.
Today I am sad because I have no six pack and big muscle
I am sad because I have no desire job
I am sad because I have no money
Happiness is suffering

I’m gonna respond to this with detailed breakdown of the subtle nittigritties of this space

I'm new here, but is this on topic? On any other SE site this would be closed as opinion based.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Small successes on worldly or spiritual paths towards wellbeing make me happy. Wholesome happiness seems like a good purpose to me.

I guess there aren't many Buddhist monks on this site at the moment, who could tell you from their own experience whether they're happy without a car, home, or job.
I don't have a car. I decided when I was young that a car is more trouble and expense, to buy and to own, than I want.
I do like my bicycle. I fell off it two days ago, and had to go get the little wound cleaned out by a doctor. I was still happy about that, though.
One of the sources or causes of happiness is doing the right thing, a moral or skilful or kind thing -- see this topic and its answers: What is the basis?
"Morality" for a house-holder is complicated -- perhaps more complicated and less satisfactory than it is for a monk, I don't know, the suttas describe the house-holder's life as "dusty and confining"  -- but food, clothing, maybe shelter, medicine are all considered requisites or necessities even for a monk, I think it's probably moral to participate in that as a layperson. You're supposed to be generous too when possible, and material possession (e.g. food) might be necessary for "living the holy life", but are not enough -- so Buddhism teaches e.g. wisdom and so on too.
I could quote references but you asked me not to, so.
Buddhism also warns that craving (desire) is a cause of suffering -- and that delighting in things causes attachment, which again leads to suffering. There's further doctrine about that, like "how is possible to desire enlightenment?". Almost the very first bit of dhamma the Buddha taught was of a "middle way" between the extremes of hedonism (sensual pleasure-seeking) and asceticism -- "middle way" meaning "not one extreme nor the other".
An iPhone, I don't know -- I think of it as "a chore" not "happiness", some people like their phone I guess. My mobile is a cheapest-available "flip phone", which I'm happy to use if I want to make a phone call, I have a computer at home. I buy a new computer every few years, when I have to, for my job -- when my previous/current computer becomes too unusable. Using a computer can be time-consuming, I cut off web sites where I seem to be wasting my time.

Nice bro for your experience

According to the dharma, yes, happiness caused by material gain is a form of suffering.  The iPhone is a perfect example; consider the annoyance and discontent one feels, for example, when the battery wears down, or when one wanders away from the geography of the service coverage.  Consider the greed and dissatisfaction one feels when a new phone version is released on the market; the disappointment and inferiority one feels if one cannot afford to buy.
Consider also the foolishness and time-wasting potential of many uses of smartphones and Internet technology.  There is the potential of addiction to the device, addiction to social media, addiction to gaming, addiction to pornography, things that cause one to forego sleep, neglect ones duties and relationships.  All forms of addiction are an example of what is called "attachment" in Buddhism.  Consider also the cyber bullying, rumor mongering and "cancel culture".  See the scams, the clickbait and extremist propaganda.
Observe the Web's cesspool of buggy websites and apps, themselves evidence of a lack of assiduousness, from developers lacking enlightened wisdom.  Or perhaps the fault lies with companies' insufficient development budgets, or unrealistic delivery dates; this suggests avarice, stinginess, and a lack of right livelihood practiced by owners and managers.  Not every software flaw is evidence of poor character; but if we lived in a perfect world, then those flaws would be fixed.
It may not seem like much; the non-Buddhist may consider that such forms of suffering are trite and insignificant; far outweighed by the delight and usefulness of purchasing and using a smartphone, or other material goods.  This is called "enchantment" in Buddhism.  But more important than the gain or loss of a smartphone, for example, or the delight or suffering caused by having one or not having one, is the opportunity costs.  Even if some product is an unmixed blessing for a person, with no noticeable downsides, one could be blinded to the even better worldly blessings to be had.  Who knows?  One might have become an award-winning scholar, a famous artist or a wealthy entrepreneur, had one spent one's free time and discretionary budget differently.
At a fundamental level, in Buddhism, one does not desire happiness or blessings, generally speaking; not in this world, and not in the hereafter.  One does not desire anything at all, except peace of mind.  When has one attained peace of mind?  It's a tall order.  If one has no fear of aging and death, deceives no one, is willing to give away all one possesses, has no ill will towards anyone at all, including malicious wrong-doers, and believes that everybody else is equally capable of reaching such a state of spiritual maturity, then one has attained it.

Nice Observation

Happiness is pleasant feelings.
Unhappiness is painful feelings.
Early childhood experiences condition us to generate painful feelings and pleasant feelings depending on the situation and act in certain ways (by age 5 humans reach 90% of their adult brain size).
Negative unconscious impulses caused by bad memories that generate painful feelings are one of the main roots of all faults.
The highest happiness I've personally experienced is when concentrating on eliminating negative unconscious impulses, this type of energy goes from my forehead area, above to the top of my head, then if I keep concentrating even above that, then I feel full of energy, confidence, calm, fearless, angerless, sorrowless, a strange type of extreme enjoyment, unshakable.
Growing up I initially thought material things would bring happiness. But then one day I thought in my mind "even after gaining desired material things I would still experience anger, fear, sorrow, and other painful feelings, and I would still eventually die anyway so what's so great about it?".
After experiencing higher states of happiness I started thinking of gaining luxurious material things unneeded for survival as like a waste of time boring just like useless toys.
When people are happy and satisfied they naturally have no cravings but not in the painful way many people seem to think of suppressing a desire.
As long as unconscious impulses generating painful feelings exist the individual will continue to experience pain eventually at some time.

Happiness does not come from the objects that we are attached to. The happiness I get from eatijng a candy bar arises from within me... it does not live in the candy bar. If the happiness did exist in the candy bar, then everyone would become automatically happy when they came into contact with this candy bar. This does not happen, people have apparent preferences, some like the candy bar and experience happiness when they come in contact with it, some are neutral about it, experiencing neither happiness nor suffering, and some experience disgust.
This demonstrates that the individual who experiences happiness already has everything they need inside them to be happy before they come into contact with the candy bar, and so on for all emotional states. Likewise, the suffering that arises out of not being in contact with the candy bar has nothing to do with the candy bar itself, nor does is this suffering dependent on happiness alone. In order for the suffering of unhappiness, one has to be attached to the candy bar in such a way that there is no happiness without it. This is an attitude, it is in the approach to the candy bar or any other object of desire.
Since we have everything needed to be happy inside us before we come into contact with the object of desire, or pleasant experience, then it goes to follow that we ought to be able to train the mind, to train ourselves to experience happiness before, during, and after contact with a pleasant or unpleasant sense object. In other words, we can cultivate a more effective perspective.
TL;DR: The suffering is not happiness itself. It is in the attachment to the object of desire. It is the trick of the mind that sais there is no happiness without the object.

Nice experience bro

In my opinion for the unenlightened human being, the basic life's requisites must be given (shelter, food, water, cleaning, sense of safety etc) in order to start practising a good life. Notice that I am speaking here of practising & not just getting something from the external world.
With all those things you mentioned there are several issues: we get used to them, they may change due to various causes & conditions, we might not derive as much pleasure as we hoped we'll get..
And most importantly: Although they affect the mind, the mind itself isn't trained. Well, in a sense it gets trained to be more dependent upon outside things & distractions.
The less dependent happiness is, usually the better. The happiness of the mind that stems from an ethical life style & from other mental practises will over time internally build up, which leads to an inner stability &, what people might call, well-being. Not to mention that those pleasures have lesser disadvantages then, let's say anger or greed/lust; so they inherently feel better.
Although you didn't want to have a Buddhist response I will still give you one because this is a Buddhist forum. The Dhammapada states:

If by giving up small pleasures great happiness is to be found, the wise should give up small pleasures seeing (the prospect of) great happiness.

Nevertheless, for ordinary people it's not necessary to give up all sensual pleasures, but to find a balance, develop kindness, compassion, equanimity, generosity, & living a meaningful live which includes a life project that is outside of one's own selfish desires, i.e., animal activism, helping other people in need or even ordinary little day-by-day acts of kindness, you get the point.
Mental happiness & "character happiness" is always with you. On the other hand we see a lot of rich, famous & successful people who are depressed & commited suicide.
You might now ask why? Well, because these pleasures often do not target the root problem (the mind) directly, therefore one chases these things again & again, but one is left empty.
You must ask yourself whether these things you mentioned can give you really that much well-being.
Are there people with a big car & six pack who aren't suffering?
Do you know people who have everything the media & our minds promises us make us happy, but still left unhappy?
Well-being should be seen as a skill you develop, & by letting go of unwholesome thoughts & actions, as well as having a correct view of yourself, others & the world.
If you think that you, others, conditions or the world MUST BE IN  CERTAIN WAY, you'll certainly will feel 'extreme' emotions because it stems from rigid demands (must, have to, got tos).
If you however stick to a strong wish, preference, desire to want something, but you're always flexible enough to see that it's not "life-necessary", but only a convenience that enriches your life, then you're still experiencing emotions negative in tone (sadness, annoyance, concern, sorrow, self-compassion instead of condemnation) but they're helping you to think clearly & to assess the situation properly as well as to behave adaptively!
It's like if you're in a relationship and your girlfriend is super clingy & jealous. She might think "I must have a partner in my life which must never have another woman around him, but if I lose him or he is with another woman, it's a catastrophy OR else I am worthless/he is bad/she is bad/the world is bad, which are all over-generalizations, which misses our human fallibility & live's complexity of good, bad & neutral aspects.
Hope I could've helped you.

Nice observe bro

Happiness is acceptance of what is.
Rejection of what is can only cause pain.
For example; If I reject the existence of a wall, and try to walk through it, I will experience pain.
So; To be happy; Accept what is.
You can, however, change what will be.
This is my life experience :)

You are perfectly right ,if happiness is dependent on somethings then to acquire it you must have somethings.Its simple mathematical equation somethings/happiness =resultant happiness.
when there are alot of somethings, happiness is alot when they decrease happiness decreases and suffering is the difference .Buddha discovered that somethings is not a constant and is impermanent, you get then lose you iphone,so he just removed it from the whole equation ,and there you have it,happiness .Going deeper than that he also discovered that the resultant happiness that we think we have because of somethings by itself is also not constant because happiness in itself is infinite & anything divided by infinity large or small, constant or not, is still going towards zero ,your new iphone over long time becomes boring to have and maybe you want the newer version.
On the experiential level this can only happen when one is centered in witnessing all that is happening as happening and not attaching to it so it doesn't become something that happiness depends on.

Happiness is being able to control the six senses so that they will keep you in a less disturbed position i.e neither being sad or happy too much..!

Happiness is acceptance of what is.
You probably already know that but don’t live it.
For me, ironically, happiness has been slowly gaining in the world while diminishing my desire to gain in spirit.
I wanted muscles and a six pack. I started taking steps to get them, always desiring them in my mind.  I got them. Nothing changed.  Literally, nothing.  Ok maybe one or two people noticed, but it’s shocking how little people notice or care.  And internally - my mind with all it’s criticisms was still there and focused on new objects to criticize the minute I got them.
Could say the same story about women, money, etc. all with the same outcome.
In the end, happiness has proven to be accepting the moment; living it, just it with no desire of anything in past or future.  It takes a while to achieve this, and I’m not fully there yet I’ll be honest.  Sitting helps me with this.  I do it about 20 minutes a day now.  But I started with just 5 minutes when I could.  This helps with watching thoughts, feelings, and worldly events as they come and go.  And when you see all that changes, you also see what is constant.  What is constant in life is where true happiness lies.

Bro you are give great  answer .. you are experience right

@BhupendraRajput just keep seeking


text:
Can we be too analytical
It seems to me that analysing everything to the tiniest degree takes joy and spontaneity out of life. I admit, being mindful can make for better decision making and therefor better outcome, but do you want to be around me if I am so thoroughly earnest?

odd question, i'm voting to close. some people like earnest people, others do not.

I am genuine in my question. Although from a young child I taught myself to meditate, I have never studied Buddhism. There has been a shift inside me that is calling me, at age 57 to ask questions about this religion. Standing outside and looking in at Buddhism, that is one of my concerns... that people can become too scholarly in their practice, and miss the emptiness that I have discovered from my meditation whilst knowing nothing.

I think i get what you mean and being too analytical can seem strange because one will definitely be no fun at a party nor is one likely to participate to begin with. However being constantly serious and ardently training is going to make one more happy and one will be able to benefit other people in a far more useful way.

One can be sharply analytical in all matters, but also warm towards all fellow beings.  We can find joy from fellowship even as we analyse our fellow beings' behaviour.

Its okay if thats your nature,there is nothing really wrong ,thats what you discover from mindfulness ,there are dimensions in life ,not all people are going to be mindful or anything in particular.Analysis thats also a dimension of life ,it also has its own beauty ,attachment to a dimension is the issue but that is also natural and happens ,from that understanding one is spontaneous even in analysis ,analysis then comes out of your spontaneity ,spontaneity is not against it ,it simply chose to do it.The spontaneity of another person may choose intellect or basketBall they are all dimensions of life.

It depends on whether you want to be an automobile designer, mechanic, driver or passenger. -)

I got 8 marks for my answer. Why?

It was upvoted (+10) and downvoted (-2).

I am pleased you received good marks for this answer. It was wonderful

One of the oddest concepts in Buddhism is "neutral feeling." The neutral feeling is neither pleasant nor painful. And how should we deal with that neutral feeling?

The underlying tendency to ignorance should be given up when it comes to neutral feeling.” MN44

In other words, we should not wallow in "meh indifference" when feeling neutral. Instead, we should understand:

“What is the counterpart of neutral feeling?”
  “Ignorance.”
“What is the counterpart of ignorance?”
  “Knowledge.”

Knowledge requires effort, practice and insight. It also requires restraint. And restraint is important given that thinking is one of the six senses. In particular they:

know a thought with their mind. If it’s pleasant they don’t hold on to it, and if it’s unpleasant they don’t dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body established and a limitless heart.
  sn35.247

In other words analysis paralysis is not mindful practice. Nor is blind action taken in ignorance without thought to consequence. Right mindfulness balances effort with restraint guided by right view.
What do you think?

I think you have made a clear evaluation and answered my question well. In an earlier post I made someone commented about my placidity. Perhaps my ego has wrongly seen my acceptance and endurance as a strength. I need to engage more.

❤  I walk meditation listening to the suttas. I find that endlessly engaging.

When the thought is binding you the truth is hidden
  for everything is murky and unclear. And the burdensome practice of judging
  brings annoyance and weariness. What benefit can be derived
  from distinctions and separations?

Training is, first and foremost, about intimacy.  You can't be fully and wholeheartedly intimate with the world if you are caught up in internal analysis.  The smallest, discursive thought sets you miles apart from experiencing the way.  Just let things be in there own way.  Don't actively seek enlightenment.  Don't actively try to be mindful.  When you walk, really walk.  When you eat, really eat.  If there is even a single remainder of your mind that isn't fully walking or fully eating, you've gone astray.

If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease. If
  the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as
  they are, of single essence.

(Quotes from the Verses on the Trusting Heart)

Wow! That’s powerful.

There is a misnomer here. Mindfulness does not equal analytical. In fact, being analytical can be antithesis of the mindfulness.
In example:
For instance, when I am greeted by a friend, I will get happy. Now if I were to analyze this, my mind may say this feeling is rising due to some mental quality and this related to some form of bhāvanā or one could dive deeper and put it into terms of conciousness in the Yogacara tradition.
In a mindfulness approach, one would see that happiness is rising from the base of my chest and one may realize that we long for that feeling. Simply noting it, but not analyzing its means or it's path.
It is said that if one were to try and understand the complex interworkings of kamma, their head would explode. Kamma and Pratītyasamutpāda are nonlinear functions. We must learn to understand them through observation, which adds to why we cannot learn the dhamma through words but practice alone. In short, yes you can be too analytical, but one can not be too mindful.
Note: One may feel stress from being "mindful", but indeed they are not being truly mindful. Typically this comes from judgemental noting, rather than noting and feeling for what is truly going on. If your mindfulness is tiring, it is not being done correctly.
Practice Notes: If you find that you are taking joy from being too analytical, try watching that analysis. What type of views are you holding with the analysis? Are you trying to be a "good" buddhist? Are you reinforcing views that you are not good enough? So on and so forth. The true beauty of Buddhism comes from watching the arising and ceasing of phenomena. Watch the happiness arise, watch the mind cling, and then watch the mind release from that clinging. Watch the experiencing of freedom in that moment.
May you be safe. May you be happy. May you be free.