text:
Methods for reaching Jhana
I have read some books and web resources that deal with reaching access concentration and from there the first Jhana. They all used mindfulness of breathing and mentioned but never described 'other methods'.
Methods I have found mentioned were body scanning and metta/loving-kindness meditation.
Now for the question: What other methods are there? And even more important: How to practice them?

Have you come across this book by Bhante G?

The Theravada tradition recognizes forty meditation types for obtaining at least access concentration, found scattered throughout the Tipitaka and organized in the commentaries, as follows:
1-10: The Kasinas
These all lead to the four jhānas; they are practiced by creating a disk and focusing on it, while repeating, e.g., "earth, earth..."
1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Air
5. Blue
6. Yellow
7. Red
8. White
9. Light
10. Space
11-20: Foulness
These lead to the first jhāna; they are practiced by contemplating a corpse in various states of decay
11. Bloated
12. Livid
13. Festering
14. Cut Up
15. The Gnawed
16. Scattered
17. Hacked and Scattered
18. Bleeding
19. Worm-infested
20. a Skeleton
21-30: Recollections
Body and Breathing bring jhāna (body only brings the first jhāna, breath brings all four); the other eight bring only access concentration; they are cultivated by reflecting on the object, e.g. "Buddha, Buddha"
21. Buddha
22. Dhamma
23. Sangha
24. Morality
25. Generosity
26. Angels
27. Death
28. Body
29. Breathing
30. Peace
31-34: The Divine Abidings
The first three bring about the first three jhānas; the fourth brings about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by taking beings as an object, e.g. "May all beings be happy"
31. Love
32. Compassion
33. Joy
34. Equanimity
35-38: The Immaterial States
These bring about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by using the fourth jhāna as a base, then expanding and refining the object
35. Limitless Space
36. Limitless Consciousness
37. Nothingness
38. Neither Perception Nor Non-perception
39. Perception of Repulsiveness in Nutriment
This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by reflecting on food as one collects and eats it.
40. Defining of The Elements
This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by breaking the body up into the four elements.
All forty meditation subjects are described and taught in detail in the Visuddhimagga; highly recommended for those interested.

It is curious to me that meditation on foulness would be particularly helpful for jhana or even favorable for it.

@ThiagoSilva one thing not mentioned in this list is by whom each subject should be cultivated - foulness only works for one of lustful temperament, because it brings about calming of the fever of lust.

So does 4 include the most common breathing based meditation (observing the breath at the nostrils)? And then what about Mahasi-style abdominal noting? Which of the 40 is it?

@Tommy #4 is the air kasina; it is commonly practiced by cutting a hole in a piece of cloth and looking at a wind-blown object through the hole, IIRC. Samatha-based Breath meditation is number 29. Mahasi meditation, while based on number 40 (the only one that can be used for insight) is actually not a part of this list, which describes meditation for attaining samatha jhāna.

@yuttadhammo thero. What about the 10 perceptions mentioned in the Girimananda Sutta? They were practiced as meditations, but not all 10 perceptions are mentioned in the above list compiled by Buddhaghosa.

It depends on how you understand the first and second jhanas. If, like me, you take them as glorified descriptions of being able to get yourself in a joyful mood deliberately, then there are bunch of methods.

first, as Buddha himself suggested, by thinking through good discursive sequences. Specifically, if your practice of "guarding the gates" is going well, and your life is all setup in accordance with the eightfold path, and you understand the Three Marks of Existence and the Four Noble's Truths, then you are in good position to reflect at how your mind is now perfectly shielded from negative states. This theme makes for a great topic of vitakka/vicara and is what Buddha himself used.
second, as other teachers taught me, by remembering a place you felt good/strong at and coming back to it in your thoughts.
third, as I did several times, through meditating on love to all humanity (past, present and future!) or on love to God (it does not matter whether God exists, taking it as object of meditation still works).
fourth, as my present teacher teaches me, through dancing to music, while improvising and feeling the rhythm.
fifth, through special yoga poses, like Eagle Posture and Lion Posture.
sixth, supposedly through sexual tantric practices.
seven, once you learn to feel your chakras and deliberately activate them at will, through direct intent.

These are the methods that come to mind. Now, keep in mind that First and Second jhanas, while useful, are traps on the way to Ultimate Realization. So don't get too hung up on always being in a joyful mood.

The readers of this answer should note that most traditions that talk about the Jhanas (both religious and secular) would not agree. For example, "remembering a place you felt good/strong at" is usually taken as a way to generate well-being (piti), but of course such a state of mind is not yet the Jhana itself, as is kind of evident given the definition of a Jhana in the Suttas. The answer also fails to give references ("teacher X of tradition Y teach ..." instead of the weasel-wordy "other teachers taught me").

I'm glad that in 2024 someone is reading my answers from 2014.

And I'm glad that current interest in the Jhanas seems to be higher than it was in 2014.

The vipassana practice uses a form of one pointed concentration to enter the jhanas. This the dominant tradition. A very different mechanism is described by Bhante Vimalaramsi, who uses the metta practice in combination with a relax step for dealing with hinderances. Bhante maintains that the combination of metta with the relax step leads to quicker access to deeper states. I have not practiced vipassana but have gotten to the 8th jhana with metta and the relax step. There are videos on youtube where he discusses the specifics, look for "one by one as they occurred" with Bhante Vimalaramsi

OP: What other methods are there?

In the context of Buddhist meditation, there are 40 subjects of meditation (Kammaṭṭhāna). These are divided into

Samatha for concentration or mastery over the mind (Samadhi)
Vipassanā for wisdom (Paññā)

Samatha techniques generally use a conceptual object (Nimitta pannatti) as the subject of meditation like discs in the case of Kasina, other beings like in the case of Metta. Samatha has been adopted from contemporary techniques. What is unique to Buddhism is Vipassanā. This can be used to develop wisdom (Paññā) and concentration or mastery over the mind (Samadhi). The object of Vipassanā are real objects (Paramattha Dhammas) corresponding to the classification as nama (mentality) and rupa (materiality) or the classification as citta (a moment of consciousness or a moment of experience), cetasika (mental factors accompanying consciousness), rupa (material phenomena) and nibbana (the unconditioned reality) or the classification as 5 khandha namely rupakkhandha (all rupas), vedanākkhandha (feelings), saññākkhandha (remembrance or perception), saṅkhārakkandha (all cetasikas, except feeling and remembrance) and viññāṇakkhandha (all cittas).
In Buddhism, the practice has 3 folds, which also correspond to a type of meditation:

morality (Śīla) - developed though recollection of morality (Śīla)
mastery over the mind (Samadhi) - developed through Samatha
wisdom (Paññā) - developed through Vipassanā

These methods are also listed in this answer.

OP: How to practice them?

Using any of the above subjects one can develop the Jhana's as follows:

To enter the 1st Jhana practice initial application and sustained application (Vitarka-vicara) on a chosen object. [Paṭhama Jhāna Pañha Sutta]
To enter the 2nd Jhana when one is established in the 1st Jhana drop initial application and sustained application (Vitarka-vicara) but remain focused on the chosen object. [Dutiya Jhāna Pañha Sutta]
To enter into the 3rd Jhana drop zest (Pīti) by being steadying the mind on the chosen object. [Tatiya Jhāna Pañha Sutta]
To enter into the 4th Jhana by dropping happiness (Sukha) with only equanimity (Ekaggata) remaining, still remaining focused on the chosen object. [Catuttha Jhāna Pañha Sutta]
To enter into the 5th Jhana one transcends the perceptions of form, with the disappearance the perceptions of sense-reaction, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that “Space is infinite,”. [Ākāsânañc’āyatana Pañha Sutta]
To enter into the 6th Jhana one transcends the sphere of infinite space, aware that “Consciousness is infinite,”. [Viññāṇañc’āyatana Pañha Sutta]
To enter into the 7th Jhana one transcends the sphere of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘There is nothing,’. [Ākiñcaññ’āyatana Pañha Sutta]
To enter into the 8th Jhana one transcends the sphere of nothingness, one enters and dwells in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. [N’eva,saññā,nâsaññ’āyatana Pañha Sutta]
To enter into the cessation one does not attend to any signs of residual perception in the 8th Jhana. [Animitta Ceto,samādhi Pañha Sutta]

Answer to the following question Jhana Explaination. I have answered it here as this is marked as a duplicate of the above question:
Question:

Can someone please SIMPLY explain the EIGHT Jhanas, specifically:

1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them?
2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)?
3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the eighth?
4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma?

Answer:

OP: 1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them?

Jhana factors contract each of the 5 Hindrances:

Coarse examination (vitakka) counteracts sloth-torpor (lethargy and drowsiness)
Precise investigation (vicāra) counteracts doubt (uncertainty)
Well-being (pīti) counteracts ill-will (malice)
Bliss (sukha) counteracts restlessness-worry (excitation and anxiety)
Single-pointed attention (ekaggatā) counteracts sensory desire

Five hindrances
Jhana suppresses mental fermentation (Āsava)

With the ending of mental fermentations — he remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having directly known & realized them for himself right in the here-&-now.

AN 4.35

Also, Jhana gives mastery over the mind so that one does not think about thoughts one does not want, essentially what are unskilful.

He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will. He has attained mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought.

AN 4.35

Jhana is also meant as a pleasant abiding.

He attains — whenever he wants, without strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now.

AN 4.35

One would want to achieve them to suppress Hindrances, Mental Fermentation, achieve mastery over the mind and create a pleasant state of mind and body free from pain. Another side benefit might be special power like iddhi and abhiññā. But this rarely manifests.

OP: 2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)?

See this answer.

OP: 3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the eighth?

What happen beyond the 1st few Jhana is fuzzy as fewer people has reached them and there are less descriptions of them.
1st Jhana
5 Hindrances are suppressed.

Coarse examination (vitakka) counteracts sloth-torpor (lethargy and drowsiness)
Precise investigation (vicāra) counteracts doubt (uncertainty)
Well-being (pīti) counteracts ill-will (malice)
Bliss (sukha) counteracts restlessness-worry (excitation and anxiety)
Single-pointed attention (ekaggatā) counteracts sensory desire

Well-being (pīti) and Bliss (sukha) creates a pleasant abiding
2nd Jhana
Dropping initial application and sustained application (Vitarka-vicara) reduces the effort to stay in the Jhana. Well-being (pīti) and Bliss (sukha) becomes prominent.
3rd Jhana
As Well-being (pīti) is dropped strong vibration and swaying of the body stops. Bliss (sukha) becomes prominent which is a much more subtle vibration.
4rd Jhana
Hardly any vibrations as Bliss (sukha) has been dropped. Pleasure and pain does not arise. What remains is the focused on the object.
From the 5th Jhana onwards
5th Jhana
One transcends the perceptions of form and bodily sensations, with the disappearance the perceptions of sense-reaction, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that “Space is infinite,”
6th Jhana
One transcends the sphere of infinite space, aware that “Consciousness is infinite,”
7th Jhana
One enters and dwells in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
8th Jhana
One transcends the sphere of nothingness, one enters and dwells in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception

OP: 4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma?

This is found in this answer.

The book, The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle, is not a book on Buddhism, but it lists feeling the energy field of the inner body, witnessing and accepting one's incoming and outgoing thoughts without getting attached to them, conscious breathing and focus on space (vast emptiness) or silence as different portals or methods to entering the Now. When one has entered the Now, the mind stops endless thoughts about the past or the future, and one enters a blissful state. The "pain body" also gradually gets dissolved as one enters the Now more often. The book also spends a lot of time discussing the workings of the mind, "pain body", ego and similar topics.
I feel that when The Power of Now discusses "entering the Now", it is really talking about reaching the first Jhana (at least). And dissolving the "pain body" could be part of Vipassana.
While Eckhart Tolle is not a Buddhist teacher, he certainly has experienced Jhana IMHO and has then taken the time to write it out in his own articulate way with his own terminologies, and tries to get the people at large to enter the Now as well. At least, this is the intention of his first book, The Power of Now. How did he reach the Now in the first place? Through a great crisis or turbulence of mind that made him suicidal and then he asked himself a question, that catapulted him to this state. Since then, he has found other ways to enter this state and remain in it.
Of course, Buddhism with its four Rupa Jhanas and four Arupa Jhanas has definitely exceeded the teachings of Mr. Tolle. However, for the vast majority of people, reaching the first Jhana itself may be difficult enough. Hence, they could make use of Mr. Tolle's book in addition to Buddhist meditation and mindfulness techniques.
This webpage also seems to be good: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma7/enterjhana.html

1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them?

Jhanas are mental states of purity, clarity & extreme sensitivity. Jhanas, being mental states of purity, also have an 'other-worldly' bliss, which the Buddha called far superior to sensual pleasure and even superior to "divine sensual pleasures" (MN 75).
Jhana brings freedom from enslavement to having to purse or need sensual pleasures (MN 14). If the mind has jhana, it no longer needs a wife for sex, children for a sense of purpose, money to buy TVs, cars, movies, music and other sensual pleasures.
Jhana, being so pure & sensitive, also provides a foundation for insight (vipassana) because, in the contrast of the purity of jhana can be seen the disturbing (suffering) nature of the smallest defiled arising.
Similarly to using a microscope, using jhana, only a tiny amount of impure defilement is required to discern its suffering nature and thus develop dispassion towards defilement (greed, lust, hatred, anger, delusion, etc).

2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)?

To reach jhana, the mind must be as pure as possible. Complete celibacy is ideal. Then the mind must establish itself free from unwholesome thoughts, free from judgments, which includes being free from desire for jhana. The suttas (SN 48.10; MN 118) say jhana is reached by making "letting go" ("vossagga") the object of meditation.

3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the eighth?

In jhana, the mind abides in unmoving bliss and then equanimity for many hours. The sign of jhana is "cittaṃ ekaggaṃ" ("one-pointedness of mind"). The suttas say:

With excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is
strained, it is far from concentration.’ So I steadied my mind
internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness (cittaṃ ekaggaṃ), and concentrated it.
Why is that? So that my mind should not be strained.
MN 19

Jhana manifests (by itself) when the breathing & associated physical body are completely calmed of stress. What occurs, simultaneously, is: (i) the mind can no longer feel the breathing & physical body; (ii) the mind creates a mental image to use as a meditation object; (iii) the mind locks unmoving onto that mental image; (iv) rapture arises (due to the calming & stopping of knowing of the physical body); (v) as the mind remains unmoving, the rapture of the 1st & 2nd jhana calms; resulting in the 3rd jhana of only happiness; (vi) as the mind remains unmoving, the happiness of the 3rd jhana calms, resulting the pure feeling of equanimity of the 4th jhana.

4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma?

To a newcomer of the Dhamma, jhana should be explained as follows:

Jhana does not occur due to suppression or forceful effort.

Jhana is the manifestation of letting go or non-attachment.

Jhana is a "sign" the practitioner has perfected letting go of craving and other unwholesome states and is progressing on the Path.

Jhanas are other-worldly or "heavenly" states of supernormal happiness; abided in for many hours; even days.

Jhanas are serene. They cannot and should not be compared to sexual orgasm.

The attainment of jhana is rare.

Jhana should not be craved or even regarded as a "goal" because, to reach jhana, the mind must be free from craving and absolutely in the present moment.

Jhana is not 'dhamma-porn'; to be lusted over and obsessively posted about on the internet.

Thanks so much!

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


text:
How was the Buddha Jayanti edition of the Tripitaka derived?
I've read that the three Theravada countries Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar all three have their own version of the Tripitaka.
I've also read that in 1956 they held the Sixth Buddhist convention with the goal of creating one standard edition of the Tripitaka, called the Buddha Jayanti-edition. The Dutch version of the Wikipedia page on the Pali canon claims that

The Buddha Jayanti-Edition, however, was composed by the most distinguished monks of the three main Buddhist countries and is considered the most correct version
  (original wiki page here, English translation here)

I was wondering if this is true. How do they know that the Buddha Jayanti-edition is the most correct version? What exactly are the differences between the 3 Tipitaka versions and how did the monks resolve them?

From what I've heard, there's reason to believe that the sixth council edition is really just a modified fifth council edition and didn't end up taking into consideration the BJT at all.

I have some experience comparing the BJT Pali with the Pali Text published by the Pali Text Society and the version found on the CSCD. I have read and proofed the BJT of numerous suttas throughout the Sutta Pitaka, the complete Anguttara Nikaya, and the first two volumes and many other suttas from the Samyutta Nikaya. On the whole the BJT and the PTS agree with some spelling differences and an occasional insignificant difference in text matter. Both have errors. The BJT has the advantage in that for the most part it has unabridged the text. (Trying to figure out which previous phrase was intended by '...pe...' is no easy matter!) The BJT has errors resulting from copy and paste where sections are repeated with a change but where the change was not made. The Pali Text Society text is, as far as I am concerned, the most authoritative simply because the compilers consulted numerous manuscripts for its compilation. The CSCD is also commendable for that reason, but it has not got the advantage of eliminating all the abridgments.
This does not cover the complete scope of your question, but hopefully it will chip away around the edges. To best see what I have done with the Pali texts and the PTS translations visit the 'What's New?' page at:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/whats.new.htm
I cannot claim that this work is error free as it is being done with excessive haste, but it should provide a strong platform for a future completely unabridged pali and translation of the Sutta Pitaka. It should also be helpful to beginning translators as the text is broken up at the original line breaks which helps to overcome the despair inspired by a huge block of Pali. Translations are linked to the other available free translations.
obo

I have discussed this with Ven Dhirasekera Dhammavihari, one of the foremost Pali scholars of his generation, who was present at the 6th Council, as well as with Major Surathat Bunnag, founder of the Dhamma Society, whose mother was present, and who sponsored the Mahasangiti edition in her honor.
At the Council itself, the main proceedings were run by the Burmese monks, with Ven Vicittasarabhivamsa reciting in response to questions of Mahasi Sayadaw. It seems that little was done in terms of debating and resolving the issues between the different versions.
No detailed records or methods appear to have survived, but according to Ven. Dhammavihari the Burmese, Thais, and Sinhalese each did their own recensions. Thus the 6th Council edition is largely a confirmation and update of the Burmese 5th Council edition, and as such, preserves the characteristic Burmese Pali spellings. Also, certain additions to the text, such as adding the long section on the four noble truths to MN 10 Satipatthana, were retained from the 5th Council edition.
According to Major Surathat, this text was printed in the first edition of the 6th Council text in Myanmar. However, he says that following the unrest in Burma in the early 60s, the second edition was by mistake a simple reprint of the old 5th Council edition. Subsequent editions, including the VRI digital edition, were based on this. I have not been able to confirm this independently.
The revision made by Major Surathat's Dhamma Society and published as the Mahasangiti edition was based on the VRI text. However it used the first edition—that is, the actual 6th Council text—as the mainline reading.
I believe, although again I have not confirmed it independently, that the Buddha Jayanthi edition in Sinhalese script is descended from the text redacted by the Sri Lankan monks at the 6th Council. This has subsequently been digitized independent of the VRI/Mahasangiti text. I am not sure if the Thai version was digitized.

Here is an introduction to the Tripitaka
This is an extensive work that deals with the evolution and different versions of the Tripitaka or as the text spells it Tipitaka
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/18_%20Three%20Baskets%20_Tipitaka_%20in%20Buddhism.pdf

Please avoid posting link answers. The question should be addressed in the answer itself.

The answers to Are answers that just contain links elsewhere really “good answers”? agree that an answer which "contains an answer" is better than an answer which "just contains a link" ... but some of them (including Jon Skeet's) also argue that a link is better than nothing.

If I do not know enough to make an intelligent answer and do not happen to have enough time to research, then a link that refers to a PDF book on the subject might be some help. I would rather err on the side of trying to help a little rather than just keep plodding on to the next question. Thank you for both your comments.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Confession in Buddhism
Growing up in the Roman Catholic tradition, we were encouraged to go to confession (penance) on a regular basis for reconciliation and to be absolved of sins. In Buddhism, the only mention of confession I've seen is in regard to a practice for monks prior to the reciting of the patimokkha. I understand there is no idea of absolving sins in Buddhism, but why is it considered benefical or useful for monks to confess but not for lay people to do the same? I'm assuming there is some sense of unburdening in the confession process and wondering what serves that function for lay people? Thank you.

This is a good question; if the monks can confess their "sins", why can't lay people?
On the one hand, monastic confession is a product of the rigidity of monastic practice, which requires some formal means of realignment. But on the other hand, reaffirming one's determination to keep precepts is a great practice for all Buddhists.
The standard practice for lay people in Theravada Buddhism to correct a broken precept is to simply retake the entire set of precepts (five or eight). There are standard religious formulae for this, so that might be a similar concept to a confession.
Beyond that, though, I think there is less need for Catholic confession since there is less sense of "sin" in evil deeds; since our concept of morality is utilitarian in the sense of "it's evil because it brings suffering", there isn't the sense of intrinsic "sinfulness" of a deed, and hence there seems to be less of the shame and guilt associated with evil in Catholicism.
So, the practical equivalent to confession in our tradition is probably just talking with a teacher about your problems; e.g., rather than confessing you drank alcohol, you would discuss your alcohol addiction or your view that alcohol brings happiness.

Part of Catholic "sin" is the idea that you've offended against God and need to become reconciled with Him. However, "bringing suffering" might include bringing suffering to other people. If you hurt other people (I'm not saying you do, but other people might), you might feel ashamed and guilty about that, and want a way to become reconciled with the people you hurt.

The experience I have of confession within Buddhism is mostly within the context of a ritual. I practice with the Triratna Buddhist and in one of our more lengthy rituals we have a section on  confession of faults part of which goes

The evil that I have heaped up
Through my ignorance and foolishness –
Evil in the world of everyday experience,
As well as evil in understanding and intelligence
All that I acknowledge to the Protectors.

The ritual is based on the Bodhicaryavatara an 8th century Mahayana text by Santideva. The Bodhicaryavatara  has a section on the confession of faults. This goes on at greater length on the same themes for example

Overwhelmed by ignorant delusion,
I celebrated the harm that was done.
But now I see it all was done in error,
And before the buddhas, sincerely I confess.

So the notion of recognising on and confessing faults does exists within Buddhism. I'm not an expert on comparative religion but I know that the concept of sin doesn't really exist in Buddhism. Actions are skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) rather than sinful or not. Also it's less clear who you would be confessing to. So any notion of confession would be necessarily different in Buddhism.
On a personal note, it has been suggested to me that the proper course of action when one has done something unskillful is go sit at your shrine, light a stick of incense and try not to be so thoughtless in future. Maybe that's the nearest equivalent in my own experience.

Just an FYI... The Christian term for sin is from the Greek work hamartia, which literally means missing the target.  Like when an archer misses the bull's eye.  So hamartia or sin in the Greek implies the misdirecting of mind's and body's energies.  Repentance is based on the Greek work metanoia means the changing of mind, redirecting the mind's energies.  So there are ontological similarities between Buddhism and Christianity regarding sin and repentance.  However, some things were lost in translation over the centuries for some folks. :-\

In the Vajrayana, confession is a specific part of the so-called "preliminary practices" (ngöndro). It is one of the "inner" or "extraordinary" preliminaries, and consists in removing negative actions or "obscurations", namely karmic obscurations; the obscurations of negative emotions; conceptual obscurations; and the obscurations of habitual tendencies.
The removal of obscuration is done through the practice of meditating on the Teacher as Vajrasattva and reciting his mantra (in the context of ngöndro, this is supposed to be done 100,000 times). In what is widely considered the most important commentary on the preliminary practices, Patrul Rinpoche's The Words of My Perfect Teacher (Altamira Press, 1998), one reads:

There is no harmful act that cannot be purified through confession.
  (...) However, purification only takes place when you confess
  sincerely in the right way, using the four powers as antidotes. (1998,
  p. 264)

The four powers are the essential elements in the practice of confession: the power of support "is provided by taking refuge in Vajrasattva and cultivating the intention and application aspects of bodhicitta" (1998, p. 265); the power of regretting having done wrong "comes from a feeling of remorse for all the negative actions you have done in the past" (ibid.); the power of resolution "means to remember the faults you have commited and to resolve never to commit them again" (1998, p. 266); and the power of action as an antidote "involves accomplishing as many positive actions as you can, as an antidote to your past negative actions" (ibid.).
For further reading on the subject, I recommend Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang's A Guide to The Words of My Perfect Teacher (Shambhala Publications, 2004), part 2, chapter 3.

Hmmm, I never labelled Vajrasattva practice as a confession - I would always call it a purification practice. I was brought up as a Christian and confession for me is saying aloud a list of bad deeds, a some sort of cruel reenactment of shameful moments in front of some authority. Mantra repetitions luckily don't have this feature which I found very comforting.

I agree with you that "purification" sounds better. The Padmakara translation of The Words of My Perfect Teacher uses "confession" interchangeably with "purification", and both translate the Tibetan sojong (Wyl. gso sbyong; Skt. poṣadha). The confessional aspect has to do mainly with the power of regret, as one reads in Words: "in his presence call to mind all the negative actions you can think of that you have accumulated until now... Feel that you are confessing them all in the teacher Vajrasattva's presence, your whole body breaking out in gooseflesh with shame, fear and remorse."

Confessing faults is very importand for oneself and in cases of relations and communities.
Putting any effort into a community where such is not used, or assossiate is not for ones benefit but for long time pain.
For more, feel given here: [Q&A] Confession in (Buddhism) tradition of the Noble Ones

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

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


text:
Is Buddhism just Hinduism stripped for export?
I was listening to a podcast featuring Alan Watts and he stated that Buddhism was Hinduism stripped for export. He also says it at more length in his book Buddhism the Religion of No Religion  ....

Hinduism [..] is a religious culture. Being a Hindu really involves
  living in India [...]. You cannot be a Hindu in the full sense living
  in the United States or India.
Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. The Buddha was a reformer in
  the highest sense: someone who wants to go to the original form or
  reform it.

There is a sense here of Hinduism being a culturally specific religion and Buddhism being it's universal equivalent. Is there any sense in which that is true or is 'Buddhism is just Hinduism stripped for export' just a pithy soundbite that actually doesn't mean very much?

I wonder this too. I think the answer will lie in how "buddafied" the Hindu deities got.

I can't find where I read it, but I read a quote from a Brahman stating that Buddhism was ploy from Vishnu to make Atheists act religiously, which I always found amusing, and made this question remind me of. But other than that I fear that this question will gather mostly opinionated answers.

I hope not. I'm interested in the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism and I though this might be a good entry point. See how it goes

Alan Watts is not a Buddhist, nor does he claim to be, and I would say it IS a pithy soundbite from a new age guru that should be taken with a grain of salt.
As someone who is not very familiar with Hinduism I wouldn't mind learning from this topic either.

This is a subjective value judgement, how it's supposed to be disproven? And who should take burden of proof, who is offended or who offend?

Since no one else mentioned it, the "for export" part is referring to how one can become a Buddhist (say by taking the refuges), but becoming a Hindu is tricker. For example, what caste do you get? (I'll sign up as a Hindu if I can be a top level Brahman :-)

Interesting comment and reference to a guru of the Beatnik generation.  Of course his statement is subjective, since he was an outsider that wasn't from India or Sri Lanka.  Perhaps the question can only be answered properly by a convert from Hinduism to Buddhism  , who currently lives in India or Sri Lanka.  So may be the question could be reformulated to request feedback from a recent convert from that background?

Prof. Lokesh Chandra a book on it: "Nīlakaṇṭha Lokeśvara as the Buddhist Apotheosis of Hari-Hara" and much of the same in this paper: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/kailash/pdf/kailash_07_01_01.pdf . Thanks for the question.

Alan Watts has no credibility with me.

While "Buddhism" is already quite a difficult terminus, since there is a host of sects, schools, vehicles and apart from that another host of indigenous practices that infiltrated Buddhism in places it went to, "Hinduism" is even more difficult.
Just an overview:

The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of India, dating back to somewhen between 1800 BC and say 1000 or 800 BC. The Vedic Religion is a religion of sacrifice. These are important in so far as practically all Hindus consider the Vedas as holy scriptures and their religion based on it.
By the end of the Vedic Era, maybe 800 or 700 BC the first Upaniṣads began to appear and with them the ideas of an eternal individual soul (ātman) opposed to an all-encompassing world-soul (brahman), rebirth in an endless cycle (saṃsāra) determined by the deeds of an individual (karman).
From about 700 or 600 BC onwards there was a movement of people who tried on their own, to find a way out of the cycle of rebirth by meditative and ascetic practices, the so-called Śramaṇa-movement. Theoretically this movement was heavily indebted to to the Upaniṣads.

Buddhism ultimately developed out of this heterodox movement (the Śramaṇa-movement) and except for the person of the Buddha and the theory of no-soul/not-the-soul (anātman) shares almost all of the common features of this movement, namely denial of Vedic authority and rejection of the caste-system. The Samañña-phala-sutta gives a good idea of views held in this movement and the relation of Buddhism to these views.
Now, as it comes to Hinduism, "classical Hinduism", if such a thing exists, surely did not exist in that time. In Hinduism there are six orthodox systems of philosophy, the first of which, Sāṃkhya, developed alongside with Buddhism, maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later. All the other orthodox systems (Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mimāṃsā, Vedānta) developed later and under more or less heavy influence from Buddhism.
To give just on example: Nyāya is classically the school of logic in Hinduism. It was the theory of Pratītyasamutpāda, that generated a need for a deeper understanding of causation, conditionality and logic, which in turn gave rise to a development in logic in India and ultimately to Nyāya. Similar indebtedness has also been claimed for the Hindu philosopher Śaṃkara to maybe the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna.
Now, Śaṃkara is also responsible for the Hindu renaissance in India and for the final i-dot on the Vedanta-system. What Hindus believe in today is in no mean way shaped by his thinking (although we should always keep in mind, that it is impossible to point to that which "Hindus believe in") and therefore ultimately by Buddhist ideas and developments in refutation of Buddhist arguments.
Getting back to the question. It is very true, that Hinduism cannot or can hardly be exported, it is bound to a priestly class which in turn is bound to India (Brahmins not being allowed to defile themselves by leaving India), it does not or does hardly convert (sects like Hare Krishna disregarded here), the gods reverred are rather local deities without universal appeal and so on. And on top of that: missionary zeal is rather foreign to it.
Buddhism on the other hand had this "missionary zeal", though not to be compared with the Abrahamic religions, right from the beginning, embodied in the Buddha's wish and urge to teach the truth he had found. So what is true in Watts is that Buddhism is much more universal(ly appealing) than Hinduism. But the quote of Watts somehow implies two more things, both of them being wrong:

That Buddhism is some sort of Hinduism. That this is wrong should have been shown by the above historical sketch.
That Buddhism was designed to be exported. This is wrong since Buddhism was not designed.

The equally polemic counter-attitude to Watts would be that Hinduism is just Buddhism flavoured with some archaic elements (reverence of the Vedas) and stripped of anything too hard to understand for common people (like anātman) and anything that might offend a priestly elite (like "equality of men"). Like Watts statement it is basically wrong with a pinch of truth in it.

I don't believe Watts's view would withstand much scrutiny from either Hindu or Buddhist scholars. Clearly Buddhism arose in a broader Hindu context, but I don't see any evidence of the former being merely an export-ready version of the latter.
As described here, a fundamental difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, is that while both have extensive concentration practices, Buddhism adds insight practices. In fact, a key feature of the "middle way" of Buddhism is that it does not rely on austerity-driven concentration (one of the two other "ways", with respect to which Buddhism is the "middle"). Instead, it sees samatha and its resulting samadhi, both of which were already understood in Hinduism, as at most a preparation for the enlightenment-targeted vipassana.

There's an interesting talk given by Bhante Sujato regarding this.
(This is a very brief overview and I highly encourage you to view the full talk)
According to Ven. Sujato, there are several reasons why Buddha/Buddhism is not Hindu/Hinduism:

According to the best archaeological history and evidence during the time of the Buddha, Hinduism (as we would call it today) either did not exist or it wasn't part of the major tradition.
Cultural and language references in the Suttas and Vinaya located the duration and area.
The idea that "ancient India has always been Hindu" became a mainstream idea during the British rule and is incorrect.

(I haven't listened to the podcast and don't have any idea on what basis Mr Watts bases his argument about Hinduism for export, but the above is Sujato's argument)

I disagree with your #3. The term 'Hindu' is relatively new but what is today practiced as Hindu-ism is not. The practices existed well before the name.

Though Hinduism (as we call it today) and Buddhism originated in India, they are different.
I am from India and a Hindu Brahmin by birth..
The Answer to the question "Is Buddhism just Hinduism stripped for export?" will be a straight "NO" from my side..
If you compare today's Hinduism with Buddhism, you would probably find no similarity at all between them.
But you can find quite similarities between the good old Hinduism (I mean the period of Upanishads and before) (which is completely lost more or less) and Buddhism. (In fact, you can find more similarity between Buddhism & Jainism)
But they differed in concepts like Atman and God.
The most common thing about both of them is that "This world is Maya/illusion/false"
I would just like tell you this (if you never heard something like this):
Actually certain Upanishads distinguish between 'god' and 'God'.
(There were even certain Hindu (Vedic) schools which were slightly similar to Buddhist schools)
In those scriptures, by 'god' they mean the mortal super beings like Brahma or Devas in higher realms (as Buddhism says) and by 'God' they mean a 'Supreme Reality', which can be compared very roughly to the 'Void' we say in Buddhism.
They doesn't seem to personify 'God' as today's heavily polluted Hinduism does..
An example of such an Upanishad would be Katha Upanishad (though it's scripted like a story)
But one major contradiction between Hinduism & Buddhism is the concept of Atman.
From my point of view, if Atman is seen as a factor that causes Existence or birth (not as a permanent entity), I think it wouldn't contradict Buddhist views.
With that view, Buddhism can be very roughly compared to Advaita concept, which says "'God' (or say Void) and 'Atman' (or Referential existence) are one, and they are/were/will never separate.", roughly similar to " We were never born/existent; we just forgot we are Nothing"
It is said Buddha's first teacher Ālāra Kālāma was a Jain and his next teacher Uddaka Rāmaputta was a Vedic Yogi (ofcourse, he'd be classified under Hinduism today).
(Sorry, I don't remember where I saw this)
But remember, none of the teachings of Buddha is from Hinduism; it was his own experience and realization of knowledge what he taught.
Buddha never read the Vedas or Jain scriptures..
It was his own preachings of the Truth which is unbiased or were not adopted from any other religion.

In addition to what @to mentions:
Buddhism differs from Hinduism. Hinduism has the notion of Atman as a central teaching. Buddhism does not.
Though Hindu practices you can reach Samadhi at the most. You cannot achieve Nirvana in the Buddhist sence since it lacks Vipassana.
Hence they are very different.

I noticed from the Wikipedia article about Alan Watts,

He chose Buddhism, and sought membership in the London Buddhist Lodge, which had been established by Theosophists, and was now run by the barrister Christmas Humphreys. Watts became the organization's secretary at 16 (1931).

That mention of "Theosophy" reminded me of this answer,

The reason stated in Anagarika Dharmapala's wikipedia page for his split with the Theosophical society is that he was against the idea of a universal religion that the Theosophists were aiming at.

Dharmapala eventually broke with Olcott and the Theosophists because of Olcott's stance on universal religion. One of the important factors in his rejection of theosophy centered on this issue of universalism; the price of Buddhism being assimilated into a non-Buddhist model of truth was ultimately too high for him."Dharmapala stated that Theosophy was "only consolidating Krishna worship." "To say that all religions have a common foundation only shows the ignorance of the speaker; Dharma alone is supreme to the Buddhist".

So I guess that something like that ("all religions are in essence one, different versions of The Truth") was one the theories of the time.
I listed to the 14-minute podcast you linked to (which doesn't include the quote, "Buddhism was just Hinduism stripped for export"). Based on that (i.e. on what I heard) my guess is that Alan Watts may have meant that the non-dualism of Mahayana is like the Advaita of Hinduism.
The following is a quote from early in the podcast:

The middle way doesn't mean 'moderation'. It means a bringing together of opposites.

(!)
According to Christmas Humphreys – the most eminent of 20th Century British Buddhists,

At the age of 21 he met his future wife Aileen Faulkner, who was also interested in Buddhism and Theosophy. The couple and others loosely formed a study group that was to quickly develop into the Buddhist Lodge of the Theosophical Society, which Humphreys organised in 1924. In 1926, tensions between different schools of thought led to the Lodge seceding from the Theosophical Society and developing into the Buddhist Society, now one of the oldest Buddhist organizations in the West.

Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. The Buddha was a reformer in the highest sense: someone who wants to go to the original form or reform it

It doesn't say "just Hinduism stripped for export", which would be belittling.
In the question you're saying "just": is that an accurate quote?
I can't find a copy of the book but perhaps there's a polite way to interpret the phrase: the polite or positive way to interpret that statement (without the "just") is that Buddhism contains what's essential, and is universal.

I will try to find that quote again. It was in a podcast but he repeats himself so much it's bound to be written down somewhere. I do like the audio though - it's so full of life. Not sure if its full of Buddhism though

I listened also. Alan Watts sounds like a Neo to me. He does not sound nondual. Long ago I liked one of his books, but after that he sounded fishy to me, and dying from the effects of alcoholism doesn't seem very elevated.

All of the previous answers have good points. However, it is hard to find much difference between the Advaita Hinduism and the Kagyu Mahamudra Buddhist meditation practices. I do feel like Buddhism's Compassion practice is more structured than the Hindu practices, but that's just my opinion. Whatever works. If you are concerned about what is happening outside your meditation practice, you are wasting time and energy, both yours and that of others. Please focus on your practice.

@Crab bucket.

... I'm interested in the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism and I though this might be a good entry point. See how it goes

if this was your intention then, I think yes, its serving its purpose!
To comment on the same point - if you are interested in this relationship please do read Dr. Ambedkar. Authors like Com. Sharad Patil, P. Laxmi Narsu, Pro. Dhammanand Kosambi etc. are also helpful.
In case anything said by Mr. Watts, I will not go in details of it because @ MatthewMartin @ zwiebel and @ samnish have already talked about it in very much detail and I am of the same opinion regarding it. Just add one point to it saying that as far as my knowledge goes Buddha was not reformer but revolutionary. He did not reformed the Vedic religion. He abandoned it.

Here alan watts what actually says that in hinduism the gods appear in form of humans to destroy evil. Vishnu who takes the avatar of krishna and also enjoys his journey. So majority of hindus refer god as a person or in form of person or self. And buddist teach about self so it might not be same in knowledge but the result is almost same both hindus and buddist observe life as a play.

Actually, Hinduism probably came from Buddhism.
Before Buddhism, it was called 'Brahmanism', which primarily was concerned with one God, namely, Brahma, who created the Brahman caste as the superior caste.
Also, Brahmanism did not have an inherent systemic doctrine of reincarnation in its Vedas (although some vague ideas appear in later texts, such as the Upanishads).
Then Buddha came & said to the Brahmans that the path to Brahma is via love.
Buddhism also had a teaching about kamma, kammic results, impermanence, Nibbana, etc.
After this, the diversity of Indian grew, which became known as Hinduism.
Hinduism has systematic ideas about reincarnation & liberation, similar to the later-day subsequent teachings in Buddhism (eg. Jataka) of rebirth over lifetimes & Nibbana (which are actually corruptions of what the Buddha taught, for the purpose of growing the religion among the masses).
Hinduism has its owns ideas of the Buddhist arising, existing & passing, which was deified as Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva, namely, the Tri-Murti.
Hindu texts such as Bhagavad Gita, have central teaching of giving up craving & attachment.
What is called 'Hinduism' I speculate obviously was influenced by 'Buddhism'.
In short, before Buddhism, the diverse religion called 'Hinduism' did not even exist.

Well i am from srilanka and a Buddhist by birth.Here is the simple and direct answer,NO. If you ask why here's the thing, the Brahma worshiping teacher at Buddha's time had nothing else to do but going against Buddhism.
They tried to beat Lord Buddha in debates,open dialog and failed time and time again.
Then they sent their brightest students and they did failed like their teachers.
Then they tried to defame lord Buddha by sending a lady who looked pregnant.She said Lord Buddha is the father & Lord Buddha replied saying if that's the case only you and i will know the truth sister.Then the sack of sticks that made her look pregnant fell down,the lie was revealed.
They tried Framing Lord Buddha or murder by hiding a dead body of a female monk in the Jethavana temple.That lie was revealed too.
And Lord Buddha slammed Hindu beliefs saying that they are lies right to the face of the teacher of the religion.
Other than commonly shared words with the same sound Buddhism and Hinduism got nothing in common.Even the words that sound alike got different meanings.

The Buddha is realized, the others were not or they could have no disagreement with him.

Two points, 1) Alan Watts was a charismatic speaker given to wild generalisations, and
2) Buddhist practice has very little to do with 'Buddhism' as it appears to people who confine themselves to intellectual study, let alone to 'Hinduism'.
Edit:
The point I was making (not very clearly, apparently) was that Buddhism regarded as a philosophy, mythology or system of ethics is one thing, and Buddhism as it's actually practiced is another.
My life at the moment consists of large amounts of work, not very much sleep, lots of back pain and my practice is mostly accepting all this and trying to remain cheerful. It's not the same as reading books and mulling over meanings because it brings the Buddha's teachings into reality and challenges the egotistical mind directly, and you don't get this from reading books. I would add that the former is how Buddhism is meant to be practiced and the latter isn't (imho, obviously).
So I'm pointing out that comparing two philosophies (which is what I assume we're doing) is just mental masturbation and doesn't shed much light on the differences between the two religions (not that I see a lot of point in comparing them anyway).
Sorry to sound like a religious snob btw :D

The first point is clear, the second doesn't say much (or assumes the reader understands "Buddhist practice").

Perhaps it was curt, I will try to think of an edit...

If anyone interacting with the ideas of Alan Watts doesn't understand that what he says is the stream of consciousness of a kind of genius mind that is at the same time playful and often tongue in cheek should not waste their time trying to understand the ideas of Alan Watts. There is other wisdom better suited for you. I recommend to go enjoy the wisdom that suits you and leave Alan to those who Alan suits.
Peace

I agree that Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.
Buddha didn't really invent a religion out of thin air. His philosophy was an extension of and a reaction to Hindu philosophy. He retained a large amount of meta-physics from Hinduism - Dharma, Karma, Samsara.
For both "Liberation" is the ultimate goal and the cause of human condition is delusion. The difference is just in the path to the ultimate goal. It is here that the meta-physics starts to differ.
Hinduism's social structure which was intertwined with its philosophy made it difficult(but not impossible) to export. Before Buddhism, Hinduism did reached South East Asia and recently a 4000 year old Vishnu statue was discovered in Vietnam. Buddhism just made it very easy for export by removing certain aspects of the Hindu social structure.
Buddhism and Hinduism have evolved influencing each other and thus contain elements of each other.
Many practices which Buddha taught was what he learnt from his Hindu masters. Belgian Indologist Dr.Koenraad Elst says this in his essay When did the Buddha break away from Hinduism?
:

He was a late follower of a movement very much in evidence in the
  Upanishads, viz. of spurning rituals (Karmakanda) in favour of
  knowledge (Jnanakanda). After he had done the Hindu thing by going to
  the forest, he tried several methods, including the techniques he
  learned from two masters and which did not fully satisfy him,-- but
  nonetheless enough to include them in his own and the Buddhist
  curriculum. Among other techniques, he practised Anapanasati,
  “attention to the breathing process”, the archetypal yoga practice
  popular in practically all yoga schools till today.

Similarly Adi Sankara whose is known for Advaita philosophy was influenced by Buddhist teachings, especially of Nargarjuna in such a way that his contemporary critics called his Advaita as Buddhism in disguise.
Tantra which is an important part of Tibetan Buddhism was originally considered a Hindu tradition.
It would be unfair to totally isolate Hinduism and Buddhism as being totally unrelated and disconnected.
Many Hindus consider Buddhism as being an Hindu sect only and revere Buddha as being an Avatar.

Hinduism, as we see it today is definitely (as you also knows) the same the way it was. Important to note that it was never called as "Hindu" or Hinduism that time. It is important to note this difference especially when it has lot of political context. People misinterpret the history. Looking at the current political situation in India and the advent of Brahminism in the name of Hinduism, I think we need to be specific and careful in using that term - Hindu. What do you say? Plz look at ans.s by samnish and zwiebel


text:
Does 'kusala' (skillful) also mean 'wholesome' and 'morally good'?
According to this page the same word, 'kusala', can mean 'wholesome', 'skillful', 'good', or 'meritorious'.
In English, these words have very different meanings or connotations, especially in different cultural contexts, e.g., in cultures that have religious ideas of sin. For this reason, I am wondering if anyone can provide more information about the Pāli term, the connotations it had, and the subtleties of its meaning in the context of Buddhist teachings (generally or in specific contexts, i.e., specific suttas). Does it carry a moral sense with it (in the sense of sin)?
Thanks.

Conceptually, Buddhist ethics is very simple and elegant, at least in my limited understanding.
The state of Buddha (Nirvana) is taken as the gold standard of all the best.
While Samsara, and within Samsara the hell realm particularly, with its absolute dukkha, is taken as the worst possible condition. Psychologically, subjectively, Hell is defined as state "everything is wrong" -- and Nirvana as "everything is right"1
The good and bad then are defined in relation to these two extremes. Whatever is conducive to psychological suchness is considered good (kusala). And whatever is conducive to psychological wrongness, to staying in or getting deeper into Samsara, is considered bad (akusala).
So in Buddhism the connotation of kusala/akusala is not a moral quality but the effect in terms of propelling us one way or another. Researchers of pre-Buddhist sources suggest that kusala originally meant "wise", "clever", "intelligent", "expert" -- and later "blameless". As in, if you act wisely, you won't be blamed. My favorite choice of translation, is one that Thanissaro Bhikkhu settled on: "skilfull". On one occasion I translated akusala as "pathological" -- kinda the opposite of "healthy", which is another connotation of kusala. Although in informal speech I simply say good (as in "drinking milk is good for you").
To add more depth and color, both long term and short term effect must be considered. While achieving harmony of short term and long term is said to be a sign of a high skill (e.g. enjoying pleasant being in the here and now, and at the same time making progress towards Nirvana), sometimes the two cannot be reconciled at which point long term becomes more important than short term. All this follows from Buddha's explanations in Pali Canon.
Also, both personal as well as global result must be considered. Again, harmonizing the two is a sign of class, but in case of conflict -- Mahayana folks close your ears -- personal result wins. Buddha is very explicit about this. It does not mean it is Ok to achieve personal bliss at the expense of the world, vampire style. It just means, if oxygen masks jump out, first put on yours, and then help your neighbor. This is my understanding of course, but I swear I did not make this up.
There is one distinction that Buddha usually drew and that is between the good that leads to worldly happiness vs. good that leads to Liberation. The two match pretty closely in most basic scenarios (like adhering to five precepts in day to day behavior, which both helps social harmony AND involves taming one's mind), but may diverge on more advanced stages:

... Now, I say that right view is twofold. There is right view that has
  cankers, that is on the side of merit, that ripens unto cleaving to
  new birth. There is right view that is ariyan, cankerless,
  super-mundane, a component of the Way...

This is how it basically is... What else... To answer your question directly, if there is anything like "sin" in Buddhism, it would only be so because of its correlation with bad effect, getting one further from Nirvana and closer to dukkha. Buddhism is a very practical framework, and because it grounds itself in first-hand experience it's kinda hard to to argue with.
For a more professional take on the topic, check out this piece by Bhikkhu Thich Nhat-Tu. There is also tons of research on this topic in buddhological academia, but I would be very careful with putting my trust in research that does not come from a practicing Buddhist.
To conclude on a practical note, in case you have doubts as to whether it is in our power to develop kusala and abandon akusala here is some encouragement from The Man Himself:

"Abandon what is unskillful (akusala), monks. It is possible to
  abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is
  unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But
  because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you,
  'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful
  were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what
  is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is
  conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is
  unskillful.'
"Develop what is skillful (kusala), monks. It is possible to develop
  what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful,
  I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is
  possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is
  skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to
  harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But
  because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit
  and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" -- Kusala
  Sutta AN 2.19

......
1not really, as "everything is right" would be the god's realm. Nirvana achieves "everything is right" in a funny way, by transcending the axis of psychologically agreeable/disagreeable, which makes everything right even when it's wrong, but that goes beyond our present discussion. For practical purposes let's pretend Nirvana is a simple "everything is right".

Thank you, this was helpful. Do you have any source about when the local/global result comes into conflict?

Yes, i will try and find the quote, i believe it was SN or AN. Although I'm traveling until 22nd with limited to no access to net, so this will have to wait.

@Adamokkha You could ask that as a separate/new question.

Normally, the word does not have any moral sense as some suttas indicate:

The Blessed One said: "Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an
elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long
in extent and broad in width. A skilled (kusalo) elephant hunter would not yet
come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that?
Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with
big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant
footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks
high up. A skilled (kusalo) elephant hunter would not yet come to the
conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an
elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth &
big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant
footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks
and tusk slashes high up. A skilled (kusalo) elephant hunter would not yet come
to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in
an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks & big
feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
-MN 27, The Shorter Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant Footprint (Cūḷahatthipadopama-suttaṃ)

In that case, prince, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer as you
see fit. What do you think: are you skilled (kusalo) in the parts of a
chariot?"
"Yes, lord. I am skilled (kusalo) in the parts of a chariot."
"And what do you think: When people come & ask you, 'What is the name
of this part of the chariot?' does this line of reasoning appear to
your awareness beforehand — 'If those who approach me ask this, I —
thus asked — will answer in this way' — or do you come up with the
answer on the spot?"
"Lord, I am renowned for being skilled (kusalo) in the parts of a chariot. All
the parts of a chariot are well-known to me. I come up with the answer
on the spot."
-MN 58, Discourse to Prince Abhaya (Abhayarājakumāra-suttaṃ)

But it also acquires a moral sense because it is also applied in moral contexts. The next excerpt is an apt example of this:

"Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily\verbal\mental behaviour is uncensured by
wise recluses and brahmins?"
"Any bodily\verbal\mental behaviour that is wholesome (kusalo), great king."
"Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily\verbal\mental behaviour is wholesome (kusalo)?"
"Any bodily\verbal\mental behaviour that is blameless, great king."
"Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily\verbal\mental behaviour is blameless?
"
"Any bodily\verbal\mental behaviour that does not bring affliction, great king."
"Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily\verbal\mental behaviour does not bring
affliction?"
"Any bodily\verbal\mental behaviour that has pleasant results, great king."
"Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily\verbal\mental behaviour has pleasant
results?"
"Any bodily\verbal\mental behaviour, great king, that does not lead to one's own affliction,
or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both, and on
account of which unwholesome states (akusalā dhammā) diminish and wholesome states (kusalā dhammā)
inscrease. Such bodily\verbal\mental behaviour is uncensured by wise recluses and
brahmins, great king.
"Now, venerable Ananda, does the Blessed One praise only the
undertaking of all wholesome states (kusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ)?"
"The Tathagata, great king, has abandoned all unwholesome states (akusaladhamma) and possesses wholesome states (kusaladhamma)."
-MN 88, Discourse about a Cloak (Bāhitika-suttaṃ)
Note: I would change the word 'states' for 'behaviors' or 'conduct'.

I hope this answer is enough to meet the question's requirement:

For this reason, I am wondering if anyone can provide more information
about the Pāli term, the connotations it had, and the subtleties of
its meaning in the context of Buddhist teachings (generally or in
specific contexts, i.e., specific suttas).

If not, let me know. I can find some more references if you need.

Good useful examples!

Wholesome - based on actions who's result we perceive as desirable when experienced. They have non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adosa) and non-delusion (amoha) as the motivating volitional factor behind these action.
Un Wholesome - based on actions who's result we perceive as un desirable when experienced. They have reed (lobha), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha) as the motivating volitional factor behind these action. E.g. if you take something out of attachment you will have to experience the pain of parting with something your are attached to.

There are sometimes when there is a distinction make between Skilful and Wholesome and Un Skilful and Un Wholesome by later teachers and in conventional usage.

Skilful - actions to progress in the path with a view to attain Nirvana. These are wholesome also but some action may give good results but may prolong your stay in Samsara. Say you have strong Karma to gain wealth but this can lead to attachment and sometimes may become an obstacle.
Un Skilful - action which prolong existance Samsara or non conducive or pose as obstacles towards attaining Nirvana. Though there can be a distinction made between Wholesome and Skilful there is not distinction between Un Skilful and Un Wholesome, as anything Un Skilful is Un Wholesome and anything which is Un Wholesome is Un Skilful also.

See: (Akusala,mūla) Añña,titthiya Sutta, Cetanā Sutta 1-3, (Kamma) Nidana Sutta, Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta


text:
How does conversion work in Buddhism?
I am a Hindu, but I like Buddhism. How does that work? Does one need to convert to practice Buddhism? If so, how does one convert to Buddhism? Can anyone convert to Buddhism? Or can I just practice without converting?

I've combined your comment with your question; I hope that works.

First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher.
Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called "What Makes You Not a Buddhist":

It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do, you can call yourself a Buddhist (ref).

If you want to mark your decision to become a Buddhist you can 'take refuge'. This ceremony or commitment can be found in many Buddhist traditions. More info also here
Anyone can become a Buddhist or you can just practice without any formal conversion. You do not need to give up Hinduism. To quote Khenpo Kartar Rinpoche:

... it is not necessary to give up any religious affiliation to practice Buddhism unless that religion demands actions that contradict Buddhist principles. .... Also, it is not generally necessary to change your diet, dress or relationships, though some people choose to do so. (ref).

The book 'What makes you not a Buddhist' is indeed amazing. I would recommend it to all the people interested in Buddhism.

The view that you need several years of training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher is not found in the Buddha's teachings.
The Buddha defined a Buddhist as one who has taken the Three Refuges.

Ceremonially, you can take Refuge. In many traditions, this is the entry or acknowledgement of being dedicated to being a better person.
Kagyu.org has this very nice talk from Kalu Rinpoche about what taking Refuge is and the Three Jewels:  http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/bec/bec04.php
It finishes with this wonderful thought:

It should be understood that the taking of refuge is not a process whereby the Buddha takes those who appear to have devotion to him and leads them to his side. Through taking refuge, one begins a process oneself which, going through various stages, will lead to one's own realization of the same state, the same experience as the Buddha.

And I believe Buddhism is open to all, with some gray areas around the insane and mentally handicapped.  If you are not in "your right mind", it is difficult to understand deeply what Buddhism is.  That is probably a different question though.

Conversion into Buddhism from a Zen Buddhist perspective, initially requires the initiate to take refuge into the “Triple Jewels” in a formal ceremony headed by a religious leader.
The “Triple Jewels” consist of three things: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.
This link on Buddhism Stackexchange explores the nuances of “taking refuge” into the “Triple Jewels” from various Buddhist perspectives.
In Zen Buddhism, which includes the Mahayana Buddhist traditions of East Asia the following vows for taking refuge are used:

I take refuge in the Buddha, wishing for all sentient beings to
  understand the great Way profoundly and make the greatest resolve.
I take refuge in the Dharma, wishing for all sentient beings to delve
  deeply into the Sutra Pitaka, causing their wisdom to be as broad
  as the sea.
I take refuge in the Sangha, wishing all sentient beings to lead the
  congregation in harmony, entirely without obstruction.

After the initial ceremony, the initiate follows the basic tenets of Buddhism by applying them to their circumstances along with various forms of meditation.  However, the Zen Buddhist tradition generally considers the terms: Buddhist, Buddhism, and Triple Jewels as methods to help the initiate along the path to enlightenment but are not an end in themselves.1  So, converting to Buddhism from the Zen Buddhist tradition is more about starting a life long process rather than being a member of an in-group versus an out-group.

Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen

It depends. I suggest you study the essential points of Buddhist teaching, especially the teaching on the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self, and the teaching on dependent origination. These teachings are incompatible with some ideas in Hinduism (Hinduism is very diverse, so I don't think there is always contradiction.)
The main ideas that are common in Hinduism which conflict with Buddhism is the teaching of Brahman, an absolute reality which all of the world derives from. That doesn't fit, and it would also be problematic if you believe that the Gods are eternal beings who have always existed and always will exist. However, if you just have love for the Gods and feel devotion towards them and preform Pujas to them, from a Buddhist perspective there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. In the time of the Buddha people venerated all sorts of beings, even including Yakshas and Nagas and the Buddha never spoke against it or forbade his followers from it, and in South East Asia today, some Hindu Gods (such as Brahma and Ganesh) are worshiped by faithful Buddhists and no one thinks there's a problem with it.
If you don't feel a contradiction, by all means, consider yourself to be both a Buddhist and a Hindu. The Buddha himself had lay followers who where Brahmin priests and it wasn't a problem.

"The main ideas that are common in Hinduism which conflict with Buddhism is the teaching of Brahman, an absolute reality which all of the world derives from." What if I say, by absolute reality, they really meant the infinite space and the real nature of existence? Maybe it was misunderstood by the later Brahmins as a Supreme being or God.

Buddhism is by practice. There is no conversion.
When you take refuge in the Triple Gem you take refuge in the qualities of Buddha, Dhamma and Sanga through this now has turned into a ceremonial outlook.
You can call your self a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. but still practice Buddhism as at the core of the Buddhist practice is Vipassana. This can be done by any one.

For me personally, things really changed once I joined a sangha. I view the joining of a sangha (Taking Refuge in the sangha) as the moment I became a Zen Buddhist.

You can practice Buddhism without converting.
You convert to Buddhism by reciting the Three Refuges and the Five Noble Precepts.

In my view, you become "Buddhist" when you willingly make a promise--any promise--to the Buddha that you would feel guilty or uncomfortable breaking.
It could be that you, maybe, look at a Buddha statue and promise to meditate at sunrise every day for a month (for example).  It doesn't matter if you believe the Buddha-nature is "real" or not.  It doesn't matter if you believe the statue is sacred (it isn't) or that ghost of Shakyamuni hears you (he doesn't).  But if, when you wake up the next morning, you think, "I must face the sunrise, close my eyes, practice deep breathing... I promised!" then you are, arguably, a very devout practicing Buddhist.
Buddhism isn't about what the Buddha can do to help you.  It's what you can do to become the Buddha.

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні


text:
What are the differences between "Nirvana" in Buddhism and "Moksha" in Hinduism?
A few days ago, I came across an article on Buddhism primarily about "Nirvana."
 After I read the article, I started to wonder because "Nirvana" sounds similar to Hinduism's "Moksha."  Does anyone know about possible parallels between the two concepts?  Are "Moksha" and "Nirvana" essentially the same?  If they are not similar, what are the differences between the two religious teachings?
The question was already asked on the Hinduism Stack Exchange Site, but it is not currently receiving any positive responses.

Moksha and Nirvana are the same in that:

The cycle of live, death and rebirth is broken
once attained, one is free from Samsara
It's attainable through practise
Meditation techniques are employed in attaining both

They differ in that:

Moksha tends to explained as a merger with Atman, or Brahma which Buddhist don't believe.

Their main philosophical difference is found in the wiki quote:

Nirvana, a concept common in Buddhism, is the realization that there
  is no self nor consciousness; while moksha, a concept common in many
  schools of Hinduism, is acceptance of Self, realization of liberating
  knowledge, the consciousness of Oneness with all existence and
  understanding the whole universe as the Self. Nirvana starts with
  the premise that there is no Self, moksha on the other hand, starts
  with the premise that everything is the Self; there is no
  consciousness in the state of nirvana, but everything is One unified
  consciousness in the state of moksha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha

From a Buddhist point of view, what Hindus attain as Moksha is merely a state of Jhana(meditative absorption) and does not accomplish the following:
1.The cycle of live, death and rebirth is broken
2.Once attained, one is free from Samsara

Ok, I've answered the question in the way the religion sees itself, rather than Hinduism from a Buddhist perspective, considering I do not want to go into what is right/true/real

Yes, I just commented it as additional info.

In my opinion, Moksha describes becoming one with the only thing that really exists, while Nirvana describes becoming detached and liberated from everything that doesn't really exist. The rest of the answer is inaccurate. Of course, from a Buddhist perspective, there's no such thing as "the only thing that really exists".

Sure it can be described like that I think. I expressed it as a merger with Atman or Brahma, how is the rest of my answer inaccurate?

There's a new answer which says that yours is wrong (or very controversial) about Hinduism.

@DirkM The part about wealth and sex is inaccurate.

What is a wise course of action with my answer? Add more sources to explain where I got my information? Add a disclaimer that my answer is controversial? or delete it completely? I'm uncertain at this point.

@DirkM, I don't understand; your original answer was the one that mentioned wealth and sex in the first place. Yuttadhammo's edit merely made the answer clearer by changing your prose into a bulleted list (as per your similarities list). If those two bullets are incorrect then you may as well delete them because that's what the edit ChrisW refers to is proposing. Otherwise, do you have sources for them?

I did have a source for them, but I can no longer find it. I would have to search for it, which seems not like the right way of argument (i.e finding sources to say what I already wanted to say rather than to answer the question. If i delete it, and I just did, the answer up votes seem no longer justified, as the answer just became less specific. That's where my uncertainty came from.

@DirkM, it's a pity this got concluded so fast. I'd still be interested in hearing why you gave those points -- are you basing them on some source others could check? ADDED: OK, you say you no longer can find the source. Fair enough, deletion was probably accetpable (although downvoting would, I feel, have been the better SE-esque method).

I can not find the source I used then, it was a comparative study between Hinduism and Christianity. It claimed that the three goals of life (Dharma or spirituality; Artha or material achievement and Kama or sensuality) should be perfected before The forth goal (Moksha) could be achieved. Kama could be achieved through abstinence, intercourse with the only goal of producing offspring or tantric practices. But I can no longer find a source with that claim, so I believe I have answered without enough knowledge on the subject.

@SankhaKulathantille, what is the source for your statement that Buddhists consider what Hindu's regard as Moksha to be merely jhāna?

Is quoting wikipedia an acceptable practice?

@Adamokkha AFAIK in Hinduism, the goal(moksha) is to reunite with a universal soul called the maha Brahma who is responsible for all creation.
According to Buddhism Maha Brahma resides in the 1st Jhana realm

The original answer saying that attaining personal wealth and mastery of sex is important for moksha is completely, 100% wrong and as a hindu I am extremely offended. Moksha and Nirvana are connected and the buddhist concept basically branches from the hindu concept of Moksha. Please please do not spread wrong knowledge about our religion. Moksha is a way to be one with the God and remove yourself from the cycle of rebirth. It is essentially what nirvana is.

Jay, you raising doubts over the points in question has served to push us towards looking for sourcing the claims (or deleting them otherwise). However, this is a Q&Q site, not a religious forum. People may make mistakes and should be open to correction, but taking offence is probably not the wisest strategy.

Enlightenment like ice cream comes in different flavors, but in the end they are all ice cream, made from milk, cream and sugar.
Examined with the intellect there are a lot of seeming differences, even within a single religion's idea of enlightenment - Bodhisattva or Arhat? Japanese Zen or Thai Theravada? Realizing the Atman or becoming a deva?
Examined with pure awareness where one loses the egotic sense of self, there is no difference, all paths lead here - but this is rarely said because it is impossible to explain this view in words.

‘Emptiness’, after all, is not an idea to be grasped: it is
  a provocation, a literal insult to the intelligence

In any case in his discourse on Simsappa leaves the Buddha says such questions are not answered by him, because they don't solve the problem of suffering.

The personal enlightenment model of Buddhism says the Arhat is liberated from further becoming, but this doesn't mean annihilation, neither is it further existence. Arhats and Buddhas are said to guide others to enlightenment after their bodily death too by appearing in dreams and visions of aspirants, and hence the existence of Reliquaries to them.

The Tatagatha (i.e. Buddha) never answers this question: SN 44.6 - Does the Tathagata exist after
  death?.

The Bodhisattva belief is that personal enlightenment is not possible until all beings are liberated.

See Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas by Ven. Bhikkhu
  Bodhi

These two ideals may appear contradictory, but they are all compatible and become indistinct eventually.
So too with Hinduism vs Buddhism.
Both Buddhism and Hinduism agree that there is no end to the cycle of life per se, the universe or multiverse is created and destroyed perpetually despite all the many Arhats and Bodhisattvas, because they don't leave the system. See Aggañña Sutta

Hindus are not a single people, there are numerous ideas that all make one Hindu, since it is a Western classification of religion in the Indian subcontinent. Following this "dharmic" ideal, in Indian law there are no Buddhists or Jains in the Constitution, there are only those who follow Indian religions (Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, various kinds of animistic and vedic traditions commonly called Hindus) all referred to as Hindus (of India), and non Indian religions such as Christianity.
In fact, the Buddha is seen by many Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu.
Buddha statues sit side by side with Hindu gods in prayer rooms in homes in India, and Ganesha jostles with Buddha in Thailand, a Buddhist country.
In any event, Hinduism and Buddhism are not an Orthodoxy but an Orthopraxy.

There is no correct belief, only correct action.

There is no Hindu or Buddhist Pope who can lay down the law. Popularly though, it is common for Buddhists to believe Hindus are orthodox with rites and rituals.

Arhats and Bodhisattvas are not at war with creation, they are a part of creation, just as much as Samsara. There can be no left side without the right side, there can be no Nirvana without Samsara.
The Zen movement in Japan is especially fascinated with this, a radical immersion in samsara because it is no different from Nirvana -  It becomes less true to say that ‘an individual has experiences’ than that ‘experience has individuals’.

To say there is enlightenment is a lie, but to say there is no
  enlightenment is a bigger lie.

Concept of Moksha is more analogues to birth in a higher plain of existence as per Buddhist Cosmology. E.g. merge with God. Nirvana is to get out of the cycle of birth. The Moksha concept is that you achive the same when you merge with god.


text:
Why not kill animals to hasten their rebirth?
This may be primarily for the Tibetan style practitioners. Also, my question assumes that "rebirth" etc are not metaphors.
Since non-human animal existence is lower down in the six realms, why wouldn't killing them (painlessly) be considered a good thing, since it then allows the being rebirth and maybe it will be reborn as a human? For example, in "Seven Years in Tibet", earthworms were saved from death. Isn't that in some sense cruel, since saving an animal prolongs the time it has to spend as an animal?
I think I know the answer; namely, that karmic effects need to be worked out and if we kill an animal prior to that point, then it's simply going to be reborn as another animal until it's paid whatever "karmic debt" is involved. Therefore, killing an animal doesn't serve to give it a chance of a higher rebirth.
But that's a guess. Any ideas? (And again, I know some people think the whole "rebirth" thing is just a metaphor. Fine. But this question is predicated on that not being the case, so in this particular case, please keep yer metaphors to yerself :-) )

It is clear that some Buddhist realized there was something unfair and unethical about the realms and that something should be done about it. Off the top of my head, I can't remember any that suggest killing as a solution.**
The Mahayanists realized that the hell realm was unfair and imagined Ksitigarbha, who vows to empty the hells, not by visiting hell and killing everyone, but by more conventional means, like merit-transference (doing deeds for good karma, but transferring it to others).
This is also the main theme of Ullambana Sutra and the Hungry Ghost Festival (O-Bon)-- getting people out of the Hungry Ghosts realms by making merit here and transferring it to those in the Hungry Ghost realm.
Also, in the Brahma Net Sutra, specifically mentions a way to get animals out of their current realm:

45th minor precept. Failing to Teach and Transform Sentient Beings
      “Buddha-Sons, one should always invoke the mind of great compassion. When one enters a city or home, one should say to people,
  ‘You should take the Three Refuges and accept the ten [Bodhisattva]
  precepts.’ When one sees animals, such as cows, horses, pigs, or
  goats, one should speak one’s mind, saying to them, ‘You animals
  should activate the bodhi mind.’ When a Bodhisattva crosses mountain
  forests, rivers, or wilderness, he should enable all sentient beings
  to activate the bodhi mind. If a Bodhisattva fails to teach and
  transform sentient beings, it is a minor sin.

And finally, there is a Jataka tale somewhere about crows overhearing monks preaching the 12 links of dependent origination and then are later reborn in a better state and primed to use the knowledge they gained as crows.
** as a side note, there is that Jataka tale about a ships captain killing pirates to save the more numerous passengers. I find that story, and really all the Jataka tales, to be not very Buddhist, or no more Buddhist than the fairy tales of any other randomly selected country. I think the Buddhists monks saw it as axiomatic that killing and death couldn't be a solution to a problem, so I'll have to keep looking for examples of why they thought killing couldn't be a solution to a problem.

In a version I read recently, the pirate was killed not (just) to save the passenger but because if the pirate weren't stopped his deeds would have sent him to hell (and so his being killed was to save him from hell). Also fwiw that story was referenced as an example of "wrong action for a right reason".

What makes you think that they will even be born at least as animals again? It's very difficult to get into higher realms once you go down. An animal can very rarely have a thought devoid of craving/lust, aversion and ignorance. So whether you kill an animal or let it die naturally, there's very little chance for it to get a better birth. There's a reason why the hells are called the great houses of Sansara. Once a being sinks below the human realm, it usually keeps sinking further down as it'll be mostly creating bad karma. Unless some good deed from a past life comes forward at the time of death, there's very little chance for it to escape hells. There are also rare instances of some animals listening to the Dhamma and being able to be born in higher realms. So if you are really interested in helping them, make them listen to the Dhamma and hope at least 1 in a million would be able to make use of it.
Breaking the 1st precept with such a false belief would probably make you join them instead of saving them :)

How do we know exactly that a "no pain method" of killing is painless?
Because he / she / it wouldn't get a chance to scream, shout, weep, cry and twitch due to the fact that the nervous system is first shut off before vital organs are?
And: if so, would you do that to yourself?
It is not only the screaming, crying, suffering from pain, etc that show the fear of death, but that moment when "you are not in control and forced to leave your body into the unknown".
If a kid is disallowed by his parents to have chocolate after 6pm (regardless the reason), would then be OK if he melted the chocolate and make a hot cup of chocolate instead?
If not, why would painless killing not be a killing? Your "intention" (thought / sense) is unaltered - to kill, "different" only by a method with which you justify yourself.
It "is" not about whether or not a being would become human through re-birth by being the judge yourself, it is about you accumulating the "debt" and ending a life that has its "duties" and its destiny through re-births.
Let just make a very rough example that a cow was re-birthed from someone in the previous life that had done vicious crimes and deeds. So it, in this life, has to farm all day, subjected to torment such as being milked daily and forced to see its own newborns (calves) being taken away and slaughtered. And in the end, without getting a chance to "rest", it itself got slaughtered.
You come along and take this cow in, without making it to do all of the above and treat it pretty well until its time is up.
You would then be "clearing" its debt and at the same time you produce a good cycle.
That is all this is about and that is - Compassion. The fundamental.
It is hard to grasp for others, because they got so used to of thinking of "profit and margin" - I do something good, I earn a point in my Karma Bank with interest. I did something bad, I lost Karma points and thus the interest.
Compassion and Karma is unlike capitalism.
Everyone has it - Compassion, but it is "covered" by our senses (desires: taste, lust, selfishness, touches, perceptions), thoughts (judgements, clinging, biases etc).
And once one finally grasps it, one would try to benefit all beings without the "self" and without thinking of Karma before or after doing something beneficial to other beings.

The simple answer is killing of any kind effects the mind and causes the mind to be impure. It's not the action of killing or hurting another being but what that action does to our own mind and every decisions we make in our life is effected by that action of killing. To be able to reach enlightenment one must achieve purity of mind.

As Buddhists we accept the precept to refrain from killing. So killing would be bad karma for us and also introducing more bad karma into the world. To follow the line of thinking of your question "why not kill an animal to give them a chance at a better rebirth" well...why stop with animals? Why not kill people who are currently messing up their lives with evil deeds to spare them the further effects of their own ever growing bad karma? And then there is the whole ecology/interdependence of all beings issue. Kill earthworms for better rebirth and now birds are starving, etc. We don't control the world with our own value judgments.

Not to mention people killing animals could end up with a lower rebirth! ;-)

Sure, but the essence of my question is why is killing an animal bad karma? I'd have thought bad karma is, at very least, things that cause harm. But if killing a being in animal form helps that being move closer to enlightenment, then that doesn't seem like harm. As to why not extend the argument to humans, one reason is that one can never tell if another human is actually being evil, since one can never tell another's intention. (Hence the Christian idea of not judging.)

At the very least interfering with nature will harm all sorts of beings. As another poster noted you cannot say for sure that what you consider painless is actually painless. The animal is not choosing to die. And to continue that logic you should also kill any being you feel would be better off with rebirth instead of continung in their present suffering or bad karmic situation.

When someone is facing to killing(The victim), always feel fear, sad and angry. Those minds become bad karma to the victim and they will go down to the realm hierarchy. Then even if they are suitable to go up, after the death due to the killing, they will go down.
when someone killing, killer also collect points to do to the down. then the killing process make both parties down. Then why intelligent people choose that path?
you have lot of options if you really want to make creatures up, and help creatures.
first you have to identify which creatures you can help. Keep in mind that there are infinite creatures in the worlds. First most valuable creature is our self. Because we are also in the samsara and in very dangerous possibility of going down of realm hierarchy. That's can only done by attain Nirvana. After attain nirvana you can help lots of creatures to attain Nirvana.
while attain nirvana people has to practice donation, Śīla , meditation and other goodwill to collect good karma and keep up.

Everyone suffers here and now. So why inflict suffering on others? Instead you should relieve his suffering like mother takes care of life.
If someone kills another, he ruined himself here and now deep within.

The reason why "Mercy killing" is bad according to Buddhism is very simple,let me provide some quotes from lord Buddha...
"Every being is attached to their lives no matter how good or bad those might be,no matter how much pain they suffer every being at all times is attached to their lives and wish to live"
"One should place himself or herself in the position of the receiver of his or her actions and see if what they are going to do is something that the receiver would like,
As no one likes suffering,harm,fear or death no one should do such things to another"
Lord Buddha mentioned that even beings in hell are attached to their lives!
So the conclusion is that all beings at all levels in any place like only to live no matter what the state of their lives are.

There is also another reason....

If someone foolishly start mercy killing the bad karma he would harvest from it will not go away he will have to suffer no matter what he thought he was doing.
May triple gems bless you
If you have any questiones about my answer please leave a comment.

Animals love their life. They think their life is theirs. They scare suffer and death like human.
By killing, You are steal and exploit their life.
And also animals be an animal to spend their own bad karma.
Even you kill him, his karma not gone away. He still rebirth as animal until his time. But you created new karma.

Mercy killing is bad simply because it is unskillful. You may be helping to spend some one elses karma, but what you really doing is bringing it upon your self.
You have to be very careful when you get yourself involved in solving other beings problems, not to bring the same problems upon yourself.