text:
Why is it hard to breathe naturally when meditating?
For me it is rather hard to breathe naturally while doing Samatha meditation. It makes it harder to concentrate because I'm always controlling my breath.
Do you have any suggestion how to overcome this problem?
Is this a normal problem for a beginner in Samatha meditation?

Yes it is very normal, just try to remember that we meditate to let things go... let go of control, let go of stress, just be there concentrated in one single point
If you see yourself thinking too much on how you are breathing, remember to repeat to yourself "thinking, thinking, thinking...", you need to remind yourself not to follow thoughts, pain or control things, for tranquility meditation you need to let it go, your body knows how to do it!
Keep trying! :)

In the beginning one tends to control the breath out of habit. The moment we think about the breath we tend to take it over. Even going as far as trying to even it out, make it pleasant, make it smooth.
Sticking with it long enough one can realise that the breath is not completely controllable or always pleasant. Realising this one can think that the meditation is not done right, as if the mediator is failing, however this is part of the practise. Seeing your habit of clinging, of trying to control and seeing that it doesn't work, you slowly and momentarily let it go.
So my suggestion is to simply sticking with it and you'll find yourself slowly letting the breath rise and fall, rather than trying to control.

Thanks a lot for your suggestion, sorry i just can accept 1 answer here :(

Try focusing on the breath that might help I think but it's normal to want to control breathing at first but if you try focusing on the breath then it becomes a concept. It's always difficult in the beginning but it gets easier. The mind is always jumping around so we have to give it something to focus on.

Thanks a lot for your suggestion, sorry i just can accept 1 answer here :(


text:
What is the role of kōans in contemporary Buddhism?
I have a copy of The Iron Flute that I use to study individual kōans, and read the analysis provided.  I feel like this provides me with some good insight, but it also feels... backwards.
How are kōans used in modern Buddhism?
Are they intended as teaching aids, where the explanation illustrates one or more principals, or are they intended as puzzles that only sufficiently advanced students should be able to figure out?  Or can either strategy (or altogether different strategies) be employed to gainful effect?

The way my Zen Master used them (as much as I can pretend to have understood my Zen Master at all!) is to essentially give the person a hint about a particular pathological pattern the person was stuck on. So the koan would always match the elephant in the room that the student was working hard to ignore. The student could then resort to analysis, or simply mull over the koan while going along with the daily activities. In any case, solving the koan required getting an insight into oneself and one's fundamental relationship to the world, as opposed to figuring out some new external fact or gaining an analytical understanding.

I think they are intended to be quite exactly the opposite of the way you are using them. How does one study "one hand clapping"? The concept, I believe, is to get past conceptual thought and lack of conceptual thought. How do you use the mind to get past the mind, since it is part of the problem? The koans are avenues to trick the mind (or perhaps a more useful term is the "Gross Mind") into getting the heck out of the way. Something that is NOT the Gross Mind might then be experienced. That experience might be hard to hold so one may lose the experience. If so, one then uses the meditations (and koans) one has learned to learn how to stabilize that experience. (The more I type, the less this answer makes sense. Sounds like a koan, huh?) Hope this helps.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How and when should a child be introduced to Buddhism?
My son will be four soon.  I would like to introduce him to Buddhist philosophy, and some meditation practices.
However, stillness is, at this point, completely foreign to his personality :)
My wife is Christian, and has taken him to church a few times, but not regularly, or recently.  She and I are okay with sharing our differing beliefs with our son.
I'm not active (or aware of, really) any local Buddhist groups, and, unfortunately don't even meditate regularly anymore.
Still, I think meditation, and an understanding of the philosophies, would be very helpful to my son, and I'd like to get him involved as soon as is practical.
How do I best introduce him, both to meditation and Buddhist philosophy?  At what age is he likely be ready for either?

Sir, The least age of an Arahant (e.g. Revata, Sankicca, Pandita, and Sopāka) and a Stream-winner (e.g. Visākhā) mentioned in Pali canon is the age of seven. So we can assume a child in that age can understand this Dhamma.

I have a daughter who is nearly 4 now. I first took her to the local Buddhist Centre when she was about a year old on a family day that we organised. The Buddhist practice involved running around the shrine room and shrieking. Someone said at the time though that bring her at such a young age was auspicious and I'm enought of a romantic to lap this up. I took here again a few months ago and her Buddhist practice is much the same - running and shrieking. But we all enjoyed it and she's had a positive experience.
As far as meditation goes. Mmmmmmmm, She decided to have her first meditation a week ago. I think I timed 5 seconds. Better than I thought it would be. I have to say my local centre doesn't really teach meditation to people younger than 16 but I think that more of a guardianship issue rather than the impossiblity of younger children meditating. I've been in meditation sessions in festivals with 12 year old and they seem to get on fine.
I don't really have much more advice - just my own experience. I have to say though I agree with Richard Dawkins (though i have to say not in such strident terms) in that children should be old enough to chose the religion they belong to - not just inducted into it. However I believe that Buddhist ethics, Buddhist stories and a little bit of an understanding that's its OK just to be a little be quiet now and then, would be good for any child.
Generally being kind to yourself and kind to others is what I want my daughter to know and if that's in a Buddhist framework then fantastic. We are going to go on a Buddhist family retreat in North Yorkshire (UK) so we'll see how it all goes there. Wish us luck!

The typical cut off for meditation class at a meditation center is about 4 (just checked google).
Traditional Buddhists said a child could become a monk if he was old enough to scare crows away, which worked out to be about 7. I don't advocate that, ordination so young has lots of problems. And you weren't considering anything like that. But it is a vivid example how young kids have been asked to rise to the occasion.
That's it for fact. Now on to my opinions.
My son is 18 months. We do altar maintenance-- recite a repentance phrase, a vow, do a mudra, a mantra and feed the Bodhisattva statues.  I'm a secular Buddhist, so as a practice, this doesn't do much for me. I do mental gymnastics to reassign meaning to the action to keep from feeling silly.** But my toddler thinks it's great.
I plan to try to take advantage of teachable moments, like when he's angry, to get him to be introspective and pay attention to the breathing and tension in his muscles when he's upset and misbehaving, rather than what I would have done previously-- rewards and punishments and explanations about why this or that isn't a good thing to do.
I plan to teach meditation through chanting first. I first learned to meditate by counting breaths, which is sort of a mantra (1,2,4...10,..repeat).  Mantra based meditation is simple and teaches concentration. This provides the foundation for other types of mediation, like metta, koan, or analytic meditation. (Or depending on your sect, mantra practice is the sole practice)
Regarding meditation-- I decided to put my meditation cushion in the most visible place possible, right in the entry way. I wanted my religion to be obvious. My kid can't see the thoughts in my head, so the physical symbols of religion will have to help him gauge that there is a religion and it's important.
Regarding what texts, I plan to use those books that summarize world religions for kids, and pay special attention to the Buddhist chapter. The Jataka tales, for me, often seem more fairy tale than Buddhist.
** From a secular standpoint, the daily review of what we did wrong (repentance) and making heroic goals (vows), is a potentially good practice. The statues are personifications of ideas I believe in, but by no means do I feel like I'm sacrificing as a quid pro quo with celestial super beings, or expressing my devotion or gratitude to super beings who are taking care of my liberation for me.  I worry that my toddler will go through a phase of thinking just that.

As per your comment of "Mental Gymnastics" I invite you to see it as a mindfulness practice. I once had the same view as you but with time I learned to appreciate the aesthetics and the presence that this simple things evoke on me. Metta

You can introduce by reading the Jathaka stories to him. I think there's a kid's version of it. You can also start teaching about the 5 precepts. At least the 1st, 2nd and the 4th. I would also recommend you to go through the videos under the 'children' section at http://video.sirimangalo.org/
"Angels east; Angels west. North and South. Just/please do your best, to guard and watch her while she rests.... Amen". Replace that or similar prayers with taking refuge in the Triple Gem.
Replace saying grace at the food table with offering Buddha puja or chanting the virtues of the Buddha.

I started practicing meditation and Buddhism since 7.  I am now just past 30.  I am not sure what the best ways for introducing Buddhism to a child is.  But my own experience has taught me that the parents' support is the most important.  My interest in Buddhism did go through lots of ups and downs.  I've always come back to it, but it think my parents' support has been very important, in addition to Buddhism's own attractiveness.
Hope this helps.

Being a buddhist i would like to mention you one thing. Meditation is not only worth
for buddhists   .It is for anyone who seek inner peace. so i would say your son is more
than capable of practicing meditation. Teach him anapanasati meditation and practice it
for ten to fifteen minuets daily. So this will pave the way to teach him buddhism.

If the child can count, have them count some objects.  As they get better have them count their breaths.  I have students as young as 7 and at that point they can easily practice cutting off attachments through short fasting from their favorite activities.
At 4 I would use Buddhist chanting such as the om mani padme hum music on YouTube (use it at night with lavender scented oil and maybe use a tuning fork on the calming accupuncture points -- they will likely fall asleep -- even my older teen students fall asleep during such treatments).
It really depends on the child's temperament how early they will respond to Buddhist practice.  Also,  my top progressing students were either monks or exposed to Buddhism in a past life.  They range from 7-12 when they began and are 13-18 now.

In my own opinion and what I adhere to... I just to lead my life in a skillful way and allow that behavior to serve as an example to follow. I would not think about introducing my son to mediation and other practical aspects of Buddhism. I Talk about right action, living etc as a view to hold. If my son becomes an adult and chooses to look into Buddhism further that is great, and if not that's ok too. Either way I would prefer my son to have a lot of "muck" to work with before entering into the practice.... otherwise it would be like trying to grow a lotus in clean fresh water.

As soon as possible. Stillness isn't all there is to being a Buddhist.  Before we can be a good person still, we can work on being a good person in motion.  Before serious meditative attainment is to be pursued, we purify ourself through moral observation, the precepts, and mental purification processes.

All you mothers and fathers there, interested in your childs welfare,

Mother & father,
  compassionate to their family,
  are called
     Brahma,
     first teachers,
     those worthy of gifts
     from their children.
  So the wise should pay them
           homage,
           honor
        with food & drink
        clothing & bedding
        anointing & bathing
        & washing their feet.
  Performing these services to their parents,
  the wise
        are praised right here
        and after death
        rejoice in heaven.

Patents are the first Gods for their childrens and nothing helps the children more, if having the compassion, as to serve as their further Gods as well, one who gives skills to live in compfort, one who teaches toward heaven, one who lays out the path to liberation.
To serve as a even a higher God, make your child really a blessed one, one needs to have more skills then the first God, skills which are transmitted in a disciple-relationship, for the higherst in serious refuge. Children are fast and climb up the tree which is next, so make your self a good and firm tree.
A topic in this regard: [Q&A] How to develope, learn and maintain gratitude (right view)?.
Others the modern views, certain implimented pseudo-liberalism is nothing but harmful. You may know it your self, having a hard to listen and be really devoted to be able to progress.
So the right time to introduce is actually always, even before giving birth to a guest you gave the possiblility to become in your realm.
Like mostly, my person does not think that this tendency void of gratidute are here serves one to listen and understand, but for the case one is serious about wishing to understand, the starter to such is good if not hidden and accessable. One may ask possible here: The first gods: Parents.
There is a lot to understand and to learn in regard of this and hardly one would find someone leading one not total into the wrong direction making your child at the end the same slave of desire and not-knowing as your self.
So it is possible the right time if desiring your beloved to do face a better and may force you to an effort, an effort you may not have sacrificed toward your self till this days: that's then where your child possible becomes your God, when seeing it's possibility if giving into the right.
Learn your child to sacrifice toward more Sublime by your own sample and to abstain from giving toward the lower. In your degenerated sociaty children hardly would ever be introduced to the basic of grow: Without gratidute no success
Look around, would you like to have your children grown up and assosiate with people, void of respect, veneration, gratitude but nothing but foolish overestimating themselves, putting one transgression after the other into deeds, like here? Would you like a child to grow up with fools? How to avoid that you are not the missguiding "friend". Be listen and follow wise and liberated or alike? Where do you like your child go?
Never introduce the to "Buddhism" of householders but just to that of Noble Ones and guide them to gain to be bond to them, since on the track.
[Note, this is neither given to keep ones child or oneself bound to trade, exchane and desire for gain, but for liberation. So use it for such]

I don't think you can just introduce philosophy and expect a 4 year-old to understand. The way of Buddhism is not one that uses indoctrination, but rather uses experience, realization and enlightenment.
A better way to do it is to highlight and/or create the necessary experiences for the child to go through as he grow up in our world, and explain the ways of facing life's adversaries. Enrich the child's experience with love, hate, wealth, poverty, greed, suffering, jealousy, excitement, sickness, separation, death, conflict, war, etc. and through each relate back to the Buddhist philosophy through healthy discourse.
For all you know, your son may be able to derive the philosophy on his own before you have the chance to teach.

I don't think that "war" etc. are easier/better/more enriching to introduce/explain/experience than dharma, especially to anyone like a 4-year old.

Conversely, I think that letting a child be exposed to war and suffering is better than simply telling him "the dharma says.... therefore we follow...". of course, we can't really start a war just for this purpose, but we can show videos, images, news reports etc. of war and suffering. This is my experience anyway.

Lots of wisdom here. Familiarization not indoctrination.

authors: Алексей Демидчик

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

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


text:
How to make a decision based on Buddhist principles?
I have been practicing Buddhism since a child, about twenty years.  Throughout my adult life I have been trying to combine my practical life with my Buddhist beliefs.  In some situations, however, I am not seeing how Buddhist principles apply to decision making.  For example, how do I apply Buddhist ideals in deciding which college to go to, what profession to do, and what job opportunity to pursue?  These are the mundane but unavoidable decisions for the layman.  Of course, I'd not pursue a career in military or defense industry due to my beliefs, but there's not always a clear choice between other professions, jobs, etc based on Buddhist beliefs.

A book by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula, Ph.D entitled The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity At Home, At Work, and in the World devotes a chapter to "The Buddha's View on Decision Making".

I have seen no other cause than the presence of false views to block the origination of right thoughts in the mind and to corrupt the right thoughts already present in the mind. I have seen no other cause than the presence of correct view to inspire the right thoughts already present in the mind. ~ The Buddha, The Numerical Discourses

Venerable Dr. Rahula, outlines 10 kinds of fallacies in reasoning (from several suttas including the Kalama, Bhaddiya, Canki and others) that if one were to believe to be true could create such false view.
Fallacy 1. Reported information is true
Fallacy 2. Traditional values, beliefs, and practices are actual truths
Fallacy 3. Social truths are actual truths
Fallacy 4. The texts are true
Fallacy 5. Logical reasoning is always correct
Fallacy 6. Reasoning based on imagination and speculation is correct
Fallacy 7. Hypothesized reasoning is correct
Fallacy 8. One should accept a view because it is compatible with one's own way of thinking.
Fallacy 9. One's persuasive skill validates the message
Fallacy 10. Individual authority is a dependable criterion for making decisions
Each of the fallacies is explained in detail and the following chapter details "Correct Reasoning, Right Decisions".

If you understand that this action is right, harmless, blissful, beneficial, and admirable, take that action and follow it. ~ The Buddha, The Numerical Discourses

The four forms of correct evaluation (from the Kalama Sutta) are:
Right Evaluation 1. Wrong motivations lead to wrong decisions
Right Evaluation 2. Absence of wrong motivation leads to right decisions
Right Evaluation 3. Consequences of a decision make it right or wrong
Right Evaluation 4. Attention to the views of qualified people lead to right decisions.
In summary, the Buddha spoke of the correct way to make decisions on many occasions. Due to the way discourses are categorized, it's not easy for the average person to pick out the teachings of the Buddha on such practical matters in any sort of an easy way. This book has done that and combines an easy to read style with the expected references to the suttas from which the information is taken. It's available from Wisdom Publications if you are interested in reading it in full.

One question this raises for me: How can any action be harmless?  By taking one action I forgo another and must compromise.

Samma Ajiva - the third and the last member of the morality group of the Noble Eightfold Path is what you want to read about. The Right Livelihood means abstaining from any of the forbidden modes of living. Five kinds of livelihood are discouraged : trading in animals for slaughter, dealing in weapons, dealing in slaves, dealing in poison and dealing in intoxicants. So select a job which doesn't require you to do those.
Which college to go to? If you are looking for additional criteria apart from academic facilities, select a college where Buddhism and Vipassana meditation is taught. Select a place where you have a high chance of meeting "Kalyana Mittas". In other words, a place where you can make friends with people who learn and practice the Dhamma.

To me, this is not really how Buddhism works. I think of it this way:
Meditation practice can help you to have clarity (among other things). Tonglen can help you to find compassion. And other practices can help with find other things. All those things may be useful to you when making a decision.
But generally, aside from some very specific items, Buddhism doesn't care which choice you make. Buddhism doesn't know anything about what college is best. Your practice might help you to recognize that certain choices might have unskillful outcomes, but I don't suspect you'll have much luck looking to Buddhism for specific decisions about non-Buddhist related topics.
That said, Buddhism CAN help you to be present and mindful while you use other means to decide.
:)

Thank you! I wanted to see if I could make my all my decisions by the Buddhist teaching.  Since decision making is such a big part of life, I wonder if there is a certain angle the Buddhist teachings can provide, in addition to "right livelihood" as understood by livelihood that harms no beings.

In the context to buddhism, it would discourage worldly pursuits. Things like college, ambitions and future plans all lead to becoming, becoming leading to rebirth. You are generating more Karma by following these pursuits. I think the question would be more "Why has 20 years of practicing meditation and buddhism not lead me to the path?" :-).

Thank you!  While I understand Buddhism does not encourage worldly pursuits, it is also not discouraging it if I am not mistaken.  We see in the times of Buddha many lay followers were successful merchants, artisans, warriors, etc.  I agree that worldly pursuits are not worth hanging on to, but it remains my duty to support myself and find means to support the dharmma.  My original question was more directed to the 'principles' involved in decision making. I'd say Karma is accumulated when the mind acts.  So perhaps I meant to ask what kind of decisions lead to the best/least karma.

Sure. Many lay followers break every precept, lie, cheat, murder etc, but this doesnt make them good lay followers :-). This may seem off topic but it's really very pertinent. The Buddha said to practice the Darmha 'as though your head was on fire' :-). I think good deeds would be best for any lay person in context to activity. If you study, study for your own liberation and others. If you work, work for your won liberation and others :-). Things like working with the sick, the poor, the ageing and the dying would be perfect pursuits.


text:
Characteristics of Sotàpanna person (Stream Enterer)
What are the characteristics of Sotàpanna person (Stream Enterer). Can Sotàpanna person live at a home with a family (married life) without going to a monastery and stay without being a monk...

The Pali Canon definition of a stream entrant is one who have abandoned the first three fetters namely

Self View
Skeptical Doubt
Clinging to rites and rituals

(There are 10 fetters, all of which must be broken before enlightenment)
So quoting from the Alagaddupama Sutta

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain,
  open, explicit and free of patchwork, those monks who have abandoned
  three fetters, are all stream-enterers, no more liable to downfall,
  assured, and headed for full Enlightenment.

Perhaps more helpfully it's been described to me as the point at which a someone cannot fall back on the path. Forward is the only direction they will go. It is like reaching escape velocity. Until you get out of the gravity well of samsara there is always the possibly of falling back to Earth. The stream entrant no longer feels that gravitational pull so will not fall back (apologies to Newton for the analogy).
More poetically reaching stream entry has been been described as the turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness.
Regarding family life and being a stream entrant - there is no obligation to join a monastery or be a bhikku or monk. There are apparently 3000 lay stream entrants named in the Pali Canon. Sangharakshita, the founder of the Buddhist group that I belong to says that stream entry is a realistic aim for anyone seriously engaged in the spiritual life irrespective of lifestyle. Not to say that it wouldn't take a great deal of commitment of course.

To build upon Crab's answer, stream enterer is simply one that really gets the teaching of Buddha. As in, clearly sees what Buddha meant and why: what Enlightenment is, what Nirvana is, how karma works, how suffering originates and ceases, sees how the three marks of existence are true, sees how pratitya-samutpada is true, etc. (When I say "clearly sees" I mean the direct experience of how these things manifest in the world, in front of their eyes, not just as analytical understanding of structured explanations.) Because they clearly see all this, they obviously don't have the self view anymore, have no doubts about Buddha's teaching, and clearly see to what extent the rites and rituals work, hence have no irrational clinging to them.
Now, they may not have perfectly realized (=mastered in practice) what they see yet, and that's the main difference between stream enterer and an arahant. They may still get caught up in emotions once in a while (although not in strong ones, and not for a long time), they may still have some confusions as to some subtleties of Buddha's teaching, most definitely they still have some clinging to "I" at the subconscious level, even though they don't subscribe to the self-view anymore. But in any case, because they "got it", they are not nearly as confused as they used to be before stream entry.

Perhaps this is why it is said that only oneself can decide if it has happened. How would anyone else know if you "really get the teaching of the Buddha"?

i did watch a video that make a story about buddhism. apparently someone can be a stream entrant without being a monk if it was show by a qualify monk. however , to advance further stage , one need to be a monk. this is a story about a wife who went to become a nun and then the husband later on follow her course and be a monk. so i think both of them are probably very very near during the buddha is still alive as the story said the wife actually display some sort of spiritual attainment and convince her husband to the point her husband become a monk. And apparently this happened because both of them had pray to attain the arahat fruit in one their past life during another buddha time.


text:
How does Buddhism define abortion?
Abortion is a much-debated topic, and religion frequently plays a role in any such discussion.
How does abortion fit into Buddhist faith?
Is it considered negative karma by definition, or perhaps negative karma, depending upon the situation (e.g. in a family that cannot afford to properly support and raise a new child, or in the case of an abortion to save the life of the mother)?
Are there definitions of when human life begins tied with Buddhism?

Seung Sahn talked about this from the point-of-view of intention and harm - see http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/zen-master-seung-sahn-on-abortion.html

This modern-secular buddhist, defines life as "sentient beings". So informed by science, fetus's appear able to think around 4 months after conception. However, this is an answer that likely pleases no one.

This appears to be a duplicate of Are Buddhists Against Abortion, which covers both when "life" from the standpoint of Buddhism begins and how abortion specifically is handled.

In Buddhism, life starts at the moment of conception. So abortion breaks the 1st precept and causes bad Karma no matter how you try to justify it. Even if the husband's intention is to save the wife(mother), it still causes bad Karma. To give you an analogy, let's say a bear captured your wife and is about to kill her. Say you have a gun with you. You can shoot the bear and save your wife, but it still breaks the 1st precept and causes bad Karma.

Isn't allowing the death of your wife also bad karma? Where is the intention is your example? I see the intention not to harm the bear however if given little choice to save another life, who are you or me to play judge, jury and executioner?

Then you are karmicly responsible for the child who died today in Africa due to starvation. Because you did not send the money you used on buying new clothes, furniture etc. to feed him or her. :) Karma has nothing to do with how others judge you. It's a natural law. Not a God who judges you.

In the context of your example, we are all responsible for the child that died today in Africa no matter the reason for the child's death. The fact that you distinguish child, you and me suggests polarity of you, me and them. Since we are all connected, we all bear some responsibility. The concept of judgement is interesting. Are you suggesting that karma/kamma are the judge and jury? If so, again, it suggests the concept of a sculptor and sculpture. Natural law it may be, however if judgement is being place, how is it being achieved?

"we are all responsible for the child that died" - Maybe according to some socialism theory. But not Karmicly.
Karma is not a judge. Just like gravity is not a judge. Killing the bear requires aversion. A thought with aversion is bad Karma,and taking a life breaks the precept even if it was preceded by a thought to save the wife.

This response isn't intended to offend. It is an inquiry to your statements. How do you know for certain what has negative or positive karmic consequences? I am intrigued by the comment on socialism since if we are truly all connected the fact that one ignores a child that died or is dying, is in my view irresponsible for all concerned. Just because one is not directly affected by it, does not equate to lessened responsibility. If this responsibility is denied, it is aversion by definition.

I am not attempting to justify the killing of an animal nor any sentient being, since unless all the rules are openly known, none of us are in the position to pass comment of what has positive, negative or neutral karmic consequence.

"since if we are truly all connected" - This sounds like the universal soul theory. It is a Hindu concept.
"If this responsibility is denied, it is aversion by definition" - no that is not the definition of aversion. Aversion is the disliking towards an object received by your senses.

All the topics are constructs or concepts and if they are realized they differ for all of us so labelling it Hindu, Buddhist, etc polarizes the topic. Is the definition you have provided a universal definition?

That sounds like the belief "All religions are the same". Answers given here are according to Buddhism.  I'm not sure what you mean by universal definition. Do you mean a definition accepted by all religions?

I am saying that there should be no polarity i.e. this and that. If there is a need for one, i would be keen to understand why. When i say universal definition and if i were to limit it to Buddhism, is the description you provided accepted as universal truth?

It depends on what you really mean by polarity. Are you denying opposing teachings by that? ex: There's right and there's wrong. Good and evil. Hinduism believes in Atman. Buddhism teaches Anathma. Hinduism believes in a creator god and a universal soul. Buddhism rejects that.
The pali word is 'Dosa'. Aversion, anger, hatred, disliking are the commonly accepted English words for it. Obviously the disliking is towards an object received by your senses.

When i say polarity, it's the contrast in this context multiple interpretations. Are you saying that aversion can only be the result of the 5 senses?

Well, that's why there are different religions and even different Buddhist schools.
It is impossible to dislike anything other than what you receive by the 6 senses.


text:
What are some examples of Buddhist rulers?
I've been searching about this for a while, I have been looking for historical rulers who based their way of governing off Buddhist principles. But haven't been able to find a lot.

A good example is Asoka who ruled most of the India subcontinent  between 269 BCE to 232 BCE. He converted to Buddhism after witnessing the slaughter at Kalinga, a slaughter that he was responsible for. A rock inscription made at the time details this.

His Majesty feels remorse on account of the conquest of Kalinga
  because, during the subjugation of a previously unconquered country,
  slaughter, death, and taking away captive of the people necessarily
  occur, whereat His Majesty feels profound sorrow and regret.

Asoka went on to rule for forty years on Buddhist principle and was one of the main people responsible for the initial spread of Buddhism out of the Indian mainland. He sent monks to many places throughout Asia and beyond including Mongolia, Burma, Afghanistan, Persia even as far as Turkey and Italy.
Such is his enormous repute they even made a Bollywood film about him. I have to confess that I've never seen it. I would be interested to know if it is worth the watch.
Additional Note
BBC radio have just done an excellent program on Asoka as part of the (also excellent) In Our Time series. Very much worth a listen if anyone is interested in this part of Buddhist history.

Hmm, RottenTomtoes.com ranks it pretty well, IMDB slightly lower, but I think I might just check it out.

Asoka. But we know so little about what he did. His pillars say he introduced Buddhist-influenced, incredibly progressive public policies.
Emperor Wu of Liang- But I'm having a hard time finding good sources, I guess they didn't keep great records in 500CE It sounds like many of the stories about him were embellishments.
ref: http://khyentsefoundation.org/2011/02/patron-kings-part-xii-emperor-wu-of-liang/
Empress Wu- She wasn't a very nice person though.
The Dalai Lamas of Tibet.
All of these leaders were old time leaders who presided over a state that did mean things. I think people care about this question because they want to know if a Buddhist government has ever been for the better. To know for sure, we'd need the counterfactual, of what would Tibet have been like if Buddhism didn't appear? If it weren't for Buddhism, would Asoka have done anything different?

Yes, that's true. I'm wondering more and more what a Buddhist form of governing or a Buddhist politic activism would look like, but it's a difficult and slippery question.


text:
Which Buddhist Meditation is comparable to Transcendental Meditation?
A friend of mine was practicing zazen for many years.   They started to get discourage with their practice and started to explore transcendental mediation.  Now, they claim their progress with TM is far better in a matter of weeks when compared to zazen.  I was wondering if there is an equivalent to TM in any of the Buddhist traditions?  If so, what are the basics and framework of the parallel type of meditation?

What is TM (Transcendental Meditation)
Being a Buddhist, I only have a cursory familiarity with TM, but here it is. A TM practitioner is instructed to sit regularly, at least 15 minutes every morning, or more. Meditation is presented as joyful, easy, resting activity that does not require much effort. Instead of suppressing thoughts or holding uninterrupted attention on breath etc., the practitioner is instructed to let their mind expand in its natural state. This is a state of open unfettered unperplexed awareness, like your mind on a day when you have enough time that you don't have to rush and can instead allow yourself to "gather your thoughts". As the mind expands, all kinds of memories and thoughts start bubbling up into scope. At this point the meditator is instructed to use their personal mantra, especially selected to match their personal predispositions (this part sounds like upaya to me). After reciting the mantra several times until the thoughts calm down, the TM meditator can stop using the mantra, and let their mind expand naturally. This combination of letting the mind expand while not letting it wander is said to be the core principle of TM. Two other unique elements are the joyful & resting mood that the TM meditator learns to associate with meditation, and the use of mantra.
What Buddhist meditation is similar to TM
I'm not aware of any Buddhist meditation that would combine the same exact elements in the same way as TM. However, all elements of TM are found in Buddhist meditation techniques:

The joyful and resting mood is like in satipatthana, like in 2nd jhana.
Letting the mind expand in its natural state is like zazen, like Mahamudra meditation.
Coming back when thoughts arise is like the labeling ("thoughts!") technique in beginner's samatha meditation.
Using mantra is like in mantra meditation.

So to me, TM sounds like a peculiar combination of techniques usually associated with beginner's meditation (using the mantra, coming back from thoughts), with intermediate-level technique of generating the joyful mood, plus a technique that firmly belongs at advanced meditation levels -- letting the mind expand in its natural state.

I wasn't aware that any meditation technique included the attempted suppression of thought. Can you give me a pointer? I always understood the thoughts should be observed, not judged, then released, that thinking is an unceasing stream that can't be stopped, it isn't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatha

Thanks, that works wonders for neurotic thoughts. Calming the mind makes more sense to me than attempting to cease thinking.

TM is  mantra meditation. You're given an "unique" mantra in TM. Of course there's nothing unique about it.  They use tables like this one to "calculate" your unique mantra.
Something comparable is therefore to be found in Vajrayana Buddhism (Tibetan or Shingon or others), arguably also Nichiren (their mantra "Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo").
The most popular mantra in Buddhism is probably Om mani padme hum
Vajrayana is also called Mantrayana.

I agree, as does wikipedia where it says: "Transcendental Meditation (TM) refers to a specific form of mantra meditation". But I don't think there is anything that's similar to the advanced TM technique 'Yogic Flying' (aka hopping).

Vajrayana is dubbed Mantrayana for reasons that have nothing to do with mantras.

Hey Methexis. You could increase the quality of your answer by deleting that first sentence ;-)

Meditation techniques are, ultimately, all variations on one theme, liberation: see the films "Spiritual Liberation" and "With One Voice", which are documentaries of the practice of meditation in most of the world's religions, including Christianity, Hinduism, Sufism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. (available for free on GaiamTV here and here, and for rent on Amazon Instant Videos, or any video rental or sales service). Both movies concentrate on the similarities of the world's meditative practices.
TM is very similar (I think) to Sri Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I?" meditation, which is very similar to the Mahamudra meditation of Tibetan Buddhism. Lama Yeshe, founder of the FPMT, also was a proponent of the subject, 'you', being the object of meditation. They all take the mind (or the "I" thought in the mind) as the object of meditation. Progress, meaning advancement to where one understands why one is practicing and can see the progress and its positive results, is quite quick, depending on the time and effort spent on the practice.
I practice the Mahamudra practice as taught by the Drikung Kagyu school, a "soup to nuts" approach. My favorite two books on the subject are "Mahamudra, The Moonlight, The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation", by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, and "The Gelukpa/Kagya Tradition of Mahamudra", by HH the Dalai Lama. The first is more of a handbook, while the second is more of a scholarly treatment. A great online guide is "A Meditation Guide For Mahamudra"

Patanjali's Yoga Sutras states in the beginning that Yoga is the cessation of the fluctuations of mind matter. This "Yoga" is when there is an absence of thoughts yet the person is not asleep. The awareness has gone beyond the intellect. This state cannot be attained directly by mental effort for the very effort of the intellect keeps one tied to the mind. However certain mental efforts such as koan contemplation or mindfulness on the body can through a kind of distracting fatigue eventually "trick" the mind into collapsing for a moment or a while and the cessation of the fluctuations of mind matter can occur. Transcendental Meditation is a japa type meditation where a meaningless mantra is repeated over and over again. When the meditator realizes that they have once again become engaged in a thought or chain of thoughts and have stopped repeating the mantra they then simply return to repeating the mantra again. The mantra having no ideological or emotional connections acts as a simple sound that the the ever busy mind follows like a charm to simpler and simpler levels of thinking until finally there is only the sound of the mantra reverberating in the mind leading to an effortless state where the mantra may die away and the mind settles upon nothing. No fluctuations of mind matter, no mind. The awareness has transcended the mind and abides in its own nature...awareness without thoughts.
This state may last for 5, 10, 15 minutes or maybe it is for just a mere moment and then the mind reengages and thoughts are once again the experience of awareness. Done on a regular basis this acts as an almost effortless culturing of the "Self" to see it's true nature as pure awareness beyond the level of the intellect and not identify as the thoughts and ideas we entertain in our minds.
It's consistently pleasant, easy and a wonderful release of stress that does not require starring at a wall for an hour. I do believe that vipassana, and many other approaches to meditation do lead ultimately to a transcendental state of awareness but in my opinion none get there as easily or consistently as TM. I also think it would be a perfect compliment to all the active inner work that one engages in during a serious Buddhist practice.

In Buddhism, vipassana does not lead to the "Self" to see it's true nature. Vipassana leads to the mind to see it's true selfless nature. Apart from that, I enjoyed your answer. Regards

Thank you, I have not before read a description of the T.M. approach. It seems to me that all sorts of sitting meditations and perhaps other methods could lead to the cessation of thoughts. Whether any particular one was easier or more pleasant would have to do with the tendencies of the person. Is there a stage to the teaching beyond the meditation technique? Not part of this question, I suppose.

Regarding the statement  "vipassana does not lead to the self to see its true nature. Vipassana leads to the mind to see its true selfless nature".

(edit)    Dhammadhatu:  Regarding the statement  "vipassana does not lead to the self to see its true nature. Vipassana leads to the mind to see its true selfless nature".    In my statement the term Self refers to the witnessing quality that witnesses the screen of the mind. The mind is indeed "selfless" but oh how the observer of the mind (Self?) identifies with that mind as its defining narrative.The "observer" being selfless also. However, consciousness is eternally conscious of consciousness. . Some unreconciled nomenclature here but I think we are basically in agreement.

no comprende: Yes the particular meditation technique one settles on depends on the characteristics of the individual and the opportunities they may encounter however the simplicity and effectiveness of the Transcendental Meditation technique seems to be universal. Often people are expecting something more complicated or challenging so end up settling on some other approach. As far as a stage to the teaching that is beyond the meditation technique there is "Yogic Flying" which augments the meditation with sutras. The rest is based on the Vedas and vedic literature.

Anapansati, follow your breath and whenever the mind wanders come back to your breath. T.M meditation will take you to the sphere of nothingness as taught by Buddha and Alara kalama his first teacher . It's just transcendental consciousness where you've transcended physicality mind thought perception even for a few minutes. Transcendental meditators understand it as transcending. Time goes by really fast you don't even realize you were meditating for 30 minutes feel like it was five. Zazen is pretty grueling . May take a long time staring at a wall before you experience this Jhana. Anyway that's the comparable method experience to T.M . You are just following your breath instead of using a bija root mantra.


text:
Should Buddhists give their time to helping others?
I'm new to Buddhism. I was familiarizing myself with the "Four Seals" in  This Article.
The article connects the first truth, that all compounded things are impermanent, to charity. He said that giving our things to others is a good way to practice coming to terms with the fact that all things don't last.
I was wondering if time is included as one of those "things" that we should disconnect ourselves from and give to others? Is time a "compounded thing?"

I was just about to answer your question, but, wait a second... how come the question in the title doesn't seem to be related to the question in the body? What is your question?

@zwiebel It seems to be very common way of questioning.

I agree. let's see if OP can clarify. Otherwise I think we should either edit the title to match the question or maybe vote to close

I edited the question. Hopefully it makes more sense now.

it might be a more direct question to ask what is meant by compounded. There are compound words, chemical compounds, both of which are obviously not the right answer here. Hopefully, then, the question of whether or not time is compounded will have been answered.

@User1996 It's much clearer now, good job.

To evaluate this question correctly, it is essential to look at the difference of Theravada and Mahayana, since answers given by people from these differing traditions are bound to be slightly different also. It appears to me, the four seals are a mahayanic equivalent to the (not-only) theravadic three marks of existence. Also the Theravada/Mahayana-difference is also highly relevant to the question of time being compounded.
Essentially this difference consists the ideal that people strive after, which is the Arahant in case of Theravada - someone who destroys all bondages and gains enlightenment for himself and the Bodhisattva in Mahayana - someone who strives to enlighten all beings before attaining Nirvana himself or herself. (I'm being very brief here.)
The interpretation you refer to, charity as the answer to impermanence of things sounds to me to be typically mahayanic or vajrayanic (Vajrayana developed out of Mahayana).
About time: this is one of the trickiest subjects of Buddhist thought. Thinking over the Buddha's denial of ultimate ontological status for compounded entities (like "the person"), Buddhist thinkers tried to find out, what in the end has this ultimate ontological status, things that are uncompounded - asaṃskṛta/asaṃkhata. One of the perished schools of Buddhism - the Sarvāstivāda was especially noted for the theory of uncompounded, sort of atomic entities called dharmas, time being also made out of minimal time-quantums that all exist simultaneously in the present (past and future as well).
Nāgārjuna is supposed to be the first, definitely the greatest early Mahayana-teacher and his teaching polemicizes precisely against this theory of uncompounded smallest entities, claiming, that they do not exist, that really everything, including Nirvāṇa, Pratītyasamutpāda and time is compounded. His teaching can also be read (thereby being truly mahayanic) as a rejection of self-centered hunger for enlightenment and thirst for Nirvāṇa.
Therefore, at least according to Mahayana the answer to your questions are yes, time IS compounded, we SHOULD disconnect ourselves from it, from clinging to it and we SHOULD freely spend it on others.
EDIT: replaced Hinayana by Theravada.

Btw, zwiebel, Nagarjuna is so great that Asanga never mention him or his so important school in any of his, undoubtedly, classical Mahayana writings. I think you can't evaluate role of Nagarjuna correctly (just by reading Madhyamaka or Prasangika interpretations) if isn't familiar with central Asanga's texts, I recommend uncritical reading of Mahayanasamgraha and Abhidharmasamuccaya. There is opinion that Nagarjuna was just sarvastivadin who tried to interpret Mahayana texts from purely sarvastivada perspective.

Hinayana is a pejorative, coined by Mahayana in a petty bid to make itself look superior. This poor term reflects badly on both schools.  I think Mahayana has grown up and no longer uses such childish attacks, so perhaps using "Theravada" would be better.

certainly true!

The Four Dharma Seals encompass the whole Buddhadharma and are excellent.  It brings me joy that you are learning them.
You should pretty much give everything, to perfect generosity.  However, before you go out and give away your house and all your clothes, you can probably benefit people in greater ways by "setting your intention and being natural" -- one of the Lojong Mind Training verses. (You can read more about Lojong proverbs at this wonderful resource http://lojongmindtraining.com/)
Think about, in the simple example, of a man who could use his great wealth to buy many acres of farm land and supply his village with a seemingly endless supply of food.  Had he given all his wealth away at once, it might not be as beneficial to sentient beings.
So, yes, time is definitely something you should give to other beings.  In fact, practicing, studying, reflecting, and meditating can be of the most generous uses of our time, by setting our intentions to ultimately benefit all beings (as numberless as the sky is vast).
This setting of intention is called Bodhichitta, it is the "Mind inclined to Awakening" and it is so very very precious.  More valuable than all the diamonds and gold and silver.
Your question is really wonderful!  Our time is valuable, and if we can spend even 10 minutes a day thinking about how we can benefit someone we know, it is time well spent!
Also wonderful, is that using your time in the service of others lessens our attachment, and brings us closer to the natural.
You can use your time to think about how you can help people you know (or just met) who have similar needs as you.  If you know someone without a job, you can try and help them get one, or if you know someone lonely, you can be their friend and really listen and be there for them.
You can also spend your time reflecting happily on the good deeds you've done for others.  This is also a great way to uplift the mind and ensure that our practice of virtue grows and grows.
You can plant great seeds by encouraging the people you know to do the same: to help where help is needed, to think about how we can help others, and to spend our time offering all the wisdom and love we can.

First I think that it is a good idea to examine title of this post, and point out that there is no real "should" that we encounter in Buddhism, there are encouragements, but no commandments; or more politely, because of the truth of emptiness, or lack of inherent meaning and essence, whenever we say "should," in order for it to be a valid statement, we have to add a contextual qualifier. So, "Should we do X?" always becomes, "If we want X, should we do Y?" or something to that effect. Given that, your question lacks a qualifier, you asked, "Should we do X?" without offering a "Y". So, why?
Now, about time. I would offer that, in my understanding, time is, indeed a conditioned phenomena, it is not absolute (there is no absolute time, "it" flows at different rates in the universe), it relys on other phenomena for its existence (such as space, therefore objects, gravity, ect.) Because of this, time is compounded. However, you cannot give or take it in any real sense. It is intangible, unlike other compounded phenomena, a chair for instance, it is purely abstract with no appearance to lock it into our experience with, it is not a real thing in the same way that a chair is. The best we can do is try to record and measure the passing of events with a chronometer, but there is no thing called "time" that we can actually measure, we just call the passing of events that, nominally inferring time into existence, in retrospect, or in anticipation.
The metaphor of "giving time" is merely a convention that we use for service, in the certain light of sacrificing our own agenda. I would, again rephrase the question in order to reflect the implied sacrifice of personal agenda.
So taking both points, the lack of qualifier in the first, and the inferential nature of the statement that calls for clarity in the second, I would suggest restating the question like this, "If we want to hasten our own liberation, should we practice service, sacrificing our own agenda of self centered goal seeking in order to be of benefit to others?"
So... When we put ourselves into service, when we put others, and the agenda of others, before ourselves and our own agenda, we undermine the conceptual self centered impulse. We undermine our tendency towards an ego-centric agenda. This is very helpful to our liberation, and it makes the world a better, happier place, so why not? It can eliminate negative karma, crate good karma, help see through the Samsaric delusion, and so forth. In this sense, it seems that being of service is a good personal agenda, as it has the potential to liberate us from our suffering.
Interestingly, this seems to leave us in a bind, how can I be of service to you, getting past my own self serving agenda, when that creates a self serving agenda as soon as I realize that I am doing it to get past my own suffering?
Well, this is where intention comes in. How compassionate are we being? The Dalai Lama talks about wise vs. foolish selfishness. Wise selfishness is realizing this, and being of service, giving back to the community because you know it will benefit you, and this is better than the alternative... ignoring this and being a glutton. Regardless, it is simple enough to say that the more your heart is in it, the more benefit it will be to you, and the more you practice it, the more your heart will be in it.
When we realize that helping people really means empowering them to overcome their own suffering, we become little "helper-makers", also known as teachers. In this way, we can realize selflessness giving rise to selflessness, and so forth.
TL;DR It is highly encouraged that we learn to put others before ourselves, and learn to be of true service.


text:
Secular Buddhism and Suicide
I have a limited understanding of Buddhism, but let me first explain my perspective. More traditionally, Buddhism is concerned with achieving enlightenment and ending the rebirth process. From a more modern perspective, Buddhism is primarily concerned with ending suffering. I realize that it is much more nuanced than this, but I am speaking in gross generalities.
This question really only applies to the working, modern interpretation of Buddhism. If the goal is to end suffering, why don't Buddhists simply kill themselves? I suppose this pertains to how they see themselves after death. If they believe in some shade of "nothingness" after death, I would think all Buddhists would commit suicide.
I apologize for this question being so broad. I also understand that different sects of Buddhism will probably have different answers. I am mostly curious as to what modern, practicing Buddhists believe--particularly those that reconcile Buddhism with modern science.
This question is really a segue for me to understand the existential beliefs of Buddhism. I can read about the teachings of Buddhism, but I do not understand the "why" behind it all. If I can understand why Buddhists do not commit suicide, I hope to gain a greater understanding into how they view the meaning of life.

The form of Buddhism that tries hardest to reconcile with science is secular Buddhism.

I would suggest Dr. Robert Thurman's lectures on "Compassion and The Power of Goodness," and "The Yoga of Ordinary Living."  In the first series he discusses the absurdity of suicide from Buddhism's perspective.  The second lecture covers the Vimalakirti Sutra, which explains the paragon answer of "nothingness" and how sunyata and materialism's interpretation are totally incompatible.   Here is a preview to the  Vimalakirti teaser https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1bmhhIaFos..

I've edited the title since, as others have pointed out, from the context that @David most likely means "Secular" when they say "Modern."

@Hrafn: As an outsider to this community, I was almost driven away by the "secular" part (whatsat ?), whereas "modern" is a word familiar to me. For as much as this is an experts' site, please leave some of the familiarly-worded questions as such, for the novices to your terminology to feel welcome on the site :)

I used to think much the same thing. I thought that the main problem according to Buddhism is suffering. But the Buddhist resolution to suffering isn't extinction or happiness, but is more like an in between peace.  The bit about nirvana, is the historical Buddha attempting to explain his program of ending suffering, by using a word that sounded a lot like moksha. Re-using the language of his time (karma, reincarnation, brahma, etc) actually makes it more difficult for modern people to understand the core message.
Next, the central solution in Buddhism isn't re-evaluating one's desire, but a realization about who one is, in particular, we aren't a permanent, easily identifiable thing or soul, we're a temporary collection of things, and we can reframe our sense of self as being everyone. So the problems of suffering that anyone has is our problem too. So in with a Mahayana sense of how anatman (selflessness) works, to "solve" the problem with suicide, we'd have to kill everyone.  This particular argument works regardless of whether we think we rebirth or reincarnate or not.
Anyhow, with everyone dead, they aren't happy, unhappy or anything. Which brings us back to the goal, which is to chart the path between seeking pleasure (by working on your dad's farm, serving in the provincial Maghadan government) and asceticism (doing without) and living a life without suffering, but instead something close to "peace" or "equilibrium".  The Dalai Lama had a good quote about this, he usually uses the word "happiness" to indicate the goal of Buddhism, but noted that the English isn't quite right, Buddhist happiness means neither clinging to pleasurable thing, nor pushing away from things that make us suffer, leaving us in between. (Ah, I found it, it's in the video: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/11/the-dalai-lamas-guide-to-happiness-and-farting/ ) "Happiness is a neutral experience that can bring a deep satisfaction"
(I won't go into why traditional Buddhists thought suicide wouldn't work, except they said people who commit suicide would go to Buddhist hell. For a Buddhist extinctionalist (one who believes we do not reincarnate), then suicide is an uninteresting solution. It brings no peace, it brings something entirely different, like asking for a cake and getting the color blue-- not even in the same category)

But why keep looking for cakes if it ends up in color blue anyways? :)

Hmm, bad analogy, I didn't mean blue cake, which would be in the same category. I'm trying to say, peace isn't being dead, being dead is nothing, and nothing isn't in the same category as a state of experience such as being in a peaceful, suffering-free state of mind. Nothing just feels like an unsatisfactory answer for any goal.

Why peace is important if it all ends at death?

My death is in the far future and most of the time it doesn't bother me. What bothers me, is another long list of problems, some classic, like aches and pains and some modern like anxiety and depression. Hence I'm on the Buddhist project, & that'd be the same be I mortal or immortal

Death can come at anytime. That's the whole point of Marananussati meditation in Buddhism. There are pain killers for aches, pains and not everyone has anxiety and depression. Even a person who has them can resort to certain drugs since you just need some relief until you die. There's no point of meditating tirelessly to give up craving if all ends at death. :)

Then again, maybe, just maybe, the Buddha understood the truth better than modern people who reject rebirth, karma and so on as just some fictional contrivance the Buddha used to relate to people of his age. Don't forget the Buddha encountered people who did not believe in rebirth in his age and rejected their views and even explained to them that rebirth was true and that karma from previous lives manifests in this very life.

@YesheTenley The question is tagged Secular Buddhism, so the point is to answer from that viewpoint.

I have reported Yeshe Tenley to the moderators. If we all start editing each others answers to satisfy our strong held personal views, there will be utter chaos on this forum.

@Dhammadhatu The edit appears to be corrections of spelling and grammar only.

All misbeliefs are basically said to be variations of 2 types of misbeliefs.

Uchcheda Vada - Nihilism
Sasvatha Vada - Eternalism

Buddha has repeatedly rejected both of them.
Believing that it all ends after death falls under "Uchcheda Vada". So if you believe in that, you can't be considered as a Buddhist. Any conclusion you come to or any action caused by having such a misbelief has nothing to do with Buddhism.

So Buddhism is basically only for the ones who feel the urge to live? ;)

I do not see how your false assertion is related to the above answer

If the goal is to end suffering, why don't Buddhists simply kill themselves?
Buddhism is a "Middle way" between extremes.
The doctrine of the Middle way is (after telling the bikkhus that he was the Buddha) the very first thing that the Buddha taught:

"There are two extremes, O bhikkhus, which the man who has given up the world ought not to follow-the habitual practice, on the one hand, of self-indulgence which is unworthy, vain and fit only for the worldly-minded and the habitual practice, on the other hand, of self-mortification, which is painful, useless and unprofitable.

IMO the following are each extremes:

I want to live forever
I want to die immediately

One of the first rules of morality (ethics) is not to kill. For example here are The Patimokkha Rules which apply to Buddhist monks:

MURDER
The third Defeater (Paaraajika) Offence deals with murder. The
  original story describes how some bhikkhus wrongly grasped the
  Buddha's meditation teaching on the loathsome aspects of the body[38]
  and, falling into wrong view, committed suicide or asked someone to
  end their lives for them. The rule can be summarized like this:

"Intentionally bringing about the untimely death of a human being,
    even if it is still a foetus, is [an offence of Defeat.]" (Summary
    Paar. 3; BMC p.78)

A bhikkhu must not recommend killing, suicide or help arrange a
  murder.[39] Also, because in this rule a human being is defined as
  beginning with the human foetus, counting "from the time consciousness
  first arises in the womb," he must not advise or arrange an abortion.
There is no offence if death is caused accidentally or without
  intention.[40]

Some people might have 'suicidal ideation', but that is explicitly not Buddhism.

Suicide will cause suffering:

Violence to your body
Sadness (death) to friends, family, people in society
Lost opportunity to gain enlightenment for yourself and to enlighten others.

Suicide isn't skillful; but skillful is IMO another of the core virtues in Buddhism.
There are more skillful ways to deal with suicidal ideation.

The "four noble truths" are arguably the core of Buddhist doctrine. The second noble truth says,

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

Buddhists should recognize desire for death as one of the many (wrong) "cravings" to be overcome: a craving which (by following the Buddhist way) you can be not attached to.

I can read about the teachings of Buddhism, but I do not understand the "why" behind it all.
People don't live in isolation.
The Buddhist way may include seeking and accepting skillful guidance.
The "triple gem" is the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.
One of the (many) problems with suicide is that it becomes too late to get a second opinion.

Very good answer. Very much in line with my thinking. There are 3 question connected to Suicide today. Not very positive through.

This is a good answer, but it doesn't deal with the OP's question about rebirth. It does not contemplate or address the assertion... specifically that believing in the true non-existence of rebirth while also (mis)studying anatta might lead to "craving for non-becoming."

@YesheTenley Thanks. I think the OP said -- "This question really only applies to the working, modern interpretation of Buddhism" -- and explicitly not, "More traditionally, Buddhism is concerned with achieving enlightenment and ending the rebirth process" -- and so their question wasn't about rebirth. And I'm not sure what the "secular Buddhist" view or doctrine of rebirth is, even that were the topic here.

Yes, it could be there is some ambiguity in the intent of the OP's question. If the OP tagged this as secular-buddhism with the intent of receiving answers from self-proclaimed Secular Buddhists, then I will respectfully delete my own answer. However, I believe the intent of the OP was an understanding that 'Secular Buddhist' is a modern Buddhist who does not believe in the doctrine of rebirth and to try and understand why this doesn't automatically lead to suicide.

I see. Anyway I'm not criticising your answer.

The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta states the following:

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

The idea is that suffering is caused by craving. And there are 3 types of craving (sensual pleasure, becoming and non-becoming).
The third type is vibhava tanha (craving for non-becoming), which is discussed in this answer.
In other words, suicide is the idea to cease existing by death, in order to avoid suffering. It is also a form of craving according to the Buddha i.e. a craving to cease existing.
And these 3 different types of craving are the origin of suffering. So, suicide is in fact counter-productive to the attempt to end suffering. If you examine the rest of the noble truths, the Buddha has other solutions to end suffering, instead of suicide.

There are excellent answers here, full of details, so I will just add a short one:
Killing yourself is a selfish thing, the opposite of Buddha's teachings! You have a precious human life, you can use it to make merits, you can help others to break free from the sea of samsara, you can increase the loving kindness in this world. When you are free then you are free here and how, you don't need to die by suicide, it makes no sense!

If you knew anything about mental illness you would not be making such harmful ignorant statements about suicide being selfish. This is an outdated view. Suicide is a desperate act by someone in intense pain who wants their pain to end.  Please educate yourself and stop saying such things.   http://www.suicide.org/suicide-is-not-a-selfish-act.html

The Buddha characterized our human lives as "dukkha".  Often translated as "suffering", but that is really a bit dramatic.  A more accurate definition is "unsatisfactoriness."
This "Unsatisfactoriness" doesn't arise from life itself, but rather from our response to it.  As was said in Hamlet, "there's nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so."
The Buddhist solution to suffering is not to change the external world, but to change our thoughts.

More traditionally, Buddhism is concerned with achieving enlightenment
  and ending the rebirth process.

Generally, the word 'traditionally' means 'culturally', which means not the real Buddhism. The original Buddhism found in the Pali scriptures did not focus on ending the 'rebirth process'. It focusing on ending suffering.

From a more modern perspective, Buddhism is primarily concerned with
  ending suffering.

This is not true. From the original perspective, Buddhism is primarily concerned with ending suffering.

I realize that it is much more nuanced than this, but I am speaking in gross generalities.

It is not more nuanced. The sole purpose of Buddhism, to quote the Pali scriptures, is the 'unshakable freedom of mind'. The sole purpose of Buddhism is freedom from suffering.

This question really only applies to the working, modern interpretation of Buddhism.

No, it does not. How can there be a "modern" Buddhism that is different from original Buddhism? If the modern version was different how can it be called "Buddhism"?

If the goal is to end suffering, why don't Buddhists simply kill themselves?

There is no need to kill oneself because living or life is not the cause of suffering. Buddhism teaches ignorance, craving & attachment are the causes of suffering. Suffering is created by wrong (mental) views rather than by being alive.

I suppose this pertains to how they see themselves after death. If
  they believe in some shade of "nothingness" after death, I would think
  all Buddhists would commit suicide.

This is not relevant & also is inconsistent with the claimed "scientific" or "secular" approach. Science generally believes there is nothing after death therefore why do not all psychologists commit suicide?

I also understand that different sects of Buddhism will probably have different answers.

Valid point, possibly.

I am mostly curious as to what modern, practicing Buddhists believe--particularly those that reconcile Buddhism with modern
  science.

Generally, at the heart of each Buddhist school will be found the teaching that attaching to the five aggregates is suffering i.e., the five aggregates are not oneself. Thus, what happens after death is not so relevant. Suffering is arising in the here & now due to not-knowing, craving & attachment.

This question is really a segue for me to understand the existential beliefs of Buddhism. I can read about the teachings of Buddhism, but I
  do not understand the "why" behind it all. If I can understand why
  Buddhists do not commit suicide, I hope to gain a greater
  understanding into how they view the meaning of life.

Committing suicide is not required to end suffering. Buddhism explains Nirvana (perfect peace) can be found in the here-&-now by putting into practise the Noble Eightfold Path while living.

Very good answer, so good that I'm deleting mine and signing under this one.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Nobody here or there could write this question just as you have managed to ask.
Buddhism is not all about ending the suffering, it is also about ending self, right. But by committing suicide the unknown purpose might not fullfill. Consider life as a chance. Do not ask. Do it independently, practically and then confirm it to us. Help us. Do not live in confusion for so long. Confirm your doubts practically, do not follow any buddhist but yourself and reach at a status where you would even reject yourself. If you got a question then you got a job, a job assigned to you by your own nature to find an ultimate answer. Remember when you start invading your illusion, you start hurting yourself. But still 'oneself would be there to you to address and improve.

Love you seeker.

Because we have a strong drive to keep living. Some people do kill themselves but it takes a lot of suffering to cause a person to take such action. I think about it often but actually going through with it is an entirely different matter.  Buddhism offers hope. A way to understand why we suffer and a way to change that so that we no longer feel any need to want to end life. Why end life when you can live one of freedom and joy. I'm not there yet but I'm beginning to see some positive changes in my perspective and my mood.

Did not read all the answers but if suicide would work it would be the way indeed but it does not work. Before we were born there is seemingly like a void, so from a void we came to be, after death seemingly there is a void, so its perfectly reasonably to assume that that void is no different from the one before we were born and that from it Experiences of a being can potentially arise. As disciples of the Buddha we try to eliminate the causes for such arising.

The reason that most Secular Buddhists (who do not admit the conventional existence of rebirth) do not commit suicide is the same reason most regular ordinary people don't commit suicide, because they have the ingrained belief in the true existence of the self in this very life and they are attached to it and crave continued existence of it holding themselves precious.
As was well said here:

Believing that physical death is a special moment that fundamentally
changes the process of birth (of the mental idea of the self) that
happens from moment to moment is the same as believing that something
ultimately existed and has ceased to exist (i.e. annihilationism).

Emphasis mine.
Now, it is possible for Secular Buddhists to continue grasping at this belief in the true non-existence of rebirth while continuing to cultivate a misunderstanding of anatta which finally results in the craving for the true non-existence of the self in this very life, mistakenly thinking this is Dharma. When this happens the result is suicide.
This is the snake that Nagarjuna warns about here:

Those who are destroyed by this snake are said to arrive in the Avici hell in the next life. This is why those Buddhists who insist on continuing to grasp at this belief in the true non-existence of rebirth are putting themselves in a very perilous position if they keep (mis)studying anatta.

By committing suicide you don't eradicate suffering from ''duality'' that good emotions might have counter emotions - because they are an illusion -, you end life!
You still feel peace with yourself and think tho...
In the great vehicle (Mahayana) of buddhism teachings we aim for world peace trough our actions and our progress to nirvana, to help others attaining nirvana. It's not an aim to reach liberation (Moksha) I think, unless it would benefit this world somehow.
The belief in buddha will help you, faith in something heals and makes you a better person, and their teachings are so good that it is plausible that he existed.

Why the OP accepted @MatthewMartin shuffle as the correct answer is beyond me, but the OP's question is commendable and straightforward.
However, what the OP fails to identify is that the so-called Secular Buddhism doesn't end on discounting the idea of rebirth from Buddhism, which would have been the answer against suicide.
The core concept of Secular Buddhism is to superimposed the zeitgeist on Buddism. At its core, a hardcore self-refuting materialism is at play. The concept of volition (Karma) is discounted too. So how can one kill oneself without volition, why does one even eat?
The honest answer by a Secular Buddhist should be something like "if the aggregates are so composed and aligned the phenomena of suicide could be reified". The pearl of language, but I'm sure you know where this all leads to.

Welcome! How does this answer the question?

It does answer the question albeit indirectly and also clears the misconception the OP may have about the so-called "modern interpretation of Buddhism".

Anti-rebirthist = ucchedadiṭṭhi =  one extreme = suicide.
Rebirth-lover = sassatadiṭṭhi = another extreme.
Profit-follower = eightfold path  = middle way.

1st and 2nd see brahmajālasutta.
3rd see dhammacakkappavaḍḍhanasutta. (I am in plan to re-translate this sutta, but I can't not done it now. So if something wrong, I am sorry. I can't not check it deeply now, because my english still not good enough.)

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path:
  right view, right contemplate, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This
  is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision,
  producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding.

What is profit?
6 profit: self profit, the others' profit, public's profit (common interest), this life's profit, next life's profit, and nibbāna-profit. (pali for search: attattha, parattha, attaparattha, ditthadhammika, samparāyika, and paramattha.)
Self profit, the others' profit, and public's profit (common interest) are done together by sati.

"Because of what I have said here, monks, you should train yourselves
  such that the gifts of those whose requisites we use — the robes,
  alms-bowl, chair, bed, and medicine as a support when sick — will have
  great fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and our
  going forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.
  Thus should you train yourselves, thoroughly seeing that for your own
benefit, monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness; thoroughly
  seeing that for the benefit of others, monks, it is right to strive
  with heedfulness; and thoroughly seeing that for the benefit of both,
  monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness."

This life's profit and next life's profit are done together by sati (appamāda). So, person who do just this life's profit or next life profit is pamāda person. see:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.017.than.html
Nibbāna profit can be accessed by practitioner after he perfect finished to meditate magga.  And that magga can start to meditate after sīla is done.

SN 45.149 Just as, bhikkhus, whatever actions are to be performed with
  strength are all performed on dependence on the earth, supported by
  the earth; in the same way, bhikkhus, it is on dependence on virtue,
  supported by virtue, that a bhikkhu develops the noble eightfold path (magga),
  that he cultivates the noble eightfold path.

Above sīla give this life's profit and next life. See (1st-4th are this life's profit, 5th is next life's profit):

Mahāparinibbānasutta
  24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through
  his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his
  diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without
  timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans,
  householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of
  the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

So, anti-rebirthist & rebirth-lover are pamādo (person who has not meditating mindfulness).
That is one of many reasons that why I, who have never seen any ghost or any spirit, am not deny next life.


text:
A Creation Story in Buddhism?
Some major religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have a Creation Story, which describes how God created the universe. These stories describe how a deity created the earth and then the first man and woman, who are regarded as the father and mother of all mankind.
Does Buddhism also have a similar Creation Story?

NO!!! Have you 'heard' any? :)

Just wanted to confirm. :)

may be I am not an authority. ;)

The creation or non-creation of the universe is among of the unanswered questions of the Buddha i.e.

Is the world eternal?
...or not?
...or both?
...or neither?

The answer is not to concern yourself with such matters. The Buddha teaches one thing and that thing is liberation.
BUT
Interestingly there is a creation myth in the Aggañña Sutta. But it don't think it should be taken too seriously as I believe it is a satire on the caste system.

Supplementing this answer, he declares numerous times in the canon that "there is no discernible beginning". Assuming these questions mean what we understand of them, its delightful how careful he is for not using that observation to draw a conclusion.

Creation story in Aggañña Sutta is how human beings came to dwell on Earth, after all the worlds destroyed up to Abhassra. It's not the creation story of the universe...

Simply, Buddhism does not have such kind of Creation story since it rejects the concept of Creator God. Instead, in  the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha tells the story of how the human beings came to dwell on Earth. The Buddha told that sooner or later, after a very long time, there would be a time when the world shrinks. As the universe shrinks, many of its inhabitants would die. Of these deceased creatures, some were born again (due to good karma) in the Heavenly realm of Abbhasara (Lucid Light). There, they floated for a very - very long time, as a bodiless, radiating extreme light. They don’t eat or drink, as they nourish themselves from pure spiritual joy.
The following is how the scholars drew a conclusion that the Buddha's Anganna Sutta corresponds very closely to the scientific view.
"The Buddha seems to present a model of cosmology wherein the universe expands and contracts over extremely long periods of time, this description has been found by some to be consistent with the expanding universe model and Big Bang. The Buddha seems to be saying here that the universe expands outward, reaches a stabilising point, and then reverts its motion back toward a central point resulting in its destruction, this process again to be repeated infinitely. Throughout this expanding and contracting process, the objects found within the universe undergo periods of development and change over a long stretch of time, according to the environment in which they find themselves. Following this passage above, the Buddha goes on to say that the “beings” he described in this paragraph become attached to an earthlike planet, get reborn there, and remain there for the duration of the life. As a consequence of this, physical characteristics change and evolutionary changes takes place. This is often interpreted as a very rough theory of evolution. Furthermore, the Aggañña Sutta presents water as pre-existent to earthlike planets, with the planet forming with water and the life moving from the water onto the earth. Buddha does not talk about a specific earth, but about earthlike planets in general."

Nice answer.  I would add the reference for your final quotation. People may want to read the article or essay that you quoted.  Thanks..

@DharmaEater A copy of the quote can be found here. That may be quoting an earlier version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution

As Crab Bucket rightly states:

The answer is not to concern yourself with such matters. The Buddha
  teaches one thing and that thing is liberation.

If you were to refer to a theory of Creation in the time of the Bhudda, the closest occurence of it would be the dualist cosmology of the Samkhya. For philosophy was the leading current of thought at the time (rationalization & systematization of the metaphysical, religious and ritualistic Brahmanism;) and Samkhya was its leading philosophy, before Buddhism perfected it.
The Samkhya sees creation as follows:
The Samkhya system espouses dualism by postulating two irreducible, innate and independent realities: Purusha (the Cosmic Being(s)) or Self(ves,) and Prakriti (the phenomenal realm of Nature).
Two monads:

Purusha: the “controller” is intelligent, indifferent and inactive, yet pervasive.
Prakriti: has all the powers (latent, potential and actual) and is active and cloddish.

When these two distinct principles meet, there is creation.

In Buddhism (as in Samkhya,) liberation consists in getting rid of the influence of the gross elements, the organs of action and senses, the mind, and the Ego; so as to reach the Awakening and enter the states of the unmanifested/avyakta (which differ slightly among the different Indian philosophies and religious beliefs, but remain, for all of them, in the phenomenal realm of Nature.)
As far as going back to the Self (Purusha,) Buddhism does not seem to be concerned with that.
Understanding the inverse process of creation (liberation) that these philosophical schools (Samkhya, Bhuddism and Yoga) teach, allows people to better understand the process of creation, that is pretty much the same for all the Indian philosophies (including Brahmanism, in its purely religious form.)

When looking for the creation of things, we are wanting the answer. If you are looking for the answer, you are seeking again something. When you are seeking something you are a materialist. Let's say we need not be looking for anything, lets say we do not need beliefs, beliefs imprison us. Body like the mountain, breath like the wind, mind like the sky.

We are unfortunate in that in this time and age almost everything is looked upon as something to get, to aquire, to own. We think that if we collapse down around something we will understand it, this implies that focus to the extent that all other awareness is suspended is not dharma. What Dharma is about is attention

While this answer might be thought-provoking and possibly inspiring, it doesn't really answer the original question, which is "Does Buddhism have a creation story?". Answers in the style of a meditation teacher teaching a student, may be best reserved for meditation teachers teaching students. On this website the answers should be expert-style, with citations of sources to back up the answer.