text:
Where can i find buddhist chanting and music?
Where can I find chanting or music, inspired by Buddhism?
I would like to have this for my MP3 player so I can remember to practice when not "on the cushion" (cost-free or not, chanting or any type of music inspired by Buddhism, helping us to come back to ourselves or inspiring us to practice, to understand, etc.)
Thank you and kind regards.

I found a couple of videos for you that you might like:

Thai monks chanting healing mantra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCS19EOsrA
Tibetan monks chanting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8fNQ0fqSI
Tibetan monks chanting with singing bowl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRJMESl4U8
Buddhists chants & peace music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl-m7VrqqaY
Tibetan Buddhist Chants of Namgyal Monastery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0IvWX2pmQM

Hi there's an app on Google Play that I downloaded with..i use it a lot.It's not very musical though because it's just a monk chanting with no back ground music.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andromo.dev66510.app68635
Best regards

beautiful chant of the Dhammacakka Sutta by a 3 year old who was a buddhist monk in one of his lifes.
http://www.pirith.org/download/Dhammachakka.mp3
the story about the boy
https://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/chanting-in-the-6th-century/


text:
When is a wordly consequence a karmic retribution?
Let me illustrate this question with an example: Assume "A" killed someone intentionally, as a consequence the police took A and he is in jail. After all his/her time in jail, will A be free from his Kamma OR A will still need to experience being killed as a consequence of his/her actions?
So, when do worldly consequences "clean" Kamma and when don't they?
Sorry for the example involving killing, it is just to illustrate.

Worldy consequences don't purify a persons kamma, unless the worldy consequences that happened were caused by that specific kamma.

Unfortunately one would need to attain the supernatural power of seeing people's previous lives in order to see the exact working of kamma. Otherwise we should heed the Buddha's advice in AN 4.77:

There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
  The Buddha-range of the Buddhas, the jhana-range of a person in jhana, the precise working out of the results of kamma, and conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world.

That being said, the consequences to the kamma of killing could be multi-faceted and quite severe for that act would bring not only pain and suffering to the victim but also to the people around him/her. So by killing a man, beside the apparent suffering one brings upon that man, one also generates tremendous suffering to the man's mother who just lost a son, to his wife who just lost a husband, to his children who just lost a father, and many of his relatives and loved ones. So it's kinda like when one owes a huge debt to so many people, it won't be easy to pay off this debt in one nice and clean lump sum payment..

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can you go through all 7 purifications of insight with walking meditation?
Can you go through all 7 purifications of insight with walking meditation. Can you also go through the 7 purifications of insight by focusing on your steps and saying to yourself "stepping, stepping"?

Yes, of course.

After reciting the Pātimokkha, it seems,
  on the Uposatha day of the full moon, one of the two elders who were brothers
  went to his own dwelling place surrounded by the Community of Bhikkhus.
As
  he stood on the walk looking at the moonlight, he calculated his own vital
  formations and he said to the Community of Bhikkhus, “In what way have you
  seen bhikkhus attaining Nibbāna up till now?”
Some answered, “Till now we
  have seen them attain Nibbāna sitting in their seats.” Others answered, “We
  have seen them sitting cross-legged in the air.”
The elder said, “I shall now
  show you one attaining Nibbāna while walking.” He then drew a line on the
  walk, saying, “I shall go from this end of the walk to the other end and return;
  when I reach this line I shall attain Nibbāna.”
So saying, he stepped on to the
  walk and went to the far end. On his return he attained Nibbāna in the same
  moment in which he stepped on the line.
-- Vism. VIII.244 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Note, that the seven purifications are not all related to insight directly. They are simply called the seven purifications, not the seven purifications of insight.

Can you please explain "vital formations". Thanks.

I find it more impressive that the elder knew he would attain nibbana after walking the line. I thought nibbana was something that always crept up on one - like the story of Ven. Ananda attaining Nibbana just as his head was hitting the pillow, after he had given up all hope of making it to the 1st council.

The approved edit to this answer, although only slightly, changed the intended meaning as it was originally posted.

Can you go through all 7 purifications of insight with walking meditation. Can you also go through the 7 purifications of insight by focusing on your steps ...

Yes. Answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8282/295 already covers this aspect already.

... and saying to yourself "stepping, stepping"?

There are many view from different teachers and traditions on this and according to some this is not a valid way to do walking meditation
In walking meditation you have to look at either:

look at changes in your posure, or
sensation in your body when you walk

Look at Changes in Your Posure
When you are looking at your you use your body consciousness. If you look at the type of minds that arise from body consciousness they are always accompanied by 3 sensation which are either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. So when you introspect the posture you are in your essentially knowing your posture thought these sensations. There is no mind state devoid of sensations.
Sensation in your Body when you Walk
When you do walk there are other sensation like the cloths touching your body. Wind brushing your legs. And other like heat or cold, perspiration running down your legs. You can keep being aware of the arising and passing of these sensations.1
Why not to use Metal Recitation
Any labeling is constructed in a spoken language hence is verbal formation. E.g. Stepping. According to the Abhidhamma this is called nama pannatti2. Any mental construction can lead corruptions of insight as they are can be tainted by any of the Vipallasa3. Also say you were Walking and stopped then you are standing then the meaning of walking is lost, hence language constructs not realities4.
If you see this process as cognising the words "walking", "stepping" then this can become insight meditation again. Here you can to see the arising and passing of sensation associated with cognising.
But having said this there are some Schools of Buddhism which does use techniques like this.

1

Iriyāpathapabbaṃ—Postures of the Body
Iriyāpatha are postures of the body.
gacchanto vā ‘gacchāmī’ti pajānāti, ṭhito vā ‘ṭhitomhī’ ti pajānāti, nisinno vā ‘nisinnomhī’ti pajānāti, sayāno vā ‘sayānomhī’ti pajānāti.
When walking (gacchanto), a meditator knows well ‘I am walking’ (‘gacchāmi’). Similarly, whether standing (ṭhito), sitting (nisinno), or lying down (sayāno) a meditator knows this well. This is just the beginning. In the sentence that follows, not "I", but just "body" is known well in whatever posture (yathā yathā paṇihito).
Yathā yathā vā panassa kāyo paṇihito hoti, tathā tathā naṃ pajānāti.
Then, in a repetition of the same sentences, the body is observed inside, outside, and both inside and outside simultaneously. Arising is observed, then passing, then both together. Actually it is the sensations that are observed as arising and passing away, because sampajāñña, the understanding of anicca, has to be present, as in every chapter. Awareness follows that ‘This is body,’ and that it is not "I." This is established with wisdom. Then mere understanding and awareness follow, without any base to hold. There is nothing to grasp.
Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati… ‘atthi kayo’ ti…na ca kiñci loke upādiyati.

Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta by S.N.Goenka
2 The Theravada Abhidhamma: Its Inquiry into the Nature of
Conditioned Reality by Y. Karunadasa, Chapter 2
3 See Vipallasa Sutta for definition.
4 SN 22.62 Niruttipatha Sutta

Yes, there have been some even mentioned in the Canon. But that does not mean that all are able in this way.
Maybe useful:

The Benefits of Walking Meditation, by Sayadaw U Silananda (1996;
  8pp./23KB)
      A concise outline of the practice of walking meditation as it is taught in the contemporary Burmese satipatthana "noting" tradition.

Ohh, as Atma has just seen, that Ven Bhante Yuttadhammo had given an answer, there are also good and helpful notes in his Book: Chapter Three: Walking Meditation

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


text:
Can you skip the 7 purifications and gain straight insight into phenomenon?
Is it possible to skip the 7 purifications and gain straight insight into phenomenon?

Are you asking for the standard Buddhist line or an opinion?  Personally, I think it's possible, although there seems to be a good reason for the standard Buddhist line (each purification removes a distraction or hindrance to the other ones).  Whether it's as systematic or cut and dried as presented is another matter, but I do think there's merit to the understanding that some steps precede others.  In particular, the role of renunciation or virtue in avoiding certain kinds of distractions cannot be overemphasized IMO.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you haven't studied the seven purifications at all... numbers six and seven are equivalent to "straight insight into phenomena", so no, it is not by definition possible to skip them and still gain insight into phenomena. As per the sutta:

“So too, friend, purification of virtue is for the sake of reaching purification of mind; purification of mind is for the sake of reaching purification of view; purification of view is for the sake of reaching purification by overcoming doubt; purification by overcoming doubt [150] is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path; purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision of the way; purification by knowledge and vision of the way is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision; purification by knowledge and vision is for the sake of reaching final Nibbāna without clinging. It is for the sake of final Nibbāna without clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One.”
-- MN 24 (Bodhi, trans)

I just wondered wether it was possible to skip them and gain direct insight into phenomenon, and I have studied them.

But that's like asking whether it is possible to gain direct insight into phenomena while skipping direct insight into phenomena...

I meant it like maybe you could be focusing on the arising and falling of phenomenon and then get insight that skips the purifications or maybe speeds through, maybe not the purification by knowledge and vision.

Skipping the purifications is what we are already good at without meditation, right?
Do you mean practice mindfulness without cultivating virtue? Virtue is the foundation of the practice. It might be hard to see exactly why virtue is needed but there should be some subjective intuition that virtue is important for the beginner.
Virtue is simply about how well one deals with suffering: both own  and that of others... this is the stage for meditation.


text:
Sign of respect to Sr Monk?
I've seen a video where the Sr Monk's feet were being washed by laity or even Jr Monk.
Anybody know what purpose does it serve?

I think these practices crept into buddhism from local customs ,I doubt if buddhism is practised entirely in its true form in any country. As far as i know even while bathing in a river a junior monk should keep a certain distance  from senior monks and should bath further downstream.

Thanks for your response. =) Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f0d02WaQeg&list=PLadxE8pTI6QlMCKspZ0r_yXKUn-MuQMWi from 9:19 and this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIxF2Fw5YCA from 25:27 This Ajahn mentioned that he gave massage to his Venerable Father Ajahn Chah

As time went on, Buddhism changed.  It changed to accommodate political/social realities, it changed in responses to things learned, it changed in response to local cultures.
Buddhism consists of the teachings; those teachings are embodied in a culture.  This can be hard to disentangle because often people take on a culture when taking on Buddhism.  Thus you see Westerners saying "Namaste" or hanging Japanese calligraphy, as if that were somehow Buddhist.
It's very easy to see how foot washing could have arisen either as a sign of veneration (for older monks and their attainment) or an attempt to undermine the ego.
In many cultures, feet are seen as a degrading thing.  For instance, pointing one's foot towards another person, propping them up on a table, or even taking off one's shoe to hit another are seen as insults.  So to touch another's feet or to bathe them is to lower one's self.  This in turn either attacks the ego or acknowledges the person's higher status (and hence shows respect).
The long and short of it is this; ignore the packaging that Buddhism comes in.  There is nothing Buddhist about temples, gongs, zafus, robes, Pali, etc... This is all packaging.  Look inside the packaging to find Buddhism -- the teachings themselves.

A monk would not enter certain places with dirty feets. People who might get arware of such situation, and take such as a change of skilful deeds in generosity, service and also paying respect. Very Fruitful deeds, if having directed the mind to tge Sangha or meet even a worthy person.
As for the relation teacher and studend, such is a service good to be done.
It also happens, that if people see you walking, might give a monks feets refreshing and cleaning.
All of those meritiouse deeds fall eighter under generosity (giving water, time and towel), paying respect or doing a service (later two are already part of the virtue section of the path, and require right view as prerequisite).
In regard of Seniour Monk: even if washing the feets of a lay person, worthy of gifts, worthy of respect (for everyone his father and mother), not to soeak about a young novice, having mind right set, or meeting even a already Noble Person, is of real high benefit.


text:
Specific sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya: Where is past and future discussed?
Im looking for a specific sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya.
In the sutta past and future is being discussed and also how a practitioner on the insight path can gain seclusion from the 5 aggregates.
Help would be much appreciated.
Lanka

Could you be a bit more specific on what topic about past and future was discussed in that sutta?

A few suttas fit this, but try this first -
Bhaddekaratta Sutta: An Auspicious Day
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html

That is precisely the one! Thanks a lot.


text:
Specific sutta in the Tipitaka: Where did the Buddha compare leaves in the forest to his knowledge?
I'm trying to find the sutta in where the Buddha is walking through a forest with his disciples. He then picks up a handful of leaves and says that what he teach is comparable to the leaves in his hand and what he did not teach is comparable to the amount of leaves in the forest.
Help would be much appreciated.
Lanka

You are probably after the Simsapa Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html


text:
Is the only way to deal with the effects of your bad karma endurance?
Do you just have to endure these bad effects no matter how long they may  last? I feel like I'm dealing  with some bad karma.

Try to make good Karma - it will help you for sure. The Buddha once gave a simile.
He said that bad karma was like salt and good karma like water. If you put some salt in a glass of water it will taste bad, but if you put the same amount of salt in a river, the taste of the water will not change, so doing good karma is a very good way to handle this situation.
Of course, one can get rid of all past karma by becoming enlighten or a Buddha, ordaining would be great, but I assumed you wanted a "quick" and "wordy" answer.

The simile you mentioned is in Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal

Hey I don't think you can get rid of bad kamma after enlightenment.you just don't stress about it.Arahants still live through the fruits of past kamma they just don't create new ones.

For example theres a story of Buddhas disciple Ven.Monggallana who was enlightened and mastered psychic powers and even he can't run away from past bad kamma he created which was killing his parents in a past life.Enlightenment doesn't mean you cut of all your past kamma it just means you no longer take it personally.whatever happens happens.

That is a good point Orion. I have heard both interpretations. I tend to agree with you, but I would like to read more about it just for peace of mind :)

Suggest adding some relevant passages from the Lonaphala Sutta to the body of this answer.

@Orion how did Moggallana kill his parents? I can't find a reference

The effects of karma are neither bad nor good. they just are.
It is you who give them meaning, not the karma.
It's best to understand what Karma actually is: the law of cause and effect. The Buddha taught this law explicitly.
The effects we feel in this life relate to the actions we took or didn't take in this or previous lifetimes.
That is why the Buddha teaches to look at your actions as either skillful or unskillful. Your actions are skillful in the ways they yield effects that propel you toward your outcome. The Buddha made that goal Nirvana, or the escape from suffering.
If your goal is complete and total happiness, which is what the Buddha would call a noble and worthy goal, then judge your actions as skillful based on how they keep you progressing on the path toward the goal.
Meanwhile, you'll need to deal with the effects of your unskillful actions in the past.
One great way to help this along is to meditate. Why? I don't think meditation gives you "merit points" that reduce the impact of past unskillful actions. Instead, meditation helps you train the mind in mindfulness, alertness, ardency, and discernment. Sharpening these skills helps you evaluate future actions based on skillful and unskillful.
This reduces the possibility of amplifying the effects of past negative actions, and reduces the possibility of making new unskillful actions.
This is my understanding based on my study of the Thai forest tradition -- Theravada. "merit points" is a concept I inferred while learning about the act of creating merit at temples in Thailand.

Sorry to hear that you are experiencing the results of some bad khamma. Hopefully, they will pass soon. Please read the Sankha Sutta: The Conch Trumpet, in which the Buddha gives a technique on how to diminish and even nullify the effects unskillful kamma. May you be free from suffering, may you be happy.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html

Do you just have to endure these bad effects no matter how long they may last?
There are things you can do such as making merit to deal with it.
There are Three Bases for Merit

Generosity
Virtue
Mental Development

Lay devotees make merit by the following ways

Giving alms (Dāna), Observing virtue (Śīla), Developing concentration (Bhāvana),
  Honoring others (apacayana-maya),
  Offering service (veyyavacca-maya),
  Dedicating (or transferring) merit to others (pattidana-maya),
  Rejoicing in other's merit. (pattanumodana-maya),
  Listening to Teachings (dhammassavana-maya),
  Instructing others in the Teachings (dhammadesana-maya),
  Straightening one's own views in accord with the Teachings (ditthujukamma)[6][7]

This list is according to this
Merit making is useful for getting rid of bad karma.

Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. -Nibbedhika Sutta

Intentional action to do bad will cause negative effects on oneself. Intentional action to do good will bear positive results on oneself. If you did something bad unintentionally; like stepping on an insect while you were walking; there will be no karmic potency. This; however, does not mean that you get to walk around being completely mindless.
The cause of bad actions; which are done out of greed, hatred, or delusion; will cause bad effects on you. Such as killing living beings results in being reborn in a path of deprivation. If you still managed to be reborn as a human, you will be short-lived. That is mentioned in the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta
You must also develop virtue; which, means you abstain from unwholesome action
Mental development would be to meditate. Such as vipassana or samatha meditation.


text:
Allow myself to rock or sway while meditating?
I have noticed that sometimes, almost unconsciously, my body begins to sway forward and backward ever so slightly when I'm sitting in meditation (actually, kneeling - I sit zazen on a bench). It does not seem to be in phase with any of my rhythmic body functions (e.g. heartbeat, breathing).
There are times when I consciously cease the swaying, but other times when I allow it to continue. Or even help it a little bit. It seems to add somewhat to the depth of my meditative state and is mildly pleasant.
My question is thus: should I just let it be (after noting it)? Should I help it? Should I put a stop to it? I do not have enough familiarity with The Official Rules & Regulations Of Practicing Buddhists to know, and I do not have an instructor/advisor to pose this question to. Hence my post here.
I found this related question, but this person seems to be doing it intentionally and in response to physical pain. One of the answers here also notes that it may be in response to conditioning, but I don't feel that's the case here. A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness

I think you'll find that there really isn't one Official Rules & Regulations Of Practicing Buddhists... your answers will vary, but in my tradition (Theravada), this would be considered "rapture" and may be good or bad, depending on the type of meditation you are practicing.

I finally get why you said this, @yuttadhammo. According to this reference (http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/1191517#_19_message_1191517) - "There are five kinds of rapture: (1) an unusual sense of heaviness or lightness in the body; (2) a sense of the body floating; (3) a sense of coolness or heat; (4) a sense of thrill passing over the surface of the body; (5) the body beginning to sway."

Let me try to approach this from 2 different angles.
I'm a physiotherapist and first I would like to approach this from an anatomical and physiological standpoint.
It sounds to me like you might be lacking some core strength and that resulting in you swaying in your meditation. It could also be that you have some tight muscles around your pelvis and back which is creating muscular imbalances. The balances can cause pulling and tightening in different directions when standing, sitting or lying in certain postures. Muscular imbalances are quite common and not dangerous although if they are allowed to persist over long durations of time they can lead to more serious problems such as limited range of motion, body pain, mal-alignment which again can lead to other diagnoses. Let's not get into this here.
If it's relevant now or becomes relevant you are welcome to contact me on my mail: harshani85@gmail.com and I will take a look at you either via Skype or you can sent me a video. I will give further instructions about that if you need it.
For now I will give you some strengthening exercises for your lower back and core muscles + some stretching exercises for your hip flexors  (m. iliopsoas) since they are often a problem because of too much sitting down. If they are or become tight they can limit range of motion in the spine and external rotation in the hip by creating an increased internal rotation in your upper legs which again will lead to mal-alighment in your spine which will affect your standing, sitting and lying posture.
As you might have heard before the core is our force-generating center. It is very important to have a strong core in almost all activities that one do in ones everyday. A strong core means that one is physically centered. The standing, sitting and lying postures will improve greatly as will many other activities in ones daily life.
The core consists of the following muscles; m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus, internal/external obliques, lumbal portion of m. erector spinae. Some people count also mm. gluteus, m. quadratus lumborum and m. iliopsas. I will not give exercises for these muscles but only the most important muscles which is m. erector spinae, m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus and mm. internal/external obliques.
I would like to give you these exercises. They can be a bit difficult to understand when only viewing a photo so I have found this video for you that goes through some of the exercises. I want you to try them all out and find the ones that work best for you. Try to pick 3-4 exercises.
I want you to do 1-3 sets with 10-15 repetitions in each exercise. 1-3 sets meaning that if you have a good day you can do 3 sets and if you are tired or not in the mood you can do 1-2 sets. That way you can regulate it yourself.
You should train these exercises 3-4 times a week. Keep 1 day between sessions for rest.
That was the strengthening exercises now to the stretching exercise for the hip flexor muscles, m. iliopsoas. See this photo. If you cannot do that I want you to do like this instead. You should do 3 sets of 60 seconds on both legs. You can do longer and more sets if you like but this is minimum. This exercise you can do everyday.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my mail or write here and I will try to help out.
Now I would like to approach this from a theravada buddhist perspective with basis in vipassana meditation practice.
In vipassana practice we want things to come forth so we can study them. We do not want to interfere with them since that can create attachment or aversion towards the phenomena. By trying to help the swaying or stop the swaying you are really masking/camouflaging the impermanent, unsatisfactory, oppressive and insubstantial nature of the 1st aggregate, the form aggregate.
I believe it's best to just let the swaying be. Observe it. Note it. Observe that you have really no control over the body. The body is oppressive and ungovernable. It is not subject to ones will and by realizing that you can see both impermance, dukkha and not-self.
So in short. Don't interfere with the phenomena. Just observe them diligently and you will come to realize the 3 signs of existence.
As Mahasi Sayadaw has said; "the yogi (the meditator) will come to realize that there is just an object arising and mind arising to that object and no third besides. Third besides is here meaning a self".
Unfortunately I cannot remember where he says that so I cannot quote it.

Well, here is a coincidence. I just happened to start reading Mahasi Sayadaw's "Practical Vipassana Exercises" and he explicitly mentions swaying:

Should you intend to sway the body, then knowingly note intending. While in the act of swaying, swaying. When contemplating you may actually discover the body swaying back and forth. Do not be alarmed; neither be pleased nor wish to continue the sway. The swaying will cease if you keep the knowing mind on the action of swaying and continue to note swaying until the action ceases. If swaying increases in spite of your making a mental note of it, then lean against a wall or post or lie down for a while. Thereafter proceed with contemplation.

I think at some stage while meditating ,you reach a subconscious state in which you are nearing sleep (that may border unconsciouses,fainting etc ,some people sway back and forth before fainting while being seated somewhere). May be you are also experiencing the same.
It is also possible that while meditating blood pressure gets lowered and that can   alter the posture subconsciously. The key thing is subconsciousness you are in a state between consciousness and unconsciousness ,so sometimes you feel the swaying ,some times you don't.

This is the stage of Piti or less likely but another possibility is some past fabrication surfacing. Generally practitioners to not get Piti stage quickly, hence take this as a something positive, due to your past practice you have got this easily.
Having said this this is something like a double edge knife. If you get attached to it then you regress in your practice. (In your case it is something you are averse hence this is something you have to drop and accept it.)
Use this as a tool:

You can use Piti as a tool to eradicate or weaken your craving. General tendency is to get attached. Try to be equanimous. This is the feeling resulting from your past craving. (See: Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma for the technicalities)
When you have Piti you can practice concentration more easily as there are not pains in your body which might distract. Take this opportunity to do that.
Dividing and dissecting into progressively smaller areas look closely into this sensation being equanimous. After some practice this will pass and you will be left with a neutral feeling.
Using concentration as a vehicle also you can achieve the above (at higher Jhana)
Sensations is the mind conditioner. Use this to calm your mental activity. (See: Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners)

Upanisa Sutta (read along with Transcendental Dependent Arising
A Translation and Exposition of the Upanisa Sutta by Bhikkhu Bodhi), The (eleven) “Without Need of Intention” Discourse - (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta, The (ten) “Without Need of Intention” Discourse - (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta and other Suttas covers the formula for liberation (nibiddā formula) which mentions who Piti as a "mile stone" in progress your practice until liberation.

Sumidha, thank you for the resources.I would be surprised if I had attained to anything resembling the Piti stage yet, given the still often-strong meandering of my mind and its tendency to follow after thought. I have been spending the past couple weeks doing concentration meditation (using a yellow-colored disc)...I think the furthest I may have gotten is the stage before that...vicara - although I still lose track often, so I am now content with just improving concentration. By the way, the rocking has seemed to have done away.

You know best but in the 1st Jhana or when you are near it Piti can arise. Especially since you are doing Kasina. It is advisable to have a teacher when doing Kasina through.

A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas by Henepola Gunaratana might be of interest too.

You are realising traumatic energy from your nervous system. Your body is rocking because there actually is quiet much of it. Just watch it. This is what meditation is about.If you look at modern trauma science you will see close connection to meditation and kundalini.

Sounds like you have not developed the physical self control necessary to meditate properly , you might want to consider practicing hatha yoga for a while with a good teacher.

Hello William and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some useful tips on posting questions and answers here :http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post?

It is completely normal, it does happen to me as well.
What occurs to me is that it is actually my pulse and as such swaying back and forth is in the exact rhythm of it, as it follows the rhythm of the blood flow in the body (presumably heart or artery). It happens by itself even in state of higher concentration and calm in Samatha.
Note though that if it's indeed your blood flow (as with me), it might be due to a health condition background. Be cautious and examine it, for your body shouldn't be pacing at such calmness.
My solution is that I just notice it and let it happen, I cannot do anything about it really. Not immediately. Neither should you, so I advise the same.

The Real Reason your Body Rocks During Mediation
Your body is rocking because the energy that is used to go out from you and observe the exterior world in now being concentrated within yourself, this will typically create a spiral motion in the body. If you place your hands on your knees, this current intensifies from the energy leaving your hands.
Let the current flow, if it becomes too disruptive, you can consciously bring it down.
This is 100% to do with the energy in your etheric body and is a normal positive sigh of spiritual growth.

"Etheric body" is not Buddhism. This sounds like Hinduism or New Age.

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


text:
Isn't enlightenment the ultimate death?
Is it true that after you reach enlightenment you simply vanish into the vast space of existence, and you simply cease to exist?
Kind of like, when you have not attained to enlightenment you keep on returning and being reincarnated, but if you reach enlightenment and stop being reborn don't you just cease your existence and die forever?
If I remember correct the Buddha did not know what happens to an enlightened person after his death, or am I wrong?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE :)

It might be the death of the ego.

By asking if a person or someone reaches Nibbana is implying that people/persons exist meaning that one is not dealing with ultimate reality but instead with conventional reality.
In ultimate reality there is no person or being that gets enlightened.
Take the "i, me, you, him, her, it" out of the sentence and just observe what is left -> Enlightenment happens. Enlightenment is reached.
The unconditioned, Nibbana cannot be understood by conditioned language or logical reasoning. In other words the unconditioned cannot be grasped or understood by using tools from the conditioned realm.
The unconditioned must be experienced and comprehended through insights into reality.
If another view is taken which is that when enlightenment happens the self is destroyed, that view is flawed too. Why? Because there didnt exist a self in the first place so there is nothing that gets destroyed. Instead what happens is that it is realized through insight meditation that a self is nowhere to be found.
In this book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammanda, on p. 70-74 there is a chapter about what happens to a Buddha after death. Its a conversation between the Buddha and Ananda where 4 propositions are mentioned. They are;

A Tathagata exists after death;
A Tathagata does not exist after death;
A Tathagata exists and yet does not exist after death;
A Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’

A Tathagata is a Buddha. You can read a bit more about the meaning of the word here.
Lanka

My understanding is the term rebirth was used metaphorically in early buddhism .  Buddhism practised current times may be slightly different in many ways ,because it was many many years after the death of buddha the great king Asoka retrieved the teachings and made the efforts to propagate it. and pressures from hindu elites to keep the religion not to go against hindu teachings many times ended up in persecution of buddhism by hindus and ultimately the near death of the religion in india.
Consider rebirth like this You are not the same person now comparing to what you where at the age of 10 or 20 ,so humans change many times during their lifetime and each change is a birth of new personality,
and at a certain age it is possible to achieve a state of mind where you don't have craving,suffering etc..you have a supreme knowledge and you attain a stage where your mind is calm as still water, (It may not be possible for every one but Buddhism emphasize on keep trying. ) and it is the death of personality changes not person,the cycle of personality changes ceases and you are in a state of supreme consciousness . Thats my view others may disagree. but i think all these jataka tales mentioning of buddhas reincarnation are stories to teach moral lessons.
The various realms mentioned in buddhist cosmology is thus easier to understand, devas are considered to live in higher realms ,while naraka or hell the realm of greatest suffering. Consider them as state of mind ...if a person is suffering from mental illness then he is living in Naraka or hell...I think the realm of Atata or shivering hell ..may be related to to some neurotic illness ,neurosis causes hand to shiver when the person is very anxious. So all these are planes of existence ,these planes exist in the mind and also in real world. It is both mental and physical.

Yes I had the same view about the Jataka tales,but so many modern buddhist teachers claim that it is real and that it can be verified by achieving the fourth Jhana so I dont really know I dont have such experience

past lives are knowable, requiring great steadiness of samadhi.

Rebirth as a cycle of consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29#Rebirth_as_cycle_of_consciousness

Also here http://www.indianetzone.com/29/rebirth_cycle_consciousness_buddhist_philosophy.htm

It would be great to have more references that support this historical info.

Are you not vanishing into the vast space of existence right now? Have you ever existed?  Nibbana is the ultimate renunciation...Until you let go of wanting to exist or not wanting to exist you will not abide forever without suffering. Nibbana means no more suffering but death, birth and life means the suffering continues. We cant understand this until we have practiced virtue and seeing things as they are.

You don't have to pursue enlightenment. You can just continue as you are.
According to Buddhism, while you maintain your craving for life, you will be reborn endlessly. You won't remember your past lives, yet you will always possess something of them. Even after the universe ceases after hundreds of billions of years or more, it will come back (for another aeon), and you will be reborn too. And you can be reborn in various realms, from hell, to animals, to ghosts, to humans, to angels (devas) and more. It goes on forever.
But it's not all adventure. According to the Buddha, all of these are impermanent (no everlasting happiness) and all of these are also suffering. Existence is suffering. Why? You are born, suffer from diseases, suffer consequences of actions, experience roller coasters of emotions, lose all your loved ones, grow old, and die. And repeat. This goes on forever.
This is not a pessimistic or morbid view. Yes, you can live life to the fullest. You can embrace and look forward to all the happy moments and time spent with your loved ones. But it will definitely not last. Unhappy moments too will come and go. And you will experience these endlessly without break. But this only describes human lives. In other types of lives, the outlook could be different.
If you don't see existence as suffering, then you don't have to seek enlightenment. But if you do, then for you, enlightenment would be the ultimate death of suffering.
If your concern is regarding what lies ahead, in Nirvana, then Buddha has explained that too in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as "the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge, the destination."
Nirvana holds the promise of a secure, peaceful, permanent refuge which is free from suffering.

If you are talking about what happens after death, then this seems to be what Buddhism is talking about.
If you are talking about Nirvana in this life, then no, unless you believe one becomes unconscious upon reaching Nirvana.
The question here is what does "you" mean?  Is it the bare fact of consciousness, or is it the mental/emotional complex you identify with and that influences so much of your experience?  The former "you" goes on, the latter "you" ceases, and it's this latter "you" that's the cause of your pain.
This vanishing into the vast space of existence is the removal of the illusory barrier that separates us from the world, the illusory subject/object distinction.

No because it is the letting go of something that never existed in the first place...
It is like unknotting a knot.

If I remember correct the Buddha did not know what happens to an enlightened person after his death, or am I wrong?

People always miss the point that the Buddha talks about The Thirty-One Planes of Extensive as early as Theravada and then the biggest revelations about post-mortem events... in Tibetan Buddhism where the Buddha's incarnation teaches about the stages of death--including how to break free of them.

"It been already said as no-self. For no-self death cannot apply. Even birth, old age cannot apply"
To die means thing still exist there. If there is not anything left, fire is extinguished, how can one say death, birth, old age are realities?

authors: Владимир Владимирович


text:
Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?
I don't know a lot about those two, but I hear that they are full of wisdom. Since they date farther back than buddhism, I was wondering if the Buddha ever mentioned them.
What did he think of them?
If he didn't mention them as such, he probably mentioned some concepts that are contained in them; Apart from obvious concepts contained in those two that also are within Buddhist thought (E.g. Karma).

Buddhism and Hinduism share a lot of concepts.  Karma, Rebirth, Samsara, Nirvana, Samadhi and so on.  The question is, did Buddhism arise from a Vedic mileu, did it influence Vedic philosophy, or was it a more reciprocal relationship?  In fact, it's very easy to read into Buddhism a simplified, secularized apophatic approach to Vedic philosophy.

related question: Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma

In Kashmiri Shaivism, various experients are mentioned - Mantreshvars, Mantra Maheshvaras, Vijñakalas, Pralayākalas, sakalas etc. And there are 2 Adhvas - Shuddha & Ashuddha. Shuddha advha is pure world of beyond time & space. Ashuddha adhva is constrained in time & space. Vijnanakalas experients cross Ashuddha adhva ( impure world) & knows this world of time & space. Gautama Buddha was said to be Vijñakalas in our system. Whereas the Vedas  were revealed by Mantra Mantreshvars & Mantreshvars. So Gautam Buddha & Vedas both are correct, difference is due to experience of revealer only. :)

The original Vedas themselves have little that a Buddhist would consider "wisdom", I think, being comprised mainly of battle hymns, sacrificial procedures, and ceremony.  They are mentioned often in the Pali texts, e.g.:

13.‘Well then, Vaseṭṭha, what about the early sages of those Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas, the makers of the mantras, the expounders of the mantras, whose ancient verses are chanted, pronounced and collected by the Brahmins of today, and sung and spoken about — such as Atthaka, Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhāradvāja, Vāsettha, Kassapa, Bhagu - did they ever say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahmā appears”?’ ‘No, Reverend Gotama.’
14.‘So, Vāseṭṭha, not one of these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas has seen Brahmā face to face, nor has one of their teachers, or teacher’s teachers, nor even the ancestor seven generations back of one of their teachers. Nor could any of the early sages say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahmā appears.” So what these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas are saying is: “We teach this path to union with Brahmā that we do not know or see, this is the only straight path...leading to union with Brahmā.” What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Such being the case, does not what these Brahmins declare turn out to be ill-founded?’ ‘Yes indeed, Reverend Gotama.’
--DN 13 (Walshe, trans)

Since the rest of the Vedic literature, including the Upanishads, grew up around the time of the Buddha himself, it isn't mentioned as such, but the above quote is actually more applicable to the Upanishadic tradition than the original Vedas.
The texts also make various references to the five Vedas, e.g.:

the Three Vedas with their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, and etymology, and the histories as a fifth.
-- MN 95 (Bodhi, trans)

Though I'm not sure this has anything to do with the Upanishads.
Short answer, yes, the Buddha mentioned the Vedas often, but the word "upanishad" was probably not yet in common use during his lifetime. It appears in the name of one of the Brahmanas (the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana) composed before the Buddha, but probably wasn't used to refer to an entire genre of literature until much later.
As to what he thought about them, here's a passage from the Jatakas that exemplifies his thoughts while still a Bodhisatta (and rhymes, too):

"These Veda studies are the wise man's toils,
The lure which tempts the victims whom he spoils;
A mirage formed to catch the careless eye,
But which the prudent passes safely by.
The Vedas have no hidden power to save
The traitor or the coward or the knave;
The fire, though tended well for long years past,
Leaves his base master without hope at last.
Though all earth's trees in one vast heap were piled
To satisfy the fire's insatiate child,
Still would it crave for more, insatiate still,—
How could a Nāga hope that maw to fill?
Milk ever changes,—thus where milk has been
Butter and curds in natural course are seen;
And the same thirst for change pervades the fire,
Once stirred to life it mounts still higher and higher.
Fire bursts not forth in wood that 's dry or new,
Fire needs an effort ere it leaps to view;
If dry fresh timber of itself could burn,
Spontaneous would each forest blaze in turn.
If he wins merit who to feed the flame
Piles wood and straw, the merit is the same
When cooks light fires or blacksmiths at their trade
Or those who burn the corpses of the dead.
But none, however zealously he prays
Or heaps the fuel round to feed the blaze,
Gains any merit by his mummeries,—
The fire for all its crest of smoke soon dies.
Were Fire the honoured being that you think,
Would it thus dwell with refuse and with stink,
Feeding on carrion with a foul delight,
Where men in horror hasten from the sight?
Some worship as a god the crested flame,
Barbarians give to water that high name;
But both alike have wandered from their road:
Neither is worthy to be called a god.
To worship fire, the common drudge of all,
Senseless and blind and deaf to every call,
And then one's self to live a life of sin,—
How could one dream that this a heaven could win?
These Brahmins all a livelihood require,
And so they tell us Brahma worships fire;
Why should the increate who all things planned
Worship himself the creature of his hand?
Doctrines and rules of their own, absurd and vain,
Our sires imagined wealth and power to gain;
"Brahmins he made for study, for command
He made the Khattiyas; Vessas plough the land;
Suddas he servants made to obey the rest;
Thus from the first went forth his high behest ."
We see these rules enforced before our eyes,
None but the Brahmins offer sacrifice,
None but the Khattiya exercises sway,
The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey.
These greedy liars propagate deceit,
And fools believe the fictions they repeat;
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one th’ injust among,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Those men are counted pure who only kill
Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will,—
These are your savage customs which I hate,—
Such as Kamboja  hordes might emulate.
If he who kills is counted innocent
And if the victim safe to heaven is sent,
Let Brahmins Brahmins kill—so all were well—
And those who listen to the words they tell.
We see no cattle asking to be slain
That they a new and better life may gain,—
Rather they go unwilling to their death
And in vain struggles yield their latest breath.
To veil the post, the victim and the blow
The Brahmins let their choicest rhetoric flow;
"The post shall as a cow of plenty be
Securing all thy heart's desires to thee";
But if the wood thus round the victim spread
Had been as full of treasure as they said,
As full of silver, gold and gems for us,
With heaven's unknown delights as overplus,
They would have offered for themselves alone
And kept the rich reversion as their own.
These cruel cheats, as ignorant as vile,
Weave their long frauds the simple to beguile,
"Offer thy wealth, cut nails and beard and hair,
And thou shalt have thy bosom's fondest prayer."
The offerer, simple to their hearts' content,
Comes with his purse, they gather round him fast,
Like crows around an owl, on mischief bent,
 And leave him bankrupt and stripped bare at last,
The solid coin which he erewhile possessed,
Exchanged for promises which none can test.
Like grasping strangers  sent by those who reign
The cultivators' earnings to distrain,
These rob where’er they prowl with evil eye,—
No law condemns them, yet they ought to die.
The priests a shoot of Butea must hold
As part o’ the rite sacred from days of old;
Indra's right arm ’tis called; but were it so,
Would Indra triumph o’er his demon foe?
Indra's own arm can give him better aid,
’Twas no vain sham which made hell's hosts afraid.
"Each mountain-range which now some kingdom guards
Was once a heap in ancient altar-yards,
And pious worshippers with patient hands
Piled up the mound at some great lord's commands."
So Brahmins say,—fie on the idle boast,
Mountains are heaved aloft at other cost;
And the brick mound, search as you may, contains
No veins of iron for tile miner's pains.
A holy seer well known in ancient days,
On the seashore was praying, legend says;
There was he drowned and since this fate befell
The ocean's waves have been undrinkable.
Rivers have drowned their learned men at will
By hundreds and have kept their waters still;
Their streams flow on and never taste the worse,
Why should the sea alone incur the curse?
And the salt-streams which run upon the land
Spring from no curse but own the digger's hand.
At first there were no women and no men;
’Twas mind first brought mankind to light,—and then,
Though they all started equal in the race,
Their various failures made them soon change place;
It was no lack of merit in the past,
But present faults which made them first or last.
A clever low-caste lad would use his wit,
And read the hymns nor find his head-piece split;
The Brahmins made the Vedas to their cost
When others gained the knowledge which they lost.
Thus sentences are made and learned by rote
In metric forms not easily forgot,—
The obscurity but tempts the foolish mind,
They swallow all they're told with impulse blind.
Brahmins are not like violent beasts of prey,
No tigers, lions of the woods are they;
They are to cows and oxen near akin,
Differing outside they are as dull within.
If the victorious king would cease to fight
And live in peace with his friends and follow right,
Conquering those passions which his bosom rend,
What happy lives would all his subjects spend!
The Brahmin's Veda, Khattiya's policy,
Both arbitrary and delusive be,
They blindly grope their way along a road
By some huge inundation overflowed.
In Brahmin's Veda, Khattiya's policy,
One secret meaning we alike can see;
For after all, loss, gain and glory, and shame
Touch the four castes alike, to all the same.
As householders to gain a livelihood
Count all pursuits legitimate and good,
So Brahmins now in our degenerate day
Will gain a livelihood in any way.
The householder is led by love of gain,
Blindly he follows, dragged in pleasure's train,
Trying all trades, deceitful and a fool,
Fallen alas! how far from wisdom's rule."
-- Jat 543 (Cowell, trans)

As a Buddha, he seems to have become a bit more diplomatic, but still has little good to say about worship of fire, brahma, or the Vedas in general.

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

Since they date farther back than buddhism, I was wondering if the Buddha ever mentioned them.

While the vedic tradition existed before the Buddha, it seems a few upanishad texts originated before and some during and/or after the Buddha's death. Moreover, I've read elsewhere that one theory is that the key upanishad concepts developed as a response to buddhist doctrine (sorry, I don't have the reference at hand, though)

Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?

In the suttas, the Buddha debated constantly with brahmins and refuted their doctrine. A prime example is ātman vs. anatta.
But he also re-casted keywords and concepts used by these traditions with entirely new meanings (probably as a pedagogic strategy, and overall as a teaching principle; that is, using his audience's vocabulary to explain his doctrine). For example, kamma (translated as "action") in vedic tradition has been described as meaning "ritual" but the Buddha has redefined it as cetanā ("volition" or "intention"). namarupa (one translation is "name and form") is also an important doctrinal concept used by both traditions but with subtle distinct meanings. Similarly, with viññāṇa (trans. "consciousness"), which is considered essence of brahman (and thus, ātman), but in Buddhism, it's conditioned, subject to end.
These "reuses" may not have been limited just to words. It has be argued that vedic doctrinal concepts have been used by the Buddha to teach his audience a very different doctrine using the same "stage", from fire metaphors to conditioned arising (see Gombrich's "What the Buddha Thought" book)

there were only 3 parst of the vedas during and before buddha, they were samhita,brahmanas and aryankas. upanishads were later added by interpolating buddhist philosophy to save vedic religion from dying.. Gita too existed before buddha but it was of only 84 verses, the rest of the 616 verses related to spiritual knowledge and philosophy like karma and moksha were added at a much later date after buddha, mostly by shankracharya by interpolating buddhist philosophies into it. other than the 84 versed gita and vedas there was hindu or vedic literature that dates buddha. even yoga was invented somewhere around 1st century ad. some claim that yoga existed before buddha on the basis of an image carved on a 4000 year old coin, which i think u will understand is totally nonsensical after seeing the image of the coin. rather the image looks like it depicts some animistic religion.i have uploaded the picture of the coin below. the original vedic religion was far from spiritual philosophy that we see today, it was more of a warrior and shaministic religion.it had no concept of rebirth but only of heaven and earth. common do u think kirshna when he died 100s of his consorts were burnt alive with his pyre according to sati ritual. do u think this guy krishna sat 4 hours on the battleground and taught the whole 700 verses of gita to arjuna.

This doesn't answer the question (which asked whether the Buddha mentioned the Upanishads or Vedas, and asked what he may have thoughts of them).

Very interesting conversation and thanks for the contributions.
I know old thread but needed to mention this....
One thing clearly that needs to be brought out is the laughable suggestion that the Upanishadic concepts are contemporary or later to Lord Buddha's time. The Vedanta as such predates by many centuries if not millenia prior to the Buddhist tradition. Also the fact that the Mahabharata of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part of refers to events about 3100 B.C. - the reference here is to the long held knowledge of the date by ancient Hindu monastic orders as well as recent correlation to that date by mapping the astronimical events in it with the Planetarium Software. At most the 3-5 century B.C references to the Gita only attribute to when they were put down in written form.

This doesn't answer the question (which asked whether the Buddha mentioned the Upanishads or Vedas, and asked what he may have thoughts of them).

At that time the Brâmana Sela lived at Âpana, perfect in the three Vedas, vocabulary,
Ketubha, etymology, Itihâsa as the fifth (Veda), versed in metre, a grammarian, one not
deficient in popular controversy and the signs of a great man, he taught three hundred
young men the hymns.
Source: Holy sutta Nipata http://www.ishwar.com/ebooks/pdf/holy_sutta_nipata.pdf.zip
So, yes Buddha mentioned not only Vedas but also Itihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharata).
The word Veda itself means knowledge and so claiming that there's no knowledge in Veda but just rituals is amusing.
Each veda has two sections, the mantra (samhita) and the brahmana (dealing with the rules for worship, mantra meanings, etc.). The brahmana section has another part - called the Aranyaka. The Upanishads in general form a part of the end of each Aranyaka. So Upanishads were called as Veda. Important thing to note - you would find Upanishadik knowledge in ritualistic part too.
The claim that Upanishads are of  post-buddha era is entirely unscholarly.
According to scholars, all major Upanishads are pre-buddhist.
Patrick Olivelle gives the following chronology for the early Upanishads, also called the Principal Upanishads:

The Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanishads.
  They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than
  others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th
  to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so.
The three other early prose Upanisads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, and
  Kausitaki come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned
  to the 6th to 5th centuries BCE. The Kena is the oldest of the verse
  Upanisads followed by probably the Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, and
  Mundaka. All these Upanisads were composed probably in the last few
  centuries BCE. The two late prose Upanisads, the Prasna and the
  Mandukya, cannot be much older than the beginning of the common era.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads

This doesn't answer the question (which asked whether the Buddha mentioned the Upanishads or Vedas, and asked what he may have thoughts of them).

@ChrisW I've edited my answer.

Thanks. Here is another translation of the sutta you referenced: "Now at that time the brahmin Sela was visting Āpaṇa. He was an expert in the three Vedas [etc.]"

@ChrisW No difference between two translations. It's just that your translation has mentioned the English equivalent word for Itihasas.

No difference, no. I only posted it beause suttacentral is one of the more conventional reference sites (for suttas) here (on Buddhism.SE) ... and maybe easier to read than a PDF inside a ZIP file, which you posted.

@ChrisW I appreciate that :)

I found the Upanishads to be an amazing resource within the dharma. A wonderful collection of philosophical debate and discourse over the nature of the Universe. Couldn't recommend them (a reasonable collection of like the first 10 and some selected others) more highly.
The Vedas are another flavor. The hymns, rituals, routines of the Arya/Indus valley "clan". From an academic standpoint I find them fascinating as they give us an insight into the minds of the day. You even get a Tao Te Ching feel from them on a physical side. But their applications to Buddhism are topical at best.
Upanishads good immediately, Vedas good for deep deep backstory as your interest guides you there. I preferred Easwaran Eknath's translations as they were free on .pdf and the narrative was interesting. The Brihadaranyaka is my favorite.

Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?

I know why he would or would not, but not if he did. sadly.

This doesn't answer the question (which asked whether the Buddha mentioned the Upanishads or Vedas, and asked what he may have thoughts of them).

A GOOD ANSWER BY THEIGO,
   iT IS VERY INJUSTICE TO BUDDHA THAT HE DERIVED THE WISDOM /PUSH FORWARD THE WISDOM OF VEDAS. After lots of trying of various methods by anyone who told of whatsoever nature, he achieved the wisdom through his own method and discovered the truth. how can truth be said to be of any "ism". truth is truth. The thing is that truth is speechless . It does not makes its own propaganda. there is no need . .Afterall the footrule to which anything is compared must also be of that caliber . No much importance  should be given. What buddha said about truth is important and precious ,   not what he said  about anything other than the truth.

There are well over hundred Upanishads in existence but only a dozen or less of these are considered as Pre-buddhist. These are the Upanishads commented on by the Medieval Hindu commentator Sankara  who flourished in the eighth century CE. They are also the ones that were considered as the “principal Upanishads” by early Western commentators like Paul Deussen. The earliest of the extant Upanishads are the Bṛihadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya Upanishads all in prose. Not only are they the earliest but also the longest accounting for over three-quarters of the principal Upanishads. They are considered as being composed about the sixth century BCE. Three other prose Upanishads are also considered pre-Buddhist. These are the Taittiriya, Aitreya and Kausitaki Upanishads. The other “principal” Upanishads were the Kena, the Kaṭha, the Iśā, the Muṇḍaka, the Praśna, the Māṇḍūkya, and the Śvetāśvatara.
Buddha did not reject vedas or vedic philosophy, he rejected the evil practices and rituals in Vedas:

In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:
Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati
  Bhooripanjo.
People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high
  and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands
  Dharma and does not waver.
Sutta Nipat 503:
Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema …….
One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative,
  intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.
Sutta Nipat 1059:
Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam……
One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic
  Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly
  things.
Sutta Nipat 1060:
Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja…..
I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards
  the world and becomes free from sins.
Sutta Nipat 846:
Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso….
One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by
  hearsay and delusions.
Sutta Nipat 458:
Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi
I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets
  success.
Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't
  opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like
  animal sacrifice, caste system.

when Mahatma Buddha questioned birth-based casteism, animal sacrifice and other nonsense practices, he was answered that Vedas sanction so. Thus, like any sane morally upright person would do, Mahatma Buddha stated that: “If Vedas sanction these evil practices, then I reject Vedas.”

This seems to be more-or-less a duplicate of this answer.

I can't confirm these quotes and translations. For example I found the first quote at around Sutta Nipata 796 (not 192) ... and the English translation of that given here is quite different (contradictory really), saying, "A person undertaking (holy) vows goes high and low—
they waver, fettered by conditional perceptions.
But one who has learnt well and the Dharma penetrated
goes not up and down—
that one of wisdom profound."


text:
What is the life of a monk really like?
I am curious to know a little bit more about the day-to-day life of Theravada buddhist monks. I am drawn to the idea of ordaining, but I fear this is only because I have romanticized the buddhist monk's life in my mind as easy and care-free; like an escape from my own life. What is monastic life like, and how do the challenges that come with this lifestyle compare with those of lay-life?
I am looking for a reality check if anyone can provide it.
Thx!

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/wat_m5.htm

I had the same problem as you with romanticising monk life. Of course the day to day living of a monk varies a lot depending on whether they live in a monastery, a cave, or the forest. Despite having many hours in the day for their own practice I often see monks telling of how they have little free time.
This book called The Broken Buddha which was written by an ex-monk exposes the reality about monasticism in thailand/sri lanka/burma http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf
Reading that drove away a lot of my dreaming of monk life because I realised the type of people I would be living with if ordaining in Asia. I still strive for a monastic lifestyle but not because of romanticised ideas.

Thank you for the link. I don't think the author is an "ex-monk": apparently he calls himself a "Buddhist" monk now, not a "Theravada" monk (see this reference and this reference).

What is monastic life like?

From Nalaka Sutta: Gurgling Loudly (excerpt) translated from the Pali by
Andrew Olendzki -

...
  Listen to the sound of water
    In the clefts and in the gullies:
  The tiny streams gurgle loudly
    — Mighty waters flow in silence.
   ...

how do the challenges?

From Nalaka Sutta: To Nalaka translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[Nalaka:]
  Now that I know
   Asita's words to be true,
   I ask you, Gotama,
  you who have gone
   to the beyond of all things.
   I'm intent on the homeless life;
   I long for the almsround.
   Tell me sage, when I ask you,
  the utmost state of sagacity.
[The Buddha:]
   I'll explain to you
   a sagacity hard to do,
   hard to endure.
  Come now, I'll tell you.
   Be steadfast. Be firm.
   Practice even-mindedness,
   for in a village there's praise & abuse.
   Ward off any flaw in the heart. Go about calmed & not haughty.
   High & low things  will come up like fire-flames in a forest.
   Women seduce a sage. May they not seduce you.1
   Abstaining from sexual intercourse, abandoning various sensual pleasures,
   be unopposed, unattached, to beings moving & still.
   'As I am, so are these. As are these, so am I.'
   Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill.
   Abandoning the wants & greed where people run-of-the-mill are stuck,
   practice with vision, cross over this hell.
   Stomach not full, moderate in food,
  having few wants, not being greedy, always not hankering after desire:
  one without hankering, is one who's unbound.
   Having gone on his almsround, the sage should then go to the forest,
   standing or taking a seat at the foot of a tree.
   The enlightened one, intent on jhana,
  should find delight in the forest,
   should practice jhana at the foot of a tree,
   attaining his own satisfaction.
  Then, at the end of the night, he should go to the village,
   not delighting in an invitation or gift from the village.
   Having gone to the village,
   the sage should not carelessly go among families.
   Cutting off chatter, he shouldn't utter a scheming word.
   'I got something, that's fine. I got nothing, that's good.'
   Being such with regard to both, he returns to the very same tree.
   Wandering with his bowl in hand — not dumb, but seemingly dumb —
  he shouldn't despise a piddling gift nor disparage the giver.
   High & low are the practices proclaimed by the contemplative.
   They don't go twice to the further shore.
   This [Unbinding] isn't sensed only once.2
   In one who has no attachment — the monk who has cut the stream,
   abandoning what is & isn't a duty — no fever is found.
I'll explain to you sagacity:
   be like a razor's edge.
   Pressing tongue against palate,
   restrain your stomach.
  Neither be lazy in mind,
   nor have many thoughts.
   Be committed to taintlessness,
   independent, having the holy life as your aim.
    Train in solitude & the contemplative's task,
   Solitude is called sagacity.
    Alone, you truly delight & shine in the ten directions.
   On hearing the fame of the enlightened
   — those who practice jhana,
     relinquishing sensual pleasures
   — my disciple should
  foster all the more conviction & conscience.
Know from the rivers in clefts & in crevices:
   those in small channels flow noisily,
   the great flow silent.
   Whatever's not full makes noise.
  Whatever is full is quiet.
   The fool is like a half-empty pot;
   one who is wise,   a full lake.
  A contemplative who speaks a great deal endowed with meaning:
  knowing, he teaches the Dhamma, knowing, he speaks a great deal.
   But he who, knowing, is restrained, knowing, doesn't speak a great deal:
  he is a sage worthy of sagehood; he is a sage, his sagehood attained.

Pay everyday's attention to:

listening meditation lesson from tipitaka-memorizer.
observing the 91,805,036,000 vinaya-rules.

keeping to violate the prohibited rules, such as denying money, denying sex activity, etc.
keeping to do the procedure rules, such as memorizing bhikkhunissayamuccaka-course, go to bowl, keeping the monk robe,  etc.

keeping the balancing between the virtual, the concentration meditation and the insight meditation to enlighten nibbāna.
develop the knowledge from bhikkhunissayamuccaka-course to tipitaka-memorizer.


text:
The New Age concept of God or Universal Consciousness
What is a Buddhist point-of-view on the New Age concept of God or Universal Consciousness?

Buddhism doesn't have a Creator God who made the universe, also doesn't have Universal Consciousness (consciousness is dependently arisen in Buddhism), and is not related to the New Age movement. In other words, your question is unrelated to Buddhism.

how could a 2500 year doctrine have anything to say about new age?

I'm not inclined to close this as you are clearly asking for a Buddhist point-of-view, but maybe you can explain to us or link us to some information on the concept you are talking about?

+1 for an explanation of "new age concept of God"

By the way the question is framed it implies that buddhism accepts a creator God or Universal Consciousness. Buddhism do not accept any of them. The Buddha refuted both the eternalist and annihilationist view as being 2 extremes that cannot take place. A creator God and the Universal Consciousness belongs to the eternalist view.
By saying that there is a creator God one is saying that there exists a first cause.
That can never be true since it will break causality by asking "what preceeded this first cause?".
And further "what cause preceeded that cause which preceeded the first cause?". One can do that endlessly and will thereby stumble into infinite regress.
In short your question is not related to buddhism.
Lanka

Strictly, a first cause doesn't have to create an infinite regress if the first cause is necessary (as opposed to contingent). But I agree with your conclusion that this is not a question pertaining to Buddhism.

Excellent question, allow me to debrief about New Age-ism:
Sometimes, during the evolution of a spiritual culture, due to authorities lacking any training (2nd or 3rd Training) but ending up as leaders, saying nice fruity things to attract the masses, messing up the definitions, and oftentimes exchanging the Quest for Enlightenment for something easier.
That is, until someone comes along who corrects the concepts.. Until then, smart people will dislike New Age for its vague, mixed, multitudinous definitions.
But to be too attracted or repelled by something, which is all due to ignorance, is a "sin" (being off-mark) in Buddhism, a sign of lacking bodhisattva attributes and being able to exercise one's independent thought and skillful means to understand and assist people of any background.
Thus, my argument to pedantic Buddhists: why don't we accept ALL religions, ALL cultures, despite how backwards some may be (at this stage in their development).
For example, Islam and Judaism both have an inner sect called Sufism and Kaballism--yet do the masses practice them? No, because of many reasons, including that they are out-of-date models for people to follow and succeed on and need the rejuvenation of many people succeeding in that style of practice.
We all know that spiritual development is a very real thing just like mental and emotional development... so like I always say "Let's just know what "spiritual cultivation" is and Practice meditation, yoga, and self-mastery so we too can gain the benefits as cross-disciplinary studies have shown us! Let's get started and just keep adding things that are correct, and automatically letting go of that which is unbeneficial and incorrect."
New Age has a lot of concepts borrowed from Buddhism and is why New Age is a great non-religious spirituality to introduce to someone who you would like to practice meditation and yoga--especially to someone who is fervently fearful of other religions, like a Catholic!
Nonetheless, Buddhism is still by far the most accurate, comprehensive and trustworthy spiritual system to follow! It is just not for everyone in the beginning.
13 years ago, when I was 13, I was a Muslim devoutly praying five times a day, developing my concentration abilities.
I eventually bumped into New Age and it helped explain the bioenergetics I was feeling, especially through Linda Goodman's books.
Over the years, I pored over New Age topics like hypnosis, chi cleansing, affirmations and noticed that not only are they very positive concepts but that they are related to psychology.
Eventually, after reading "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization" and realizing that only Awakening ultimately mattered, I completely dropped everything New Age, Islam, and everything and studied Buddhism with a fervor for the next few years, figuring out what the Path entailed.
Now what is Awakening?
It is waking up beyond our little ego to realize the vast ocean that we are. To realize that the ego that we are was just a bubble of foam.
I am seen this same analogy in one of Linda Goodman's spirituality book and in my early childhood days it is what made me feel that Buddhism and New Age are philosophically similar.
This  is a concept reflected in the idea of a personal, shared God Consciousness.
This is also almost like the concept of a self-less container for all karma... an 8th consciousness in Buddhism--which the Buddha warns not to mistake for a self.
In Buddhism, they say that there is only Mind. This is similar to what New Age is saying with Universal Consciousness. In Buddhism, the Yogacara school of Buddhism and Mind-Only schools, are both reflective of these ideas.
But what if this "universal consciousness" is another "mistake for a self" as the Buddha would call it? How can we know?
Well, I would argue, and many New Agers would argue, that there is no fixed definition because the truth is beyond words and hard to explain--how can we possibly expect a perfect definition right away? Oftentimes, explanations are not only very contextual but also take time to form the perfect explanation.
Thus, New Age, would respond to my question by saying "Well, dude come on that's what I meant--whatever Buddha was saying about that un-knowable but experiencable thing-that-is-beyond... that thing that our Heart Sutra talks about, too.. I just call it "Universal Consciousness" even though it is beyond all those things."
This is the typical "wishy-washy"-ness of New Age that many scholars despise and the masses love. The masses love this because of the reason I stated in my 2nd paragraph as well as because it can be a chance for us as mankind to develop a global culture that is beyond any denomination (religion).
Basically, even if I am wrong, New Age will be able to adapt and evolve its opinion to match with the correct definition that Buddhism outlines.
In conclusion, the New Age concept of Universal Consciousness, even if the specifics are not as specified as Buddhism does.. the idea that we all have a fundamental shared thing that We Are... is the same as in Buddhism and goes by other names like Mind or Buddha Nature.
Also, both in Buddhism and New Age, there are angels and other deities.
New Age Buddhism of course goes into many hazy definitions whereas the Buddha's definitions are clear as day as apparent in The Thirty-One Planes of Existence.
New Age spirituality also has a special emphasis of the chakras and nadis from Hinduism and Taoism. In Buddhism, this is called the fire element and is not gone into excessive detail because thinking about chakras can block your chakras! So the Buddha avoided the topic entirely.
Anyway, I have been rambling about the two in the hopes that I vaguely encourage people to be more open towards New Age because it is flexible! Buddhism is not flexible. The instructions are plain and simple in Buddhism and there is no argument about what to do. Unlike New Age, Buddhism comes from a single author, Shakyamuni Buddha who managed to Awaken fully and bothered to record the systems that he used/should have used throughout his spiritual process.
New Age on the other hand, is a spirituality (no one within the New Age community would look oddly at you if you said you were all religions, especially "a lot of Buddhism"), above all a spirituality that we are defining more clearly for ourselves and also collectively as we all are all spiritually evolving and becoming more accepting of each others' cultural backgrounds.
I enjoyed writing this, I hope you enjoyed reading it. I didn't reference enough primary evidence for this answer to count as a stand-alone answer but know that there are some well-written texts out there which already do that job extravagantly, especially the book I mentioned.

I'd guess it's probably a "mental formation"; or perhaps it's a (presumably non-Buddhist) dharma.

Or maybe a wrong view? A delusion...

@Joshp.23 I don't honestly even know what the "New Age concept of God or Universal Consciousness" is: and therefore that phrase sounds to me like it's Not even wrong

Think Deepak Choprah...


text:
Have all human beings got the capacity for compassion?
According to Buddhist doctrine and Buddhist scriptures, have all human beings got the capacity for compassion or are some humans born without the ability to feel compassion. I appreciate that this question may have a particular answer from a scientific point of view but I'm interested what the Buddha or Buddhist teachers have to say.

As i have understood it from a theravada buddhist perspective then all human beings consist of the five aggregates and in here is the 2th aggregate of sensations. As far as i know the feeling of compassion falls under either this aggregate or the 4th aggregate of mental formations since compassion is also one of the 25 beautiful cetasikas. Or maybe it falls under both aggregates.
So in that sense all human beings have the capability to feel compassion.
When that is said i can imagine some occassions where the surroundings might not "allow" for circumstances to be created in where the feeling of compassion could arise. As all the aggregates are subject to the three signs of existence the feeling of compassion is dependent upon causes in order to arise. If these causes cannot arise due to the human being existing in such a poor, dangerous or violent environment e.g. a prison or extreme poverty then the feeling of compassion might not arise.
Also there is the factor of how much spiritual work the human being has done in this life and past lives which might affect in what degree there can be created causes that leads to the feeling of compassion.
This is my own view on it based on my understanding of the buddhist doctrine. I might not be right about this so feel free to correct me if im wrong so i can also learn from it.

It falls under the fourth aggregate.

I will not repeat the very clear theoretical background that Lanka has put forward. It describes very well how human capability for compassion fits into buddhism. It doesn't say, I believe, that all human beings have this capacity, merely how such capacity works.
Not everybody is born with a similarly strong mind. And not everybody has had the opportunity to practice. Perhaps some will have such adverse circumstances, or such a weak mind that the chance that they will ever feel compassion is very small.
I think could then consider that such a human being doesn't have the capacity for compassion, without disagreeing with buddhism.
Seeing it this way might inspire compassion and understanding in yourself, perhaps more so than considering that someone has the capability, but is not using it.

I have read that about 1% of people are 'sociopaths' (literally: social illness) who have no empathy and do not have insight into others. Most such people do not harm anyone, but live miserable lives because they are alone, cannot make friends and no one likes them. Probably everyone knows people like this. They do not seem to "get better" during their lives.

Welcome to the site! I hope that you find it congenial and useful.

Dhammas have causes. If there is no cause, certain Dhamma does not arises and "human have not got anything" but beings do, this or that and become accourding to their deeds. So far Iweins answer is quite more proper, nevertheless speculative. Maybe he likes to investigate that matter, out of compassion, or better karuna, and tries a better.

@no comprende ur comment reminds me the historical debate on if Icchantika (—闡提) can realize enlightenment/ Buddha-hood. it said Manjusri's method is to have those the heads chopped and arranged as garland to adorn Manjusri, thus they could get scented (like smoked bacon) by Manjusri's wisdom (my guess) eventually transformed.

@Bhumishu米殊 this is like asking if it can be compassionate to kill some people, or allow them to die. Big "can of worms"! Is a life with suffering better than no life at all? How much suffering would change someone's mind? Is suicide acceptable? Physician-assisted suicide? All good questions. It varies based on whether you think there is a life after this one or not. All religion is based on that one idea. Drop that idea: no religion. Then we would have to focus on what is life like now... which is Buddhism! No easy answers.


text:
How do monastic rules differ in each tradition?
Theravada monks have to follow the 227 Patimokkha rules and the Vinaya Pitaka from the Pali Canon.
But how is it for monks from the other traditions like East Asian Mahayana, Zen and Vajrayana traditions?
I read online that Tibetan monks have dinner after 5pm, which is clearly not allowed by Theravada rules. They don't seem to have to do alms rounds, and they can take Tuesdays off.
In certain traditions, can monks receive raw cooking materials and cook food themselves? Can they grow their own food? Can they manage the finances of their monastery?
And why are they different? Do different traditions decide for e.g. that the rules should be made more relaxed, more strict or more adapted to their local circumstances or to modernity?

In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha did say:

"The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline,
   ... so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish
  the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training
  (Vinaya) laid down"

But the Buddha also said:

"If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the
  lesser and minor rules.

This isn't a strict duplicate, so I don't see a reason to flag it, but you can find some of that information here - http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3108/are-non-theravada-monks-allowed-to-eat-after-noon-and-to-use-money/3138#3138

I read (I no longer remember where) that in a country where the lay society couldn't be relied on to feed the monks, the monks/monasteries were allowed (or required) to grow their own food. Probably Zen Chinese, and the origin of the phrase No Work, No Food.

That's a good point since there are also monks in non-Buddhist countries

All Buddhist traditions including the now extinct ones derived their rules from the original Prātimokṣa (path to liberation).

A number of prātimokṣa codes are extant, including those contained in the Theravāda, Mahāsāṃghika, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda vinayas. Prātimokṣa texts may also circulate in separate prātimokṣa sūtras, which are extracts from their respective vinayas.

The Wikipedia article on the Prātimokṣa covers the current and extinct derivatives in a little detail.
The monastic rules aren't inviolable, though generally through the ages their importance has been largely respected, and only modified in exigent circumstances. Philosophical stances of the founders have often influenced how closely they stayed to the original.
For example,

The Dharmaguptaka sect are known to have rejected the authority of the Sarvāstivāda pratimokṣa rules on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.

When the Buddha began teaching there were no rules, the rules were added on as the need arose. For example, the prohibition on alcohol began when there was an incident of drunkenness that reflected badly on the monks.
Given the organic growth of these rules, as times and cultures changed some might have felt the need to change the rules to keep the tradition living and not turn into an anachronism. As Buddhism spread to new cultures the original rules as they applied to the Gangetic plains of India may not have made sense. For example, in lands with snowy winters like Japan obviously the robes needed to be warmer and with more layers than in India.
One other example would be the leave to allow monks to cook for themselves when Buddhism had just entered China. There was no Chinese precedent of donating food to mendicants and beggars like in India, so in order to maintain the respect of the monks in the eyes of the community, cooking was allowed. This continues today in modern Zen monasteries, like Plum Village in France, for much the same reason.
Some other times it may have been corrupted transmission or interpretation as the religion traveled across hundreds of years, several thousand miles and cultures.

The Buddhist scholar Tripitakamala felt the overall goal of Buddhahood overrides concerns for monastic vows.
cite: Gray, David (2007). The Cakrasamvara Tantra. New York, NY: Columbia University. p. 124.

Buddhism continues to evolve even today. The spread of Dharma in the West has brought with it changes to meet the unique challenges of the West. For example many modern Zen roshis in the US have dispensed with their robes except on ceremonial occasions, and wear every day lay person clothes. Chogyam Trungpa, the Tibetan master was a firm believer in such pragmatic change when he set up Naropa University and wore suits to lectures.

The different in practices came shortly after Buddha's Parinibbana. That's is the reason First Buddhist council was convened. Ref Link: First Buddhist Council

According to this record the incident which prompted the Elder
  Mahakassapa to call this meeting was his hearing a disparaging remark
  about the strict rule of life for monks. The monk Subhadda, who had
  ordained late in life, upon hearing that the Buddha had expired,
  voiced his resentment at having to abide by all the rules for monks
  laid down by the Buddha. Many monks lamented the passing of the Buddha
  and were deeply grieved but Subhadda spoke up to show happiness and
  relief that Buddha was gone.
And Subhadda, the late-received one, said to the Bhikkhus: "Enough,
  Sirs! Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana.
  We used to be annoyed by being told, 'This beseems you, this beseems
  you not.' But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we
  do not like, that we shall not have to do."

Let's go back to the basic that every Buddhist knows.
According to The Nine Special Qualities of the Buddha, there are 'The Six kinds of Speech'. Whether the speech is disagreeable to others or not, Buddha only speaks true AND beneficial. If you believe in it, Buddha mentioned 227 Patimokkha rules which are true and beneficial for monk. It is also beneficial for those who makes offerings to monks who live by those Patimokkha rules. Please look at Qualities of the Sangha also.

Please see my Maha-parinibbana quotes in the question. The Buddha preferred the Sangha to maintain all the rules, but also allowed the Sangha to abolish the minor and lesser rules, without stating which ones are minor. Again, this does not answer my question, because I'm seeking a comparison between traditions and not on whether changing the rules is right or wrong.

@ruben2022 Mahakassapa was alarmed by his remark and feared that the dhamma and Vinaya might be corrupted and not survive intact if other monks were to behave like Subhadda and interpret the Dhamma and the Vinaya rules as they pleased. To avoid this he decided that the Dhamma must be preserved and protected. To this end after gaining the Sangha's approval he called to council five hundred Arahants.Ananda was to be included in this provided he attained the state of the arahant by the time the council convened. Taken from same link of first buddhist council.

@ruben2020 eating dinner is not a minor rule to be broken. It is in eight precepts. It is for layman also. Even layman in our country can keep it, why not for those who declare as monk.

I think that ruben isn't asking "how come or why are they different", and isn't asking "when did they begin to differ?" Instead I think the question is, "how or in what ways are they different, what specifically are the various differences?"


text:
Karma: Intention vs knowing result of an action
This is something I have been wondering about karma for quite some time. I have been told that intention is what matters when one does an action but what about when I know that a side effect of my intention will cause harm. For example when I intend to drive my car to work and I hit many insects along the way- I am aware that I will kill insects but this is not my intention, yet in a way I do intend to kill insects now that I know it is a side effect of driving.
The insect thing would seem similar to intending to feed myself and so I kill an animal. Of course there are other ways to feed myself but there are also safer options for transport.

I think that "the insect thing" (the fact that numerous living things are harmed or killed by every conceivable action, including breathing) is one of the Vexing Questions, and it needs to be disregarded. Where "harm" is unavoidable, like when driving, we  do the best we can, and mind our attitude - not take it lightly, and not lose awareness, but not get embroiled in it either. The Buddha never said it was necessary to be vegetarian, which I think is a much more significant choice.

The difference is that it is possible to drive a car without the intention of killing the bugs you will hit, but it's not possible to kill an animal for a particular purpose without intending to kill it. You can't do something for a specific purpose without somehow forming the intention to do what you are doing.
For example if a farmer decides to kill a chicken in order to cook it and then actually kills it, then at the very least when he is preforming the act of killing he has the intention of killing. If he didn't have the intention of killing it then the physical act itself couldn't happen.

I think that the OP was saying that he had become aware of harm, even unintentional harm, and so now he feels conflicted. A similar problem arises when thinking of the conditions of people elsewhere in the world who produced products that I purchase - am I responsible for their plight? Would my NOT buying be likely to benefit them? Otherwise, I agree with this answer.

The test here is the volition behind the action is based on the 3 poisons (ignorance, greed, hatred). If it is the case the Karmic results are non favorable.
The final result of the action don't count towards the formation of Karma, for unintentional side effects or results. But if you ponder on such side effects this itself will create bad karma due to the negative thoughts and worry though the Karma is not linked to the original action or it's karmic results. So it is advisable not to think too much or worry.
To feed yourself, if you through a stone at a fruit and it hits a bird this is not bad karma (unless the fruit belongs to someone else). If you see a bird and want to have it for dinner then proceed. The intention to kill is there.
Sensations is the mind conditioner. So with every volition there is an associated sensation. From this sensation, your breath and heart rate you can decide if the volition is linked to bad karma.
Compassion should not be a source of restless worry and cause you to loose the equanimity of your mind. If this is the case you have to deepen your equanimity. Equanimity should always be the main target then other wholesome mental cultivations.

Thank you for your answer. Your answer seems in the spirit of Buddhist teachings as I understand them, but do you have any source material?

This is my personal understanding. I might have read or heard it in a dhamma sermon some where but cannot pinpoint.

@Adamokkha I read you profile. I am wondering how I can contact you perhaps by email.

you can email me at murray.r.adam AT gmail.com


text:
Finding a Sangha in London
I've been what you might call an armchair Buddhist for many years. I'm at a point where I'd really love to meet other like minded people and get involved with the Buddhist community on a more personal level.
I live in London. Having listened extensively online to Dharma talks from wonderful teachers like Gil Frondsal, I can see there are a great many communities in the United States which spread the Dharma. I was wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of similar communities in the UK, specifically London?

See also Buddhist Centres in Paris?

Thanks @ChrisW, some good resources are linked over there.

I've been to London Buddhist Centre and that was very good. It's part of the Triratna Buddhist Community and it's explicit aim is to present the Buddha's teaching in a way that is compatible with modern society. It's in a converted fire station so it's a really good space and it was friendly when I went.
I am biased though - I'm involved with Triratna in Leeds so it's my sangha. I think it's still a good recommendation though.

Try www.samatha.org with some experienced local groups.

Perhaps not in London but not too far away are two monasteries well worth the trip.
Amaravati (http://www.amaravati.org/)
Cittaviveka (http://www.cittaviveka.org/)
There is also London Buddhist Vihara (www.londonbuddhistvihara.org/) closer to home.