text:
Unique particulars
Following on from this question...
Is everything (according to Buddhism etc etc) that is empirically adequate a "unique particular".
If we found something "empirically adequate" that could not be expressed in those terms, then would it make Buddhism pure myth etc.?
And if not, we can pick and choose doctrine or at least not always take it on face value, how would you reconcile it with Buddhist doctrine.
I'm not asking about practice, but philosophy :) Thanks !

I've never previously heard the expression "unique particular". Google suggests it's a term Svalakṣaṇa used/defined by Dharmakīrti et. al.

yeah pretty sure i meant it that way. but, it's not unique to that school, the concept I THINK, even if the expression was his coinage

You should never take doctrine on face value.

i'm a bit disappointed / confused as to why this has so many down votes, it totally makes sense

The problem as I understand it.
This is a question is ultimately about substantiation.
In using the term unique particular, you seem to be referring to the notion that there may be some sort of irreducible particle, a particle that would give objects and phenomena (dharmas) true substance, or something that would be conceptually equivalent to a true ... say "atom" that allows us to build a "true" chair. The issue at hand being, of course, that since objects all are found to be empty upon final examination, that we still have to contend with where apparent "chariness" comes from, and therefore also all such-ness, "that"-ness, and ultimately the phenomenological experience of the apparent self. The existence of such a particular would have far reaching implications and consequences.
This style of inquiry is a search for svabhava, true self-substance. It is looking for the thing that exists from it's own side, a truly independent phenomena, the source of substance in the world. It is equivalent to the search for a substantive true self, and to the search for the god particle. It's hunting the Unicorn. Since we cannot find such a thing in the macroscopic reality, or simply the everyday world of objects and events, the notion that there is a fundamental, unique, and "bare" particular underneath it all, acting as the building block, would seem to solve the dilemma of the inherent uneasiness found in coming to terms with an "appearance only" based reality, particularly for the realists. Here is where the Buddhist "atomists" come from, and consequentially all fundamental materialists.
The logical conclusion of that solution to the problem...
The problem is that such a unique, or bare particular would still be an individual in possession of the characteristics of bareness, uniqueness, and particular-ness as its intrinsic nature, and to find the true individual behind the characteristics, or to find the individual holding that nature, it would have to be stripped back down beyond said qualities that it therefore has, requiring another bare/unique particular behind it to give it substance. We have to follow this chain of inquiry back infinity, never finding a termination point.
This issue is very skillfully dissected in Jan Westerhoff's Nāgārjuna‘s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction, published by Oxford Press.

"...if it is a bare particular by svabhāva and being a bare particular is therefore its intrinsic nature ... we can ask what the individual is in which being a bare particular inheres, and then we are well on our way to an infinite regress... we have to assume that the individual has some determinate nature due to which it is a bearer of its properties and the difficulty will just reappear with whatever we take such a nature to be."

So, if we have an individual, and that individual has the property of being a bare, or unique particular, then without that property what ground does that individual stand on? It's the same as saying that a chair cannot exist without its characteristics, and the characteristics do not exist as such without the chair. This is, from a Madhamaka point of view, the fundamental meaning of co-dependent origination, so from such a perspective if such a thing were to be found, that that would stand against the core Buddhist doctrine of sunyata.
Conequence...
The bare particular is landed on when examining an absolute creator, an absolute substance, a true, objective reality, the existence of real time, a true (meaning complete and consistent) axiomatic system, etc...
In the specific case of the bare particular it is shown that such a conceptualization is absurd, since we can conceive of a bare particular, but it falls into a co-dependent relationship with itself via its characteristics, and cannot exist outside of, or independent from mental conceptualization. In other words, it is mind dependent, and because of this, and the fact that this is essentially the only way to get at substance, so is every other level of such-ness, regards to the chair, or the self. You see? Without mind, without conceptualization inferring the existence of substance, of chariness, of self, there is no substance to be found, anywhere, with anything, beyond emptiness via dependent origination.
This is vast emptiness. This is the display of the true power of the mind and delusion. Somewhere, it is building the house, and the house has as its nature impermanence and suffering. The logical consequence, and final legitimate course of action is practice. So theory and practice do inform one another.
Incidentally...
Such a particular would break causality, as a true existent cannot be altered from its nature, and cannot therefore be interacted with. IN order for something to be causally potent, it has to be empty.
Such a particular would also mean that there is inherency in life, absolute positions, a central way and meaning of life, and therefore true hierarchies of values in terms of absolute right and wrong, etc. It would, as an eventual consequence of this, justify all atrocity.
Also, the atom is a great example because it breaks down into these sub-atomic particles that blink in and out of existence, exiting as wave/particle "things"
with only probable substance, and no absolute essence beyond, or apart from, the probable.
Your question
Since empirically adequate simply means that a statement is such "if and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true", we have to ask, "what makes a true entity?" If we are going to ask that, we fall back on looking for the bare particular. In co-dependent origination we cannot find any true entities, so it becomes non-codependent non-origination from a certain light. So there is nothing "true" in an absolute sense to observe, just samsara. Because of this, every so called empirically adequate statement we could make about the observable universe would be a relative, conventional truth only. So, no. Empirically adequate does not, indeed cannot equate to unique particular, since it is a referent to conventional reality only, and therefore dependent.
The result of this is that we can regard all dharmas as dreams, and people have spent a great deal of their practice hours studying this approach. It is, as I understand this, the heart of such things as the Diamond Cutter.
TL;DR An empirically adequate statement can only refer to conventional reality, and as such, is a convectional truth and conventional designation itself, dependent on phenomena for existence, and therefore no... it is not a bare particular, or "true existent", or unique particular, or absolute truth as you posit. Such a thing cannot exist to begin with.This is a core fundamental of Buddhist thought, at least beginning with folks like Nagarjuna. We could assume all dharma's to be, in this way, empirically adequate, ultimately empty themselves. This is what makes Buddhist thought so sublime, and keeps the system legitimate. It is, in my understanding, the philosophical perfection in the system, and an important component of what makes it rise above "mere philosophy."

If I understand your last paragraph properly, Buddhism says: "If you are looking for the Truth, you will not find it here!" This is what makes Buddhism worth learning. "If it were not to be laughed at, it would not be sufficient to be The Tao."

I think it is more to the point to say that if you are looking for a final truth, then that truth is emptiness via dependent origination, no matter where you look. It is that empirically adequate statements can only be adequate in terms of conveying conventional truths, not absolute truth. The absolute or final truth about any phenomena is emptiness, or lack of inherent substance. So, contrary to your point, there is truth everywhere, if you know how to you look. Buddhism is more of a dialogue, or an instruction in how to look and see clearly. Also, Tao is Taoism, and is not found in Buddhism.

If only we would teach people this before they begin school, the world would be a better place. There is an idea in science that you can only explain things in terms of what they are not. This makes all knowledge ultimately - not circular - but broken. I know the Tao reference was not exactly on-topic, I was trying to bring in what I thought was a similar concept.

Teaching interdependence as a core part of a primary education would be great. Instructing our children in how to pay attention to the quality of their relationship with the world, how to listen to themselves and allow themselves to change, as opposed to clinging to self construct and all that feeds it, this would have a profound effect on society. The idea that we define things by what they are not (interdependence) is a complimentary truth, not necessarily implying that all is knowledge broken, just not absolute. We only need to acknowledge the two truths, that conventional truths are empty.

Adding in this as a separate comment, If you are interested in comparing emptiness in Taoism to emptiness in Buddhism, Stephen Batchelor explores this in his "Verses from the Center" which is an exploration of Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, which is the book, that Jay Westerhoff was working with in my quote above. I highly recommend exploring it, but strongly suggest doing so with guidance.

In my experience, getting people who are "clinging to self construct and all that feeds it" to stop is impossible, and getting them to stop training their children in the same errors is very dangerous. So, this is why I focus on Self Inquiry and Nonduality (see my proposed SE site): people do not doubt their own experience and conclusions. As one teacher I know said, "We are trying to maneuver the mind in to a position where it disappears." Do that, and most of the obstacles to a worthwhile life fall away. I think thought-forms do not help us toward the goal of awakening and realization.

Wow, lots of thought devoted to an experiential reality. I am tempted to say that you can't think your way to understanding, but I like your question, and the fullness of the answer so far. Good effort.
I recently read a book By Ellen Birx, who is a recognized Buddhist teacher (the book is called Selfless Love). I am not a Buddhist, and not Zen in particular, but I find much accord with my personal experience there. So, in one chapter she talks about "Particularity", which I think is the opposite of what you mean by "unique particular". I would urge you to turn you idea around and see that absolutely all that we experience is unique, arising only once, with nothing whatsoever to back it up or that it springs from, depends on, was born of, dies back in to... There is no "there" there. There is only Experience (and the Void, of course). If you see a unique thing, event, person... it is a particular in the infinite flow of what is. It cannot help but be a unique, singular, once-ever-happening thing, because that is what Reality IS. A flow of this this this this with no organizing principle or framework behind it AT ALL.
Stop looking behind the rainbow to see what it is made of. See it.

I liked in the movie "Lucy" where she said, "We never really die." So beautiful!

From "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav: "If you are a happy person, then that is what you perfectly are—a happy person. If you are an unhappy person, then that is what you perfectly are—an unhappy person. ... That which is is that which is. That which is not is that which is."


text:
"Mystics" in buddhism? ("There is nothing hidden in my teaching" and the like)
For our next meeting in the "interreligious dialogue" we members are asked to do a statement about the "mystics" in each ones religion.
Now, "mystics" is itself a mysterious term, I looked via wikipedia at some sources, what exactly the term means - well, not much more than that there is something hidden that noone else can see/sense/know, derived from the greek root of the term saying "closing eyes, closing the mouth". (Which does not mean that the term was not used for many speculative or intimate concepts in many religious threads, be it in Brahmanism (later, around the Buddha's time with the Upanishads and even later many that threads which we subsume now under "Hinduism"), Judaism ("Kabbala"), even Christianism (especially in the medieval east-european religious scene), Gnosticism and also Islam (by "Sufism") and surely other religious stands which I cannot name all here, and that it does not have a very broad usage over the cultures.)
For me, Buddhism (as I know it from the Tipitaka) has never been a matter with (systematically) "hidden" things/concepts (at least not prominently), so I tend to develop my statement towards something like "mysticism (in this sense) has not been intended by the Buddha" - and I remember vaguely that there is a sutta, where he explicitely says, there is no "closed fist" in my teaching or something very similar.
(Of course, meditating towards the occurrence of Jhanas, the Jataka-stories, the Deva-worlds, the sutta about the Kalpas and the non-accesible "Beginning-of-all" deals with concepts which cannot be seen and need closed eyes, closed mouth and might be used as source for extended mysticism in folklore (I just recall the funny story of Maha-Mogallana, when he saw an otherwise invisible skeleton flying around and how this bizarre event made its way even into a discourse with the Buddha ...), but for me these are not so prominent as the teachings and guides for the analytic access to the relevant world)
So, my question is : in which sutta did the Buddha speak (explicitely/citeable (!) ) about that his teaching has nothing closed/hidden in it (as I think to recall with the term "fist")?
Addendum: I've put so much context around my question because it might as well be that there are (again explicitely/citeable) sayings which contrast this in a sensical way - of course when we meditate also we "close the eyes to look inside" and focus on the "inner world"...

Particularly in the context of an interreligious dialog, one might raise the topic of "teaching in parables".  While those who are able to discern the message consider this the "skillful means" of a Teacher, those who are not able will consider it esoteric teaching, at best.

Also, there's another sense in which "mystic" is one who sees a different reality (or something deeper within reality). As such, mysticism doesn't always imply hidden teachings.  In fact, it can be used as a short-hand for those who strive for the experiential side of religion, as opposed to the vast majority who simply go through the ritual (Buddhists included).

It's the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, DN 16:

31. And the Blessed One recovered from that illness; and soon after his recovery he came out from his dwelling place and sat down in the shade of the building, on a seat prepared for him. Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, and sitting down at one side, he spoke to the Blessed One, saying: "Fortunate it is for me, O Lord, to see the Blessed One at ease again! Fortunate it is for me, O Lord, to see the Blessed One recovered! For truly, Lord, when I saw the Blessed One's sickness it was as though my own body became weak as a creeper, every thing around became dim to me, and my senses failed me. Yet, Lord, I still had some little comfort in the thought that the Blessed One would not come to his final passing away until he had given some last instructions respecting the community of bhikkhus."
32. Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus?
(source)

The Pali is simply:

natthānanda tathāgatassa dhammesu ācariyamuṭṭhi.
Ananda, there is no teacher's fist in regards to the dhammas of the Tathāgata.

Ahh, thank you. I didn't expect it would be such a prominent sutta where I would find it ... :-)

Even if a teacher doesn't hide it, teaching might be difficult to acquire or to explain effectively.

The Moon Cannot Be
  Stolen
Ryokan, a Zen master, lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut
  at the foot of a mountain. One evening a thief visited the hut only to
  discover there was nothing to steal.
Ryokan returned and caught him. "You have come a long way to visit
  me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty-handed.
  Please take my clothes as a gift."
The thief was bewildered. He took the clothes and slunk away.
Ryoken sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, "I wish
  I could have given him this beautiful moon."

Similarly from the Tibetan tradition,

In fact, advanced levels of Vajrayana (esp. Dzogchen) are often characterized as "self-secret" because they are simply incomprehensible to an unprepared student.

Likewise, I don't know what Buddha-nature is but from its descriptions perhaps it's mystic or hidden:

I note that the three examples I gve are from later forms of Buddhism than the Tipikata.

Yes, that are nice examples for the contrasting of schools. For the Zen I've thought to simply refer to its, so-to-say, birthgiving legend of the discourse, where the Buddha showed a flower and most venerable bhikkhu Mahakassapa was the only one who understoond the secret teaching (by showing smile) - what, in the view of Chan/Zen, made him the first lineholder of the Chan/Zen.

"Even if a teacher doesn't hide it, ..."- yes, an annotation worth to be made. Thus I already wrote "mystics" is itself a mysterious term . Perhaps I should sharpen the argument, that although in almost all cases the job of a teacher is to make the formerly unseen visible and thus the term "mystics" might be applicable to nearly any teaching, the remaining difference is, whether there is a concept of making the formerly unknown/unseen a "secret", and keeping secrets becomes part of some esoterism/insider-business...., or so... ;-)

@GottfriedHelms Some further thought/grist towards your argument: in some other religions/times/societies, was the term "mystic" used for people who claim direct/personal knowledge (not just received/scriptural knowledge)? Maybe such claims (starting with, for example, Jesus's claims) were heretical/unorthodox ... and to that extent hidden/secret. Maybe some but not all mystics were accepted as saints. And then there are charismatic leaders, gurus, etc.

"...were heretical/unorthodox ... and to that extent hidden/sevret" - Nice idea, thank you, I'll think about this. However I assume at the moment, it shall be sufficient to tell  a) the basic line : no secrets in the fist,  b) the ambiguousness of the term "mystic" and the existence (in few examples) of some historical threads (having come up to us) where it is more-or-less common in the religious/philosophical debate to assign the term "mystic" to their basic legends/way-of-transmission or their teacher/disciple-relation

One point to note is that the Buddha was primarily concerned with teaching liberation from rebirth and suffering, not metaphysics, so when he says 'I have held nothing back' it is perhaps in the sense of 'I have held nothing back that would help your liberation'.
Note also the Eightfold Way describes various levels of 'mystical absorption' i.e. 'right absorption' which is an experience of Prajna/Gnosis/Wisdom/Pneuma that is perhaps similar to what the Christian Mystics spoke of.
Also, there is the reference to the 'handful of leaves' of the teachings, hinting at much that is left unsaid, albeit irrelevant to liberation:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html
Namaste

First, because writing an own answer at all, I like to take the opportunity to thanks all contributors for their answers/comments.
Second, perhaps "the Buddha didn't like me make bold statements like this..." ;-) I fell sick right in time before the meeting and I couldn't propose my prepared statement. In balance, I had time to listen to audio-talks; I took "the historical Buddha" by Werner Liegl (of course in german). And this reminded me to be not too fierce with the "non-mystic-Buddha" which should become the core of my intended statement!
Of course I knew/know that, but it was surely worth to be recalled, that the concept of rebirth (in the sense which the Buddha gave it different from the Brahmanism/Upanishads) and the concept of karma - which for any adept/disciple are hidden/invisible in the beginning and is thus in general of the quality "mystic" . Of course this itself was not needed to be recalled, but getting reminded by Werner Liegel that it is well at the ground/beginning of the teaching, "the turning of the wheel", it is of course no petitesse, but one should surely give it the same reverence that I wanted to give the aspect on "nothing-hidden-in-the-fist".
I think now, my first version of the statement would have been (at least) suboptimal, and sometimes one can even find some good in it, when a sudden problem prevents the intended action... :-)

P.S. I hope I've not too many spell-, grammatical- or expression-error, I'm still in bed and only slowly recovering. Feel free to correct errors as you encounter them, I'll come back to this myself later/next day(s) again)

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Buddhism something that you should study?
Is Buddhism something that you should consider as a field that you should endeavour to study and develop a deep understanding of or is it enough just to simply sit, just as the Zen tradition seems to suggest?
To elaborate a bit more, is it worthwhile to study the Sutras and other Buddhist texts or would someone be able to attain enlightenment by simply sitting without developing an in-depth knowledge of Buddhism?

Yes! Do study the suttas, it really makes a difference!

Wanna know what mozart sounds like? There's only one way: listen to mozart. Wanna know what the Buddha taught? Only one way: read the Buddha's words. Even to understand Dōgen Zengi's "simply sitting" one has to read what Dōgen said. (or, in both cases, be fortunate enough to learn from someone who really knows)

@ThiagoSilva thanks, great comment. I just worry that, by going too deep into an intellectual understanding of Buddhism I might lose sight of what it actually is about; in a way I don't want to lose the beginner's mind. I guess the answer is to follow the middle path between practice and study.

Being a Hindu, I have doubts in accepting some core Buddhist concepts (like anatman). However, I'm very fond of the Meditation aspect of Buddhism. Vipassana is a remarkable innovation and it could be easily studied and practiced on its own without the baggage of the religion its associated with.

To succeed on the path, you need both study and practice in equal amounts.
Sometimes you will need more of the one than the other, but in general try to have a balance of Study and Practice, they are the two basic ingredients.
Even after attainment of samadhi and initial Awakening, there are advanced sutras and texts designed for such Awakened people to study so that they can reach the next levels.
Below is a relevant excerpt from the first chapter of "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization", a book that completely discusses Buddhism's various theoretical models as well as other religions... emphasizing the importance of not mistakening theory/good learning for practice and Attainment" and especially not criticizing others who do not know what you know because you haven't attained it for yourself anyway.

The emphasis on a direct personal experience of cultivation in order
  to attain true understanding does not mean we can discard the
  theoretical aspect of cultivation. If you do not know the principles
  and theory of cultivation practice, you will not know what stage you
  have attained through your efforts and you will always continue to
  remain in the dark. Thus, the actual accomplishment of spiritual
  attainment is just as important as theory, but the two have to be
  mixed together just as flour and water must be mixed together to
  produce dough. Spiritual theory and dogma needs practice for the proof
  of authentication, and practice needs theory for guidance. Taking
  everything together, we can say that if you cannot already attain the
  nine samadhi concentration states in your meditation practice, see all
  the beings in the ten directions, travel the universe at will, see
  from your ears and hear through your nose, or produce all sorts of
  supernatural transformations, you had better refrain from publicly
  claiming to know who has attained certain levels of attainment and who
  has not. What we are revealing is to help you make further progress on
  the path rather than to supply you with any ammunition for criticizing
  others. Worry about yourself and whether you are continuing to make
  cultivation progress rather than spend any time criticizing or ranking
  someone else. We therefore hope our readers avoid this serious mistake
  and devote all their energies towards making personal progress along
  the lines of spiritual attainment. Examine your own behavior to choose
  what is good and shun what is evil, and refrain from criticizing
  others. That is the first rule in spiritual cultivation practice, and
  the place where everything starts.

At least in the Theravada tradition, it is emphasized that the role of the Buddha (technically the Samyaksambuddha) was to teach and establish the dhamma. And he was also the most qualified person to do it.
The dhamma (teachings) is like a shortcut that we received from the Buddha, which we need to first study and understand. Studying involves understanding the Four Noble Truths, the Three Marks of Existence, and other teachings found in the suttas.
Practice includes the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path includes Right View and Right Intention (which comes in part through studying), as well as Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration and Right Effort (which is meditation and practice). The remaining three are also part of practice.
So, if you do not want to study, but only want to practise meditation, then you are not making use of the "shortcut" teachings of the Buddha and instead want to find enlightenment by yourself.
For a good introduction on the teachings, I recommend What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.
The Tripitakas are rather huge. But a good anthology or selection of suttas can be found in In the Buddha's Words by Bhikku Bodhi. You can find the PDF version here.
If you find studying Buddhism potentially daunting, then these two books should help you get started.

Zen is very hard. Specially without a great teacher. A popular idea is that Zen could "get away" from emphasis on study because it produced great teachers who did not "need" to refer to scriptures -- when they could simply refer their disciples to reality, using whatever means (including Buddha's words).
This Zen attitude is believed to come from many things. One of them is it's origin in the flower sermon. Another is the culture it developed around accusing exclusive intellectual/abstract understanding of the dhamma -- carried out famously by the "finger and the moon" metaphor. Like  a person who spends his/her life studying sex but no amount of study got him/her close to lose the virginity.
But shikantaza has a flip side of the coin that is as devoid of value as studying Buddhism for Buddhism sake (if nibbāna is of concern). And that is, by "just sitting", it's quite possible one's life is spent "just sitting" and nothing really happens, ever. Like drawing lines and random symbols on a canvas and hoping to arrive at language and poetry.
In my understanding, the critical point is: in a learning process of any kind, there must be an evaluation process (ad-hoc, implicit, explicit, formal,... whatever), done by  yourself, your teacher, or both (when one has a teacher). And evaluation is always a function of one's goal and one's current distance to that goal. It's evaluation that tells where you ware, if you are moving, and towards what you ware moving. Otherwise, it's just random walking around and hoping to stumble on a goal that became a taboo(*) to acknowledge.
(*) it seems every once in a while this idea becomes popular: that "enlightenment" is not something to strive for. What was once a pedagogical instruction towards specific people overly attached to a goal keeping them from progress, is now a full doctrine.
On a final note: the major risk of not reading the Buddha's word is, years later, find out that what you were doing had little to do with what he proposed.

I find this helpful (Ajahn Tong: Path to Nibbana, complete edition, pg. [some thai numeral, sorry!]):

The two ways of learning meditation
Learning through theory: The meditator both studies and practices the
  theories of meditation (i.e. the six fields listed previously [5
  aggregates, 12 sense-spheres, 18 elements, 22 faculties, 4 noble
  truths, 12 steps of dependent origination]). This is like medical
  students who study medicine and then cure their own sickness. This
  method of learning is good for those with a lot of time.
Learning through practice: The meditator learns about meditation
  without theoretical knowledge, simply through practice. This is like
  patients who, without medical studies, treat and cure themselves by
  learning about themselves and examining their sickness. This method of
  meditation is good for those without much time.

My approach personally is lot of practice (daily & retreats), and picking up theory if/as needed. Otherwise it is just dry scholasticism, and I've had enough of that already.

It is something that you should study well and put to practice. It is not something that you learn like a right, ritual, custom, theory, pure science, logic or philosophy

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


text:
Is there any Proof of No-Rebirth?
Is there proof that rebirth does not exist?That it is not real?

None whatsoever!

You can never prove a negative. For example, you cannot prove that there is not a teapot orbiting Mars, or that there are no pink unicorns in my garden. They may just be very skilled at hiding!

Yo can never prove a negative? I can prove that i am Not Asleep right now..

@AlessandroMacilenti It's easy to prove whether there's a unicorn in the garden (i.e. just have a look there and see for yourself), but harder to prove whether or not there are rare unicorns somewhere/anywhere.

@AlessandroMacilenti, I can prove that I'm not your father :)

The point is that burden of proof always falls on those who make a claim, not on others to disprove it. This is a basic requirement in philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative

@AlessandroMacilenti If someone were to say to you, "Your hair is on fire!" then wouldn't it be at least partly if not wholly up to you, to prove whether or not that statement is true?

That is a positive statement, and one very easy to verify. If my hair was on fire, I'd feel heat, pain, smell, light. That would provide evidence that my hair was on fire. Thus, a legitimate question would be "is there evidence that rebirth exists?" --- only if the concept of rebirth were clearly defined and also the evidence that the OP requires. AFAIK, the concept of rebirth can be interpreted differently by different sources. Moreover, the OP did not provide an example of evidence that she'd deem satisfactory. As such, the question as it is posited does not make much sense.

@AlessandroMacilenti i don't major in philosophy,please don't expect me to know what is or what is not an acceptable question or a basic requirement in philosophy..I was just asking a genuine question i've had on my mind for a couple of days.I'm sorry my question does not make sense.But to be fair"You can never prove a negative wrong" just saying..sounds "GREAT" but..doesn't make sense either ..because... IS IN ITSELF A NEGATIVE...so you can't even prove what your telling me.The OP is satisfied with all answers.

You'd have to specify what you mean by "rebirth". I've read at different places that the cycle of rebirth is what is happening at every moment in the (unenlightened) mind -- flickering subject (in the sense of momentary identification with sensations), conditioned by (born from and dying with) flickering sensations. (Which I find kind of much more relevant than, heh, what "I" did 200 years ago (present moment??)).

There was a North American academic named Ian Stevenson who spent decades investigating people who claimed to remember their previous lives.
Some people cite him as having found evidence of rebirth.
In summary, he sought and collected stories, and discarded the stories which were proven untrue or fabricated. After discarding the untrue stories, what he had left were the stories which he didn't prove were untrue (i.e. stories which appeared to be true).
The Skeptic's dictionary entry on that subject says there's no way to use that methodology to prove that rebirth doesn't happen,

The historian, the journalist, and the jury member, on the other hand, must constantly deal with issues like lying, hoaxing, and fraud. Most important, though, is the fact that historians, journalists, and jury members have to evaluate the words and perceptions of people, rather than the structure or properties of things. Stevenson's work would require constant vigilance against being deceived by his subjects. Furthermore, since we know that people can have memories and be completely unaware of the source of those memories, he would have to be vigilant in identifying which memories were likely the result of cryptomnesia. Also, there is the major problem of providing an explanation for how a personality can survive death and transfer to another body, something Stevenson had no answer for. Finally, the most problematic issue Stevenson would have to face using his method of collecting stories would be the fact that nothing could ever count against his hypothesis. Stories that are rejected as hoaxes, frauds, questionable, unreliable, or based on experiences in this lifetime would be discarded, but they wouldn't count against the reincarnation hypothesis. The worst case scenario for Stevenson's method would be that his evidence does not compel belief and that even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations. Unfortunately, that is also his best case scenario. Most people are not likely to be too impressed when they realize that all Stevenson had to show for over forty years of research is that it is now false to claim that there is no evidence for reincarnation. It is still quite reasonable, however, to claim that there is no compelling evidence for reincarnation.
[...]
Stevenson would conduct dozens of interviews and spend hours searching through hospital and court records, trying to establish that there was no fraud involved, that the story wasn't contaminated, that there weren't errors in translation, that the events weren't just coincidental, that the child couldn't have gotten the information in any normal way. When he satisfied himself that there was no normal explanation for the concordance of story and facts, he would count the case as "solved" and see it as a piece of positive evidence supporting the reincarnation hypothesis. If he got a PLE story but couldn't corroborate it with facts, he called the case "unsolved." There is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis. And it remains a mystery as to what further research, that might be falsifiable, could ever evolve from Stevenson's technique.

Based on this Skeptic's dictionary entry, IMO there is no "proof of non-rebirth" (otherwise they might have referenced that proof in the Skeptic's dictionary). The most they can say, their strongest argument against his work, is, "There is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis."
In other words the skeptic seems to me to be claiming that the theory is, not "proven untrue", but rather "unfalsifiable" ... perhaps analogous to the way in which 'existence of God' or 'Russel's teapot' are unfalsifiable.

Though rebirth cannot be proved scientifically (because we don't have the tools at the present state of technology), there is a lot of anecdotal evidence and it can be proved with experience.
As I've mentioned in an answer to another question, there were many people in known history, and some even living in the present times who have recalled up to the minutest detail, their past life and its environment.
Forget even that, the most important proof for an individual is experience itself. If you perform vipassana regularly and attain the higher jhanas, you will be able to recall your past-life with your own insight (pradnya). There will be no need of any proof then!

I'm not sure I understand the difference between "scientifically" ('cannot be proved scientifically') and "experimentally" ('can be proved experimentally')?

@ChrisW I actually wanted to say Experientially (proven by experience). But since the spell-checker ruled that word out and suggested Experimentally, I thought this might also fit the bill. In any case, I've changed it now.

Scientifically speaking no. As you mentioned "proof" I assume you want a sort of scientific answer.
Science works with what can be proved either by experience or by mathematics, there is no way rebirth can be proved through calculation or a controlled experiment, at least in current science.
There are cases of people that claim to remember past lifes, however, scientifically speaking they are not accepted as proof.
Technically speaking science cannot prove that it exists or doesn't exist, but when in doubt scientists always go for the simplest answer.
In Buddhism we accept past lifes and rebirth because they are a key part of the religion, the Buddha said right after he attained enlightment:
"I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!
Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained."

I meant can No-Rebirth be proved.Not if rebirth can be proved.Can you prove that rebirth is not real?

Technically speaking no. We cannot prove that it doesn't exist, but when in doubt scientists always go with the simplest answer.

I edited the answer :)

The principle of "the simplest answer" is sometimes known as Occam's razor.

Yes. But that testimony need eyes to see! Not with your eye, but with your heart.
Everyone has to unfold his own mystery! One can point out what cold means, but he himself has to experience it to know it. Mere naming cold wont do!
Proof of rebirth and no-rebirth both  exist in eye of wisdom!


text:
Are Aksobhya and Bhaisajyaguru the same buddha?
This page by Venerable Husan Hua says yes; this page by Zhuoge Rinpoche says no.

Apart from both being blue, the iconography of the two Buddha's is completely different - different mudras and implements for example. Their "function" is also different. One represents wisdom (Akṣobhya) and the other compassion (Bhaiṣajyaguru). if they are supposedly the same, then why are they so different?

This post on Dharma Wheel says that, at least in Japan, Aksobhya was venerated the same as the Medicine Buddha (i.e. as the Buddha to appeal to for dealing with this worldly medical problems) until news of Bhaisajyaguru's sutras arrived in Japan.
In any case, Shakyamuni is often described as a doctor and the Dharma as a diagnosis and prescription for what ails us.

Depends on which dimension of reality one talks about. From the mundane dimension, both Bhaisajyaguru and Aksobhya are Buddhas of the Eastern Pure Lands. And according to the Amitabha Sutra, there're countless Eastern Pure Lands Buddhas:

..."Śāriputra, thus do I now praise and extoll the inconceivable merit of Amitābha Buddha. In the East there are also Akṣobhya Buddha, Appearance of Sumeru Buddha, Great Sumeru Buddha, Radiance of Sumeru Buddha, Wondrous Sound Buddha, and thusly as many buddhas as there are sand grains in the Ganges River...

Then from a supramundane dimension, all Buddhas have transcended all wrong views (not-I), all cravings (not-mine), and all conceits (not-myself) ( ~~AN 3.32 ~~ ) and as a result, all notion of sameness or difference no longer applies.


text:
If there is no self what or who is it that gets enlightened?
From reading this answer I come to understand that anatta means the lack of a core that can be conceived as self. If there is no permanent self, then who or what gets enlightened?

Not an answer to your question but something to reflect on: what is exactly the "it" in "it rains"?

Duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3545/if-theres-nobody-to-get-enlightened-why-bother

The main point of the answer you cite is that anatta is a characteristic of ultimate reality. Your question misses this and conflates two different paradigms or levels of understanding.
In Theravada Buddhism we recognize two levels of truth; conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). Conventional truth relies on a spatio-temporal paradigm, in which there exist people, places, and things. It is the level on which "you" and "I" exist, and it is the level on which a "person" becomes "enlightened". None of this has anything to do with the characteristic of non-self, which works on the level of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth relies on an experiential paradigm, in which there exists only the momentary experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, or thinking.
So, the answer to "who becomes enlightened?" is "a being becomes enlightened." As to how that can be reconciled with the teaching on non-self, there is really no conflict, since non-self describes a characteristic of ultimate reality, at which level concepts like "being" or "enlightened" have no place.

The anatta concept doesn't say that there is no self - it says "not self" as in "all phenomena is not self". There is a self, but it is not permanent and is not independent from the inter-workings of the senses, sensation, perception, mind and consciousness.
For e.g. a static image that is projected on the wall - it is a result of light projected onto a wall from a projector. If you dig deeper, you can explain how a projector works, how electronics and electricity works. The image does not exist permanently and independently from the wall or projector or electricity. But this does not mean that the image does not exist. Surely it exists.
So, similarly, if a person become an Arahant while living, then this "self" or "person" surely is the one who became enlightened. But this "person" is not permanent or existing independently.

To answer your question we just need to explore the concept of Anatta.
Anatta doesn't mean that there is nothing within us, there is a mind. All sentient beings have a mind, eventhough they have different bodies or are in different realms, this is all temporary.
What Anatta rejects is the idea of a soul that keeps your current caractheristics, just like we see in some movies. According to Buddhism all you can see in the mirror, your body, is nothing but your Kamma Vipaka, the consequences of your Kamma that have ripened.
Anatta also emphatizes the idea of not identifying with the body as something that belongs to us. Now you are a human being, tomorrow you could be a bee, a deva or a hell being. So essentialy your mind is just like any other mind except for the different Kamma is "carries" and creates. This mind is what can be enlighted.

I think that this story suggests  that the "who" who "gets enlightened" is the "who" who needs the four noble truths: the "who" who experienced dukkha; the "who" who had manifested kleshas.
But I think that it's a difficult question to answer because it's a person's view of self which causes (or co-arises with) suffering; because that view of self should/must be abandoned on the way to enlightenment; and because that self is impermanent (even momentary) and enlightenment is opposite.
A dichotomy between self (which needs enlightening) and Bodhi (which means enlightened understanding) is expressed in the poems associated with Shenxiu and Huineng.

Only Shenxiu wrote a poem, anonymously on the wall in the middle of the night.[6] It stated:[7]
身是菩提樹，　The body is a Bodhi tree,
  心如明鏡臺。　The mind a standing mirror bright.
  時時勤拂拭，　At all times polish it diligently,
  勿使惹塵埃。　And let no dust alight.
After having read this poem aloud to him, Hui-neng asked an officer to write another gatha on the wall for him, next to Shenxiu's, which stated:[8]
菩提本無樹，　Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
  明鏡亦非臺。　The bright mirror is also not a stand.
  本來無一物，　Fundamentally there is not a single thing —
  何處惹塵埃。　Where could any dust be attracted?

The Platform Sutra describes the first of these as a way to practice ("You should all recite this verse so that you
will be able to see into your own natures. With this practice you will
not fall into the three evil ways.") but not as having attained enlightenment.
The second one is associated with "knowing the original mind" or "knowing the mind and seeing its true nature".

Same as the giver, the act of giving and the given. All three must be present to complete what is called "give". Similarly, if there is no self, the "self" is missing and thus there is no enlightenment.

The concept of self identity or perception of self is a source of misery, as you continuously compare your perception with reality and get disappointed or carried away when there is a gap.
Since perception of self identity is a source of misery you should try to:

reduce the polarity of the perception of self. One such way is to contemplate there is no self (at least as perceived within the framework of conventional wisdom.). This will not completely remove perception. There will be residue or worse, a perception with the opposite polarity.
practice meditation to experience the cessation of perception

Here conventional wisdom is "wisdom" that can be perceived, comprehend, though within the field of perception.
Ultimate reality is something that you experienced with the cessation of perception, something leading to the cessation of perception, not comprehended by though or perception.
Self identity is a perception or notion that we have built in our minds. With the cessation of perception the notion or view of self dissappear. So in the realm of ultimate reality there is no self. But this is due to a paradigm shift in our thinking due to cessation of perception and notion but the process which we perceived or identified as a entity before still continues.
While you have not experienced the cessation of perception, it is wise not to ponder on the subject of self and not self too much as this itself maybe building perceptions of the opposite polarity.

What is "a perception with the opposite polarity"? For example if "Self exists" is positive and "Non-self is true" is zero, does 'opposite polarity' mean 'negative', and if so then what are examples of 'a negative perception'?

You get attached to the concept of non self what realizing it though the cessation of perception.

A good test to see if there you have got attached to the concept is to see if there is any agitation when someone bring up a view on non self other than what you subscribe to.

I.e. you are replacing the concept of self with the concept of non self what getting rid of the perception altogether.

Let me know if this explains what I meant.

Nobody.
This very same realization is enlightenment.

You are a continuum of phenomena that has arisen in the universe through cause and effect, in a very real way you are the universe. When one becomes enlightened one simply knows this and when you die, you return to the universe just as a flame goes out. Ask yourself, where does a flame go when it goes out? think about it for a while. Get a match and see for yourself. It simply ceases to be, but everything that enabled the flame, was inherent in the flame still exists everywhere. It just no longer takes form, as the conditions for it have been cut off. Within you, there is a cause for body, a cause for consciousness, a cause for perception, a cause for mental formation and a cause for feeling. Namely, craving. When you become enlightened you realise this and craving ends, cutting you off from arising again, just like the flame. The question who is it that gets enlightened? is an oxymoron. Instead try asking yourself the question, why do I feel like 'I am'?


text:
Who are the Buddhas of the three worlds in Ryōkan's poems?
In some of Ryōkan's poems such as this one he mentions the Buddhas of the three worlds

While I gather firewood and wild grasses on this hill,
the Buddhas of the three worlds
Are also celebrating

Who are the Buddhas and what are the three worlds?

This phrase here means everywhere.
Specifically, probably the Trailokya, the realm of desire, form and formlessness.  The realm of desire is hell and earth. The realm of form and formlessness are different types of heavens.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailokya
The 10 realms, 10 directions, a three times are all common stock literary phrases that meant everywhere and everything and all times.
And I've lost track of how many ways I've seen the realms sliced up, into the 4, 6, 10 realms, and now with this question, 3!

No-form (formless)
Form
Desire

http://www.netplaces.com/buddhism/karma-and-worldview/the-three-realms.htm
Also called

Immaterial (arupa-loka)
Fine Material (rupa-loka)
Sensuous (kama-loka)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html
Since that encompasses the whole totality of the cosmos, the buddhas in question are all the supremely enlightened ones -- clear as day to a purified mindstream.


text:
Is it OK to purchase cat food?
Forgive a (possibly) silly question - but I have a cat as a pet, and of course I purchase cat food for him and feed it to him. Being a pretty recent participant of Buddhist thought and practice, I also understand that eating meat (something I admittedly still do myself) is frowned upon, but the thought occurred to me the other day - is it also frowned upon to buy my pet meat-based products? By doing so I participate in the killing of animals. On the other hand, cats are pretty much carnivores by nature, and trying to get a cat to go vegetarian would likely harm him.

There are many questions here about meat eating, it does vary from tradition to tradition, I also see as personal preference like Sankha said, you can look for those questions here if you want.

Can domestic cats be healthy as vegetarians?

Looking more critically at karmic web is good, but the whole point is to reduce/diminish and ultimately end suffering, however it manifests in the world...
That said, it doesn't hurt to look into where you get your cat food from, getting it from more ethical sources.
We could go out and try and prevent every lion from eating a gazelle, but that would kill the lion and the gazelle, because the gazelle would overgraze and run out of food, and the lion would starve.
When synthetic meat is plentiful and cheap, then maybe we can have no ethical qualms about our feline's meals having meat in them, but until then, try and make the best decision with the information you have available.
Meat is not really the problem, the main issue is what happens to obtain the meat.  In whatever way we can minimize or avoid that, so much the better.  So perhaps you get cat food that's chicken from chickens that only ate corn instead of eating worms.  Honestly I do not know if such products exist or are at that level of transparency yet, but it's possible, depending on where you live.
Don't sweat it.  The intention you have to keep your furry roommate friend alive is more valuable than the other side of the scale.

I also understand that eating meat (something I admittedly still do
  myself) is frowned upon

It depends on the tradition and personal beliefs. If you follow Theravada Buddhism, you wouldn't have any issue with feeding yourself or your cat with meat products. In Theravada Buddhism, the word of the Buddha is valued higher than personal opinions. So you or your cat is less likely to get frowned upon, just for eating meat. :) Vegetarianism is usually treated as a personal food preference.

If i might kindly add to Sankhas answer. It is also important to look at the intention behind the action. Do you have any intention to kill or to harm living beings when you buy cat food? If you can answer "no" to that question then you have done nothing wrong. If you want to go deeper into the ethics about where the meat is comming from then you can do that but it is the intention behind the action that is the key here.

As noted elsewhere, it's pretty much only Mahayana Buddhism (especially Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese Buddhism) where vegetarianism as an ideal is the norm. So I'm answering from that standpoint.
The Upaseka Precepts Sutra* does have something to say about pets. They essentially promote divesting of your animals, specifically singles out carnivores as unallowable animals to own, and suggests releasing them back to the wild. In practice, some lay followers donate the animals to temples, which let the animals live out their life on the monestary.
I'm a vegan, but out of accident of family history I own a cat, who kills mice in my apartment and eats cat food from a bag, the label says it is 20% plant matter, so which is 20% more than a cat would eat in the wild. Obviously I'm a pragmatist and prefer harm reduction over harm rationalization.
A random observation is that my cat loves corn. Some of the cat food brands he has eaten use corn gluten as the source of protein and he really likes the flavor of corn.

An Upsaksa is a lay person, this sutra is for lay people who takes on more than the 5 precepts, but fewer than the Bodhisattva Precepts or the vinaya precepts, which are for monastics.

ref: http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html

(16) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises animals, such
  as elephants, horses, cows, goats, camels, or donkeys, and refuses to
  give them away to someone who has not received the [upāsaka] precepts,
  he has committed the sin of negligence.

ref: http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/bns/bnstext.htm

On Harming Sentient Beings A disciple of the Buddha must not sell knives, clubs, bows, arrows, other life-taking devices, nor keep
  altered scales or measuring devices. He should not abuse his
  governmental position to confiscate people's possessions, nor should
  he, with malice at heart, restrain or imprison others or sabotage
  their success. (82) In addition, he should not raise cats, dogs,
  foxes, pigs and other such animals. (83) If he intentionally does such
  things, he commits a secondary offense.

May be you could feed your cat egg products ? It minimizes the negative karma yet may also be a nutritionally complete meal. I don't have any cats and not sure they would consume eggs, but you can try feeding the cat part of your omelot. You can also try try tuna which may have less of a karmic repurcussion than something higher up on the food chain. It's been said the difference between killing a plant and killing an animal is that you can't hear the plant scream. Keeping this in mind you may want to choose a diet that minimizes the withdrawl from you and your cats karmic accounts.

Vajra Yana Buddhism ( Ref-Wikipedia) allows the followers to take meat and the Preachers ( Acharyas) to get married .   It came as a variant of Buddhism in India ,firstly as an attempt to combine Tantra System of Hinduism with Buddhism and later around 7th-8th Century AD to justify the use of Violence for Self-Defence and for protection of Buddhists from opponents of Buddhism --mainly Islam which justified the use of Violence for spread of Religion.  This form of Buddhism spread to other parts of the World and is known by different names in different regions.

That is interesting information. Seems pretty relevant in today's world.


text:
What is the difference between access and absorption in Vipassana meditation?
I've been studying Visuddhimarga and facing this doubt. In 3.1 (Kammaþþhána-gahaóa-niddesa), regarding how many types of concentration there are, I can get the concepts of distration/non-distraction, bissful/non-blissful, with equanimity/not, etc. However, I don't get what is meant exactly by the terms access and absorption:

(1) First of all it is of one kind with the characteristic of non-distraction. (2)
  Then it is of two kinds as access and absorption; (3) likewise as mundane and
  supramundane (4) as with happiness and without happiness,

The author gives the following explanation at the bottom of the page, but I'm finding it difficult to understand. I can hazard a guess that absorption here means our thoughts gradually absorb (attain the state of) the object of our concentration, but what is meant by access?:

“Applied thought that occurs as though absorbing (appento) associated states in
  the object is absorption (appaná). Accordingly it is described as ‘absorption, absorbing
  (appaná vyappaná)’ (M III 73). Now since that is the most important, the usage of the
  Commentaries is to call all exalted and unsurpassed jhána states ‘absorption’ [as well
  as the applied thought itself], and likewise to apply the term of common usage ‘access’
  to the limited [i.e. sense-sphere] jhána that heralds the arising of the former, just as the
  term ‘village access,’ etc. is applied to the neighbourhood of a village” (Vism-mhþ 91).

This is more an unfortunate example of problematic translation than anything. appento, for example, means rushing forward, plunging or entering into, or fixing upon. The commentary surrounding this word,

sampayuttadhamme ārammaṇe appento viya pavattatīti vitakko appanā

would better be translated as

"Applied thought that proceeds as though plunging into the object with its associated states is called appanā"

vyappanā could mean several things, since it is just appanā with a vi prefix. You'd have to be fluent in Pali colloquialism to understand the meaning, but PED says

Vyappanā (f.) [vi+appanā] application (of mind), focussing (of attention) Dhs 7.

At any rate, "absorption" should be understood in the sense of "becoming absorbed in (i.e. fixed upon) the object", I think.
"Access" is another ambiguous term; it is used in the sense of moving (cara) close to (upa), as it is a translation of the term upacāra. Other translations are "neighbourhoood", "approach", etc. It is more often used in a mundane sense to refer to the area surrounding (e.g.) a dwelling. e.g.:

vihārassa upacāre - in the surrounding area of a dwelling (Vin. Pāc. 2.5)

In regards the section of the Visuddhimagga you are reading, we should first be clear that this section pertains to samatha meditation, not vipassana. The two terms are not commonly used in the practice of insight meditation, since it is understood that appanā samadhi doesn't allow for insight to occur. Insight meditation requires momentary concentration similar to that described as upacāra in this section, in that it comes close to but doesn't reach samatha jhāna.
The main difference between the two is that appanā is fixed on the object from moment to moment, unwavering and unchanging - it is sometimes described as "trance" concentration; whereas upacāra is still not fixed on a single object. The main similarity is that they both have the power to suppress the five hindrances from the mind.


text:
Role of the Buddhist in preserving the original teachings
This is a very common dilemma.
If you go look for some Buddhist books here in the west (I guess the same thing happens in the east) you will easily find books written by monks and general authors, it is not common to find the suttas. That would be equivalent to look for books on Christianism and don't find the Bible, curiously it doesn't happen, it is easier to find the Bible than books written by priests for instance.
The point that I'm trying to make is that sometimes those books, unfortunately, ignores or even contradicts some of the basic Buddha's teachings, they can create misconcepts in people's minds. I'm not talking about different schools, I'm talking about the original teachings shared by most of them, the suttas.
When a Buddhist faces this situation, when he finds someone with a wrong concept, something that clearly has no basis on the Buddha's teachings, either Vinaya or Sutta Pitaka, what should he or she do? Should he/she correct the person or just let it be?
I would go with "correct" however you will see that most Buddhist leaders don't do that, they prefer to ignore misconcepts and focus on what they believe to be right, there are lots of precautions to avoid long debates in Buddhism... this is why it becomes a dilemma! What to do?

First a couple of comments...
It is to be expected that in a non-Buddhist country you wouldn't find as much authentic Buddhist literature as you would in Buddhist countries. In Thailand, for example, it is quite easy to obtain a full translation of the entire tipitaka... two different translations, actually.
Of course, the fact that the tipitaka is tens of times the size of the bible makes it relatively expensive to translate, print, ship, etc., and so it is not exactly the kind of thing you see in hotel rooms (for other reasons as well).
I think there are several reasons for the plethora of misleading or quasi-Buddhist literature available today: the sheer magnitude of the teaching can lead to lopsided interpretations; the difficulty in penetrating the teachings can lead to sloppiness, etc.; the general usefulness of the teachings can lead to misappropriation of the teachings due to ulterior motives, etc.
But, to answer your question.  It's important to distinguish between what a monk should do and what a lay person should do. There is relatively little in the Buddha's teaching about what lay people "should" do in matters like this; there isn't always definitive guidelines even for monks. Buddhism is much less a religion of "should" than it is a religion of "can", in the sense of laying out a description of reality and pointing out the causal relationships between actions and reactions.
There is some guidance to be found in this particular matter, though; specifically in the Brahmajala Sutta, which begins with a nice intro tale of how to react to those who malign (or praise) the Buddha, Dhamma, or Sangha:

"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: 'For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.'
DN 1

So, there's a "should" for you. There are also rules of protocol in the vinaya on how to deal with monks who profess wrong views, e.g.:

Should any bhikkhu say the following: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says
  are obstructive, when engaged in are not
  genuine obstructions,” the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Do not say that,
  venerable sir. Do not slander the Blessed One, for it is not good to slander the Blessed
  One. The Blessed One would not say anything l
  ike that. In many ways, friend, the
  Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when engaged in they are genuine
  obstructions.
Pāc 68

but these are of course restricted to within the monastic order.
A lay person who speaks in dispraise of the dhamma may be ostracised by the monks (Sg 8), though I don't suppose this relates directly to your question.
Ultimately, I think there is precedence for pointing out when someone has clearly misrepresented the Buddha. Whether one "should" do so seems highly dependent on circumstance and ability - both of oneself to correct, and of the other to accept correction.

I would go with "correct" however you will see that most Buddhist leaders don't do that

I'm not sure about "Buddhist leaders", but in general, I think that's not so much the case. Also, a lot of books are written precisely because of the presence of misleading books. To the point of having titles like Buddhism Is Not What You Think (though I never fully read this one, I find it unfortunate that, carrying such title, it barely and only loosely quotes the Buddha).
I think what a reasonable person should do in this case is what she would do in any other case, when circumstances are appropriate: point to contrary evidence.

there are lots of precautions to avoid long debates in Buddhism

If authoritative texts are available in one's language, and if one can refer people to evidence therein of faulty understanding, that should produce a very short debate, shouldn't it?
My understanding is that the major problem is not the availability of misleading books. Is the absence of authoritative books.

Nice comments amigo!

Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote in his answer:

Of course, the fact that the tipitaka is tens of times the size of the
  bible makes it relatively expensive to translate, print, ship, etc.,
  and so it is not exactly the kind of thing you see in hotel rooms (for
  other reasons as well).

The above is precisely the reason why the Tipitaka is not as famous or as accessible to non-Buddhists as the Bible, Quran or the Bhagavad Gita. A lot of the sutta pitaka, have duplication due to the Buddha delivering the same messages to different people at different times in his 45 years of teaching. It is also not thematically arranged, at least for the most part. This and the sheer size of it, makes it less accessible to the non-Buddhist.
For this purpose, I recommend the book In The Buddha's Words by Bhikku Bodhi. It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged. You can look at the Table of Contents on the Amazon page I linked. It is 512 pages long, which is quite alright. PDF version here. The author hopes that the book will serve as a systematic map to the Nikayas (which is like a jungle) for readers who are not yet well acquainted with the Pali canon.

When a Buddhist faces this situation, when he finds someone with a
  wrong concept, something that clearly has no basis on the Buddha's
  teachings, either Vinaya or Sutta Pitaka, what should he or she do?
  Should he/she correct the person or just let it be?

Well, if you are talking about books, then head over to amazon.com or goodreads.com and write your comments and vote down books which you think have wrongly represented Buddhist teachings. If many Buddhists do that, it would surely have an impact on the books' ranking.

For a start, there's the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Access To Insight describes this as

The Buddha's famous simile of the blind men and the elephant, illustrating the futility of arguing about one's views and opinions.

My characterization of it is that when you don't see the whole Dhamma, then hearing people each describe one portion/aspect of Dhamma sounds as if their descriptions might be mutually contradictory.
IMO the fact that they sound contradictory doesn't prove that they are for sure, because Dhamma is complicated (albeit skillfully summarized in the four noble truths).
Another important aspect to the sutta is I think that we should try to avoid this kind of behaviour:

And they kept on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, "The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this."

I think that's important e.g. because the title of the Sutta is "Sectarians". If me and my brother had arguments or fights when we were young, my mother's policy (when she was called to resolve our dispute without knowing what the dispute was about) was that if we were fighting then we were both wrong.

If you feel the need to correct someone there are instructions related to Right Speech.
I may feel tempted to correct a "wrong concept", even without having been invited to.
Part of the (secular, non-Buddhist) way in which I've been taught to express disagreements is to use so-called "I-messages". For example, instead of a 'you-message' like "you are wrong", an 'I-message' like "I didn't understand that" is less aggressive and maybe closer to the truth (or at least closer to the way that leads towards understanding). So perhaps you can phrase any "corrections" as questions, "Where did the Buddha say that?", "Does that contradict this sutta?", etc.

Also there is the Parable of the burning house. I thought that this book might be like what you described, i.e. written or synthesized by the author without entirely quoting from suttas. According to the book, the author, "serves the congregation of Vipisanna Meditation Retreat in Willis, Texas, as its president while teaching English at the University of Houston-Downtown." The author is a bhikkhu and his congregation is presumably not.

The situation you mentioned is covered in the Drum Sutta.
The way to put this right is to learn the original teaching and practice it. When you build self confidence in the practice through experience teach what you practiced.
As long as there are people practicing and teaching the 4 foundation of mindfullness, the Dhamma shall endure.
Intellectual debate and corrections at the level of perception maybe of some help but would be limited as sometimes others may not agree because it is perceived by their intellect and perception than experience. When people has verified something at the experiential level the confidence is unshakable.


text:
How concentrated is access concentration and how would one recognise it?
A meditation teacher I once had said that access concentration (the stage before the jhanas) is the same level of concentration that one has when reading a good book or when fully engaged in conversation. However when I've read about it in other places it makes it seem like it is a more special level of concentration, perhaps one that you wouldn't ordinarily experience in your day to day life. Which point of view is more correct? How concentrated is access concentration and how would one recognise it?

I've read definitions at both extremes. The safe bet would be to go for the tougher one. One benchmark I've read (from Ajahn Brahm) is when a clear nimitta of the breath can be obtained. That is, the flow of the in-breath can be seen as a white ghostly wisp that enters the nostril, and heads up to the forehead, and vice versa on the out breath. It is a very pleasant and highly concentrated state where the mind performs exactly as willed, but it took me about 5 days of constant meditation on a retreat to attain, so not an easy state by any means.

The Visuddhimmagga defines upacāra samadhi in IV 32-34:

Now concentration is of two kinds [access and absorption]. [...] The difference between the two kinds of concentration is this. The factors are not strong in access. [...] just as when a young child is lifted up and stood on its feet , it repeatedly falls down on the ground. [...] The arousing of the counterpart sign, which arises together with access concentration, is very difficult.

The process of concentration as described in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (IX 17, 18):

When that sign has been throughly aprehended and enters into range of the mind door just as if it were seen by the eye, then it is called the learning sign, and that meditation becomes concentrated. When one is thus concentrated, one then applies oneself to meditation by means of that preliminary [parikamma] concentration  based on the learning sign. As one does so, an object which is the counterpart of that (learning sign) becomes well established and fixed in the mind -- (an object) which is freed of the flaws of the original object, reckoned as a concept, born of meditation. Then it is said that the counterpart sign has arisen.
Thereafter, access [upacāra] development is accomplished, consisting in concentration of the sense sphere in which the obstacles have been abandoned.

Fast forward to our current century:

Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of jhāna factors. [...] It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator's continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and "bright". [...] In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna.
-- Stephen Snyder & Tina Rasmussen (Practicing the Jhānas)

or more broadly speaking:

The Buddhist tradition has introduced the term upacāra samadhi [...] to refer to a non absorptive experience of concentration that begins with the arising of the counterpart sign and endures until consciousness enters into full absorption. Upacāra samadhi implies concentration that is in the vicinity of jhāna [...] and describes the experiences that precede absorption, but it does not necessarily leads to jhāna. It may refer to the conditions that precede jhāna; it may refer to experiences that are reminiscent of first jhāna mental factors, but without the seclusion of absorption; and it may describe the mature concentration that accompanies those meditation objects (such as discernment of the body parts, and various recollections) that do not have the potential to reach full absorption. [...] Some meditators use the term upacāra samādhi so loosely that it merely describes the feeling of being concentrated and a mind that is stable and happy during meditation.
-- Shaila Catherine (Wisdom Wide and Deep)

A meditation teacher I once had said that access concentration (the stage before the jhanas) is the same level of concentration that one has when reading a good book or when fully engaged in conversation.
No it's not. Reading a book or engaged in conversation lacks Ekagatta or One Pointed Concentration which is one of the Five Factors of Jhana. Access Concentration means all Five Jhana Factors are present but are not strong enough. The mind is calmed when the body is calmed. So you can't be talking or moving around. Mind and body must be calmed. It's not the same thing. You can be absorbed in anything but it's a different thing to be absorbed in Jhana. Because the five factors must be present. And it's not dependent on the five senses. So it's nothing we've experienced before.

When you see nama-rupa and sees thought as thoughts then the 1. samatha jhana is present as well, independently your eyes are open or during your daily avtivities.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. If you like to improve your answer then you can add some references to the texts. We also have a Guide and a Ressource section for new users that you might like.


text:
What is Tantric Theravadan Buddhism?
I read somewhere that there are a number of Tantric Theravadan Buddhists practicing in Cambodia. What is Tantric Theravda and what are it's distinguishing practices? Can it be said to be a vajrayana practice? Does it use visualisations practices and if so what sort of things are visualised? How is it different to non-tantric Therevadan practice?

Never heard of this. But if you think about it, any tantra is about playing with energies of mind made constructs, with certain goals in mind. In this sense the four jhanas and the four immeasurables can be seen as primitive kinds of tantric practice. So I don't see why there couldnt be a Southern school that would max out that aspect.

I've briefly read about it popping up in various Pāli traditions but it was always just a scant notation.   Since Buddhist Tantra was originally a secret oral tradition between the teacher and the student, it is very like it wasn't recorded; when it was practiced in unfriendly environments.  I heard Buddhist Tantra referred to as "playing with emptiness,"  which I thought was intriguing.  May be a connection there to the Girimānanda Sutta?

I found this scholarly article by Kate Crosby. To summarise the distinctive feature

The creation of a Buddha within through the performance of ritual by
placing and recognising within one's body the qualities of the Buddha,
which in turn become the Buddha.
The use of sacred language, combined with microcosm to macrocosm
identity. Sacred syllables or phrases are used to represent a larger entity.
Sacred language as the creative principle. The Dhamma arises out of the
Pali alphabet and sacred syllables. This refers to formation of Dhamma in
all senses of the term:
Esoteric interpretations of words, objects and myths that otherwise have
a standard exoteric meaning or purpose in TheravBda Buddhism.
The necessity of initiation prior to the performance of a ritual or practice.
The application of the methodologies outlined above to both
soteriological ends, i.e. the pursuit of Nibbaa, and worldly ends, such
as healing, longevity, protection, invincibility and, potentially, the
harming of others.

Interestingly it appears to be using the Pali langauge itself as a focus for esoteric practices. It's practiced in Cambodia and Laos.

This particular tradition of practice is actually not based on Vajrayana practice, but is more of a mixture of traditional Theravada meditation with Hindu Tantra, not Buddhist Tantra, so there isn't any deity yoga, but is instead based on generating a nimitta made of light and then moving it around within one's body.

This might interest you - http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/9290/3151
Jump to p. 470 for the good stuff.  From what I've read, it sounds like a blending of traditional indigenous religious practice mixed with Buddhism.  In other words, it reads an awful lot like Vajrayana!
I also found this by Googling around - http://santidhammo.blogspot.com/2011/11/theravada-tantra.html.


text:
Soul and Self in buddhism
I've heard a lot of questions like, "who is there to enlighten if there is no self?"
Is that kind of question based on ignorance on the difference between Soul and Self? Or does Buddhism deny the existence of both Soul and Self?
I think I understand Buddhists saying that 'Soul' doesn't exist.
I understand the word atman meaning Soul in Vedic languages: and it is different from the concept of Self. While nobody can deny the fact that a person exists, the existence of a soul is not proven.

Just curious about the concept of soul and self in Buddhism.

What's the question?

If we experience moment by moment we have no place to build concepts like self or soul and in tha

soon we can see this if we watch things momment by momment ,millisecond by millisecond...to understand anatta practice mindfulness.

good question. no i don't think so cos a) enlightenment is eternal and unconditioned etc, !

You have to look at which reality you are dealing with.
If you are dealing with sammuti-sacca which is the conventional reality then one can say that a soul, self, spirit, being etc. exists. Why?
Because conventional reality is dealing with concepts. A soul is a concept. A self is a concept. If you try to search for them through the method of insight meditation you will not find a lasting, permanent, indestructible entity anywhere.
Instead you will come to see that the false idea of a self is merely a mental formation belonging to the 4th aggregate.
If you deal with paramattha-sacca which is ultimate reality then concepts do not exist and there is no problem with a soul/self to begin with.
The thing is that things work fine without the need for a self. By adding a self to the equation one is enforcing and strengthening the suffering by identifying and taking ownership of it.
There is a profound difference in saying "i am angry" and "anger has arisen in the mind".
There is also a build-in problem in the way language is used. We are forced to speak about e.g. consciousness by using nouns which can imply that there is something there. But there is not. Consciousness is not a thing. Its a knowing.
What we normally think is consciousness is really a series of cittas (momentary acts of consciousness) that are happening in rapid succession.
The Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but do not be fooled thereby.

+1 for "built-in problem" due to language. When people realize that there is a built-in problem due to point-of-view giving rise to ego, everyone will be free. (Disregarding that they didn't exist in the first place and so were never bound...)

Thank you. And yes the language can often be a barrier when discussing such profound stuff as the Dhamma. Although if one is aware of it misunderstanding can be mitigated.

I am curious on where was the table taken from.

Hi Suminda. Unfortunately i cannot remember where i got it from. I tried to search at a website with Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi talks since i remember i got it from there but i could not locate it. So now i have no idea. If i ever find out where its from i will post a link to the website in this answer.

Hi again Suminda. Ok i found out what was wrong. Im pretty sure it was in this website: http://mirror1.birken.ca/dhamma_talks/indiv/Bodhi/06/MajjhimaNikayaLectures.htm . If you scroll down to 2: The Way of Mindfulness you can see it but if you press them you get an error message since they dont exist anymore. Thats why i could not find them.

I managed to find the following copy in case some one else is interested: http://www.dhammatalks.net/bhikkhu_bodhi/majjhima_nikaya/courses/MN/Tables/M0059_MN-010_FiveAggregates.pdf

You are most welcome. I actually think now that i might have gotten it from that website you just listed. Great job finding it. I have been looking for it myself. I have also "the five hindrances" and "the seven factors of enlightenment" tables from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. I can sent them to you if you like.

The Gotama Buddha taught us that this is not an essential.  Our mission in life is to comprehend and experience the Four Noble Truths.  Our Teacher, the Buddha, was a pragmatic man.  What do we need to know to understand "becoming"?  We need to know and experience dukkah.  We need to comprehend and experience the causes of dukkah.  We need to comprehend and understand the wisdom of freedom (nibbana) from dukkah.  Finally we need to experience that freedom (nibbana) from dukkah.  All such notions of "soul", "self", inherent eternal being or "immortal other" become obstacles.  They become dispositions which individuals form emotional attachments to and become objects we grasp onto and hinder our development into a fully actualized living being.  This is what separates the teaching of the Gotama Buddha from all others.

Very well put; the issue here isn't how people interpret soul/self, but that they get fixated on this stuff rather than keeping their eye on the prize, so to speak.

Yes. In Buddhism, especially in the Theravada tradition, a transmigrating soul doesn't exist (see Milindapanha 3.5.5).
However, the self exists though it is not permanent and is dependent on the inter-working of the senses, sensation,  perception, mental formations and consciousness.
The self is just a thought, an idea - "I am the thinker." (Snp 4.14)
Also, please see this answer for the question "What is the precise meaning of anatta?". It discusses the analogy of the lute from the Vina Sutta. And also this answer.

Soul
I think you're right about Soul.
According to Wikipedia the word should be understood in contrast with atman:

The ancient Indian word for self or essence is attā (Pāli) or ātman (Sanskrit), and is often thought to be an eternal substance that persists despite death. Hence the term anatta is often interpreted as referring to the denial of a self or essence. Anatta is used in the early Buddhist texts, as a strategy to view the perception of self as conditioned processes (or even an action), instead of seeing it as an entity or an essence.

IMO the doctrine is something like, "All conditioned things are impermanent. There is no Soul (permanent essence) in any conditioned thing."
My explanation / understanding of this doctrine is non-standard because it's coloured by someone having tried to teach me Platonic Idealism, but my understanding is something like:

There, in front of me, is (for example) a table.
Plato suggests there's an actual table (physical object) and an ideal table.
Buddhism suggests that it's wrong to see that actual table as containing the soul of table, the essence of table, as being the manifestation of an ideal/permanent/godly table, for two reasons:

The table itself is impermanent. Its atoms will reused for something else, will take another form, e.g. within a few hundred years at most.
My view of the table is impermanent (e.g. because thoughts are impermanent).

Note that here I'm trying to apply atman-versus-anatman reasoning to the description of a 'table'.
However I think that atman is, instead of being used to describe essence of 'table', more usually used to describe a hypothetical essence of 'self', i.e. what's also known as 'soul': and perhaps that is why people get confused about whether anatman means 'no soul' or 'no self'.
Self
So far as I know there are three important things to know about the Self:

People i.e. sentient beings can be analyzed/described/perceived as Skandhas
Views about self for example "this is me" and/or "this is mine" lead to suffering
Self view is a 'fetter' which must be abandoned on the way towards enlightenment

Platonic view of a form is diametrically opposed to Buddhist anatman. Plato's forms are essence of things from which the actual thing is built. (e.g a real horse is built/moulded from an ideal horse essence). But in Buddhism, there is no essence, but rather, things are moulded by mental formations and other aggregates.

@PrahladYeri I think you're right, and I tried to say that: that Plato claims there's an ideal/eternal/essence of table from which actual table is manifest; whereas Buddhism says that the actual table isn't ideal and that the idea of table is temporary too. It's because those views are "diametrically opposed" that they're related in my mind: i.e. I cannot tell the difference between Plato's description and the description of atman (so if I try to describe atman, my description of it is non-standard, influenced or corrupted by my having been taught a bit a about Platonism).

I guess that a more standard use of atman would be to describe the self (i.e. some soul, or essence of self); but I find it easier to apply the atman/anatman reasoning to other compound things, e.g. to a 'table' in my example or to 'horses' in your/Plato's example.

Every phenomena pertaining to the mind matter process is in a flux of charge, thus there is no core which is unchanging, controllable by oneself or higher power thus there is nothing worthy of identifying as oneself or your soul.
Also the view on self is based on perception. With the cessation of perception this view also disappears. With no perception of self or self identification you can say there is no self.

The Buddha responded in silence to the questions 'is there a soul?' And 'is there no soul?'.
What he said was that the 5 clinging aggregates cannot be considered the soul, for you cannot will them to be something other than what they are I.e. they are not in one's control as a soul should, at least theoretically should be.
To speak of anatta in the absence of the 5 aggregates will lead to abstract concepts.

The word "atta" in the reported teachings of the Buddha obviously means "self" rather than "soul". Refer to SN 22.59, which says "not-self" means to regard everything as "This is not me, this is not mine, this is not myself". The meaning of "atta" here is obviously not "soul".

Anatta/Anatman viewed as no existing self or soul is one of the biggest misconceptions of Buddhism. And, the same goes for the view that Buddha believed that the "self" did not exist.
Part of the problem is that the Buddha did try to get his monks to a state of selflessness.
What is Anatta trying to explain:

all things are an aggregation, even those things we think are an essence; and
all things are influenced by causality, even those things we think are an essence.

What does this mean: things are complicated, they will have several component parts, and each part is subject to causality.
Now, What Buddha has been trying to teach his monks was to evolve to the point where "YOU" are Selfless in your thoughts actions, and speech. So, after you have found "your-self", lose "your-self" in all the good you do.
So just do good as "selfless acts", these acts will bring "you" closer and closer to nirvana, a state of total selflessness - in "your" thoughts, actions, and speech.
Oh yes, you do still exist, just not driven by selfishness, to the extent that "you" will not even be driven by self-interest.
And yes, on a gross level, others see you as selfless; but at the subtle levels only you can know when self-centeredness arises in you.

It is the most simplest thing yet most difficult to understand. Before you ask such question always ask what is self ? Is it body ? No it can’t be because it changes , perishes and generates suffering. Does that which generates suffering, is worthy of being called Self or soul? No.
Is Self feelings ? No it can’t be for the same reason as above...
Is Self or Soul perception ? No it can’t be for the same reason as above...
Is Self or soul choices or volition? No it can’t be for the same reason as above .,,,
Is Self or soul consciousness ? No it can’t be for the same reason as above ....
Does that mean there is no self ? If there is no self how can there be feelings...can feelings arise if there is no self ? No
So what is the answer ? The answer is that the question is invalid.
Depending upon ignorance volition arises ...depending upon volition consciousness arises ...depending upon consciousness name and form arises ....depending upon name and form six sense arises .... depending upon six senses contact arises ... depending upon contact feeling arises ... depending upon feeling ... craving arises .... depending upon craving clinging arises.... depending upon clinging attachment arises ... depending on attachment whole mass of suffering arises...
Thus we see that ultimately what we find is Dukkha and nothing ( however it can be cured by removing ignorance)

Your question sounds similar to the Koan of "Who's reciting mantra?" and the answer was similarly described here in Vajira Sutta. Vajira Sutta teaches there's only suffering coming and ceasing, others are all nominal reified names (concepts) which act as content of suffering...

What we feel as self or soul is the heap of experience we have collected in our mind. Supreme Buddha has preached in Loka Awaboda Suththa(coprehending the world) that
What we see from the eye
What we heard from the ear
What we tasted from thr toung....
Is the world that should be comprehended.
Only a heap of data
Metaly suffering.

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