text:
What does "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" mean in AN 9.12?
I quote from AN 9.12 (trans. Sujato) below, with regards to stream entry.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?
What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?
Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?
Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths.
  They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and
  then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti,
  sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā
  dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?

sattakkhattuparama = not more than seven times.
Why did he include rebirth into his translation?
Because of the context below which come before "sattakkhattuparama" and being on the same topic:

There are these nine people who, dying with something left over, are exempt from hell, the animal realm, and the ghost realm. They’re exempt from places of loss, bad places, the underworld.
Navayime, sāriputta, puggalā saupādisesā kālaṃ kurumānā parimuttā nirayā parimuttā tiracchānayoniyā parimuttā pettivisayā parimuttā apāyaduggativinipātā.
...
With the ending of three fetters, and the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion, they’re a once-returner. They come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā rāgadosamohānaṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.
...
With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.
...
With the ending of three fetters, they go family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

Next question:

What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?

saṃsaritvā is the synonym of sandhāvitvā. sandhāvitvā means transmigrate, transport, move next.
Translation: Person (puggalo) moves next(sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā) not more than seven times (sattakkhattuparamaṃ) in deva [bhava] and human [bhava] (deve ca manusse ca) and then make the end of suffering (dukkhassantaṃ karoti).

Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?

Comepare with "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in MN Sandakasutta. It's context means "move to next life (rebirth)":

There are 1.4 million main wombs, and 6,000, and 600. There are 500 deeds, and five, and three. There are deeds and half-deeds. There are 62 paths, 62 sub-eons, six classes of rebirth, and eight stages in a person’s life. There are 4,900 Ājīvaka ascetics, 4,900 wanderers, and 4,900 naked ascetics. There are 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, and 36 realms of dust. There are seven percipient embryos, seven non-percipient embryos, and seven embryos without attachments. There are seven gods, seven humans, and seven goblins. There are seven lakes, seven winds, seven cliffs, and 700 cliffs. There are seven dreams and 700 dreams. There are 8.4 million great eons through which the foolish and the astute transmigrate before making an end of suffering.
Cuddasa kho panimāni yonipamukhasatasahassāni saṭṭhi ca satāni cha ca satāni pañca ca kammuno satāni pañca ca kammāni tīṇi ca kammāni, kamme ca aḍḍhakamme ca, dvaṭṭhipaṭipadā, dvaṭṭhantarakappā, chaḷābhijātiyo, aṭṭha purisabhūmiyo, ekūnapaññāsa ājīvakasate, ekūnapaññāsa paribbājakasate, ekūnapaññāsa nāgāvāsasate, vīse indriyasate, tiṃse nirayasate, chattiṃsa rajodhātuyo, satta saññīgabbhā, satta asaññīgabbhā, satta nigaṇṭhigabbhā, satta devā, satta mānusā, satta pesācā, satta sarā, satta pavuṭā, satta papātā, satta papātasatāni, satta supinā, satta supinasatāni, cullāsīti mahākappino satasahassāni, yāni bāle ca paṇḍite ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karissanti.

Next question:

Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

Actually, it is just a sign of many signs. Actually, the whole context of sutta supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparamo" as "person who has seven lifetimes left" or "person who has seven rebirths left". There are many signs to translate like that for the example:

With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

Above quote's link is liking with many other suttas which force the translator to translate "ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā" as "will be reborn just one time".
When the previous context translated "ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā" as "will be reborn just one time", the next context have to translate follow it, too.

Person (puggalo) moves next(sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā) not more than seven times (sattakkhattuparamaṃ) in deva [bhava] and human [bhava] (deve ca manusse ca) and then make the end of suffering (dukkhassantaṃ karoti).

I have to add 1 more question to complete this answer:

Why the buddha didn't use "nibbattetvā" with all person? Why the buddha used "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" instead?

"Ekabījī (one-seeder)" will be reborn just one time (ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā), but the next others will reborn multiple times. "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" often use in multiple time rebirths.
Saupādisesasutta:

With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.
...
With the ending of three fetters, they go family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.
...
With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among devas and humans and then make an end of suffering.
So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

MN Sandakasutta:

There are 1.4 million main wombs, and 6,000, and 600. There are 500 deeds, and five, and three. There are deeds and half-deeds. There are 62 paths, 62 sub-eons, six classes of rebirth, and eight stages in a person’s life. There are 4,900 Ājīvaka ascetics, 4,900 wanderers, and 4,900 naked ascetics. There are 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, and 36 realms of dust. There are seven percipient embryos, seven non-percipient embryos, and seven embryos without attachments. There are seven gods, seven humans, and seven goblins. There are seven lakes, seven winds, seven cliffs, and 700 cliffs. There are seven dreams and 700 dreams. There are 8.4 million great eons through which the foolish and the astute transmigrate before making an end of suffering.
Cuddasa kho panimāni yonipamukhasatasahassāni saṭṭhi ca satāni cha ca satāni pañca ca kammuno satāni pañca ca kammāni tīṇi ca kammāni, kamme ca aḍḍhakamme ca, dvaṭṭhipaṭipadā, dvaṭṭhantarakappā, chaḷābhijātiyo, aṭṭha purisabhūmiyo, ekūnapaññāsa ājīvakasate, ekūnapaññāsa paribbājakasate, ekūnapaññāsa nāgāvāsasate, vīse indriyasate, tiṃse nirayasate, chattiṃsa rajodhātuyo, satta saññīgabbhā, satta asaññīgabbhā, satta nigaṇṭhigabbhā, satta devā, satta mānusā, satta pesācā, satta sarā, satta pavuṭā, satta papātā, satta papātasatāni, satta supinā, satta supinasatāni, cullāsīti mahākappino satasahassāni, yāni bāle ca paṇḍite ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karissanti.

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

Literal meaning is rebirth.  I remember in a sutta that Buddha said his teachings do not require interpretation.   Buddha's words have PREDICTIVE POWER.  You can have a good guess that similar should be said with Sakadagami, Anāgāmi, and Arrahat.
for Sakadagami, once rebirth, it would fail if we apply 7 fetters to this understanding because it has exact same 7 fetters as stream enterer but with only 1 rebirth.
what about 3 types of stream enterer?  this too would fail predictive test if you hold 7 rebirths as 7 fetters since each types has different numbers of rebirths 1, 2-3, and 7 at the most).
some people are hell bent of changing Buddhism to fit their view.  Some prominent monk event went so far as to say Buddha told some white lies so his doctrine would stick with people at the time.
very interest thing fact, why did Buddha use reappear 7 times at "the most" for stream enterer instead of exact 7 times??  I believe because not all stream enterers have same strength.  Similar to non-returners, Buddha broke them down to 5 types of non-returners.

“for Sakadagami, once rebirth, it would fail if we apply 7 fetters to this understanding because it has exact same 7 fetters as stream enterer but with only 1 rebirth” I thought about this too

thanks fpr the support TheDBSGuy ,  also for faith base stream-enterer,   Buddha said nothing about them breaking fetters but only that they step out of ordinary person into a noble one.  They shall not die before reaching full stream enterer, (my understanding is someone in mid-flight), none the less, Buddha called them stream enterer (tho they are not fully vested, IMO).  7 fetters dont apply to them but 7 rebirths do.  I would hope that some people who couldnt accept this part would not try to twist it around.  Like Sam Harris,  he leaves traces everywhere that he admires Buddhism.

But Sam Harris has never tried to twist the teachings to fit his views.  i think that is a noble thing to do.  Im here not to make a certain person to change his mind but for the benefit of other readers.

Faith follower would be someone who put full faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and sangha but he is still not free of the 3 fetters.

This is a very good point. The Buddha said at most seven lifetimes not exactly seven lifetimes. So it can't be referring to fetters.

TheDBSGuy, yes yes  yes yes!!!!!  they are still stream-enterer so thinking sattakkhattuparama means 7 fetters would fail faith-base stram-enterer test.  you and I are the same on that one.

I marked this answer down. It contains no references. It appears to be merely a personal opinion.

Brody yeah faith is necessary

@Dhammadhatu Downvote if you will, but the policy the community chose in What about providing sources? was that references aren't required, A superfluous, perhaps pointless, effort too -- I guess you might have some references to hand already. I try to 'pitch' an answer to the reader's understanding (especially if they seem to be naive). In this case the OP was ruben2020 who also posted a comment above which suggests they're able to read this answer as-is.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?

This question is illogical unless a teaching can be found where the Buddha said he taught "non-literally". Generally, the Buddha said his teaching was plain &  open, as follows:

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork
MN 22

Sattakkhattuparama means 'seven times at most'. It is found in suttas about where a stream-enterer has broken three fetters therefore logically refers to breaking seven more fetters at most.

What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?

Sandhāvitvā & saṃsaritvā appear to be generic words; found in various forms.

Concise Pali English Dictionary
sandhāvitvā abs. of sandhāvati having run through; having transmigrated.
saṃsaritvā abs. of saṃsarati having moved about continuously; having transmigrated.
abs. = Absolute

SN 22.99 unambiguously explains they mean repeatedly clinging to the same aggregates as "self" (rather than repeatedly being reincarnated into different aggregates), as follows:

No first point is found of beings roaming and running, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ.
There comes a time when the great earth is consumed with flame, is destroyed & does not exist. But for beings — as long as they are
  hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, running around & wandering
  on — I don't say that there is an end of suffering & stress.
Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?

Yes, such as at the beginning of MN 38, where Bhikkhu Sati had the wrong view of reincarnation:

Now at that time a mendicant called Sāti, the fisherman’s son, had the following harmful misconception:
Tena kho pana samayena sātissa nāma bhikkhuno kevaṭṭaputtassa evarūpaṃ pāpakaṃ diṭṭhigataṃ uppannaṃ hoti:
As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.
tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṃ viññāṇaṃ sandhāvati saṃsarati anaññan ti.

Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

No. They are merely generic words. SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 unambiguously say "a being" ("satta") is merely a mental state of clinging to views and SN 22.99 unambiguously says 'samsara' is the repeated cycling in ideas of "beings" and "self" born from ignorance, craving & repeated clinging to the same sets of aggregates.
For Christ's sake. The Lord Buddha taught 'anatta'. There is no 'self' and no 'beings' apart from wrong 'views'.
The Buddha also taught frantically & desperately craving for more becoming is suffering.

With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and
  then make an end of suffering. So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā
  sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca
  sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

The above does not literally say there is reincarnation. It just says the stream-enterer in the future can cling to godly realms (such as jhana) and human realms (such as moral righteousness, per SN 56.47, which defines the human state as moral righteousness and realisation of noble truths).
Please keep in mind the higher fetters include lust for jhana (which is rebirth as a god, per AN 4.123) and conceit (which is thinking I am better than another). Thus, when the non-arahant views himself as better than the 'animals' (people engaged in immoral conduct), this is 'conceit', which is rebirth of self-view as a 'human'. Or when the non-arahant experiences the fetter of restlessness, like a Mahayana, the non-arahant has views of "self" & "beings", thinking: "What will I do with my life; now that I am enlightened? Should I try to save all sentient beings?"
"Gods" and "humans" are just "self-views" of "beings" in "groups of beings" produced by ignorance as defined as "birth" ("jati") in SN 12.2.

I'm not judging your answer as wrong nor right. I'm just curious about why did Buddha talked about gods and demons instead of explicitly saying "humans with such and such features..." if the Dhamma was so open and plain? If devas and asuras were just metaphor, was the Buddha not clever enough to understand that those words could cause more confusion than understanding?

Thanks but your question is really logical because the word "human" in Pali does not mean "homo sapien", The word "human" or "manussaya" means "high minded" or "lofty minded". There are suttas that literally the "human state" cannot be achieved with actions of greed, hatred & delusion. Regards

Thanks for your answer and time! I had no idea about that. But even accepting that, why did he used the term "deva" knowing what it meant for the common men and women in his contemporary India?

Your ideas of "deva" are you personal ideas in the year 2018 AD and not necessarily the ideas of people in 600 BC. Regards

Does not the same apply for you as well? How can you know for sure the difference between your own idiosyncratic interpretation and the actual author's intentions at the moment of redaction and composition? To have an approximated and educated guess about the meaning of a word in a period of time, it could be useful to compare the use of the word and its surrounding context in different authors of the same period. I have no idea about the use of the term 'deva' in the V-IV century BCE. Do you know how it was used back then?

Well, you came to this forum and asked a question about "ehipassiko" and chose an answer telling you to be "agnostic". The reality is the Refuge in the Dhamma is the Dhamma is visible. If this is not followed absolutely, 100%, there is no refuge. Best wishes joining the crowd. The suttas say understanding the Dhamma is a "rare thing". This & ehipassiko seems to defeat your comment. The teachings say Nibbana is reached by extinguishing self-view but you seem to want to imagine their are selves reborn everywhere, even though they cannot be seen. What is the difference between this & theism?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Why do so many traditions and religions have saint men who claim having attained enlightenment?
According to the suttas, the then Bodhisatta Gotama discovered by himself that ascetic practices of his contemporary India were not enough (or were even wrong) to attain complete enlightenment. Then, after trying his own methods and intuitions, he reached Nibbana.
However, many so-called saint men from other religions and traditions are said to have reached enlightenment in their own terms and according to their own definitions of enlightenment. We even have people within Buddhism itself claiming to have awaken, but still showing signs of craving and unethical behavior.
Considering what I've written, why should we deposit our trust, time and effort in the Buddhadhamma, when there are so many other practioners assuring that they have reached their ultimate goals following their own practices?
The most common argument for following the teachings of the Buddha is that when put in practice by ourselves we'll see how effective and accurate the teachings, analyses and practices actually are. But the same can be said about most other religions.
We have a lot of examples of men and women through history telling stories and personal experiences of feeling the supreme love of god, or attaining Moksha, or becoming one with the Universe, and so on.
Can you help me to find new perspectives to solve this problem?
Thanks for your time!

The Buddha's teaching are unique in certain respects but their essential message is found in teachings from all over the world throughout history. The reason why so many claim enlightenment is that it is and always has been available to those who seek it. Were it otherwise the Buddha could not have become a buddha. There have been countless buddhas.
So there is no problem raise by the many people who have claimed or been assigned enlightenment and wisdom. One would not need to be a Buddhist. It seems that the Buddha delved deeper and wider than most and there is no doubt he was a unique teacher, but we find the same essential message hidden in the Philokalia, the Corpus Hermeticum, the Upanishads, the Tao Teh Ching, the teachings of Al-Halaj and Rumi, the Kabbalah and elsewhere, the same claims of transcendence, no-self, formlessness and so forth.
Beautiful Painted Arrow, a shaman of the Pueblo Indians, writes that in his tradition there are two states of consciousness available to human beings. In translation these are 'Believing we exist' and 'Awakened awareness'. Those who attain the latter state would claim some form of enlightenment regardless of whether they have heard of Buddhism. Truth is universal and the facts are the same for everybody.
Enlightened beings are not uncommon but the Buddha is usually considered to trump most of them for his depth of understanding, knowledge and communication skills. If there were no claims of enlightenment from anyone but the Buddha then his teachings would be implausible and contradictory. He teaches that enlightenment is our birthright.
It is up to each of us as students to assess the claims of all these teachers and 'saints' and examining the level of agreement between them would be a good indication of their knowledge. The diversity of these 'saints', once we have sorted the wheat from the chaff, is not a problem but a proof of the Dhamma. The Buddha was not a Buddhist when he attained his complete enlightenment.
EDIT: The story as I have heard it is that while with his father he was instructed by Brahmins. Later, from Arada Kalama, who had three hundred disciples, he learned how to discipline his mind to enter the sphere of nothingness. Though Arada Kalama asked him to remain and teach as an equal, he recognized that this was not liberation and left. Next he learned how to enter the concentration of mind which is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness from Udraka Ramaputra. But neither was this liberation and he left his second teacher.

The Buddha was a Sammasambuddha which means he attained arahantship on his own. Whoever follows his teachings are Buddhists

Well articulated, Upvoted.

@TheDBSGuy -I added an edit.

I read the book "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle years ago and was impressed by it. After studying Buddhism, I came to discover that what Eckhart Tolle achieved was probably (I speculate) only the first or second level of jhana - the experience of bliss, rapture and the impermanent silencing of mind-noise. Many self-proclaimed saints probably claim to become enlightened after achieving some level of jhana.
Then there are others who claim enlightenment after acquiring some psychic abilities through meditation. You can find examples of teleportation by saints in Paramahansa Yogananda's book "Autobiography of a Yogi", which can also be found in the Buddhist suttas. In Buddhism, we find that this is no proof of enlightenment.
Apart from these, there are also some smart, eloquent and nicely-dressed persons who claim some degree of enlightenment, and give witty answers and lucid advice to the public like Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, who you can find on YouTube. He claimed that his spiritual teacher never spoke to him but simply touched him with his walking stick, and transferred wisdom to him in that way.
There are some reasons why I find the Buddha's original teachings as found in the Pali Canon (or Mahayana Agamas) to be much superior.
Firstly, the Buddha's teachings are often in greater depth than most other teachings. For e.g. I can see that Eckhart Tolle's teachings possibly only result in entering the first jhana, whereas the Buddha's teachings are immensely more vast.
Secondly, the Buddha's teachings and techniques are all open, well-published and well-reasoned. We can easily see what samatha and vipassana techniques are for. There is nothing that is hidden or esoteric. On the other hand, in Yogananda's book and in teachings by other Hindu meditation gurus, they often choose to hide details claiming that without a teacher's direct guidance, the intermediate and advanced techniques could be dangerous to practitioners. These techniques are also often esoteric or tantric and it's hard to see why they are useful.
Thirdly, the Buddha's teachings are often lucid, clear and obvious. Some teachers claim that some object or ritual has supernatural vibrations that practitioners cannot question, but the Buddha does not proclaim such things. For e.g. the Buddha encountered a Brahmin who believed water ablution rituals can wash away sins, and advised him that ablution in the shore of virtues will wash away his sins and not using water.
Fourthly, I find that the Buddha's teachings are more related to my own experience than other teachings. For e.g. in Hinduism, we often hear of a universal consciousness that is the eternal silent witness through every being. However, from the Buddha's teachings, we learn about eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, mind-consciousness etc. and how consciousness is not separated from one's senses - which is more in tune with our observation.
Fifthly, almost all other religious teachings have an eternal self or soul in them, both in people and in a God. However, the Buddha appears to be the first to teach anatta, in which the self is neither eternal nor non-existent, but rather, arising out of the complex interaction of the five aggregates, as how music arises from the inter-working of different parts of a musical instrument. This is very unique and also in tune with our observation.

Most of all, enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism is the eradication of lust, hatred and delusion not some blissful feeling like the jhana or worldling wisdom that I think some Hindu gurus might have. I agree with your answer. Upvoted

The Buddha said his path was the only path that can absolutely end suffering because he discovered self-view is suffering & his path is the ending of self-view. Therefore, it you can prove self-view is not suffering then you can disprove the Buddha-Dhamma.
For example, if you believe in God and when hardship occurs in life (such as poverty, loss, sickness, death, etc) you truly 100% believe this hardship event is 'God's will'; this belief can free the mind of suffering however not because there is a god but because the mind frees itself of 'self-view' by invoking the will of God rather than the will of self.
As for other paths, generally they are illogical because their liberation is not permanent. For example, Taoist, Hindu & Mahayana paths of 'non-thinking' cannot be true liberation because life cannot be lived 100%  without thinking.
MN 43 refers to four types of liberation, such as liberation of loving-kindness, liberation of the themeless, liberation of nothingness and liberation of emptiness of self (sunatta). MN 43 says the liberation of emptiness of self is the foremost.
The Buddha's liberation is the destruction of craving & self-view. This liberation is possible for 100% of a lifetime.

The Buddha’s liberation is the destruction of the 10 fetters and suffering.

but still I upvoted this answer

I feel you do Taoism, Hindu and Mahayana a great disservice.here, and also your brand of Buddhism by claiming exclusivity for it. Who in the whole of history has claimed that life can be lived without thinking? The idea is clearly ridiculous.

You can believe the Buddha did Taoism, Hindu and Mahayana a great disservice. But please do not blame me for what the Buddha said. If you disagree with the Buddha, don't blame me. Thanks

BDS. Please stop spamming my answers. The destruction of craving is the destructing of suffering. Your comment was unnecessary. Thanks

The bit at the start about self-view is traceable to some of the suttas; the sentence later which equates other paths with (characterising them as) 'non-thinking' isn't, sfaik, may instead be a straw man.

Mahayana, Nargajuna, etc, teach non-conceptualisation; such as in the Heart Sutra and Nirvana & Samsara are the same. Its not a strawman. Chris. Why don't you tell us about your history of involvement in Buddhism that gives omniscience in knowing what a straw man is or not?

If you debate with (or against) an opponent, I think a Straw man is a caricature of the other's thesis, a caricature that's easy to refute, e.g., "Other doctrines teach non-thinking, which is a stupid doctrine compared to mine." Perhaps there's a grain of truth in it, e.g. the straw man vaguely resembles the real man somehow, but. I called it a "straw man" because that's how you're using it. I say it's "straw" because the little I've read of Mahayana (not to mention the Heart Sutra) doesn't teach non-thinking -- and, practitioners of Mahayana

(who, I assume, know it better than you or I) dispute the characterisatons, don't recognise their doctrines in your description. So IMO if someone wants a reliable account of what Mahayana doctrines are, maybe better to not read your ('straw') descriptions of those. If I were to post a question like, Is Mahayana a path of "non-thinking"? Because I get that impression from the Heart Sutra., then I guess an answer would be along the lines of "no". Changing the subject, IDK about the Heart Sutra, perhaps it's an attempt to depict one of the Unconjecturables, ie. the range of a Buddha.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@ChrisW - Excellent comments. If only everybody adopted your approach and actually did the research. .

The short answer: Follow what resonates with you most. The Dharma has always been within, but not everyone has the vision to see it through at a given time and space.
To elaborate, and in my humble personal opinion, the reason why Buddha's dharma resonates with one is all due to one's wisdom accumulated over his/her many past lives, which also reflects the maturity of their respective paramis. (Paramis are the skillful qualities that applies to all sentient beings). So even if you understand the Dharma well, doesn't mean other's can.
As Buddhist, we have to be mindful of forcing one's belief onto others (Who is right or who is wrong). The ability to realize the truths of the Dharma varies from one person to another. The only things we can control are our very own minds and actions, we cannot control other's. If someone is ready, whether they have a religion or not, they will eventually seek answers from different beliefs and philosophies.

Thanks for your answer and time! Implicit in your answer is the thought of the Buddha-Dhamma being superior to other traditions and practices; "buddhists" follow the Buddha because of their spiritual maturity. Why could other religions said the same thing about their traditions?

Hi, just to clarify I did not mean "Superior" in any conceit sense. Again we cannot control what other's claim; every religion is free to say what they believe but it is up to you to contemplate what resonates with you. It's to distinguish blind faith from belief. If a person blindly follows any religion, even Buddhism, they won't achieve much.

About the parami maturity, imagine it as a marathon and it's not about who is better but who takes the effort to go forward.

There are few people who were spontaneously and suddenly become enlightened. In the past more people enlightened suddenly and without any practise because people's mind was less corrupted. Also in Buddha's time people was getting enlightened during listening dhamma talks. The reason for this sudden awakenings can be the meditation practise that done by these people in their past lives.
There are gurus and teachers in the world who have actually achieved enlightenment. Most of them are Sakadagamis(Once-Returner) which means they have great wisdom, continous peace of mind, they are detached/disidentified from their mind states and they are egoless. Many of these gurus investigated Buddhism and applied Buddhist teachings in their spiritual practise before they achieved Enlightenment and also they teach their disciples the Buddhist teachings because Buddhism gives humanity the best spiritual knowledge of all times.
In the past many people who were practising and teaching mindfulness and meditation (like Rumi) had to pretend to be in a particular belief system otherwise they would not be accepted by their societies  and they would probably wouldn't live very long.
There are also many gurus, teachers who are just lying and manipulating people but this is a very normal thing in the human world.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Who was the Buddha's teacher?
When Asita muni had told to King Shuddhodhana that

" If he
  becomes a householder, he will become a universal monarch.
  But if he goes forth from the home to a homeless life, he will become a fully enlightened Buddha."

Asita was sure that the child would not remain a householder.
So when Asita was known all that, may we suppose him Buddha's teacher and if wasn't then who was Buddha's teacher.

Between Gayā and the Place of Enlightenment the Ājīvaka Upaka saw me
on the road and said: ‘Friend, your faculties are clear, the colour of
your skin is pure and bright. Under whom have you gone forth, friend?
Who is your teacher? Whose Dhamma do you profess? I replied to the Ājīvaka Upaka in stanzas:
I am one who has transcended all, a knower of all, Unsullied among all
things, renouncing all, By craving’s ceasing freed. Having known this
all For myself, to whom should I point as teacher?
I have no teacher, and one like me Exists nowhere in all the world With all its gods, because I have No person for my counterpart.
I am the Accomplished One in the world, I am the Teacher Supreme. I
alone am a Fully Enlightened One Whose fires are quenched and
extinguished.
I go now to the city of Kāsi To set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma. In
a world that has become blind I go to beat the drum of the Deathless. - Ariyapariyesana Sutta

Having seen that there is no being in all the worlds who can be his counterpart let alone be his teacher, the Buddha appointed the Dhamma he realized as his teacher.

Thanks for great answer and may Buddha bless you  . Even I couldn't guess who can be his teacher but now I've got this he was only teacher of Dhamma otherwise Dhamma were there before Buddha. Thank you so much.

You're welcome!

The histories note that the Buddha spent time with one or two teachers prior to his recognition that they were inadequate.  His Dhamma is unique in its form but he did not invent the truth and it is no coincidence that his teachings are in such close agreement with the Upanishads or are counted as an instance of the 'Perennial' philosophy.
But the only proper teacher is acquaintance with truth and so it is the Dhamma that is the true teacher, as the Buddha proposes.

I marked this answer down because the ideas in it are unsubstantiated. It would be better if it provided quotes & references. As for the Upanishads (unlike the Vedas), they are not mentioned in the suttas thus it appears the Buddha was not aware of them and that they probably were largely composed after the Buddha.

@Dhammadhatu - The record of the time the Buddha spent with one or two teachers is public and a quick google will find it. It wouldn't matter when the Upanishads were composed. You're right to say they were largely composed later. The point is only that the Buddha;s message is not unique. If it were it would be implausible. His methods may be unique but truth is universal.

Māra, the demon king, Māra, the afflicted being. Māra was the Buddha's greatest teacher.

In what sense, or according to what tradition? I think the suttas suggest that Mara was trying to prevent the Buddha's enlightenment.

I added this answer before I really know about the culture of the forum or how to use it. I still don't know how to send a PM on it. I'll cite it in a few.

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


text:
If a buddhist had the opportunity to stop the holocaust by killing hitler, should he or she do it?
This is basically a philosophical question, in the light of buddhist ethics.
Suppose a buddhist person were in a situation in which he could stop the jewish holocaust, but the ONLY way he or she could do that is by killing hitler?
Of course, i'm asking the abstract question here, namely: should a buddhist commit an act of violence if this act was the only way to prevent a much larger amount of suffering for many beings? How bad is it for this buddhist if he or she choses to commit such  an act?
my naive point of view in this situation is: it probably creates "bad karma" for the buddhist, it might take the buddhist farther away from enlightenment, but I would commit such an act because it makes other beings' lives better, and therefore, probably takes them closer to enlightenment.
I'm asking this question because I'm trying to understand the yellow-jacket movement as well as some issues in my own country.

Buddhism does not show the "favouritism" in politics you appear to be looking for. Instead, Buddhism investigates "cause & effect"; such as the reasons for the yellow-jacket movement. It appears quite obvious by the superficiality of your question you have not investigated the causes for why these events occurred.

Who knows if a second "Hitler" may arise as the result of killing the first "Hitler" and end up worse. Just saying...

I thank you for your various gifts. Your actions, words and thoughts have put me back on the stream.
Thank you very much.

Buddhism does not address ethical questions like this. This question is like asking who to save in the sinking boat. People come up with different reasons based on their biases.
Generally Buddhist believe in Dependent origination even though they may act in self-defense. Buddhist also believe in Kamma Vipaka.
https://junilundstoltok.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/ethics-sinking-ship-scenario-no-ethical-perspective/

Who cares about kamma in this context? Personally, I wouldn't even care about 'bad karma' if it means to safe millions of lives. If life is threatened I believe loving-kindness is not healthy to experience, but the Buddha is of a different opinion (refer to the Simile of the Saw). There are different rules if one is a monk too, but since monks are also just fallible human beings I would also say that they should by all means stop him (and if necessary) kill him. Not to kill him wouldn't be morally superior imo. If Buddhism is about the reduction of suffering then consequently the source of suffering must be get rid off. This doesn't mean that you kill everyone who is of a different opinion, but it can certainly mean to avoid certain people. The Buddha infact repeatedly said that noble friendship and avoiding immorality and negative people (or people who think and act negatively) are to be avoided, lest one is emulating unwholesome habits


text:
Regarding Nicca and Anicca natures of Avidya and Prajna
If Tanha (Craving) is caused by Avidya (Ignorance), and Avidya is originated and sustained by Tanha, then the origination of Avidya is part of a recursive cycle with no beginning. Yet Prajna (Wisdom) (as delivered through the Dharma) is purported to extinguish Avidya (Nirodha - Cessation). How can something with no beginning (cycle of dependent origination) have an end (Nirodha)? And likewise how can a state with no end (Nirvana) have a beginning (Nirodha)? Are Avidya and Nirvana therefore Nicca (Permanent and Unconditioned) or Anicca (Impermanent and Conditioned)?
Put another away, if Prajna is Nicca, how could it give way to the origination and sustenance of Avidya in the first place? If Prajna is Anicca and has a beginning, then how can we say that Nirvana (which requires Prajna) is Nicca?

Can you please say what Tanha and avidya mean because not everyone can understand Pāli

Translated purely into English: If Attachment is caused by Ignorance, and Ignorance is caused by Attachment, then the origination of Ignorance is a recursive cycle with no beginning. Yet Insight (as taught by Dharma) is purported to extinguish ignorance. How can a cycle with no beginning have an end in cessation (nirodha), and how can a state with no end (Nirvana) have a beginning in cessation? Are Ignorance and Insight/Nirvana Eternal or Transient? If Nirvana depends on insight, and insight is transient, how can Nirvana be eternal? If Insight is eternal, how can Ignorance exist?

@Anaphaxeton. It would be good if you could include that definition of pali terms in your answer.

I could edit the question (i.e. to include a translation of each Pali word) but I do think tanha is usually translated craving not attachment. See also Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?

If Tanha(craving) is caused by Avijja(ignorance) and if Avijja is sustained by Tanha, the cycle cannot be broken using Avijja and Tanha. But that doesn't mean it cannot be broken using something that is not a link of the Paticca-samuppada(Dependant Origination). Panna(wisdom) or within this context Vijja(non-ignorance) is the opposite of Avijja. It takes out the root cause of Tanha. This breaks the perpetual cycle.

how can a state with no end (Nirvana) have a beginning (Nirodha)?

Nirodha is not a beginning. Nirodha refers to end of all suffering. That is achieved by cutting off the cause of suffering: Tanha(craving). Tanha is cut off by non-ignorance(Vijja). The word Nibbana(Nirvana) refers to the unconditioned Dhamma(reality). It is uncaused and unborn. Hence it has no beginning or end.

Are Avidya and Nirvana therefore Nicca or Anicca?

Avijja here refers to not knowing the four noble truths, not seeing impermanence, suffering and non-self. Avijja is not a thing to be permanent or impermanent. It only points to the lack of Paññā(Wisdom). Nevertheless, Moha(delusion) as a Cetasika(mental concomitant) is caused and it dies when the accompanying thought dies. Therefore it's Anicca(impermanent).
Nibbana is Nicca(permanent).

if Prajna is Nicca, how could it give way to the origination and
  sustenance of Avidya in the first place?

Paññā is not Nicca(permanent). Paññā has to be cultivated. It belongs to the Sankhara(mental formations/activity) aggregate of the Pancakhanda(Five Aggregates).

If Prajna is Anicca and has a beginning, then how can we say that
  Nirvana (which requires Prajna) is Nicca?

Nibbana is not dependant on anything. As mentioned above, it is unborn and uncaused. Paññā(wisdom) is required to cut off the defilements that prevent one from seeing Nibbana.

You said that the cycle of Avijja/Tanha can be broken by something that is not part of the Paticca-samuppada. You said that Prajna breaks the cycle. You said that Prajna belongs to the Pancakhanda. Yet the Skhanda are part of the Paticca-samuppada which begins with Avijja. Is Prajna a Skhanda, part of the Paticca-samupadda and therefore incapable of breaking the cycle, or is it not a Skhanda, part of the Paticca-samupadda and therefore nicca?

Not all of Pancakhanda are taken to formulate Paticcasamuppada. See if you can find any link called Panna here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html
Avijja and Tanha are what keep it running. When you introduce the opposite of Avijja it runs out of fuel. i.e. Tanha.

This is true, if not all of the Pancakhanda are part of the paticcasamuppada, and if Prajna belongs to one of the Pancakhanda which is not, then Prajna would not be borne of Avijja. Indeed I can't find a mention of Prajna in the part of the paticcasamuppada vibhanga sutta which you have linked me. Now the only thing left to quell my doubt would be to indicate which of the Pancakhanda Prajna (Wisdom) belongs to: Rupa (Form), Vedana (Sensation), Sanna (Perception), Sankhara (Formation) or Vijnana (Consciousness). Could you tell me which of these contains Prajna, please?

It belongs to Sankhara(mental formations). Remember, only a subset of Sankhara are caused by ignorance. Not all of them.

My apologies; It slipped my memory that you had mentioned that Prajna is part of the Sankhara (Formation) aggregate of the Pancakhanda. But aren't Sankharas part of the Paticcasamuppada? They are mentioned as "Fabrications" here. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html  ""And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications."

"Remember, only a subset of Sankhara are caused by ignorance. Not all of them". I see. Is there any mention of this fact in the Suttas which you could link me to? Thank you for your efforts thus far.

There it is talking about a specific type of Sankhara called Karma. The word is not used in the broader sense.

Thus have I heard many a times. You may find the details in the commentaries. Try Visuddhimagga.

@Anaphaxeton Sir/Madam, According to my understanding, Five aggregates (Pancakkhanda) are the same as Name and Form (Nāmarūpa) in dependent origination which is the effect of rebirth consciousness (Viññāṇa). [Nāma --> sensation (vedanā) + discrimination (saññā) + saṅkhāra (Remaning 50 mental formations except sensation & discrimination) + consciousness (viññāṇa), Rūpa --> Form or matter (28 classes of rūpa)]. "Avijjā paccayā saṅkhāra"; here the word "saṅkhāra" has a different meaning. Here the word saṅkhāra means Fabrications (constructing activities).

There are three fabrications; 1. Bodily fabrications (kāya saṅkhāra), 2. Verbal fabrications (vacī saṅkhāra), 3. Mental fabrications (mano saṅkhāra). The same fabrications can be categorized in another way; 1. Wholesome fabrications (punnabhi saṅkhāra), 2. Unwholesome fabrications (apunnabhi saṅkhāra), 3. Formless wholesome fabrications (anenjabhi sankhara).

The word Saṅkhāra has another meaning. In the below quote, "Aniccā vata Sankhārā"; the word "saṅkhāra" means "All the conditioned things".

@Anaphaxeton Sir/Madam, "Prajna, part of the Paticca-samupadda and therefore incapable of breaking the cycle". This is incorrect. Prajna is indeed capable of breaking the cycle. Let me explain it by an analogy. Think of a fire made by wood. What causes the fire? It's wood. Isn't it? But ultimately wood will be destroyed by the fire (fire can be considered as the effect of the wood). If the wood is completely destroyed by the fire, will it be capable of making fire in the future? No. Thus the cycle breaks.

It is the unique & special quality of being "human" (having self-reflective consciousness) that can end ignorance. For example, animals, which operate largely on craving based biological programming, cannot end ignorance.
Ignorance can be ended because craving brings suffering. When it is seen clearly with wisdom craving brings suffering; ignorance can end when the food ('ahara') sustaining ignorance, namely craving (the five hindrances), ceases to arise; allowing samadhi & vipassana to develop. Please refer to AN 10.61 below, which is the relevant sutta for this topic:

Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it
came into being.’ Still, ignorance is seen to have a specific
condition.
I say, bhikkhus, that ignorance has a nutriment ('ahara'); it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said:
the five hindrances.
AN 10.61

But most people delight in craving (as Buddha said in MN 26), including buddhists that crave for reincarnation. In other words, it is a very rare event that the cycle of ignorance and craving end. AN 5.143 says:

Licchavis, the appearance of five treasures is rare in the world. What five? The appearance of a Realized One, a perfected one, a fully
awakened Buddha. A person who explains the teaching and training
proclaimed by a Realized One. A person who understands the teaching
and training proclaimed by a Realized One. A person who practices in
line with the teaching. A person who is grateful and thankful.
AN 5.143

As for Nibbana, it does not require wisdom to exist for it (Nibbana) to exist as an element in nature. If Nibbana required wisdom to exist, Nibbana would be conditioned rather than unconditioned. Wisdom is only required to end craving; to allow Nibbana to be known & experienced by a rare human mind. When an enlightened mind ends with the termination of life; the Nibbana Dhatu (Element) will continue to exist.
Nibbana is nicca but wisdom is not nicca. Before the Buddha arose, there was no real wisdom however Nibbana was waiting there to be discovered.

How can something with no beginning (cycle of dependent origination) have an end (Nirodha)?

The above question is unnecessary and based on wrong premises. The Buddha did not teach ignorance has no beginning; that it has existed forever. The Buddha merely said a 1st starting point of ignorance is not known. To quote:

Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it
came into being.’ Still, ignorance is seen to have a specific
condition.
AN 10.61

And likewise how can a state with no end (Nirvana) have a beginning (Nirodha)?

The above question is a sort of non-sense because it not relevant.

Are Avidya and Nirvana therefore Nicca (Permanent and Unconditioned) or Anicca (Impermanent and Conditioned)?

Nirvana is unconditioned & permanent. Ignorance is conditioned & impermanent. AN 10.61 quoted above says ignorance is conditioned. It must be noted, for most people, including Buddhists who believe in reincarnation, ignorance operates permanently during their lifetime. However, because ignorance can be ended, it is not a permanent element (dhatu).

Put another away, if Prajna is Nicca, how could it give way to the origination and sustenance of Avidya in the first place?

Wisdom is conditioned & impermanent. However, for an Arahant, their wisdom is permanent for their lifetime (MN 12) but because their life is impermanent their wisdom is ultimately impermanent.

If Prajna is Anicca and has a beginning

Yes, wisdom is ultimately impermanent & has a beginning, such as when a mind that has taken refuge in the True Teachings attains stream-entry; which is the beginning of wisdom. Again, the fact is explained in AN 10.61, as follows:

And what is the nutriment for hearing the True Teaching? It should be said: associating with good persons.
AN 10.61

Fortunately, on Buddhist Stack Exchange, there is at least one good person explaining the True Teachings (which accord with non-craving & emptiness).

how can we say that Nirvana (which requires Prajna) is Nicca?

Nirvana already exists but wisdom is required to end the defilements; so Nirvana can be experienced. Wisdom does not "create" Nirvana. Wisdom only removes the defilements that are clouding/covering the peace of Nirvana.
Imagine the blue sky is Nirvana. Wisdom does not create the blue sky. All wisdom does is remove the clouds blocking the view of the blue sky.

If Wisdom is not Nicca, then it is conditioned. But all conditioned things arise from Avijja. How can ignorance be ended by something borne of ignorance?

@Anaphaxeton. Yes, wisdom is conditioned. The Pali suttas say the Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned. Your idea that all conditioned things arise from ignorance is false.

DD, a user on this site stated that Nibbana is not dependent upon the brain, because nibbana is unconditioned. May you clarify?

@Dhammadhatu Thank you for your very thorough reply to my question. I have understood where some of my questions and formulations were misguided, and I believe my overall understanding of Dharma has improved and been made more clear now thanks to you. One question I have remaining. It has been established to me that Prajna is conditioned. I was under the impression that all conditioned things arise from Avijja (ignorance). However, you have stated this is false. Where else, then, can conditioned things arise from other than ignorance?

Thank you. I started a new question about this matter because your question is an interesting & important question and I think good for all members to consider. With metta. Question is here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30318/do-all-conditioned-things-arise-from-ignorance


text:
Why is Nibbanna unconditioned if it's dependent on mind & brain
Often it is said that nibbana is unconditioned, but nibbana is definitely dependent on other conditions. Also, according to modern psychology nothing can be 'eliminated' (greed, hatred and delusion in this case). Once learned, never able to unlearn. A skill, therefore zu can become either more efficient or less efficient, so why is it in Religion that something can be absolutely eliminated, whereas psychology tells us differently?

Why are greed and hatred equated with skill, then? Is your assertion about modern psychology (i.e. that modern psychology says something like that) part of the question ... part of the topic which an answer should address?

In the first part of the question, are you asking if Nibbana is an intrinsic part of the brain without which Nibbana could not be realised?

Yes, I believe that Nibbana cannot be realised without the brain, because mind is dependent upon the brain. But this is of course also apparent in the satipatthanas, where the breath conditions the body which in turn trainquillizes the mind further.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Val I tried to rewrite the question here -- Should this question be rewritten? -- is that any better at explaining what kind of answer you're looking for?

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

Often it is said that nibbana is unconditioned

True, Nibbana is unconditioned

but nibbana is definitely dependent on other conditions

False. This statement cannot be backed-up by any reference from Pali canon.

Also, according to modern psychology........

You cannot explain Dhamma with modern Sciences.
WHY??
There is a true nature in this world. That is the nature of causes and effects. An effect is made by many causes and that effect will cause many other effects in several ways. (This is a very complex, hard to understand, hard to see, and very deep truth which has been taught in the "Book of Causal Relationships or Patthana Pakarana" in Pali canon. There have been mentioned 24 modes of conditionality). Only a lord Buddha can see this ultimate truth with his own wisdom without the guidance of a teacher. No other can.
Scientific method is the foundation for all modern sciences. In scientific method you carefully observe something or a pattern in the world.
Observation:

Once learned, never able to unlearn.

Then a hypothesis is developed upon that observation.
Hypothesis:

nothing can be 'eliminated' (greed, hatred and delusion,...)

Then a prediction is developed and carried out an experiment to prove the hypothesis.
At the end a conclusion has been made whether the hypothesis can be rejected or cannot be rejected. There lies the limitation of scientific method. An experiment can only support a hypothesis but cannot prove the hypothesis. So, a hypothesis can be true only under the conditions which the experiments carried out to support it. This is the reason one hypothesis is criticized and proved false by another over the time.
Scientists may explain a natural phenomenon with theories well supported by extensive amount of researches. And yes, that would have been true for a while until they find another behavior within that phenomenon which cannot be explained with the same theory. For example some phenomenon cannot be explained with Newtonian Physics but they can be well explained with Quantum Physics.
Dhamma cannot be criticized or argued. It is true for all the time.

Any hypothesis can only be tested statistically, to a certain significance level, and 100% is not an achievable level because the sample is always at least 1 smaller than the population.. n/(n-1) never = 1!

ChrisW, may you delete this question? There seems to be no definite answer, let alone any sutta reference in why Nibbana isn't depending on the brain (or anything else).

@Val I'm not sure I may, once other people have put work into trying to answer it. Perhaps I should have closed it immediately as "unclear what you're asking" or something like that. You can flag the question for deletion in case another moderator (bolder than I) is willing, but I wouldn't expect them to handle the flag immediately and we typically don't delete topics. Did chat (e.g. here) clarify the question? I guess people are trying to answer based on their knowledge of dhamma, not understanding your question?

@Val Give me a moment and I'll try to edit the question to a) clarify what you're asking b) not invalidate already-existing answers.

Greed, hatred and delusion can be eliminated. For example, if you see a beautiful girl then sensual desire or greed might arise but if you see a very ugly women then sensual desire will not arise. Nibanna is not dependent on anything. If you know that the beautiful girl will one day age and become ugly you won’t feel any sensual desire or greed. So greed, hatred and delusion comes from ignorance. Nibbana is the cessation of ignorance

By saying nibbana is not dependent on anything you dont answer my question, because I believe Nibbana is dependent upon the brain, body and mind. Also, just mere thinking that an attractive woman will one day age is not enough. It is just cognition without affect. Mere intellectualism. If there is no emotions behind or no past experience that somehow strengthen this perception it is unlikely that this will weaken sensual desire, because just thinking one thing DOESN'T DECREASE THE BELIEVABILITY OF THE FORMER HELD PERCEPTION. It is still there.

Nibanna is where all things cease. It is the cessation of dependent origin. Only an anagami and arahant are freed of sensual desire. Nibbana is the cessation of all former held perception. You might need brain to become an arahant but Nibbana is not dependent on the brain. If the brain is removed then Nibbana would still be there.

How can you back up your assertion if you are actually dead without a brain?

Knowing & experiencing Nibbana is dependent upon "the brain" or having a mind. The suttas (example Udana 8.1) say Nibbana is a sense object or 'ayatana'.
However, Nibbana itself, which is an element of nature, similar to how oxygen or nitrogen are elements of nature, is not dependent upon the brain; just as the elements of oxygen & nitrogen in the universe is not dependent on brains.
Many 'Buddhists' hold creationist views of godly Brahmanism; believing things exist only when they can be known by a mind.
But the Buddha said in AN 3.136 and SN 12.20 that realities can exist despite being unknown to a human mind.

How would a sutta reply look like with an answer like this? Magnificent lord. Delighted the monks went away

lol............

DD, what is your opinion about the simile of the saw? Are you able to employ compassion and kindness during cruelty? Or rather equanimity, and how is this developed?

If nibbana is an element of nature, is it part of a whole then? Is it conditioned by the whole, of nature?

the buddha said it was the unconditioned element (MN 115). i think that is enough because the purpose of nibbana is liberation. regards

In Buddhism, all conditioned constructs can be eliminated because they are directly observed as - the same epistemological commitment as the scientific method - not substantial and not permanent.
To achieve nibbana, wrong view is eliminated. A well defined, permanent Self (not an operationally defined one for practical purposes) is the incorrect view that is eliminated.
Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics does just this, and EPR vanishes.
Now were this world somehow one of permanent entities, Dhamma would be wrong, the Buddha would be wrong, and either nihilism, or some eternalist religion would offer the right path to the abandonment of stress (notice the instant contradictions). But this world is empty of permanent entities, so elimination of all impermanent properties is possible.

You are comparing quantum mechanics with the most complex organ in the world. Also, both work differently. I have never argued against impermanence. In Buddhism it is said that if conditions aren't nourished they wither. I definitely agree. This is how the brain works. However they cannot be eliminated. Suppose from now on up until your last breath you never speak English again. Will your English be weaker? Definitely. Did you UNLEARN (!!!!!) or eliminate this faculty? No.

English is an accurate, agreed upon language system to describe the phenomenal world. The self is an inaccurate, not agreed upon system to describe the world. It would be more accurate to talk of errors within English. So when you start learning English, you unlearn pronunciation and grammar errors. You can still make them if you wish, but you have gone through a process of unlearning them. Same as for Dhamma - you unlearn wrong notions of Self.


text:
Can anger be acceptable?
When doing physical work, there are times that anger helps to overcome physical obstacles, as a way to arouse energy where force is required, but for the purpose of doing good (thru service, altruism), not harm. But anger is a form of aversion, a defilement, unhwholesome root.
Did the Buddha say any words on whether the use of anger, or force, is ever acceptable?

There is no place for anger in Buddhism for any reason.
Right effort is what is required.

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

I'd say righteous anger is okay as long as it is voluntary and under control. . ,

You could say so, in an answer of your own, or in the chat -- that might be better than simply contradicting SarathW's in a comment (see, "instead, post an actual answer"). :-) There is e.g. a topic What is a wrathful Buddha?. I'm unsure I'd concur with that answer though (that anger is okay) e.g. from my experience. :-)

@PeterJ are those the Buddha's words? can you give a reference from the suttas?

@avatarKorra - My comment comes from various discussions on this topic but not from the suttas. I feel that it is never right to take an extreme view such as anger is always right or always wrong. . It is my opinion and not an uncommon one but I didn't intend to suggest I was quoting the Buddha. Perhaps his admonitions against holding extreme views would support my view but I know this is arguable.

All passions including anger are to be removed but until you achieve perfection don't cut too deep, don’t remove the passion against ignorance.
Quoted below is from Shantideva's Bodhichryavatara / The Path of light. (emphasis my own)

Ah, when I vowed to deliver all beings within the hounds of space in
  its ten points from the Passions, I myself had not won deliverance
  froth the Passions. Knowing not my now measure, I spoke like a
  madman.. Then I will never turn back from smiting the Passions. I will
  grapple with them, will wrathfully make war on them all except the
  passion that makes for the destruction of the Passions. Though my
  bowels ooze out and my head fall off, I will nowise abase myself
  before my foes the Passions. An enemy, though driven away, may
  establish himself in another spot, whence he may return with gathered
  powers; but such is not the way of the enemy Passion. Where can this
  dweller in my
spirit go when I cast him out; where can he stand, to labour for my
  destruction? It is only that I—fool that I am—make no effort; the
  miserable Passions are to he overcome by the vision of wisdom. The
  Passions lie not in the objects of sense, nor in the sense-organs, nor
  between them, nor elsewhere; where do they lie? And yet they disturb
  the whole world
They are but a phantom. Then cast away thy heart's terror, and labour
  for wisdom; why shouldst thou vainly torture thyself in hell? Thus
  resolved, I will strive to fulfil the rule as it has been taught; how
  should he who needs medicine find healing, if he depart from the
  physician's command?

Anger is unskillful and destructive. Anger gains its power from a lack of restraint--we explode at a problem and obliterate/kill it. Strong anger leads to killing. Given that the first precept is "do not kill," angry action is Wrong Action.
Therefore if our physical work is demolition, we should exert ourselves mindfully so as not to harm ourselves or others. For example, it takes a lot of skill to demolish a house quickly, efficiently and safely. It takes skill because large forces are involved and they need to be gathered and directed with precise and calm control. Would you hire an angry or a calm construction worker?
Anger is seductive in that one thinks that "a little anger helps a bit, so maybe I can allow a little more anger. Maybe I can control this anger if I let it out just a bit." That is the delusion of anger.

When a person is angry, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, their friends and colleagues, relatives and kin avoid them from afar. --AN7.65

Even if you just slam your phone on the desk out of anger directed at no person, others will shy away from you.

“When what is incinerated do you sleep at ease?
When what is incinerated is there no sorrow?
What’s the one thing, Gotama, whose killing you approve?”
“When anger’s incinerated you sleep at ease. When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow. O deity, anger has a poisoned root and a honey tip. The noble ones praise its killing, for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”
SN1.71

It is not so that the Buddha rejected aversion at all. The path is not just an "increase of love" (e.g. greed), but to develop a lot of dislike and aversion in regard of what is akusala ("unskilful"), and like and desire for kusala ("skilful" -- from ku = bad, sala = cutting away -- so even the word for "good", skillful, wholesome, carries a very sharp cutting away of root).
There are times, inwardly or outwardly, where aversion is required; times, inwardly or outwardly, greed is required. For each situation it's different, and it's required to know of what is good and bad very clearly, and simply follow it.
One should not have to less aversion in regard of one's anger -- and it's suggested to kill it right, if appearing, and make its total liquidation one's foremost project: sometimes requiring aversion, sometimes greed, all however based on wisdom (but if basing on one's bias or preoccupations, for sure there will be circle-drifting, and mis-investigation of what has come into appearing).
And to have spoken here of right effort: it's good to investigate this factor more carefully. Sure, one may place improper aversion here to do so... and fools himself in both directions at the same time.
Just to get sure: there is no skillful, good, aversion which causes other being's destruction of life, depriving of their possessions, abuse, depriving of truth. As pointed out by the Buddha: neither affection (love) nor hostility can can end conflicts but are abandoned by non-hostility. Again requiring a lot of aversion to abound (abandon) and cut off non-beneficial.
(Note: Neither given for trade, exchange, other stacks, worldly gains and down-binding entertainments)

We must forgive and be kind with everyone, including every enemy.
See the path of purification, CH. IX THE DIVINE ABIDINGS, (1) Loving-Kindness page 291.
The only one anger accepted by the Buddha is anger that keeps the practitioner goes on in the meditation. Sutta. See Tī. Ma. Sakkapañhasuttaṃ:

‘When I cultivate this kind of sadness, unskillful qualities grow, and skillful qualities decline.’ You should not cultivate that kind of sadness.
‘imaṃ kho me domanassaṃ sevato akusalā dhammā abhivaḍḍhanti, kusalā dhammā parihāyantī’ti, evarūpaṃ domanassaṃ na sevitabbaṃ.

Sutta. Ma. U. Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasuttaṃ:

"And what are the six kinds of renunciation distress? The distress coming from the longing that arises in one who is filled with longing for the unexcelled liberations when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — he sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change and he is filled with this longing: 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that the noble ones now enter & remain in?' This is called renunciation distress. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)

P.S. The anger must feel sad.


text:
To what extend should I keep doing useless stuff with my friends?
Recently my behaviour changed a lot thanks to buddhism.
I am no longer interested in watching movies, listening to music, and especially going out on parties and drinking alcohol.
This is creating a huge gap with my friends. My interests don't match theirs anymore.
I tried to speak about the reasons why I feel better now that I left all these trivial activities behind, but I lack eloquence and thus didn't convince anyone.
With my girlfriend things are easier because I can communicate a lot better with her, but I can still see that she suffers when I don't want to participate with the same activities as her.
Should I accept to do trivial stuff from time to time just to stay close to my friends and not cause them suffering ?
Following the noble eightfold path should make me easier to live with, but I just cannot watch TV one hour every night with my girlfriend anymore, nor can I spend my entire week-end going out and get wasted with my friends anymore.
People around me find me boring and pressure me to do stuff I don't like anymore.
On the other and I feel great compassion toward my friends and really wish to help them.
If I stop seeing them, it would only cause more suffering.
How can I adjust so that I can follow the path and not alienate myself by refusing to drink alcohol and watch tv ?

You are not causing suffering to others. They cause their own suffering if they want you to get drunk with them & you refuse. You should always have metta (friendship) towards old friends but this does not mean you engage in unwholesome actions with them.
Also get rid of this condescending attitude you have compassion for your friends and wish to help them. This is disgusting. Your friends are merely “ordinary people” who live ordinary worldly life.
As for your girlfriend, it is love & respect for her that you watch TV with her. It is only TV. You don’t have to attach or delight in what you are watching yet this should not stop you showing warmth and companionship towards your girlfriend.
I am typing this on an airplane because I am visiting my mother & sister. I watch TV with them even though I do not watch TV at home.  Watching TV can be a meditation upon the ignorance of the world.

It is unclear to me wheter I am condescendant or not by saying that I wish to help my friends. Isn't it natural to wish to help anybody who clearly isn't happy ? Whether I know better about happiness or not is not the matter

Should I let go of my desire to help any ordinary people whose purpose in life is to get wasted as often as possible ?

Yes. Buddhism says to teach Dhamma to those who are interested in it (AN 9.5). When a person knows they are sick, they themselves decide to see a doctor. Similarly, when a person knows their life isn't working out, they seek a solution.

Unfortunately, it is not possible for a layman with a relationship to fully practice as a monk. Lay Buddhist is only required to observe five precepts within the Noble Eightfold Path. Lay Buddhist observe eight precepts only once a month. If you can do this in a regular or daily basis is a bonus.

This is not about following precepts. I can see for myself than indulging in trivial activities are causing unnecessary stress and suffering to me. But not doing them would cause suffering to others and to myself aswell. I wonder how i can approch this issue

Perhaps you have to find a new circle of friends who understands you.

I marked this answer down because it appeared to say a lay Buddhist should induldge in sensuality.


text:
Is this a statue of a six-armed wooden Buddha?

Please help me identify this statue. Thank you!

"Buddha statues generally show a particular Mudra (a Sanskrit word) or hand gesture."

~ Cited from: Buddha Statue Mudras

Bhumi Sparsha Mudra
Samadhi / Dhyana Mudra
Abhaya Mudra
Dharma Chakra Mudra
Vitarka Mudra
Vajira Mudra
Uttara Bodhi Mudra

Apart from the above listed Mudras there can be a combination of two Mudras or a variation of a Mudra depicted in a statue of Lord Buddha. For example the below statue of Lord Buddha depicts a variation of Abhaya Mudra.

~ Image source: Wikipedia
Since the statue you've shown doesn't depict any of the known Mudras, there is a high possibility of being that is not a statue of Lord Buddha.

Thank you. Yes, I have never seen these types of hand gestures and I have found nothing even remotely close to this figure.

Basically in all south Asian countries Buddhism & Hinduism are the same, which is why Buddhism & Hinduism do not coexist as major religions in any Asian country. At a time in history, the ruling classes chose one of them. Each religion shares the same ideas & images in the social or cultural contexrt. Thus multi-armed deities (e.g., Brahma & Vishnu), bodhisattva and Buddhas can be found in many places and will generally have the same meaning.
As for the picture, it looks Indonesian, possibly Balinese (but I could be wrong).

which is why Buddhism & Hinduism do not coexist as major religions in any Asian country In Singapore for example, surely, co-existent but readily distinguishable.

Singapore is a modern commercial centre; similar to a western colony; such as Australia


text:
Do all conditioned things arise from ignorance?
A new friend said:

If wisdom is not permanent, then it is conditioned. But all conditioned things arise from ignorance. How can ignorance be ended by
  something borne of ignorance?

Do all conditioned things arise from ignorance?

Might this question be a duplicate of, answered by, Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?

That is why it is called ceto- & pañña-vimutti... and not vimutti-pañña (althought most translated as such).
How ever, to actually understand (see for "oneself") it requires the fundation: right view... till right livelihood while the rest would come by "itself". Also wisdom arises from ignorance, yes. One is given to see for him/herself following the right path.
There are some heartwood similes to be found in the text, if after investigation to increase Saddha.
And the general "paradox"'s solution is broadly known: certain food is used to go beyond the requirement (of food), and so with all used conditional things as well. Wisdom is used for liberation, like the whole path's paccayas (requisites, foundations, fundaments, bases...)
And it is not so that "by arising of wisdom the great mass of stress ends" but by total uprooting, destruction... of avijjā ("not understanding").
One may remember also that the boat, Dhamma, eg. "knowing", has to be abounded after having crossed to finally go beyond: unbond.
[Note: This here is not meant to be used for trade, exchange, stakes... and what ever ordinary gains. If not given to give so, it should be deleted]


text:
I'm trying to find a specific sutta I think
I remember there being a passage where a monk says to Buddha that he thinks the Sangha is at least 50 percent of the teaching and Buddha says something along the lines of 'it's all of it'. Can anyone help me find this or is my memory faulty and that's not what was actually said?

Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)

Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole
  of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends,
  companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the
  noble eightfold path.


text:
Are the Jhanas related to some of the 31 realms of existence
When I say 'related' in this sense means more about the hue that accompanies a jhana, this might be a very pleasant feeling, mind state or perception.
I don't know what school this question refers to. I'm just responding from some kind of intuition so any Buddhist sect is fine.

The jhanas are related to to Brahma realms

"There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Abhassara devas. The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Subhakinha devas. The Subhakinha devas, monks, have a life-span of four eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Vehapphala[4] devas. The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
AN 4.123

So as you can see, if a person dwell in the first jhana often until he dies then he will reappear in the brahma’s retinue. So I think you have to master the first jhana and dwell there very often and not lose the ability to enter it until you die. Only then you might be reborn in the Brahma retinue. If you enter the first jhana once and start killing your parents or an arahant then you probably won’t appear in the Brahma realm and will go straight to hell because you will probably lose the ability to enter jhana.
If you want to know more about the 31 planes of existence then go to this link. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

This answer most accurately informs my insight.

In the original teachings, the jhanas were not related to the 31 realms. In the original teachings, the jhanas were merely the Samma Samadhi of the Noble Eightfold Path.
But in what appears to be the later Brahmanisation of Buddhism (to convert the common Indian people to Buddhism, probably by the clergy of King Asoka) the jhanas become related to the 31 realms (similar to how Vajrayana introduced Hindu gods, such as Tara, Yellow Jumbala, Avalokiteshvara, etc, into Mahayana Buddhism).
Refer to (questionable) suttas such as AN 4.123 and MN 1, which equate the jhanas to Brahmanistic gods.
As the Buddha predicted, relating the jhanas to Brahmanistic cosmology lead to the extinction of Buddhism in India. Because people are unable to abandon the self-survival instinct, this corruption of Buddhism continues in the 'modern' world.
The former Supreme Patriarch of Thailand described these godly realms as "ancient geography".

View on Heaven and Hell of Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, Supreme Patriarch of Thai Buddhism. "As we are so familiar, in religious
  sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In
  many cases, it becomes the goal of religious practice itself. On this
  very subject, His Holiness critically analyses that the very concept
  and belief of heaven and hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of
  indigenous culture and belief. He states: (I quote) ‘the subject of
  cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not
  ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography. The concept and
  belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of
  strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries
  further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant
  itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches
  such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an
  ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the
  Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the
  quote) He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and
  hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of
  mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this
  very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies..."
Supreme Patriarch of Thailand H.H.Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara. (Head of
  the Buddhist monks in Thailand).

In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering.
In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with
  emptiness — will come about.
The Buddha: Ani Sutta