text:
Right Livelihood and Veterinarians
I went to the vet last weekend and it got me thinking- veterinarians often kill animals in order to relieve suffering; would this form of killing be considered to violate the first precept, even though it would be done out of compassion? If so, would a career in vet medicine not be considered right livelihood? It seems as though leaving animals instead to die a slow and painful death would be inhumane.
Just curious, thanks for reading. Ian
Found this interesting article via a similar question, if anyone is still interested: http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/geth0401.pdf

Without getting to the heart of the issue, I can say that veterinary practice outside of euthanasia is very compassionate. Whether or not euthanasia counts as compassion, I hope we can get some good answers on it.

Perhaps we should flip the question on its site and ask how discompassionate it is to prolong a being's suffering.

Duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/euthanasia-for-animals

What a great question and a tough one. I do not have a final answer to this but i will try to give my input from a point of view of Theravada buddhism.
If i were to answer your question "hardcore" i would say that a Livelihood where one kills other living beings cannot be considered Right Livelihood.
Why is that?
Let's take a look at the 1st precept and which factors one must fulfill in order to break the precept.

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami; I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

In order for one to break the first precept the following factors must be fulfilled;

pano -- presence of a living being.
panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being.
vadhacittam -- the intention to kill.
upakkamo -- the effort to kill.
tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being.

If these factors have been fulfilled the first precept has been broken.
What if the vet kills the animal out of compassion?
From a theravada buddhist point of view it is not possible to give rise to the intention to kill when certain mental states are present, for example compassion. When these states are well developed from following the noble 8-fold path then the intention to kill cannot arise since it is an unwholesome state of mind.
In that sense i do not think the vet does it out of compassion. If he had compassion he would not give rise to the intention to kill the being. He might give rise to the intention kill out of ignorance of the true nature of reality. Because of the ignorance he might believe that he is helping the animal by killing it.
What is really going on here is that by seeing that animal suffer, he is experiencing the 5 aggregates. I would think that he is especially experiencing the 2th aggregate of sensations. When viewing this from the perspective of dependent origination (paticca-sammupada), ignorance of the true nature of reality, founded by not understanding the 3 signs of existence and the 5 hindrances, is what leads him to create kamma.
If we jump to the 6th link in the dependent origination which is contact we will see that when the mind goes out to the object and contact is established, there arises feeling. Feeling can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral as the initial reaction to contact.
I suggest the feeling the vet experiences here is unpleasant which leads to aversion. That aversion is what later leads him to create an action.
On basis of the 3 signs of existence, namely anatta the vet is here creating a self in the 10th link of dependent origination which is becomming. According to the Buddha one creates a self in 4 ways. Let's take the 2th aggreate as an example.

I am the feelings
The feelings are in me
I am in the feelings
The feelings belong to me

What is happening here is that the vet is creating a self. In order to contain the feelings (the object) and react to them one needs a vessel, a container. That container is the self that is being created. The vet is now identifiying with the feelings. He is taking ownership of them. In reality the feelings are just arisen impersonal phenomena that will cease to exist again.
The feelings are not his and do not belong to him.
Why?
Because he has no control over them. He cannot say "i want to feel only positive feelings and never negative feelings". That is impossible and because of that the feelings are uncontrollable, they are ungovernable. What is uncontrollable and ungovernable is oppressing and that is not fit to be called a self.
What the vet should do in that situation according to buddhist practice is to merely observe the phenomena that has arisen and then observe how they will disintegrate after a certain amount of time. What is subject to arising is subject to cessation.
In other words - do Vipassana meditation and learn about the true nature of reality. He will discover that a self is nowhere to be found. Everything works just fine without the need for a self to exist.
Now i would like to make another important point regarding the interfering with the death process of a being.
The fact that the vet does not know what the experience of the animal is the vet might interfere with the death process of that being.
He might interfere with that being's comming to terms with its own death. We know that death holds some of the most profound insights that can have great significance for a beings path to enlightenment. By ending that beings life before the death process is finished the vet might take away that beings possibility to achieve these profound insights.
Also that being is experiencing the results of its own past deeds so by killing it in the middle of that process the vet breaks that “kamma-receiving process” which might result in that being getting a unfortunate rebirth where it must continue to receive the unfinished kammic results from its past life.
Suffering is like the fertiliser for our spiritual life. Suffering should not be "stopped" by killing (reacting) to it. Instead it must be understood in order to achieve insights based on it.
I think that part of the problem is due to most beings spending most time in conventional reality (sammuti sacca) which is based on concepts for example "a man, woman, animal etc.". These things do not really exist. They are merely convenient designations we apply to the comming together/a collection of a number of factors.
This misunderstanding of reality happens if a being does not understand how reality functions in terms of the 3 signs of existence.
Mahasi Sayadaw compares physical matter, materiality, to sea foam (p. 65). From far away sea foam looks like it has a structure to it but when you inspect it up close you will see that it is empty of any form. It is hollow and filled with air bubbles. Modern physics will tell you that solid matter is merely an illusion and that it actually consists of mostly empty space. This is due to the enormous amount of empty space there exists in an atom between the nucleus and the electrons.
If beings were to spend more time in ultimate reality (paramattha sacca) then they might view the situation of an animal suffering differently, as bare experience; "seeing, hearing etc.".
As i said in the beginning i do not have a final answer to this question. Please see only this answer as an input. It might not be as i have described here. If i have misunderstood anything please feel free to correct me.
Lanka

authors: วันชัย แสนหวู่


text:
Reality, Experience and Information. How are these three terms related to each other?
Many times I have found myself thankful for being aware of Buddhism, and also for being connected to all of the people here. Information, experiences, doubts, references and views, everything that we have had shared helps make me a good man. Whenever I get time, I read questions, answers and comments.
BUT, I have observed that reality lies in the nature of the experience, and the information that is already present (maybe through text or speech) in the mind can be considered worthless after the experience. Can someone tell me how experiences and the text/speech information work together? I know it works but I want to know how it works.

jitin, the old title "Experience is important than the text information" is not correct English. The reason I did not change it was because I could not understand it.

This is a beautiful question, because it's not only about the spiritual aspect of life, but about living a spiritual life -- where your practice and your daily life are not separate.
There is that beautiful adage, "the finger that points to the moon is not the moon," which seems specially relevant to your query.
Our minds can be harnessed like a magnifying glass into understanding phenomena.  Since all phenomena share certain characteristics, by deeply understanding a fragment we can understand the whole.
The key is knowing where to look, what to focus on.  This is why oral teachings and scriptural knowledge are so important, especially in any serious practice of the Buddha's teachings.  We get our bearings, a basic "map with landmarks" that we can use to find our way around.
Language can be viewed a few ways; mainly as an expression of life, and also as a tool which we can use to help one another.
Ultimately, as you say, it is like a reflection.  The "mirror of mind" can become apparent with steady practice and rigorous reflection.  A good analogy to the words or language, the oral instructions that make this understanding possible might be: a key, or fine tuning, or two magnetized ends finally coalescing.
The words and teachings help unlock truth, which can be understood, and whereafter -- as you have said -- the words themselves seem hollow or insignificant in comparison to the actual experience of understanding.
That said, we must always be thankful for our stepping stones.  You can climb up a ladder and see the view from the mountain top, which doesn't render the ladder useless, but if your truth was "ladder ladder ladder" and now it's "whoa! check out the view!" there can be a sense of disparity.
The truth is, all the teachings are skillful means for realizing the ultimate nature of reality -- actualizing an understanding that is beyond description.  Buddha called it the deathless, among other descriptions, and although study and understanding of the words is very important, the actual experience is the intention.
Back to your question, ultimately the three Reality, Experience, and Information are inseparable.  It may appear that the cliff and the sky are separate, but there is no gap in their continuity.

It sounds like you are asking a question about the Zen/Chan idea that the things in Buddhism worth learning are ineffable (can't be put into words), academics and sutra reading are useless, and only practice matters. Language is still used, but now as a way to induce a sort of wobblying feeling and distrust of language, through crypic, paradoxical and incoherent koans. Dialog is still used, but the students response is always wrong, and if it isn't wrong, it isn't clear to observers what was different. Even attempting to describe how it works is a bit dangerous since, attempts to summarize zen is wrong, the same way attempts to summarize Buddhist wisdom is wrong, so you can really only describe how Zen works outside of the system of Zen/Chan. (Quick! Someone prove me right by posting a comment with a cryptic and dismissive comment about how I don't understand Zen!)
I would say even the Chan/Zen project can be reduced to words, at least in the how it is done, if not the conclusions.
Anyhow, my favorite essayist who has written about Experience and if you can put it into words, from a Buddhist standpoint, is Jayarava, who I will not attempt to summarize, but I think he's saying, things in the world are perfectly discussable (and therefore teachable) and experiences, we can do a reasonable job of talking about and understanding even other people's experiences, but those words won't put that experience into someone else's head.
http://jayarava.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/is-experience-really-ineffable.html

We know about the emotional state of another person through various
  cues that that other uses to broadcast their state: facial expression,
  posture, tone of voice, direction of gaze, etc. And we take these cues
  and use them to build an internal model - if I were to make my own
  face and body take on the configuration of the other persons face and
  body, how would that feel? And this is surprisingly accurate.

http://jayarava.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/not-two-truths.html

Words do a fair job of communicating about objects and ideas. But when
  it comes to experiences... no experience can be communicated in words.
  We can say that we have had an experience; we can say how we explain
  and/or interpret that experience; we can say how we feel about having
  had that experience; we can say how the experience changed us: but
  with mere words we cannot communicate the experience we've had. This
  is true of every single experience. So experience, all experience, is
  ineffable

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to Practice Vipassana?
I have been practicing samatha for five years now and have rarely done any other kind of meditation. I have tried to practice vipassana in the past but get confused with how to do it.

First of all you place your attention on your abdomen,when i'm more used to my attention being on the tip of my nose. Is there a way to practice vipassana with your attention on the tip of your nose? I can avoid getting too concentrated with a technique I found by accident, by widening my focus to the entire nostril instead of just a point. This helps allow for thoughts, etc. to arise. Because I notice during samatha thoughts are minimum to none.
Please describe a method of practicing vipassana with the base/anchor being the tip of the nose not the abdomen.

Many thanks.

Here's an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YJ3Rip2Gxo

A hammer has two ends for a reason; one end is great for pounding nails, but not at taking them out. The nose is avoided in Vipassana for a reason; it is too apt to lead to calm.
That being said, it is of course technically possible to cultivate insight at the nose, if you insist. Vipassana takes as its base the four elements, earth, air, water, and fire. As per the Visuddhimagga:

But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle
  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements.
-- Path of Purification XVIII.5

So, you have to find the elements at the nose; there is some faint pressure, which is the air element, and there is heat and cold, which is the fire element. The breath itself is a concept, so you can't use that as an object of Vipassana. You might note "hot, hot" or "cold, cold" or "hot, cold", as it presents itself. Also, "feeling, feeling" for the pressure.
Having taken that as a base, you would then note whatever other experiences arose, based on the four foundations of mindfulness, as per the instruction given by a teacher.
And, what Anthony said :)

It doesn't really matter which object you use, but there are traditions built up around using the nose or the abdomen. The point of vipassana practice is to help you become totally aware of reality in the here and now.
I'll try to answer this from the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, as I've been taught.
The confusion you experience, and the desire to practice Vipassana from the nose; this is not an accident. Vipassana practice is designed to expose these feelings. When these feelings arise, they should become your meditation object. The abdomen is just a convenient anchor that we come back to again and again; it is not special (as far as I have experienced).
If you are trying to figure this out without seeing a teacher, you can probably make some progress if you understand the general point of the practice and just how broad we are being when we say to meditate on this or meditate on that. When the mind says, This is too difficult, in our tradition we meditate on the feeling by making a mental note of each experience as it arises, so if it's frustration we say to ourselves: Frustrated…frustrated… or if it's a desire to practice a certain way we just say to ourselves: Wanting…wanting… and then we return to the abdomen: Rising…Falling…
My point being that any experience you're having right now―whether it's a sense object or feelings about that sense object―should be the object of your meditation. This is much easier said than done, but with persistence you will see some gains in your ability to simply be aware of each moment as it arises, instead of being caught up in concepts, or past, future, thoughts, feelings, etc.
Hope this helps.

Great answer thank you. Could you explain how long you observe an object. Do you observe e.g. a thought until its gone so that the dissolution part can be seen or do you go back to the abdomen before the object has ceased to exist?

I'm no expert, so I generally experiment in order to find what works best. I have no idea about dissolution. If the object produces disliking, as in the case of itching, music in the head, loud noises, etc., then I try to note the object until it no longer produces disliking. For more ordinary things like passing thoughts or not-so-loud noises, I note the object for one in-breath or one out-breath. Again, however, I'm no expert and this question would be an excellent full question for this site.

Also, just to clarify: my main intention is to be pragmatic about it. I don't stick to arbitrary lengths of time for noting an object; rather, I just try different things and go with whatever seems to help me see things as they are.

I really like your experimenting and refreshing approach to this. I have been wondered about it for a while now. I read somewhere which i dont remember now, that one should keep watching the object until it ceases in order to see the disintegration-step of the process and thereby also the impermanence. But then what if that object leads to disliking as you mention, shouldnt one go to that instead. I think i will post it as a question on the forum then we might find out about it. Thank you for your answer:)

First of all you place your attention on your abdomen,when i'm more used to my attention being on the tip of my nose. Is there a way to practice vipassana with your attention on the tip of your nose? I can avoid getting too concentrated with a technique I found by accident, by widening my focus to the entire nostril instead of just a point. This helps allow for thoughts, etc. to arise. Because I notice during samatha thoughts are minimum to none.

I can avoid getting too concentrated with a technique ...
What I do is I keep the area small and regularly change the point after while until I know I can instantly sense each point in the nose.
Anapana is not necessarily Samatha. It has all 4 foundations of mindfulness.

You start with Body mindfulness as the breath is the body fabricator.
Then you move to Sensation
Then Mental objects
Then Mental content

Each of the 4 triads corresponds to the above.
In the process you have to calm all the fabrications.

Please describe a method of practising vipassana with the base/anchor being the tip of the nose not the abdomen.

The focus should be around the mouth as in the Suttas. This can be the spot below the nose and upper lip. (As interpreted by certain linages) The tip of the nose of the the under side of the nostrils are also fine if this point takes you into excessive Piti too fast. But at some point come to this place.
Refer:

Manual of Mindfulness of Breathing Anapana Dipani by Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera, Aggamahapandita, D. Litt.
Mindfulness of Breathing by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

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


text:
What is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and Tibetan Buddhism?
New Kadampa Tradition is a prominent Buddhist movement in the UK with many centres and meditation classes. However I've always been confused about the relationship between them and Tibetan Buddhist.
So moving on from this question - what is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Tibetan schools? What lineage if any do they claim? Are they a minor school or a subset of another school? I heard somewhere that they had a disagreement with the Dalai Lamaso maybe they are linked with the Gelug school. However that might not be true - all kinds of things get reported about Buddhist organisations that can be classified as new religious movements, some of which are just sticks to beat them with.

The New Kadampa Tradition (or NKT for short) is an offshoot group that broke away from the Gelug school. One of the primary areas of controversy between the NKT and the mainstream Gelug school is the position of a figure called Dorje Shugden, who among the NKT is considered to be Manjushri emanated as a spirit in order to keep the Gelug school pure from teachings from other schools. Among the NKT Dorje Shugden is propitiated as an enlightened being, but within the Gelug school now it is understood that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit only, and should not be treated as an enlightened being.
As a result of this split, the NKT is very insular, and will generally only read a selection of books written by their founder, Kelsang Gyatso, and in general are not considered to be part of the Gelug school any more due to Kelsang Gyatso being expelled from his home monastery of Sera Me, but their selection of teachings and practices are all drawn from the Gelug school.

Currently I follow Theravada tradition, however I have been many times to NKT temples/meditation sessions and I also did a retreat with FPMT in Nepal (traditional Tibetan Buddhism that follows HH Dalai Lama), so I have been there...
Yes, there are some disagreements and controversy, but I will not write my opinion on the controversy as I want to respect all followers of Buddhism. If you search on google or youtube you will find many pages and video documentaries (even a BBC documentary & Swiss documentary about it). Most of the controversy is about the worship of a "Dharma protector spirit", the Vinaya in NKT and about their leader that claims to be a Geshe and FPMT doesnt seem to agree with it.
My experience:
In NKT temples I only found nice people and a very kind monk, but I left because of the library: 100% of the books there were written by their leader Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, that bothered me, I was looking for the suttas and the words of the Buddha, but could only find Geshe K. Gyatso, sometimes it made me feel like being part of a cult, so I left, but I repeat: I only found nice people there, no regrets.
My experience with FPMT was very good, the library was vast with many different authors, but again I left because I felt like Tibetan Buddhism was mixed too much with local culture and other religions (astrology, shamanism, tibetan book of the dead etc...). But once again: Only found nice people and great monks.
In Theravada I found what I was looking for, but do not take my opinion as something right, I do believe every path to Buddhism can be holy, it is more about what feels right for you.

My experience was similar. At the time, while they were generally quite young people, when I visited a NKT centre a few times, I found nice people there. Similarly, FPMT, where I hung out for a while, to learn about Mahayana & Vajrayana.

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


text:
How important is lineage in Buddhism?
I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and while I am personally very comfortable with the organisation and its values, it has been criticised for a lack of lineage.
Generally speaking how important is lineage in Buddhism? Do some schools take it very seriously and others less so? If a school has a shaky or unclear lineage is that seen as a bad thing? If so then why? What does lineage give Buddhism?

The only truly important lineage is the lineage of the Buddha. Unfortunately, everyone has their own idea of what that means. Even the eightfold noble path (described by the historical Buddha himself as the indication of a true lineage in DN 16) is interpreted differently by different schools. As a result, lineage becomes somewhat important, in that it determines which interpretation of Buddhism you subscribe to; they can't all be right, after all.
Further, even with mutually compatible interpretations, it is unreasonable to suggest that one could progress according to two divergent paths (e.g. become a bodhisatta and an arahant) at once, so choosing a school is likely to be beneficial in terms of maintaining focus. On the other hand, it may be that such schools can work in serial cooperation. It is said (MN 141) that Sariputta and Moggallana worked in this way, Sariputta teaching students up to sotapanna and Moggallana leading them on to arahantship.
The danger I can see in not choosing a school is that one may become a "jack-of-all-trades and master of none"; in other words, wandering from path to path and never really climbing the mountain.

Linage plays a few roles:

establish the authenticity and authority of the teaching tracing practice to the Buddha
preservation of training which has worked for the practitioners of the technique so alteration do not jeopardise the results


text:
meditation on the heartbeat
Usually we use an anchor in meditation, the breathing being the most common. Sometimes when I focus on that I feel my heartbeat taking my attention, so I thought about using that as an anchor, does anyone know if there is a meditation technique that uses the heartbeat?
PS: I'm aware this does not apply to all types of meditation

You can use it if it serves you the purpose of one-pointedness attention.
But you should remember the benefits of using the breath as your point of attention.
The breath is both a concious and unconcious function and because of that it serves as a bridge bwtween them.
Also in Tibetan Buddhism conciouness is said to "ride" in the winds (prana) of the body so by focusing in the breath you are also focusing in your mind.
Once you have achieved mindfulness thru the attention to your heart beat, it is better to switch to your breath.

My unorthodox answer is that empirically, have you ever heard someone say that heartbeat meditation really helped them? Did it help them know themselves or become enlightened? In browsing around meditation forums and message boards, I've literally never seen a recommendation for this. I infer that statistically, it's not likely to be the most profound type of meditation.
Can you try it? Why not!

I've had the same experience.
It is better to ignore the heartbeat and focus on the breath for countless reasons!
Calmer mind, more stable heartrate, blissful, easier, wind element cultivation... the reasons are endless.
There are no good reasons to meditate on the heartbeat except until you have attained the 3rd jhana at least, after which you can practice extreme ascetic practices.
But you asked for how to meditate on the heartbeat:
all meditation methods are the same, notice the in and out.
Gradually you will notice the space between the in and out.
Include this space in your observation: in, space, out, space, in, space, out, etc.
Gradually this space will open up and you can enter jhana.
For more info on meditation and how it works read this.

There are 2 main bodily functions. The breath and the heartbeat.
In calming the bodily fabrications it is not just calming the breath until it stops. When the breath stops then you have to look at any movement on the body. Generally it will be the heartbeat. This will also eventually slowdown and stop. This is the point where you have calmed down all bodily fabrications. (In context of Anapana you have completed the 1st 4 stages.)


text:
Two unconditioned dhammas?
In A history of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana, Professor Hirakawa states:

Both nirvana and space were considered to be unconditioned dharmas. This fundamental classification of dharmas into conditioned and unconditioned is found in the Agamas.

In what passage from the agamas (and/or pali?) we read space to be unconditioned?

If I recall correctly, the second sentence is definitely true in the Pali texts. But the first sentence, I don't recall seeing space classified as unconditioned in any of the early texts that I've read. Nevertheless, I can understand how it can be classified that way. If I had to guess, I'd say it's an Abhidhamma classification.

@Unrul3r is correct. Because the aforementioned book is almost devoid of notes, only much later an explanation appeared. It's abhidhamma material, the context of the sentence confused me.

In the Sarvāstivādin tradition since the compilation of the Dharmaskhanda, three unconditioned dharmas have been recognized: analytical cessation (pratisankhayā-nirodha), nonanalytical cessation (apratisankhayā-nirodha) and space (ākāśa). In the Theravada tradition, only one unconditioned dharma, nirvana, is recognized [...]. According to the Samaya, the Mahāsanghika, Ekavyavahārika, Lokottaravādin, and Kaukutica schools all recognized the following nine unconditioned dharmas: (1) analytical cessation (2) nonanalytical cessation (3) space (4) the realm of infinity of space (5) the realm of infinity of consciousness (6) the realm of nothingness (7) the realm of neither consciousness nor unconsciousness (8) the law of dependent origination (9) the law of the noble path [...]. The Sarvāstivādins disagreed with this position and did not recognize the existence of a principle of Dependend Origination separate from conditioned dharmas. For the Sarvāstivādins, the law of Dependend Origination itself was conditioned.
For the Mahaśiśākas, the path to nirvana was recognized as an unconditioned dharma because the practices established by the Buddha were considered to be eternal truths. The Sarvāstivādins opposed this position by maintaining that although nirvana was unconditioned, the wisdom the Buddha had realized was conditioned and not eternal.

Interesting. So who's correct? 9 unconditioned dharmas sounds a lot...

Hirakawa seems mistaken to say that the Law of D.O. is conditioned. As the laws are never included into dharma lists. Also, logic suggests that laws are permanent entities. And finally, this would be contradictory to suttas, which Sarvāstivādins can not afford.

@catpnosis it seems he is simply listing what he found to be the positions of other schools

Space is one of the 24 kinds of derived-materiality (UpadayaRupa), which is one of the 2 kinds of materiality (the other is primary-materiality, BhutaRupa, which is composed of the 4 elements of earth, water, fire, and air). They're all conditioned dhammas. Only Nibbana is the unconditioned one. Further info. is available at Vism.XIV.34

Hirakawa probably only meant that "classification of dharmas into conditioned and unconditioned" is found in the Agamas, not that space were considered to be unconditioned dharma "is found in the Agamas".
Conditionality of space (akasa) was controversial topic even inside of Sarvastivada. If it would be mentioned to be non-conditional anywhere inside of Agamas (i.e. in sutras, as in 'Buddha's words') it would not be that controversial subject.

Majjhima Nikaya 115 classifies all elements (dhatu) into conditioned & unconditioned thus this is not something exclusive to the Agamas. As for 'space', it is obviously conditioned, which is why, for example, people buy bigger houses for more space. Regards.

@Dhammadhatu How is all this related to my answer? Statement of Hirakawa was about Agamas, question about space in Agamas, I answer about Agamas. I answer that there is no such statement. 'Space' isn't "obviously conditioned", because, there was controversy exactly about this point. If something is obviously conditioned there would not be controversy about that.


text:
What makes someone enlightened?
Some years ago I somehow managed to stay almost the whole day without any thought, and for several months I used to be in that state of consciousness. I had the breathtaking feeling of emptiness and freedom, there were no ups and downs anymore, I was completely balanced and a profound happiness had taken me. I thought I had become a Buddha, but the thoughts started to come in and this state of consciousness faded. What makes someone enlightened?
I read that if you stay 45 minutes without even the subtlest thought crossing your mind you'll be enlightened. Well, I think that is very challenging.

Do you have the source for that 45 minute bit? I don't even recognize what sort of Buddhism that might be. Most of the doctrinal material in Buddhism was established between 200BC and 1500AD before accurate clocks, so this sounds like a modern idea.

I think what you experienced is one of the Jhanas?

sounds like a non buddhist meditation to me. it obviously worked out well for you though :)

I'm not a buddhist, I would just watch the thinking process very attentively. Anyone can reach it, buddhism just provides a set of techniques to get that state of consciousness and a lot terminologies to describe the stages one may go through along the path

I call what you described a "Neo state" (self with ego temporarily not operating). Nonduality (non-self) comes after that. Enlightenment is a word, so you will have to define it to get an answer.

States of calm attained thorough meditation is only temporary.Enlightenment is permanent.You can't stay in that state forever.The key is not to get rid of thoughts or be in a state of no thought but to see the nature of these thoughts to the point that it doesn't bother you.
I read that if you stay 45 minutes without even the subtlest thought crossing your mind you'll be enlightened
what.
i don't know maybe.But i think it takes more than 45 minutes to be enlightened.Unless your an Anagami.Also enlightenment is not a not thinking contest.If that was the case i can think of a few people who'd be enlightened by now.

yeah one of my brothers (post smoker) says he quite literally never thinks about anything. he's not a Buddhist, and i wouldn't think him self enlightened, just cos he has no interest in that sort of thing

pot smoker, of course... it may sound detached to have no interest in the buddha dharma and he's definitely a cool / decent person, but i just can't see his life being thought of as that of someone who is self enlightened. he's not about to throw himself off that famous cliff when he dies anyway: i.e. not really "religious" overtly, or otherwise

Traditionally (as in the early buddhist suttas), enlightenment (understood as nibānna) is reached with the permanent cessation of dukkha. A pre-requisite is the destruction of all fetters. So, nibbāna is not a temporary state where the mind is somewhat still.
The word "enlightenment", though, is used in texts of different schools (buddhist and otherwise) to describe different experiences (eg. "satori").

is a still mind an absence of thinking?

yeah, I meant that way

ok cool i just asked a question about that :)

No. See Sam Harris' book "Waking Up", pages 131-133 of Chapter 4, "Meditation". In it he relates the story of a woman who experienced just what you're describing, and the subsequent events that showed that although her experiences did represent some degree of progress, they simply were not the big E.
ADDITION:
Actually, the relevant part is reproduced here. The key part starts at the third paragraph, but it's worth reading the first two as well, for context. (And I highly recommend buying the entire book.)

Neo. It is obvious once you see it. They are everywhere. They recognize each other... So Beautiful. Still a Self.

Enlightenment is not being without thinking, and is not a feeling.
AFAIK and as far as my research into this.
Some schools of zen meditation taught that but they died out.

You experience it when the 5 aggregates cease momentarily and then starts again. You see Dependent Origination and this experience causes a paradigm shift and your perceptions are charged for ever.

You have to complete the dasa paramita (Ten Perfections), and prior to that you should have done enough good karma to be an arahat, and when you reached that much you can decide either to be a buddha/pase buddha or an arhat. If you decided to be a buddha, then you have to take "niyatha vivarana" (something like guidance or prediction) from another buddha, then since that life you start doing Ten Perfections until the life you become the buddha. It takes many life times. You can't expect to be a buddha in this lifetime with some meditation, if it's that much easy then there would be a ton of buddhas out there. Being a buddha is a hard work according to the theravada buddhism, it's easier to be an arhat. besides the whole purpose of the buddhism is free from the suffering, which is achievable through being an arhat.
Ten Perfections:

Dana - Charity
Sila - Morality
Nekkhamma - Renunciation
Panna - Wisdom
Viriya - Perseverance
Khanti - Patience
Sacca - Truthfulness
Adhitthana - Determination
Metta - Loving-kindness
Upekkha - Equanimity

It seems like you are on the right path. You just need to keep practising . Well I heard that enlightment/ nibanna is not in the body. You pracically loose all the 6 senses..I cannot claim it to be truth  but that's a common experience. So it 's even beyound conciousness and it's a collapse of witness. What you were describing sound like Awareness. You were present and aware at  peace, but I guess that is not the final state.


text:
Timing of meditation
I meditate once a day in early morning, only. I have found that this time is very helpful in practicing meditation. I want to meditate at least twice a day. I want to know if time plays a role in practicing meditation ? If yes, then how? At what time does meditation practice become the most intense ?

This seems very broad. Could you elaborate on a specific question?

Are you asking when is the optimal time to meditate?

I tried making my question specific. @Matthew yes it is about asking the optimal time to meditate. Regards.

My morning meditation is my clearest meditation.
I also take quiet breaks a couple times a day. Sometimes I even fall asleep for 10-20 minutes. It renews me.
The evening meditation is important to me to clear away the unresolved issues in the day and prepares me for the rest that is so important for a stable mind in these uncertain and stressful times.
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/231282-zen-mind-beginner-s-mind

“So we should be concentrated with our full mind and body on what we
  do; and we should be faithful, subjectively and objectively, to
  ourselves, and especially to our feelings. Even when you do not feel
  so well, it is better to express how you feel without any particular
  attachment or intention. So you may say, “Oh, I am sorry, I do not
  feel well.”  ― Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal
  Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/62707.Shunryu_Suzuki

“When you accept everything, everything is beyond dimensions. The
  earth is not great nor a grain of sand small. In the realm of Great
  Activity picking up a grain of sand is the same as taking up the whole
  universe. To save one sentient being is to save all sentient beings.
  Your efforts of this moment to save one person is the same as the
  eternal merit of Buddha.”  ― Shunryu Suzuki

Some suggest that as long as we are aware we meditate. We do dishes aware, we walk aware, we shower aware. Certainly we have meditation practice but to expand that beyond a ritual and a routine is the opening to an extraordinary life.

Breaking the practice to 2 sessions is helpful and advisable. In case you experience any hindrances at a particular session you have at least the other session which might be more productive.


text:
Scientific approach of Kamma
The concept of Kamma implies that information is stored in the mind (not the brain) and after the being is dead, this mind (or this data "storage") goes on and carries with it the current position of all accumulated Kamma from many previous life.
This clearly creates some scientific questions such as: Where is the information stored if there is no physical "hardware"? How does this information flows? How a new being receives it and change its body accordingly (Imagine a Kamma-Vipaka of a disease for a new born or not having a member)? Etc...
Many people will answer that these doubts represent a fetter and will not help you in the practice, so just forget about it, however I know many Buddhists have great scientific background and could help here.
Is there any detailed description, maybe Abidhamma, of this process of Kamma/information flow? Has anyone ever tried to shed a light on this topic?

I don't know how you come to the identify "karma" and "information in the mind". Other explanations are  easily possible, for instance just "imprints" (for instance behaviroual or cultural) in the social environment of a person. Also "epigenetics" comes into mind. If you want express the Buddha's reservation (against allowing/proposing speculation about "kamma") in contemporary scientific lingo, one might say, that the data/pattern/consequences of that "imprints" are way too complex to be analyzed (think alone the difficulties of statistical analysis of economical or climatic data!)

Maybe related to your question: "How should i understand “Stored up kamma”?".

The concept of Kamma implies that information is stored in the mind

No, it does not! Information and storage are concepts. Not realities! The issue here is, we make the assumption that for causes to give an effect in the future, something needs to persist in the interim. When you commit a Kamma, the action is done and finished then and there. There's nothing stored. To give an analogy, take a stick and hold it at one end with your left hand and tap at the other end with your right. Your left hand will feel the vibration. But did any molecule travel from right to left? No! It's just that when the molecules at the place you tapped vibrate, the adjacent molecules start vibrating and then the ones next to them and so on. Then we make a concept out of it and call it a wave. But there's no wave in reality! The first molecule vibrated and stopped. It didn't go anywhere.  Similarly, Kamma is also a concept given to describe a certain causes and effect process. There's nothing going from this life to the next or this moment to the next.

Good answer, though a little over zealous maybe cos the OP could have meant "stored" in a metaphorical sense

"This clearly creates some scientific questions such as: Where is the information stored if there is no physical hardware?" - That doesn't sound like he meant it in a metaphorical sense.

I've deleted these comments. Comments shouldn't be used for extended debate and be restricted to clarfications. Meta or chat can always be used for extended debate (chat really but meta for wider issues). Please let me know if you disagree with this action (on meta or chat again). Thanks

@SankhaKulathantille - I really like your scientific analogy about the stick. But I am struck by the firm certitude with which you speak of Karma. You seem to be rubbishing the entire concept of reincarnation. I am broadly in agreement with your stand, but then you seem to be going against Buddhism's dead-serious (pardon the pun) belief in stories of The Bodhisattva's various animal avatars, and the Dalai Lama's next rebirth etc.
So a little clarification here, please?

@KrishnarajRao There's no conflict with the Bodhisatta teaching. Cultivating Paramitha in Samsara is like a seed becoming a big tree over a period of time. Was there a tree inside the seed in the first place? No! Is there any cell of the original seed remaining in the tree? No! The tree is merely a result of a causes and effects process which started from the seed.
Avatar is a Hindu concept and Dalai Lama is Vajrayana.

@KrishnarajRao - The question you asked is very difficult. Kassapa asked Buddha a closely related question a long time ago and he answered it. Please see here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8162/471

"To a large extent, abhidharma thought is a systematization of the doctrine of karma"
-- Hirakawa akira

So, in this sense, an Abidhamma itself is your "detailed description" [of a particular kamma theory].

This is a very good question that has been answered particularly poorly in the past. The concept of karma in the early Buddhist texts does indeed imply persistence of an effect long after the condition is ceases - in our terms storage of a memory somewhere or other. And dependent arising forbids any effect to outlive the cessation of its conditions.
In my informal (as yet unpublished) writing on this I have referred to this problem as the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance. I discovered this problem independently, while study the writings of Prof Collett Cox on Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma texts. However I subsequently discovered that Nāgārjuna has also complained about this in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:

tiṣṭhaty ā pākakālāc cet karma tan nityatām iyāt /
  niruddhaṃ cen niruddhaṃ sat kiṃ phalaṃ janayiṣyati // MMK 17.6 //
If the action remains until the time of maturation, then it would be eternal
  If it ceases, being ceased, how does it produce a fruit? [My translation]

Nāgārjuna's response was to argue that all the components: agent, action, maturation, fruit, sufferer were all "like illusions" - ie. because of śūnyatā these entities have only relative and not ultimate existence. Karma only operates at the conventional level.
Now the Theravādins chose to respond to this one way:  They proposed that each short lived citta that arose as a vipāka also became a kamma that was a condition for another identical citta. This introduced a number of other problems, chief amongst was how to account for moments when there was no apparent citta - such as deep sleep, experiences of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), and (of course) death. To solve this they invented the bhavaṅgacitta to bridge the gap. The Theravādin view was only relevant in Sri Lanka and South East Asia.
The Vaibhāṣikas went about dealing the problem in an entirely different way. They reasoned that if a vipāka could be experienced in the future then the cause (hetu) must still exist as a condition in the future. And similarly for past karmas that we experience in the present. This earned them the nickname Sarvāstivādins because they believed that dharma always (sarva) exist (asti). The Sarvāstivādin view dominated North India and in China.
The Sautrāntikas opted for a similar approach in the form of a metaphor. Karma, they argued, was like a seed. The rice seed grows into a rice plant, but there is no direct connection from one to the other. This is an argument that karma is a "natural" process. Of course such metaphors are superficially pleasing, but explain nothing.
The Sautrāntika version was taken up by Vasubandhu and proposed as the solution to Action at a Temporal Distance in his Abhidharmakośa and it's autocommentary the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (incidentally this is also the only extant source for the Sautrāntika view). And this became the Yogācāra view as well. Yogācāra exegetes did two things. They invented the alāyavijñāna as the repository of karma "seeds" and they reified the metaphor taking these images as facts. This version of karma overtook Nāgārjuna and became the standard Mahāyāna version.
Links above are to a series of essays I wrote on this problem that will also appear in my forthcoming book on Karma & rebirth.
Now unfortunately for us moderns, none of these proposed solutions really solves the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance. Karma cannot work with dependent arising. The ancients actually knew about this and we have their records of trying to fix the problem, but innovation simply stopped at some point and most of the theories died with the decline of Buddhism in India.
Discussion of this major problem in Buddhist doctrine simply ceased. The Theravādins retreated into formalism - an uncritical acceptance of whatever Buddhaghosa said and are leading the world in the production of apologetics for karma and rebirth. Similarly in the rest of the world the Mainstream became Mahāyāna and the Yogācāra view was taken on uncritically. The spirit of inquiry and problem solving simply went out of Buddhism and has yet to resurface in any major way. Regrettably not even academics seem to engage critically with Buddhist doctrine - they are in love with Buddhism it seems and reluctant to critique it. So while we get ever more refined views of history we see very little in the way of disagreement with the views in Buddhist texts - despite the fact that Buddhists of an earlier age are on record and thinking many of them demonstrably wrong.

Persistence is a concept. So is memory. None of them require rupa or cittas to stay without ceasing. So I don't see a conflict with Paticcasamuppada.

(1/3) Speaking of metaphors, my preferred one is that of sound: how do sounds spread? Each air wave raises the surrounding air in a new wave, and so on. Each wave raises and dies, still its effects persist till the sound ceases. Many waves sum up their effects, so the final timbre enjoys all the single wavelet contributions. So, in reference to your blog post (really interesting, thank you) those wavelets would not perish "as a water drop [which] loses its identity if it falls into the ocean"; instead think of additive sound synthesis: each drop gives a "tone" to the final citta, ...

(2/3) which then "ripen" in a sound quality (vipaka). That would be a sort of "cummulative conditionality" which saves morality. Furthermore your thought experiment ("I can kill this kitten and, as long as I make appropriate offerings to the monks, I can still come out ahead") is not workable, because of course nobody knows the respective "weight" of each action. Anyway wouldn't a Buddhist agree that a moment of kusala citta is better than many akusala citta?

(3/3) Buddha himself said: "Better it is to live one day seeing the rise and fall of things than to live as hundred years without ever seeing the rise and fall of things".

It's misleading to suggest that the concept of karma 'implies information stored in the mind'. It's like saying that information about water is stored in the wave, which puts things out of order.
The concept of karma points at the inherent circular, self-similar, and replicate nature of the living world: a kind of homeostatic flow where things come and go, rise and fall, expand and contract, always folding back on themselves. It is cause and effect beyond the simple, linear, momentary actions we normally think of. If one wave passes and another forms, it isn't because the first wave 'carried its information' across and reformed itself; it's because the water cycled back and remade the wave that passed. If there's something like a reincarnation after death, it isn't that the mind (the self) carried itself over; it's that the world folded back on itself to make that mind (that self) again.
I could make that more scientific, obviously, but I prefer to leave it at the general principle. Not much sense in overthinking it...

I don't know if this has been described in science, but I doubt it.
The closest description I can find is this:
The following article in Wired last year discusses the dependency between entities at a macro level based on quantum entanglement and the arrow of time:

In the new story of the arrow of time, it is the loss of information
  through quantum entanglement, rather than a subjective lack of human
  knowledge, that drives a (hot) cup of coffee into equilibrium with the
  surrounding room. The room eventually equilibrates with the outside
  environment, and the environment drifts even more slowly toward
  equilibrium with the rest of the universe. The giants of 19th century
  thermodynamics viewed this process as a gradual dispersal of energy
  that increases the overall entropy, or disorder, of the universe.
  Today, Lloyd, Popescu and others in their field see the arrow of time
  differently. In their view, information becomes increasingly diffuse,
  but it never disappears completely. So, they assert, although entropy
  increases locally, the overall entropy of the universe stays constant
  at zero.
“The universe as a whole is in a pure state,” Lloyd said. “But
  individual pieces of it, because they are entangled with the rest of
  the universe, are in mixtures.”

The above statement that "information becomes increasingly diffuse, but it never disappears completely" resonates with Buddha's middle way teachings for e.g. the discussion of what happens when a person dies. He does not have a permanent soul that transmigrates, according to the Buddha. The newly born person is also not the same person as the one that died, yet not completely independent. However, the "information" is not completely lost and it reappears to a certain extent in the newly born person. This is a middle path between eternalism and annihilationism. There is a description of this in the Acela Sutta and some discussion in an answer to another question. Of course, this part is only my conjecture and rebirth is not described by science.
So, the article from Wired discusses that there is no eternalism (no independent particle and no independent cup of hot coffee), yet there is also no annihilationism ("information becomes increasingly diffuse, but it never disappears completely"). It also says that everything is interdependent (“The universe as a whole is in a pure state but individual pieces of it, because they are entangled with the rest of the universe, are in mixtures"). More detailed quotes from the Wired article in another answer.

Best not to borrow the language or concepts of quantum physics,  astrophysics etc. to conjecture about Buddhist concepts like rebirth etc. Words like "information", "interdependence", "universe" and "annihilation" make it sound like one may discuss astrophysics in the same breath as Buddhism, but really, one shouldn't yield to such temptation. Because that's like cheerfully tying our left and right shoelaces together, saying, "Hey, they are both shoelaces!" Nope, doesn't work.

Quantum physics is not like the rest of science. It's rather weird. Einstein described quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance" and hated it. The Theravada definition of rebirth involves "pausing" of consciousness in one birth and instantly "resuming" in another birth in the same or different realms. That's very much "spooky action at a distance" too. And Buddhism too is not like other religions. It says that absolutely everything physical and non-physical (except Nirvana) is interdependent or linked. So, by that definition, claims of Buddhist theory borders on physical phenomena.

Yeah I too doubt that there's any science of rebirth in the sense of a flame lighting another torch.
I would actually find it quite depressing if there were. It's a much better metaphor on the gradualism of enlightenment IMHO.
I wouldn't be that surprised if there something on a sort of inheriting of characteristics, that isn't explicable in our normal world view - causal processes that we haven't yet identified in science.
Still minds are unaffected by mental events so maybe their effects go elsewhere; maybe this even works however the mediator is behaving. I mean It seems obvious to me that habits can have physical or real manifestations that have effects even without them creating any actual dispositions in the actor so the question is just: can meditation change our habits without changing our dispositions. If so then that's a real change that leaves us completely unchanged - so must change someone else.
And if meditators can have effects on others independent of action, then why not everyone. This is only some kind of crazy mind reading if it is deliberate or rule based.

I believe we are coming closer to an answer to this question Daly. The double slit experiment shows us that are mere perceptions actually determine the property of matter. Thus we find our tie between the physical world and the world of consciousness. But we also see evidence of this in the current multiple universe theory where in all probabilities exists around us and the universe we encounter is the one that follows our choices and Karma.
I believe these choices and the resultant Karma may actually have a physical component in the quantum world and this may be the source of consternation regarding rebirth. What happens to the chain of events created by our choices or probabilities we have affected if our body passes way before we may be affected by them? According to the Hindus and some Buddhists this is the source of rebirth. That is if we die with a karmic imbalance or resultant then it must somehow be played out in another life.
I am in the process of studying The Vedas and the upanishads as well as the dhammapada and comparing them two modern scientific theories regarding consciousness. I believe at this point we may find a scientific basis to support the original philosophies of Eastern mysticism from 4000 years ago.

"The concept of Kamma implies that information is stored in the mind
  (not the brain) and after the being is dead, this mind (or this data
  "storage") goes on and carries with it the current position of all
  accumulated Kamma from many previous life."

Correct. Here you are explaining the concept of the soul existing and travelling from body to a new body after death.

"Where is the information stored if there is no physical "hardware"?"

Nowhere.
How could that be?
"Information" is just a mere concept.
"Store" is just a mere concept.
"Soul" is just a mere concept.
EVERYTHING is just a dream ... an echo ... not truth.
Information is never ever stored. It's just a dream ... an echo ... not truth.

"How does this information flows?"

It does not flow.
Again.
EVERYTHING is just a dream ... an echo ... not truth.

"How a new being receives it and change its body accordingly?"

By not knowing the truth a new being receives it and changes its body accordingly.
What truth?
EVERYTHING is just a dream ... an echo ... not truth.
By not knowing the truth, volition arises and after it, everything else arises ... the mind, body and universe.

"Imagine a Kamma-Vipaka of a disease for a new born or not having a
  member"

Yes.
And who/what is the cause of the Kamma-Vipaka of a disease of a new born?
Not knowing the truth, a being is born in such a future destiny striken by disease after being born.
Not knowing the truth leads to suffering.

Very Good Question. Lord Buddha gives very simple example with the Deep explanation in one of the Abhidamma 7 books named "Pattana"
He asked few questions taking mango tree.
If we plant a mango seed taking from the [hypothetically we say "A" mango tree] "A"
mango tree. One mango we called it "B" ripen and fallen down. Once this ripen mango started decaying and the seed met with necessary requirements like Soil, Water, and Sun shine, Air to generate a new plant and it gives us "B Mango Tree"
Now A tree gives us "B" Seed and it gives us "B" Mango tree.
But Is A = B? No
Does B has A's qualities and similarities? Yes
How it happend? Genetically A Seed carries its qualities and similarities which now B owes.
Though the fruit has fallen and though the fruit may decay the germ or the energy it has to produce another tree does not die. Once it comes into contact with the earth being nurtured by the four primary Elements – Pathavi (the earth element) Apo (the watery element) Tejo (the heat element) Vàyo (the wind element) it produces another tree of the same kind namely another mango tree.
In this manner action and re-action cause and effect death and birth, prevail and continue to prevail. It is like the tree producing the fruit and the fruit in turn producing the tree and continue to prevail as an unbroken process. We can only see it happening in the present context. But we cannot trace back to the beginning of this process nor can we visualize the end before the attainment. However much we try we would never find the first mango tree nor can we find the last mango tree but we can see how a tree produces the fruit and how the fruit produces another tree.
The separation of the fruit is like the death. Its contact with the earth is birth. There is no interval as such between the tree and the fruit and the fruit and tree. It continues to grow. Thus from the day the fruit was born by the tree and up to the producing of another tree, similarly within the human mind there is an energy to produce another being.
Similarly human being may die but the energy to be reborn does not die completely. It grows gradually. But it faces to the momentary decay and death, as (uppàda, tithi, bhaïga) genetic, static and dissolving. This energy is craving and ignorance and the resultant Karmas or action, which will continue to accumulate till one gets rid of all defilements with the rise of wisdom and the resultant cessation of craving and kamma which will put an end to rebirth ultimately reach Nibbàna.
This process can be thus elaborated :- Ignorance and craving-attachment-kamma-rebirth Wisdom-no craving-detachment-no kamma-no rebirth. This existence of beings is thus determined. Kammàvipàkà vattanti Vipakàkamma sambhavo Tasmà punabbhavo hoti Evaü loko pavattati (Visuddhi Magga)
Because of action cause and craving a being is born. After birth too he accumulates kamma craving and cause. Therefore he is reborn. Thus the Saüsàra or the continuity of life prevails. It is called the Kamma Niyama and it also related to the Citta Niyamaya.
Khandhàna¤ca patipàtã Dhatu ayatanàna ca Abbocchinnaü vattamànaü Saüsàroti pavuccati.
Saüsàra Round of Rebirth, is the unbroken chain of the five-fold Khandha-combination, or aggregates which constantly are changing from moment to moment follow continuously one upon the other through inconceivable periods of time.
Although there is a division of time into past, present and future everybody is living now. We do not live in the past or in the future. We cannot exactly say it is the present. But it moves forward as in the case of the second arm of a watch or as in case of figures that take place in an electronic wrist watch.
Thus what goes to the future is present what goes to the past is also the present. When it goes forward the mind and matter grow. When it goes backwards the mind and matter decay. So growth actually means decay. Thus from the time of birth the mind and matter decay. It is a dual process.
Yathà idaü Nàma Råpaü Paccayato bhavissati Evantãtepi nàgate Abhavittha bhavissati. ( Paññhàna)
Just as now mind and matter exist with cause, they existed even in the past, in future also they will exist.
What the dual process, one can understand by this example is someone travels from Colombo to Anuradhapura by train. When he travels by train he can see the train is moving fast forward and the trees and buildings are moving backward. The same thing happen to our mind and matter.
This is known as Anicca or impermanency. Because of the nature of impermanency there is suffering because of the presence of a mind. Where there is only matter there is no suffering because of the absence of a mind. So where there is a mind and matter there is impermanence and suffering and nothing else. There is no permanent entity in the form of soul or spirit. What prevails is Anàtma (Anicca, Dukkha Anatta).
The Buddha has also mentioned the fact that whatever kamma that we accumulate in this life are being carried over to the next.
Ya¤ca karoti kàyena Vàcàya uda cetasà Tamhi tassa sakaü hoti Ta¤ca àdàya gacchati. Ta¤cassa anugaühoti Chàyàva anapàyinã (Kosala Sanyutha)
Whatever wholesome or unwholesome (kusala, akusala) Kammas that one accumulates by the way of mind speech or action in this life are being carried over to the next.
Eso nidhã sunihito Ajeyya anugàmiko Pahàya gamanãyesu Etaü àdàya gacchati. (Nidhi Kandha Sutta)
Whatever good or bad kammas that you have accumulated, like a treasure, cannot be taken away from you. It follows you and is being carried by you to the next life. How do we carry over these good or bad kammas?
Let us now examine this and the results we derive when we carry over those Kammas to the next life. Let us take the example of the mango tree to elaborate this as well.
If the mango tree in our compound is of “Gira” variety when a fruit that is detached from the branch falls to the ground and produces another mango tree also would be of the “Gira” variety and the fruit that is born by this tree will have the same qualities of the mango fruit that originally fell from the tree. It will also have the same taste and the same shape. This shows that the taste qualities and shape are being carried forward.
Similarly beings also carry forward whatever good or bad kamma that one accumulates in this life and this kamma will determine the nature of the next life.
Suvaõõatà sussuratà Susanthàõa susråpatà âdipacca parivàrà Sabba metena labbhati – (same Sutta)
Golden complexion, softness, correct features, pleasant qualities, leadership and retinue are derived from good kammas.
Mànusikà ca sampattã Deva loke ca yàrati Yàca nibbàõa sampatti Sabba metena labbhati – (same Sutta)
Not only this all comforts and pleasures of the human world and all comforts and pleasures of the world of Devas, ultimately Nibbàna will be achieved by such meritorious actions or kusala kammas which are being carried forward from life to life.
Yàdisaü vapate bãjaü Tàtisaü harate phalaü Kalyaõakàrã kalyàõaü Pàpakàrã ca pàpakaü – (Saüyutta Nikàya)
As you saw, so shall you reap. Good action promotes good results. Bad action promotes bad results.
The mango fruit fell under the same tree. But the ground is not fertile and as such it does not grow properly. It may be a fruitless tree and that depends on the place, where the fruit has fallen.
Someone takes away this mango fruit and plants it in his garden where the place is fertile. He adds compost and waters it. It grows properly. It bears fertile mango fruit. The fertility or infertility depends on the place.
Even so according to the good and bad kamma we will be reborn in hell or heaven. The happiness and unhappiness depend on the place where he was born.
This is happening due to 24 Conditional Relationships called "Pattana"
THE TWENTY FOUR MODES OF CONDITIONAL RELATIONS

Hetu-paccayo - root condition
Arammana-paccayo - object condition
Adhipati-paccayo - predominance condition
Anantara-paccayo - proximity condition
Samanantara-paccayo - contiguity condition
Sahajata-paccayo - co-nascence condition
Arammana-paccayo - mutuality condition
Nissaya-paccayo - support condition
Upanissaya-paccayo - decisive support condition
Purejata-paccayo - pre-nascence condition
Pacchajata-paccayo - post-nascence condition
Asevana-paccayo - repetition condition
Kamma-paccayo - karma condition
Vipaka-paccayo - karma result condition
Ahara-paccayo - nutriment condition
Indriya-paccayo - faculty condition
Jhana-paccayo - jhàna condition
Magga-paccayo - path condition
Sampayutta-paccayo - association condition
Vippayutta-paccayo - dissociation condition
Atthi-paccayo - presence condition
Natthi-paccayo - absence condition
Vigata-paccayo - separation condition
Avigata-paccayo - non-separation condition.

These are twenty-four conditional relations factors that sansara keeps on going transferring the past kamma to the present and making the future kamma.
Below find very important links:

The First one take the basic knowledge about how these conditions working
CONDITIONAL RELATIONS (PATTHANA)

You can find all Abhidhamma 7 Books in pdf download format.
Thripitaka English

Advise not to read this without knowing the Abhidamma Basics. Without knowing Universal factors it is very difficult to understand this Conditional Relations.
To Learn Basics with the circle of samsara read this site linked pages one by one
to understand the Universal Factors.

Abhidharma Basics - Loving Kindness

May Triple Gem Bless you!!!


text:
Can you be a Buddhist if you don't believe in reincarnation?
Can I still consider myself a "Buddhist" if I don't believe in reincarnation??

Which kind of Buddhism? In the a specific kind of Buddhism, there is an answer. Secular Buddhism is a think, and in secular Buddhism, reincarnation is dispensed with. Also, some forms of Buddhism have reincarnation in the inventory of idea, but not all of them give it equal importance, for example Zen is about practicing now (well some version of it) and de-emphasizes heaven & hell & the realms.

Agree with you Matthew, that the different schools you give different levels of importance to that, however I think this is an absolutely key concept of the Buddha's teachings. Just like the 4 noble truths. If you eliminate that from the Dhamma you will end up with something else, not Buddhism, but a different religion. There are points all schools share and this is one of them.

you don't need to believe in cause and effect to attain a higher rebirth. ergo you do not need to be to follow the teachings [of the human vehicle] of the buddha. the idea of needing belief in anything including rebirth is IMVHO antithetical to buddha

I think to call yourself a Buddhist or practice the buddhist teaching you should at least believe in cause and effect.Maybe not in past lives but in the here and now.When you can see cause and effect clearly in the present then you'll infer that the same principle applies after death.
Things you do  in this life will have some effect after.(Future rebirth)
There must be something you did before that caused you to be here now in this life.(Past Birth)
Note: Rebirth is not the same as reincarnation.Please search this site for more info.

There is nothing about cause and effect that implies the same principle applies after death, nor does it imply that I was around to ensure my birth. The cause of my birth need not have been me, just like the cause of a moving rock need not have been the rock itself.

There is nothing about cause and effect that implies the same principle applies after death? The principle of causality states that there is a relationship between cause and effect.If it suddenly stopped at death then ..it wouldn't be cause and effect.It would be cause and death.no effect afterwards.And yet we've observed in our own lives and in meditation cause and effect,But somehow when we die we assume it doesn't apply.We might not have proof of  whether it applies or does not apply after death but we should be able to infer from our own observation of the present life.

I was referring to the anthrocentric view of cause and effect.  Of course rocks still roll, particles still interact and so on.  However, there's nothing in cause and effect that states that I will go on or that I had a hand in my own birth.  People can choose to believe this as a matter of faith (much like they choose to believe in God, channeling and so on), however, it's a matter of faith and is unsupported by science or logic.

Rebirth is one of the key concepts in Buddhism. If you don't believe in Rebirth you don't believe in Samsara (ciclic existence) and probably don't believe in PariNibbana as well. My answer would be: No! It is the same as calling yourself a "Christian" not believing in God or in the ressurection of Jesus.
In Buddhism there are lower fetters that prevent a person from achieving greater results, doubt is one of them. So if you want to progress in the Buddhist path you should believe in Buddha's enlightment and investigate the teachings in meditation when possible.
If believing in Rebirth is too much for you, try to focus in doing good things, keeping morality and meditating, you can also observe the 5 precepts, that will bring you good things even if you don't consider yourself a Buddhist.

-1 It's not as straightforward as this. In Buddhism there is no dogma and one can belong to the wider Sangha without ascribing to any particular views aside from accepting that the Buddha is the Fully Enlightened One. Acceptance of rebirth (which is not reincarnation) comes in due time.

I respectfully disagree with that view. Yes you can participate in the Sangha and support it, but to be a follower of the Buddha, therefore a Buddhist, you should agree on key concepts. I honestly do not Believe the Buddha would advocate your view, however, as I pointed out in the end of the answer you can still do good deeds and live a moral and meaningful life even if you don't believe in it, that is perfectly alright, but being a buddhist without believe in samsara seems odd, to say the least.

There are examples of Buddhist scholars who take the whole idea of reincarnation as metaphorical, e.g. Buddhadasa Bhikku. People's belief systems are wondrously complex and incoherent things. You handwave this complexity and assume that because s/he rejects reincarnation then s/he rejects the whole Buddhist cosmology. This is false. The parent was asking whether s/he can consider him/herself as Buddhist in spite of his/her skepticism. My answer would be a yes. We all have our wrong views and doubts otherwise we'd be enlightened already.

All schools of Buddhism share some fundamental concepts: 4 noble truths, Nibbana, Impermanence, Anatta, Samsara, Rebirth...etc... removing that from Buddhism is transforming the religion in something else, something we want it to be. Rebirth/Samsara/Realms of existance are often mentioned in the suttas/dhammapada etc and are key in this religion.

People are free to use their interpretation like the case you mentioned, I have seen many "strange" school of "Buddhism" with very "unusual" concepts with no basis in any sutta or traditional buddhist texts. But please lets focus on what is known to be Buddhist, i. e. the main schools and known suttas. Using that as a reference you need to believe, or at least make an effort to believe in it by overcoming the fetters... if you completely give up believing in rebirth (that is whay I understood from the question) then you don't look like a Buddhist.. you should at least try.

Buddhadasa Bhikku was a very respected Theravadan monk and scholar. As to the rest, perfectly agreed, but telling people that they cannot consider themselves "Buddhists" unless they accept something they are obviously not ready to accept lacks compassion as it's likely to turn them away. The concept of rebirth is very complex and deep: a superficial acceptance is more harmful than skeptical inquiry.

That is alright to take time... Buddhists should not force buddhism on others, we must walk the path... patiently. But we should not out of compassion sell ideas that are not very accurate. Yes, you don't need to accept it immeditatly, but you need to walk the path in your own pace. If you tell them it is alright to disbelieve it and still be a Buddhist I'm not sure you would be helping them very much...

This is exactly what I am advocating. Many Westerners approach the concept of rebirth very skeptically but eventually come round to see the truth in them in due time. I speak from personal experience.

So you could say: You don't need to believe in it, and you don't need to be a Buddhist. Just take your time... but being a Buddhist, just like any other religion, requires believing.... Buddhism is not western science that only accepts what is verifiable, it is a religion.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

It takes a Buddha's mind to see the full Dhamma and everything else, since we are not Buddha, we have to believe in some parts :)  cheers!

yeah i downvoted too.

Yes of course.
I doubt you can call your belief Buddhist, but maybe in zen (which I have heard informs us to only believe in rebirth if it comes up in practice).
It less like not believing in the resurrection of Christ than not believing in the trinity. This is because IMVHO anyway the Buddha's life did not include parinirvana. It included nirvana, whereas Christs life was not ended.
Anyway that's not to say that you can call yourself Buddhist and be really obnoxious about it lol. But then that doesn't have much to do with religion, it's just general life advice :-)


text:
Is mathematics empty?
Buddhists say that everything is empty.
Is mathematics empty?
I thought that "empty" meant conceptually constructed. But how can the fact (not the expression) 2 + 3 = 5 not be a fact which is true regardless of how we are counting?

Empty in the context of Buddhism means conditioned. The equation 2+3=5 works in Euclidean universes. In other universes, 2+3 may equal something else. In the same way, the interior angles of a triangle contain 180 degrees on a plane, but not on a sphere.

Experiences are empty, wagons are empty, but only in the sense that they don't have a soul, wagons still exist. I think when you apply emptiness, annata to abstractions, you get nonsense, particularly when you apply it to things of ethical consequence, like, is the act of killing empty and the act of not killing empty and thus all morally the same.

I'm not quite inclined to vote as "off-topic" as I can see this as a valid philosophical question (to those inclined on buddhist philosophy, even though practitioners simply disregard it). My rationale is that the Sarvāstivādins regarded conditioned arising as anatta (opposing the Mahāsanghikas), so whether concepts were anatta or not seems to have played a part in the history of buddhist thought. But I think, as it is, the question empowers opinion based answers.

yeah you're totally not understanding that i'm asking about theory of buddhism not practice !!!

In 'pure' mathematics, the truth of an expression like 2+3=5 depends on the definition of the addition operator and the definitions of the numbers such as 1 and 2 and 3 and so on. I think these definitions are 'axiomatic'.
In 'applied' mathematics e.g.when you're adding physical objects (such as apples), then the truth depends on your ability to identity "one apple" (which isn't obvious: in the real world, some apples are smaller, some are attached to the tree, some are rotting, etc.).
Furthermore mathematics is something which you do (sometimes) and which you stop doing: therefore IMO it's conditioned and impermanent.

More generally I think it's a category of knowledge. Here's a (slightly rude or brusque or plainspoken) quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance -- this quote is talking about Aristotle's "dialectic" but it could IMO equally be talking about "mathematics":

"As best I know, Aristotle's opinion is that dialectic comes before
  everything else."
"And from the dialectic come the forms," Phædrus continues, "and from. -
  - " But the Chairman cuts it off. He sees it cannot go his way and dismisses
  it.
He shouldn't have cut it off, Phædrus thinks to himself. Were he a real
  Truth-seeker and not a propagandist for a particular point of view he would
  not. He might learn something. Once it's stated that "the dialectic comes
  before anything else," this statement itself becomes a dialectical entity,
  subject to dialectical question.
Phædrus would have asked, What evidence do we have that the dialectical
  question-and-answer method of arriving at truth comes before anything
  else? We have none whatsoever. And when the statement is isolated and
  itself subject to scrutiny it becomes patently ridiculous. Here is this dialectic,
  like Newton's law of gravity, just sitting by itself in the middle of nowhere,
  giving birth to the universe, hey? It's asinine.
Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric. Rhetoric is
  in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece. That is so
  historically, and that is so by any application of common sense. The poetry
  and the myths are the response of a prehistoric people to the universe
  around them made on the basis of [etc.]

i get what you are saying, "2+3=5" is an expression, a thought. i just wonder if there is no reality to mathematics; i have interesting (i hope!) reasons but won't post them rn

actually i will post n: simply that applied mathematics is empirically adequate but doesn't deal in unique particulars.

Oh God, Dialectic, in the sense of the back and forth exploration of truth... DOES come before everything else: all that is is Experience! Even in one self there is the dialectic of event and awareness of it, leading to actions, and the results of them... And Dialectic DOES arise from Rhetoric: "Story", which is what all of phenomenal reality is: an all-encompassing story, Play, Experience. There really is nothing else at all. Thank you both for your illuminating question and answer!

@ulmo I think maths was invented (and is a fabrication, a thought, sense-objects of the mind).

Emptiness in eastern philosophies usually have a more subtle meaning than we use in the west. Check this wikipedia article on Emptiness. And there are many answers regarding emptiness (sunyata) like this one. There is also an article in wikipedia on Śūnyatā.
The most common understanding on emptiness (on Buddhism) is that it is dependently originated. It means that it does not have inherent meaning or value, but it relies on other things. In mathematics the numbers two, three, five and so on just has meaning because of the number one. And also, the number one only has meaning relying on the other numbers.
In a more practical sense, numbers only has meaning because of the objects, like apples, rocks or sheep. Now, emotions, that have no clear bounds, can't be numerically described. You could say that you felt happy twice today, but you can't express its intensity and form numerically. Then math is true not because it has inherent meaning, but because it works for what it is used.
There is another interpretation I read on this QA (and also in some wikipedia article but I couldn't find it):

[Emptiness is] a flashy way of reminding us that we only define things in relation to what they are not.

In math words, the number one only exist because there is the zero. And there is zero only because of the one. (Although the zero was "created" much after the integer numbers). If we couldn't distinguish between zero and one, no numbers would make sense. There is only happy because there is not-happy. There is only "self" because we define our bounds, we define what is not-me.
Likewise we can only perceive suffering if we know what is not-suffering.
So, when we say that math is empty, we don't mean that it is false or is meaningless. But we mean that is not absolutely true, that it is true in relation to something. Truth is a relation, not an absolute thing.

no i don't mean false or meaningless, i mean lacking in svabhava etc. i've done a tonnnnnee of research on this so your post is getting a downvote for being kinda wrong

Then, could you improve your question? If you are specific on the question, you will probably get specific answers. And also, if you tell me what is wrong in my answer, I can try to fix it.

I liked in the movie "Lucy" where she said, "There are no numbers." Truer words were never spoken. We can see what is false, but can't put in to words what finally reveals itself to be true. Best to not try!

There is a mathematician Gödel who stated back around the 1920s using something we might imagine as "meta-math" that any axiomatic system (so any mathematical system you can create or imagine) cannot satisfy simultaneously two properties.  Which two?

That the system is complete
That the system is consistent

I shall try and state in a useful metaphor these key insights.  I like to imagine a wheel and at the center of the wheel are some basic operations like multiplication, addition, subtraction.  However, it could be anything.  We are basically trying to figure out all the infinite possible combinations of our basic fundamental rules and then see if we can make this infinite variety of conclusions both internally consistent and completely exhaustive of every possible outcome.
This is like trying to build a house with some basic pieces: a roof, a chimney, a floor, a basement, a fridge, a garage, a kitchen.  Now say you try every combination of possibilities such that the fridge ends up on top of the place and the roof ends up on the ground.  This is us trying to make all the exhaustive combinations possible, but in doing so we contradict the terms we have used: fridge is now roof and roof is now floor.
In short: if we tried to make our system demonstrably "complete" then we would invariably end up with a plethora of contradictions.  That is, we could say 1 = 1 and 2 = 2 but once we start saying 2 = 1 and 1  = 2 to get "completeness" then we have contradiction (non-consistency)
Likewise, if we want to have consistency (1 = 1 and 2 = 2 and 5 = 5 and 4-3 = 1) we cannot have completeness guaranteed, because we omit terms and therefore don't know if there is a true term we have not yet discovered.
So the basic idea of Gödel's incompleteness and completeness theorems are that mathematics cannot be both consistent (or coherent) and complete which means that mathematics, is in fact, empty.
Any postulate is empty of its own being because it is necessarily dependent on other terms to relatively define its value/position/significance.
Any postulate is also empty of an absolutely true nature because there is no way to have absolutely true consistency, for that would require completeness, and Gödel showed that you can only have one or the other, like a scrambled egg or an unbroken egg, you cannot have both unless you sacrifice consistency (the egg is both unbroken and scrambled?) or completeness (just one or the other).
So in short, all mathematical systems must abide as either incomplete or inconsistent which is [another reason] why mathematics in itself is not graspable and not inherent.
This, however, is a long way to arrive at the basic truth that all phenomena are empty of their own being (they have inter-being as Thich Naht Hanh says).

Love the post, I'd add Tarski's undefinability theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem to Gödel's incompleteness one too - may be a bit simpler for non math heads as well! :)

@IlyaGrushevskiy "math cannot prove math" is a recent realization!  how splendid Tarski figured it out (infigured it?) in 1936!

What is emptiness? just other concept of empti-less.Do you agree with me.yes yes think deep in to emptiness and you will see empti-less.

One does not really exist, changes, falles appart. How illusionary that 3+5=8 and to play with it, as if it would be something real.
May one be able to show my person a single thing, one thing?

"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
SN 22.95

And now even play further:

"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?

Can one provide a number for Sūnyatā?
Mathematic like philosopy is just the undertaking to manage around as possible needed till the error is either no more seen or falls into an allowed agreed spectrum of tolerance = convention.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

2+3=5 is only a mental construct.
In practice, depending on the situation, the numbers are represented by degree of accuracy.eg 2.000001+3.000001
Einstein has also proven in a black hole, time stops. Physics cannot apply.
Until it can be disproved. everything is empty..

Is mathematics empty?

Everything that is not Nibbana, thereby belonging to Conditioned Reality, is empty of any inherent existence.

It seems that there are certain relationships among forms and phenomena that we call "mathematical" relationships. These relationships can be seen to be consistent and without any need for axioms to support them, they are tautologies and ontological. Axiomatic systems fail at some point due to their eventual self referential nature and containing axioms that cannot be proved within the given system. The relationships that are referred to above existed long before any human mind appeared on the scene to discover them and give them a rational form...
Regards,
B.W.

Welcome to Buddhism SE! How does your answer relate to Buddhist theory?


text:
Did the Buddha teach the Mahayana
I understand that according to some "schools" at least historical ones that the historical Buddha didn't teach the Mayanaha.
Is that true?

According to the academics or according to Mahayana doctrine, or according to non-Mahayana doctrine? The various camps have predictable answers, the academics put the writing of the Mahayana Sutras hundreds of years after the passing of the Buddha.

what is meant by "historical school" (and what is a "non-historical" one?)?

At the time of the Buddha there were no schools, only one "type" of Buddhism was known: The teachings of the Buddha, the discourses and verses spoken by him.
Buddha taught the Dhamma-Vinaya, he did not teach Theravada, Mahayana or Zen.
After the Buddha passed away to PariNibbana, the monks got together in councils to unify and register the teachings of the master, they put together the suttas, the Vinaya, the verses (Dhammapada), Jakata stories etc.
After many decades there was a split in the Sangha due to different interpretations of the teachings and that was when this discussion of Mahayana and Theravada began. As Buddhism reached different countries, different versions of the religion appeared addapting Buddhism to the culture and older religions of the country. Tibetan Buddhism is a good example, it still has traces of Astrology and Shamanism in some of its schools (this is not criticism, I'm not claiming this or that school is right or wrong, I tried not to take any side on this answer and respect all views)

Yes, some schools say that, but according to Tibetan Buddhism the teachings of Mahayana were actually given by Buddha, during the second turning of the wheel, at the Vultures Peak.  The emphasis is in the concept of emptiness and boddhichita or universal compassion.
In the third turning of the wheel, there is not a specific place mentioned.  They deal specially with the Buddha Nature that all sentient beings possess.

It's impossible to know what the Buddha taught, as even the earliest known writings were written long after he passed on.  However, many schools claim they were the original words of the Buddha, either as a bid for credibility or as part of sectarian disputes.
Don't take any such claims seriously.


text:
What is "stillness" or samatha?
Is a "still" mind: a mind without any thoughts; or a mind without a certain style of thoughts; or a mind which has lost a certain way of connecting to thoughts?
I assumed it was a lessening of conscious habit rather than thought per se.

All thought is movement and a still mind is one that has no movement in it except when required.
When you need to use the memory - "what's 1+1" or "where's my car keys" - the mind provides the answer. It's only the innecessary thinking that stops. Innecessary thinking is thinking that isn't required by the immediate situation.
This also means thoughts don't have the same energy anymore - the energy to make you feel emotional for example.
99.9% of thoughts in a normal undisciplined mind are created by habit, circumstances and old emotional pains.


text:
Metaphors in and out Buddhism
One of the questions / answers recently posted here was about "storing" mental states for later.
Of course this isn't Buddhist, in the sense that it does not literally describe a selfless person.
But it could be metaphorical, couldn't it? The idea that the mind is like a computer, even though there are dis-analogous elements to that term, there are overlaps - like the way that persons have access to the past in memory, as if they were "stored".
So my question is: are any of the Buddhas actual teachings only metaphorical?

Yes.  There are 2 truths; the relative and the ultimate.  Thus, some are explicitly metaphorical or practical, and some "point out" the nature of mind.

This city (body) is built of bones, plastered with flesh and blood;
  within are decay and death, pride and jealousy. - [Dhp. 150]

The Dhammapada is full of metaphors, similes and comparisons. It is a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form and one of the most widely read and best known Buddhist scriptures. Here's a good article on that.

From the Dhammapada verses 153-154:

I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to
  attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) 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.

Who is the house builder? Does that refer to God? Click the link above to find out.