text:
Why is Buddhism followed mainly outside of India when it originated there?
India is the original land of Buddhism, but it is followed/practiced more outside its country of birth. Are there any reasons for this?

I feel like this is the case with most religions. For instance, Christianity is practiced more outside of the middle east than it is within the middle east. Actually now that I think about it, this applies for lots of fields and practices such as martial arts, olympic sports, philosophies, and even math and science. Soccer (futbol) is practiced more outside it's country of origin these days then within its original location.

Brahmins were rarely involved in any wars (unless they were in the ruling position). The Vaishyas were never oppressed. In fact, they were wealthy land owners, money lenders etc. Hinduism is not a religion, its a culture. Hindus never oppressed any other religion, but have been oppressed.
Taken from http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Why-did-Buddhism-vanish-from-India-1.aspx :
I have listed down six reasons why Buddhism vanished from India. It is followed by the words of Swami Vivekananda & Dr B R Ambedkar.

The main cause was the neglect by the monks of this life and its values. While the Buddhist monks realized that everyone was not fit or could not become a monk or nun, they paid attention only to the life of a monk and not to the life of a householder. Which meant that they focused on the life of a monk, which is a life of inwardness as compared to that of a householder, which is one of outwardness. Now, both these aspects need examination, study, guidance and control. It is not enough to tell a householder that this existing life is only a stepping-stone to the life of a monk. Why and how is it so and what relation it bears to realities has to be explained. Instead Buddhist philosophers began to teach that this life was nothing but a value of tears and misery. While some forms of Vedanta taught the same philosophy, the attitude of Mimamsa (philosophy of action) and the Epics saved Hinduism from the fate that overtook Buddhism in India. Many great Indians were impacted by spiritual teachings but “unless there were some codes extolling the values of the world, they tended to become one-sidedly inwardly”.
Another reason was the admission of women into monasteries and the more or less indiscriminate conversion of men, women into monks and nuns. While true renunciation and celibacy were appreciated, people wanted to see them well practiced. When people supported these monasteries with their hard-earned money, they did not want its residents to live in luxury and enjoyment, virtues, which were condemned. If monks and nuns had lived by the rules that they were taught, people would have supported them inspite of any hardship that they had to face.
The next reason was the deterioration in the political and economic life of the country. Monasteries were supported by the people and the Kings e.g. Ashoka. Now, when a dynasty fell or a king died, the next in line might not give the same degree of support. The king’s thinkers realized that their defeat was due to the loss of their best fighters, leaders, who had become monks. This made the country an easy prey to the foreign invader. Coincidence or otherwise, India’s first foreign invasion by the Greeks took place in 327 B.C. a couple of centuries after Emperor Asoka’s peace movement.
Buddhism existed in the monasteries and unlike the dharmaasutras (ethical codes) lacked a moral code. So when monasteries disappeared, Buddhism disappeared. The invasion of the Muslims and the ruthless destruction of Buddhist monasteries extinguished the lamp of Buddhism in North India. The wanton destruction of the great monastery of Uddandapura (Bihar) and the wholesale massacre of its monks might make us visualize how the great monasteries of Nalanda, Vikramasila and others met with a tragic end.
The extreme asceticism practiced and popularized by both Buddhism and Jainism disturbed the social life of India. Magadha, the seat of many imperial dynasties, became Bihar, the land of monasteries (viharas). There was nothing in these religions to emphasize the importance of life in this world and its values. These causes led to a bloodless revolt by the orthodox in the eight-century a.d. The revolt was staged from two sides, the Brahmanic and the Upanisadic. Kumarila was the leader of the former and Sankara of the latter. Kumarila succeeded in reviving a strong positive attitude towards the world and its values and all that could be called human and activistic. On the other hand, Sankara said that everything that was good in Buddhism already existed in the Upanishads. In fact, Gaudapada, the grand teacher of Sankara, unified the current spanda (vibration) doctrine of Saivism, the vijnana (mind) doctrine of the Buddhists and the Atman doctrine of the Upanishads in his Mandukyakarikas and made the way easy for Sankara to assimilate and absorb Buddhism. Thus, there remained no justification for its separate existence in India; it had no social ethics and consequently, no hold over society. It could not stand alone as a spiritual discipline as it was shown to be part of the Upanishads.
Quoting Swami Vivekananda “ Thus, inspite of preaching mercy to animals, inspite of the sublime ethical religion, inspite of the discussions about the existence or non-existence of a permanent soul, the whole building of Buddhism tumbled down piece-meal and the ruin was simply hideous. The most hideous ceremonies, the most obscene books that human hands ever wrote or the human brain ever conceived, have all been the creation of the degraded Buddhism. The Tartars and the Baluchis and all the hideous races of mankind that came to India, became Buddhists and assimilated with us, brought their national customs and the whole of our national life became a huge page of the most horrible, bestial customs. Sankara came and showed that the real essence of Buddhism and that of Vedanta are not very different but that the disciples did not understand the master and have degraded themselves, denied the existence of soul and one God and have become atheists. That was what Sankara showed and all the Buddhists began to come back to their old religion”.
Buddhism adopted various thoughts and beliefs between the first century B.C. and the sixth century a.d. Some Buddhists adopted the tantric sadhanas and distorted them for the sake of enjoyment and comfort. The highly advanced philosophy of tantric sadhana is difficult to understand without the guidance of a proper teacher. This undigested knowledge of tantra, including the use of wine, meat, fish, gestures and physical union led these Buddhist followers to their downfall. Also, the distortions of Buddhism produced a variety of schools, which were not pure Buddhist schools but contained a variety of practices. To give you an idea of the syntheses between Vedanta and Buddhism, the concept of Maya in Vedanta in borrowed from Buddhism. Sankara accepted the logical connotation of Maya just as it was given by the Buddhists. Jainism was saved by tacitly allowing its members to become part of the Hindu fold by adopting rules of conduct of the third caste, namely Vaisyas or traders.
Quoted from ‘Dr Ambedkar Life & Mission by Dhananjay Keer’. Dr B R Ambedkar addressed delegates of Young Men’s Buddhist Association in May 1950 at Colombo on ‘Rise & fall of Buddhism in India’ - ‘Buddhism in its material force had disappeared. But as a spiritual force it still exists’. As regards Hinduism he said it went through three phases, Vedic religion, Brahmanism and Hinduism. It was during the Brahmanism period that Buddhism was born. It was not true that after the days of Shankaracharya Buddhism was dead in India. It was going on for years together. In fact Shankaracharya and his teacher were both Buddhists he added. While he was digging material on the subject for the decline/vanish of Buddhism from India the reasons were – adoption of some rituals & practices from Buddhism by the Vaishnava & Shaiva cults, which were vociferous in their propaganda against Buddhism. During the invasion by Allauddin Khilji thousands of priests in Bihar were massacred and consequently some of them fled for their lives to Tibet, China & Nepal. In the meanwhile, the majority of Buddhists went over to Hinduism. The third cause was that Buddhism was difficult to practice while Hinduism was not. Reason four was that the political atmosphere in India had been unfavorable to the advancement of Buddhism he concluded.

But according to Hindu scholars the fall of Buddhism was due to many reasons. Owing to universalistic ambition its spread was everywhere but it had geographical center nowhere. It discarded all national gods & godmen & proclaimed Buddha the greatest of all gods. As long as it reacted as a reformative flank in India, Buddhism gained ground but when it began to act against the Vedic religion, which was the national religion of the majority, Buddhism lost sympathy in India. The Vedic Hindus fought the Muslims bravely and did not flee to any other country. But the Buddhists when attacked, having a center nowhere, fled to different countries and even it is said acclaimed the invasion of India by non-Hindus with the ringing of bells. Besides its godlessness, its over-emphasis on redemption, its sad tone, its unconcern with the world & neglect of family checked rather than fostered enterprise. Quote ends.
Books referred to 1. Introduction to Comparative Philosophy by P T Raju. 2. History & Culture of Indian People by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan.

Great answer. Besides the social and cultural history the crucial point seems to be your comment, "On the other hand, Sankara said that everything that was good in Buddhism already existed in the Upanishads". .

"Brahmins were rarely involved in any wars (unless they were in the ruling position" What is the historic proof of this?

Swami Vivekanada was not a historian and how can you mix his views with Dr Ambedkar who was a very snautch critique of Hinduism and in his book Philosophy of Hinduism he called inequality and irrationality as the soul of the Hinduism?

India (the modern country) didn't exist when the Buddha was born.
The Buddha was born near modern-day Northern India or Nepal.
Wikipedia's Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent says,

[This] refers to a gradual process of dwindling and replacement of Buddhism in India, which ended around the 12th century. According to Lars Fogelin, this was "not a singular event, with a singular cause; it was a centuries-long process."
The decline of Buddhism has been attributed to various factors, especially the regionalisation of India after the end of the Gupta Empire (320–650 CE), which led to the loss of patronage and donations as Indian dynasties turned to the services of Hindu Brahmins. Another factor were invasions of north India by various groups such as Huns, Turco-mongols and Persians and subsequent destruction of Buddhist institutions such as Nalanda and religious persecutions. Religious competition with Hinduism and later Islam were also important factors.

This History of the Delhi Sultanates says,

Between 1160 and 1187, Muhammad al-Ghuri conquered the Ghaznavid Empire; he continued to expand his territory, and in 1192 he razed the Buddhist temple complex at Nalanda to the ground, in effect terminating the history of Buddhism in India.

It references a student's paper on the The History of Persecution of the Buddhist Faith, which includes,

Among the destroyed temples, 2/3 were Buddhists, and this was critical to Buddhism's ability to remain as a formal religion because they had already lost all but a few institutions in Nalanda, Odantapuri, and Vikramasila, over the previous centuries. (20)
The Nalanda University, a great Buddhist center of learning, was raided by Turkic Muslim invaders under Bakhtiyar Khalji, a general of the Turkish commander Qutb-ud-din Aybak, in 1193. He committed documented executions, harassed and tortured erudite monks, killing 15,000 scholars and 200 faculty of the University. (21) The campus and invaluable works of art including the images of the Buddha were destroyed and the enormous manuscript library of the University was burned down. He also destroyed the monastries in Vikramshila, which were in modern Bihar, as well as many monastries in Odantapuri in 1197. As he persecuted Buddhism, he supported Muslim missionaries and made the biggest number of converts to Islam under his reign. (22) By the end of the 12th century, many Buddhist monks retreated to Nepal, Sikkim, Tibet and Southern India. (23)
Persecution of Buddhism was accelerated in this period by Brahmin revivalists who kicked the Buddhist monks out of Buddhist monasteries and temples in order to transform the places into Hindu institutions; they were seeking protection from Muslim invasions by facilitating the installation of Brahmin gods. (24) No less than 1000 Buddhist temples were appropriated by Hindus, etc.

The (numbers) in the quote above are references to various history books etc.
There's a Wikipedia article (whose neutrality is currently disputed) titled Persecution of Buddhists which includes,

In 1200 Muhammad Khilji, one of Qutb-ud-Din's generals destroyed monasteries fortified by the Sena armies, such as the one at Vikramshila. Many monuments of ancient Indian civilization were destroyed by the invading armies, including Buddhist sanctuaries[45] near Benares. Buddhist monks who escaped the massacre fled to Nepal, Tibet and South India.[46]

... and continues in a similar way.
Perhaps these are the reasons: i.e. they're historical reasons.
It might seem as if it would be interesting to try to answer this question by discussing 'motive' (e.g. "why would people prefer to be Hindu than to be Buddhist"), comparative religious views (e.g. about 'just war'; and about how well the religion is integrated into the broader society at large), and comparative values (which religion is more useful, more attractive, more true) but I expect that would be subjective opinion, off-topic and unhelpful.

I'd also mention this answer to the question, Were Buddhists murdered en masse during the first Muslim conquest of India?
It references a thesis which says that Buddhism declined (not especially violently) during the 200 years or so following the first Muslim invasion -- i.e. in the 8th century AD -- mostly because urban merchants (who previously supported Buddhist monks) converted to Islam for various reasons; whereas the more-Hindu farmers were relatively unaffected.

"Majority of hindus were unaffected some welcomed their conquerers" This is a most comical remark. The answer lies in the basic philosophies of the two religions. The buddhist belief in Ahimsa and Hindus belief in protecting Dharma at any cost as told in Bhagvat Geeta. In fact Buddhists were soft targets for invaders. This must have shattered the belief of many buddhists of that time.

@gaj I edited to try to give better-referenced answer.

All of the human history is full of madness, immorality, ferocity and darkness and today it continues. Fortunately Buddhism survived outside of India and it brings it's light to us today. Thanks for sharing these informations with us.

A misleading chart fabricated and stuck here: 1. Theravada as a name for Buddhist sect 1st appeared in Dipavamsa (written ~500CE by Ceylon Mahavihara sect, they self-declared the descendant of Sthaviravāda [Pali: Theravada]). Official use of Theravada probably started by Theosophical Society in ~1800CE, before it was called Mahavihara, with 2 others, Abhayagirivihara & Jetavanavihara, all split from the Tambapaṇṇiya sect (old name for Sri Lanka). There in reality never appeared a so-called "Theravada" Buddhism on Indian subcontinent.

Sri Lanka received Buddhism not earlier than King Ashoka (~250BCE) and even that bit depended on the fairy-tale of Mahavamsa regarding Prince Mahinda. 3. Mahayana started within 100 years after Buddha entered Nirvana, the 2 earliest schools (appeared ~200BCE) Mahasamgika and Sthaviravāda both carried the Mahayana doctrines. But, it looks like the high score of this post vested with this wish-fulfilling charming misleading chart. Looks like Buddhanet really a net casted to capture the Buddha for its wishful fabricating, though for accuracy learnt one will suggest to remove the chart.

@Mishu米殊 I replaced that chart with a different reference (which doesn't try to distinguish different schools of Buddhism).

I suggest to keep the chart because most votes were for that, with the added few words about the chart's origin those who wanted to understand can have enough information to understand @ChrisW

The question isn't about schools, it's about when and why Buddhism ended in India. I think the new reference is more on-topic, and also fits better with (introduces and helps to support) the later and last parts of the answer.

Well, but. It will be very unfair to those who casted votes to the chart, that's all

I think the invasions of India cannot be a sufficient reason for the decline of Buddhism. Much more is needed to destroy a religion than the destruction of holy sites (think about the followers!). Apart from that, Hinduism must have been at least as offensive to the piety of Muslim invaders - if not more offensive for obvious polytheistic idolatry - than Buddhism must have been, while Hinduism was not at all destroyed in India by the invaders. Moreover, the conquest of the south of the subcontinent could not happen before the fall of the religiously tolerant Vijayanagara Empire in the 17th century. I think the shortcomings of a monocausal theory of Muslim invaders destroying has been sufficiently shown.
For a time stretching from shortly after the Buddhas Nirvana to at the very least the beginning of the Common Era, Buddhism had been the most vigorous social, intellectual and religious movement of India (referring here to the Indian civilization, not to a state-entity). This flourishing opened out into a long decline paired with a "renaissance" of Hinduism (or rather: establishment of Hinduism) and Sanskrit learning paired with an increasingly powerful position of Brahmins in the political architecture of the Indian states. The reasons for this are rather complicated, you can get a not too much in-depth glance of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India
while if you want to know more in depth, check the sources given there or (maybe) any other academic source on history of Buddhism.

Buddhism declined from India in the past, due to assimilation.
Firstly, Buddhism had flourished in ancient India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, but eventually, the Buddhist locals became subject to "hard" assimilation by foreign invaders. See the Wikipedia articles Buddhism in Afghanistan, Buddhism in Pakistan and also this article section. This is not unlike the disappearance of Zoroastrianism from its homeland of Persia.
Secondly, Buddhism suffered from "soft" assimilation into Hinduism.
Before Buddhism (around 500 BCE), the historic Vedic religion was mainly focused on sacrifices and rituals. It did not have robust philosophy and metaphysics. After encountering Buddhism and the shramanic movement (which includes Jainism), the Upanishadic movement rose in India from 500 - 200 BCE. After this, the Vedanta movement rose as part of Classical Hinduism from 200 BCE - 1100 CE. The Hindu text Brahma Sutras that attempted to refute Buddhist and other non-Hindu teachings, was written between 200 BCE and 400 CE. See this question for details.
Adi Shankara, the famous reformer who revived Hinduism and consolidated Advaita Vedanta, lived around 800 CE. Advaita is the philosophical school of Vedanta that is closest to Buddhism. Even in those days, Hindu philosophical opponents of Shankara accused of him of being a crypto-Buddhist. Through Advaita Vedanta, Hinduism assimilated Buddhism by adapting parts of its philosophy unto itself. Some Hindus even claim that Mahayana's emptiness (shunyata) is exactly the same as Advaita's Transcendental Ultimate Reality. See this answer for details.
On the other hand, the Dvaita Vedanta school, which has completely incompatible philosophy to Buddhism, assimilated Buddhism by making Buddha an incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu. The Hindu text Bhagavata Purana written between 500 CE and 1000 CE states that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha to delude the immoral atheists into living ethical lives. According to them, the Buddha tricked atheists into taking refuge in the Buddha and serving the Buddha, who is actually God in disguise. More info on this is available on this page.
Hindu philosophers also claimed that  Brahma Sutras, Bhagavata Purana and other such texts were divinely authored a long time before the arrival of the Buddha. This was one way to convince Buddhists that Vishnu's incarnation as the Buddha was foretold by the Hindu scriptures even before his birth. This was debunked by professional academicians.
In my personal opinion (which may lean towards Theravada), the final reason for Buddhism's "soft" assimilation into Hinduism is the development of concepts in Mahayana Buddhism that sound very similar to concepts in Hinduism, like the Eternal Buddha, Adi Buddha (Primordial Buddha), Buddha Nature (tathagatagarbha), storehouse consciousness (alayavijnana) and beings like Avalokiteshvara etc.
In his book "Indian Philosophy: A Critical Survey" on pages 63 - 64, Professor Chandradhar Sharma wrote very misleadingly about Buddhism:

Buddha is here transformed (by Mahayana Buddhism) into God and  worshipped  as
  such.  He  is  identified  with  transcendental  reality and  is  said
  to  possess  the  power of reincarnation.  The  Buddha  is the
  Absolute Self running through all the so-called individual selves.  He
  is the  Noumenon  behind  all  phenomena.  ....
Dry asceticism of the Hinayana is replaced by an enlightened and
  loving interest in this world. The negative and individual conception
  of Nirvana is replaced by the positively blissful  and  universal
  conception of it.  The  denial  of God  is  replaced with  the
  Buddha’s  Divinity.  The  explosion  of  matter  and  mind  by
  reducing them to the series of momentary atoms and momentary ideas
  respectively, is replaced by the admission of the relative reality of
  both, the  transcendental  reality  being  the  Absolute,  the
  Luminous  Body  of the  Buddha.  The greatness of the  Mahayana lies
  in its spirit of selfless service  of humanity,  its  accommodating
  spirit and its  missionary zeal.  The  Mahayanists  are  reasonably
  proud  of their  faith  as  a  progressive and  dynamic  religion
  which  throbs  with  vitality  because  it  has  the capacity  to
  adapt  itself  with  the  changing  environmental  conditions,
  preserving its essentials  intact. .....
It (Hinayana schools) has ignored some important implications in the
  teachings of  the  Master and  has misinterpreted  many.  Some  of the
  main doctrines of the Buddha have been taken to their reductio ad
  absurdum pitch. As a matter of fact, there was nothing in the
  teachings of the Buddha which would seriously  militate against the
  Upanisads. The Lamp of Dharma bequeathed by the Buddha to his
  disciples was borrowed from the Upanisads. But the Hinayana made
  the constant and the luminous light of this Lamp flickering  and
  faint.

This was refuted by Banaras Hindu University Professor T. R. V. Murti's statement (quoted below) in "Problem of Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedanta" (page 9):

It has been the fashion to consider that the differences between the
  Madhyamika śūnyatā and Brahman are rather superficial and even verbal,
  and that the two systems of philosophy are almost identical. At least
  Professor Radhakrishnan thinks so, and Stcherbatsky's and Dasgupta's
  views are not very different. I hold a contrary view altogether: that
  in spite of superficial similarities in form and terminology, the
  differences between them are deep and pervasive.

This was also refuted by eminent German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.

Buddhism survived in the world through three routes - Tibetan Buddhism (and the preservation of the Tibetan Buddhist canon), East Asia (through transmission of Mahayana texts to China) and Theravada Buddhism's revival through Buddhism's own version of Adi Shankara, Buddhaghosa.
Buddhism has experienced a limited revival in India due to three reasons. The first is the conversion of low caste Dalits to Buddhism by Dr. Ambedkar (see this question). The second is the popularization of Vipassana meditation by S. N. Goenka. The third is the relocation of the Dalai Lama to Dharamsala, India.

One of the main reasons for the decline of Buddhism in India is that it was engulfed by Hinduism in the years following the death of Buddha.
India, before the time of Buddha was a Brahminical society dominated by Brahmins and Kshatriyas who were at the top of a four level caste system, the others being Vaishyas followed by Shudras. The Indian society was rife with rites and rituals which could be only performed by Brahmins. A householder throughout his existence was supposed to carry out various sacrifices which included animal slaughter and thus the vasihyas and the shudras suffered the most during pre-Buddha period. Now Buddha's teachings gave no value to rites and rituals and also he preached non-violence. This made Buddhism much popular among the vaishyas and shudras. This was of course a threat to Brahminical dominance and thus the livelihood of the priestly class. Hence there were many attempts by the priestly class to sabotage Buddhist teachings even during the time of Buddha but they were unsuccessful.
After his death, they seem to have found success. Although Buddha negated the existence of God as is accepted in Hinduism, later Hindu fanatics made out Buddha himself to be a Hindu God. They declared him to be the 9th avatar of Vishnu, a Hindu God.

What do you mean by Hindu fanatics? And what do you mean by Brahminical society?

I think he means Hindu orthodoxy who feared dulling of their hold and authority on the people viewing Buddhist philosophy as a conquering principle.

Every inspired leader lives spontaneously in their life and instills a fresh experience of awakening to any who are ready to be broken open so to speak to this moment.
What happens after they are gone, too often, is a division into antagonistic camps. This can squash the original innocence of awakening.
When Bodhidharma brought the buddhist awakening to China it found a fresh environment ready for catching on and flourished.
Dogen brought the dharma to Japan but was rebuffed initially and lived far away in the mountains until the hungry dharma seekers came to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TinmRC2BS00
The history of Dogen is a fascinating 2 hour long movie not about him but acted out as he and his followers are believed to have lived.
What really determines where an idea is stopped is where it crashes into the power grid of its day.
And then sometimes it transmutes again. Is that we are now?

Note:(1) This is a very controversial topic in India and Indian diaspora and India is ruled currently by Far- Right with a huge voter base and a lot of times in the history of India far- right people has been at the helm of the nation in bureucracy, politics and in Academia.(2) So, I request the Moderators to protect the answer from defiling by rouges.(3) Any bad comment or comments in poor taste will not be replied to.
"How can we explain the fall of Buddhism in India, which is the geographic origin of Buddhism?
Were there ever any direct conflicts between Hinduism and Buddhism?"
Brahmin caste and their supporting castes were responsible for the fall of Buddhism in India. I will support my this  argument with sources from History and Philosophy books.
Excerpts from the book Debrahmanising History, by Braj Ranjan Mani(https://books.google.com/books/about/Debrahmanising_History.html?id=hjxuAAAAMAAJ#:~:text=Debrahmanising%20History%20Is%20A%20Sweeping,History%2C%20From%20Buddha%20To%20Ambedkar.) , Chapter 4 , Chapter Name: Buddhist India : The mauryans were not interested in giving brahmans preferential treatment and certain immunities that they demanded as their birth right. Ashoka introduced the policy of equality in civil law and criminal law for everyone( Page 129-130).
In another edict,  Ashoka  exposed the Bhudevas ( gods on Earth ) as false gods. In Ashoka's rule there was indifference to Sanskrit, the language of Brahmanic Priestcraft. Such a policy hit the interests of the brahmins who depended on the donations and gifts given to them in various rites and sacrifices. In other words, the superiority of the brahmans and the credibility of the sacerdotal literature were under threat.
The Brahmins retaliated . Led by Pushyamitra Sunga, the commander of the last mauryan king Bridhadratha, they hatched a conspiracy. Pushyamitra gave his daughter in marriage to the king, got coveted post and cold - bloodedly beheaded his master during a military parade in 185 BCE... After burning monastries in and around Patliputra he went up to Sakala and offered a reward of 100 dinars or gold pieces for the head of every Buddhist monk.... That he unleashed a reign of terror against buddhists is corroborated by several sources including the Tibetan and Chinese records. From Chinese authorities it is known that many Buddhists still do not pronounce the name of Pushyamitra without a curse( cited in Ambedkar, ibid). Rejecting the established trajectory of Indian history, Ambedkar in his incomplete work The Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India has made the conflict between the Buddhism and Brahminism the corner stone of restructuring the past. ( K.P. Jayswal , too in his Manu and yajnavalkya [1930: 40-1], has termed the brahmanical reaction the 'orthodox counter -revolution'). Ambedkar's contention that the process of the decline of Buddhism in India was a violent one ( not a process of  gradual adjustment and absorption into Hinduism as is routinely potrayed by the elite historians ) has been corroborated by ample archaeological and textual evidiences in Verardi's brilliant work. (2011) ( Page 130- 131).
Ambedkar says: " Now if one bears in mind the fact that the Brahmanic Revolution by Pushyamitra took place in 185 BCE there remains no doubt that the code known as Manusmriti was promuglated by Pushyamitra as embodying the principles of Brahmanic Revolution"
Page 132: Ambedkar cites some verses from the Manusmriti to show the author's antipathy to Buddhism.... Ambedkar sees parallel between the Muslim invasions of Hindu India" and brahmanic invasions of " Buddhist India". ..., the brahmanic invaders of Buddhist India, the Shungas, the Kanvas and the Andhras fought among themselves  for superiority but had one common goal to destroy buddhism. ...
In his analysis of destruction of Buddhism , Ambedkar also mentions a "subversion theory". ... the subversion involved the insidious role of brahman - Buddhists. ... The higher philosophies of both Buddhism and brahmin began to converge in essence. ... In other words , they continued to be brahmins despite accepting buddhism and probably observed their caste excluvism as well. They produced  doctrines akin to the metaphisyics of brahmanism which culminated in the Mahayana school...
Page 133:  The Mahayanists transformed the Buddha into a  god, introduced his several incarnations. ... even tried to co-opt Buddha in the brahmanical mould by depicting him as the ninth avatar of Vishnu.
Similar research is also done by Swami Dharma Teertha in his book History of Hindu Imperialism:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54301472-history-of-hindu-imperialism
Kings like Harsh Vardhan , Kansihka who supported Buddhism were killed by Brahmins and their supporting castes by hatching conspiracies.( Source: the above mentioned book by Swami Dharma Teertha).

Same answer by me on History Stackexchange:https://history.stackexchange.com/a/69543/52352


text:
Did Buddhism ever go through a period of relatively high violence?
Catholicism/Christianity had the dark ages and the inquisition in which 'heretics' were prosecuted with violence.  One could claim that Islam is currently in a period of high violence.  Did Buddhism ever go through such a period?

Where Buddhists persecuted non-Buddhists or where Buddhists were persecuted? There is also the category of socially sanctioned (war, e.g. Zen at war/the Tibetan Army) and non-sanctioned violence done while incidentally being Buddhist (ethnic rioting).

Buddhism experience some very harsh periods. E.g.

The destruction of Nalanda
Decline of Buddhism in India due to many factors
Kalinga Magha's invasion
Persecution of Buddhists

Buddhism would have gone through some violent times in the Malay Peninsula also as it was predominantly Buddhist before.
Following may also be interesting:

Decline of Buddhism in Thailand
Buddhism in the World Today

Well, Buddhists countries have had violent periods just as everyone else has, but I can't really think of any major violence committed by Buddhists with a religious motivation, at least not on a large scale. In China there was a rebellion called the Red Turban Rebellion that was caused by a strange breakaway Buddhist group called the White Lotus sect and they managed to overthrow the Yuan dynasty, and one of their military leaders took the throne as the Hongwu emperor. I don't know whether or not their rebellion was motivated by religion or just opportunism though.

When Buddhist tried to spread their religion into Japan, there were countless number of battles throughout Japan between Shinto and Buddhism. Today, Buddhism is regarded as a peaceful religion but it was introduced into Japan in a violent way and today it is integrated into Japanese people's faith as if that is their belief(when foreigners tries to identify their faith) when their original faith and still is Shintoism.

Which centuries (in history) are you talking about, or ... can you cite any reference with any details of what/when/who you're talking about?

I was taught this, I can try looking for it though.

Can you? Wikipedia's article on Shinto, for example, seems to describe the period in which Buddhism was introduced (i.e. from the "Kofun Period" through to the "Nara Period") as Buddhism and Shinto co-existing at the imperial court ... nothing there about literal battles between Shinto and Buddhism. And this description of the Assimilation process doesn't mention any violent battles, either.

There's another, separate mention (500 years later) of "warrior monks" -- but that talks about disputes between Buddhist monasteries (not disputes with Shintoism), and maybe some involvement in the ongoing feudal/inter-clan warfare

There is this Japanese source maybe you can try: http://kojiki.co/blog/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E5%AE%97%E6%95%99%E6%88%A6%E4%BA%89%E3%80%8C%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99vs%E7%A5%9E%E9%81%93%E3%80%8D%EF%BC%9D%E3%80%8C%E8%98%87%E6%88%91%E6%B0%8Fvs%E7%89%A9%E9%83%A8%E6%B0%8F/    I can ask the person later(if she is available to) for a better source

That does seem to be talking about the period of the earliest introduction to Japan, ending at about the time of Prince Shōtoku; and some rivalry between nobles (some of whom descended from Nigihayahi).

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
is chocolate an allowable after noon?
i recently went to a meeting with some bhikkhus, and they served the monks a small dish with butter slices and little chocolate squares... i think it was dark chocolate if that matters.
So anyway, i was suprised to see it and was wondering other views on this.
and the underlying point to the question... i am obviously looking for loop holes for a snack-ish type thing before bed.

ADENDUM-  i can also note that a vegan raw foodist that i knew made chocolate... it was one of the few treats allowable for his diet... so i would imagine the right kind of chocolate might have been prepared under the right conditions. What might they be?

Cocoa is a powder made from the seed from the cocoa tree. Since seeds fall into the category of food, it would not be allowed outside of the morning hours.
Chocolate also has narcotic properties, so could potentially be considered a medicine. Wikipedia says it may reduce cholesterol and ease diarrhea symptoms, so for people suffering from either of those ailments, it could be used at any time and kept for life, provided that was the reason for use.
It is quite surprising to hear that otherwise strict monks are using it as a refreshment in the evening; I think they consider the natural fatigue and perhaps even hunger in the evening to constitute "sickness" that chocolate "cures". It is quite clear, however, that the Buddha allowed only fruit and vegetable juice for that purpose and using the oil found in much chocolate for this purpose is an abuse. Sugar might be okay, since it is technically dehydrated juice, but that is still a bit of a stretch.

I actually though of ground up seed and realized it was definitely solid food. i dont specifically remember seeing them actually eating a piece... but it was on the plate. one monk passed his to the crowd so maybe they didnt eat it. I did though... haha.

For monks it is permissible to have Chathu Madura after noon. I am not sure if the chocolate counts. The correct way to prepare it is in the attachment in the discussion.
May be what you saw as Chocolate would have been Jaggery. Depending on the type it might have a chocolate like appearance.
Any way if you meditate intensively looking at the hunger sensation or food craving it will pass away without the need to eat later.

maybe they consider it an allowable substitute if it is the right preparation, it was definitely chocolate.

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


text:
Does pasteurization count as cooking in prep of juices for after noon?
If I were to have, lets say, a V8 after noon, and it was not cooked... but was pasteurized (heated at a high temp which is considered by the food industry to not be a temperature sufficient to cause it to actually cook... like just under the boiling point)... would this be in keeping with the 6th precept as a daily practice. Like during 7pm tea for example.
I am obviously running under the notion that raw pulp-free vegetable or fruit juice is 100% allowable which was told to me by a monk.

Heating juice is allowed; cooking it is not:

“I allow reheating.”
Mv.VI.17.6

cool, thanks bhante... great interview this morning!

For bhikkhus, Some vegetables are not allowable.  Better to do juice and mix with cool water.  The BMC says boiled juices are sugar.  This is only Thai Tradition.
BMC will list the vegetables and fruits allowable.  Cucumber is not allowable.
Boiled juices are prohibited by paauk
Tea is actually not allowable as a "drink" for this reason of heating.  Leaf juice is allowable, but you cannot add boiling water.  Hence the rule of only warming by the sun's heat.  You should be "sick and have a reason" for any medicine.
This would outlaw, cold green tea. Aka Snapple.
Juice drinks or sugar mixed with water can be taken for any reason, including thirst.


text:
How much is the minimal time for practicing Vipassana in daily life for achieving better mindfulness?
How much is the minimal time for practicing Vipassana in daily life for achieving better mindfulness? Is 30 minutes enough?
I ask this question because I currently have some trouble being mindful, and (I think) it has become the source of many problems. If 30 minutes is not enough, perhaps you can give some suggestion based on your experience or the suttas.

There is a similar but slightly different question: What is the minimum amount of time needed for a productive meditation sit?

Does this answer your question? What is the minimum amount of time needed for a productive meditation sit?

Generally 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening / night is recommended by Goenka in his teaching. I think this would be a reasonable amount of time to get results though you will occasionally have to complement this with a retreat.
Your target is maintaining mindfulness throughout the day, and hence practice 24/7, not only when you are siting on a cushion.

This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. Meditate one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. This regular, daily practice is essential. At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.
...
When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful.
...
Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

Geez, ya'll are crazy. 30 minutes?
I'd say WORK up to that maybe after a few months of practice but in the beginning it is best to LIKE MEDITATION and do PRACTICE PROPERLY rather than just loiter around and try to sit tight for 30 minutes thinking about Jane and Bob.
I have had 3-5 minute sessions where you would NOT believe how much baggage I dropped and how refreshed and happy I felt.
And then I've had 30 minute sessions where I came out worse than I went in, because I was obsessing over thoughts instead of taking time to write them out and therapatize myself.
Meditation is NOT the time to therapatize oneself, so make sure not to get stuck in that habit!
If you have 30 minutes, use 20 minutes to understand how to meditate and journal and get rid of your baggage and then 10 minutes to meditate perfectly, dropping all things away and just being mindful of your object (breath, thoughts, or whatever else) the entire time as cohesively as possible. Repeat until you can do that 10 minutes. You will feel an enjoyable buzz and a helpless smile and lightness if you practice correctly.
At my current stage, every session (morning, pre-lunch, evening) I have doing 3 20-minute meditations, each with a different meditation object that I have chosen. I have a 1-5 minute break in between each object.
For beginners I would reccommend 5 to 10 minute sessions. When you ACTUALLY meditate that long... increase it by 5 minutes. When you LONG TO MEDITATE longer, increase. Do not force yourself to sit too long. You will idle.
Instead, put your energies into meditating properly and perfectly for a few minutes. This will increase your mindfulness, because you don't have as much time to fool around."
Nonetheless, don't let what I am saying stop you if you yearn for long periods of time! You will not attain samadhi unless you practice for HOURS at a time. So if you feel like you can actually pay attention that entire time... godspeed!
But above all else, do not scare yourself away from your gradual climb in meditation abilities by making meditation frustrating. Enjoy it and do not underestimate the Power of Less is More.
Let me leave you with this excerpt from a Buddhist book I am reading "Mind Experiment":

"It is better to meditate often for a shorter time than for a long
  time but infrequently. To make real progress, meditation should become
  a vital part of one’s daily life. Meditation masters recommended to
  their students: “Do it with an aspiration so strong that it will be
  the cause of fulfilling your provisional and final aims. Meditate in
  this way during four sessions: predawn, morning, afternoon, and at
  nightfall. Furthermore, if at first you meditate for a long time, you
  will be readily susceptible to laxity and excitement. If this becomes
  your habit, it will then be difficult to correct your awareness.
  Meditate in many short sessions. If you end your session while still
  wanting to meditate, you will be eager to reenter each future
  session."

I like how well you keep it real here.

+1, Thanks a lot. Sometimes i only can actually meditating in the first 15 mins for 1 hour. Sometimes, its in the last 15 mins. My mind really like playing with me :P

Yeah it's OK. if you like to just sit, relax, and think (especially important in our age of 2nd-brain tablets) one should definitely make time for that recollection. This is called Right View. Which is the 1st step of the Eightfoldpath. Right Meditation is the 8th step! Handling those previous steps to a effective degree is important before even trying to focus for five full minutes.
Haha and this was the first thing the Buddha ever said (The Four Noble Truths)! The Buddha's teaching is soo perfect. Shakyamuni is so, so perfect.

It should be noted that "meditating properly and perfectly" does NOT mean having zero thoughts or not having difficulties concentrating.

30 minutes is good. Over time the benefits will build up. In the words of the Dhammapada:

Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by
  drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it
  little by little, fills himself with good.  Dhp 122

Sincerity matters more than time. One minute of sincere meditation is better than one hour of wishing it to get over. As someone else observed, build up to longer sits. Thich Nhat Hanh suggests a minute of mindfulness every time the phone rings or a new email comes in. It grows the habit of retreating from present circumstances into inner peace.

30 minutes is plenty to keep you top up plenty and to keep you from skipping meditations.
20 minutes a day is really minimum but if you miss you will not revert back to your old self for a couple of months really.
I try for an hour a day, sometimes I only get 30mins sometimes I get 1 and a half hours due to my life not having a conventional schedule.

You do mental noting of mind object whenever you remember too. You meditate with eyes open in your daily routine as often as possible.
When you realize your mind has wandered off, you mentally note "wandering, wandering" or "thinking, thinking". Also, good to mentally note physical events like touching, seeing, hearing, chewing, walking, and etc. It keeps you in the present moment.
Mindful breathing helps you with sitting meditation and helps your mind from wandering off as well.
Sitting meditation supports mindfulness in daily life. Sitting meditation without daily mindfulness practice will take forever no matter how long you sit daily.
In restaurant kitchen, a dishwasher working one hour at 9 pm can help reduce few dirty dishes but not enough to have all the dishes washed right?
You need a dish washer working for the whole time during the operating hours. Mindfulness practice in daily life is like that. One time dish washer for one hour is like sitting meditation.
It is very hard at first, but with persistence you can build mind muscle such that in few years you can have a calm mind that is active spontaneously only when you need to respond.
Two people among the long time mediators were being studied by a Harvard neuroscientist. These two people's brain just disappeared under MRI, because their mind was completely quiet.

Is there a reference or article that you can cite regarding the Harvard study?

I am personally experiencing that no one should predetermine the time required. its like when you are jogging. Your body speaks for you and tell you how long you can continue and at what pace. The more you do, the more you can. Simply sit down and start. With time, you will begin to find a better pace. May triple gems bless you !!!

I am late to the party. But I would agree with all of the posters. 30 minutes is quite well better than 30 seconds. However, 30 seconds in earnest is better than 30 minutes just to say that you have meditated and having never truly concentrated the mind.
Goenka recommends 2 hours per day, and really 3 hours. It's understandable that this is not reasonable provided a Westernized life schedule. But always commmitt to between 20 - 120 minutes per day.
Be well

There’s a lot of vague opinion here. Several studies have shown at as little as 20 mins (two 10 minute sittings) a day is sufficient to receive benefits. In fact this level of practice is the basis of one of the most popular book-based Mindfulness courses in the world (Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Finding Peace in a Frantic World).
This book is supported by scientific research conducted by Jon Kabat-Zinn at University of Massachusetts Medical School and Mark Williams at the Oxford Mindfulness Centre.
The quality of your practice probably has more to do with benefits than the quantity.
On an anecdotal level, I’ve personally received some benefits from one 10 minute practice a day over a period of months, but not as much as two. On the lower end, I saw no benefit from several one minute practices a day (as prompted by my Apple Watch).
Finally, everybody can find 10 minutes in a day, even it means falling asleep 10 minutes later. 10 minutes, or even 20, may seem like an impossible amount of time to find, but one of the first things you learn, when you force yourself to make time to practice, is how much time you have to spare without realising it. Really. You’ll be amazed.
You probably spend 10 mins a day on Facebook without giving it a second thought. It’s the practice of slowing down that makes it seem so difficult. Our mind resists at first.
Good luck!

I think that one of the  best approaches for the beginner meditators can be learning to live in the present moment first. So instead of doing "meditation" that requires some limited time, the beginners can try to give their attention to whatever they are doing in their daily life. Walking, sitting, doing things at home, looking, listening, observing the thoughts, observing the emotions and feelings etc. Also the beginner can try to drop their physical and mental addictions by more adapting theirselves to mindfulness. In the beginning, the person will mostly practise incorrectly so there must be a time for "learning" to live mindfully in daily life. It can take a short time(few months) or long time(many years) to learn to practise mindfullness correctly. Then when the person really gets many insights, and purification in their minds, s/he can decide to do meditation. I think after 1 year, 2 years or few more years of mindfulness practise, s/he can start formal meditation. And then s/he can meditate for long periods of time (for example: 8 hours or more) because his/her being would be greatly prepared for meditation.  Then  the minimal meditation can be 3 hours for you and when and If you have free time you can meditate for 8 to more hours and it can become totally a normal and doable thing for you. I don't say "easy", but it can be certainly "doable". Ofcourse when you are sick, or your life requires you to do other things than meditation you may not meditate for many hours or few hours. But the mindfulness practise will be continous because it would really become a habit for you so you will be able to continue to meditate even when you don't do sitting or walking meditations.
I don't say that this is the only way to be succesful in mindfulness/meditation but for many people it can work.

One hour in morning and half hour in afternoon and one and half hour in night would be enough at begining.

Please, don't make a mishmash of it.

This is too much.It is better for the OP to start bit by bit and gradually work their way up.


text:
Any advice on leg numbing during sitting?
It happens at about 20 minutes every time lately... either in half lotus (a traditional position that I would like to honor), or with one leg laying in front of the other, or Indian style... doesn't matter, my left leg goes numb. Sitting up in a chair doesn't seem conducive to a meditative state, and laying down I just fall asleep. I'd really like to do some intensive and very long blocks of meditation (advice on this would be appreciated also) but I'm not sure how to approach this severe distraction and get past it.

didnt use to happen either, just kind of progressively became an everyday thing lately really.

I feel your pain!  That was a huge problem for me for years!  There is a cure, thankfully.  There is some trial and error involved, but if you persist, you'll figure it out.  First, some background.  What you are experiencing usually has to do with how your butt is making contact with the cushion.  There is a big nerve center in either of your two butt cheeks.  They are located just slightly below where the bone pokes out.  When you press on that place for long periods of time, it causes the "pins and needles" feeling.  In fact, your entire leg will usually go numb first - the tingly feeling is the nerve "waking" back up.
There are a couple of ways to overcome this problem.  The take away from any of these methods is that you want to take pressure off that area:

One way people do it is by using a higher cushion.  The idea here is that if you are off the ground a bit more, you are less likely to sink back and onto that nerve center.  You also create a natural incline with your legs.  Your thighs slope up to meet your hips.  Of course, while this will help relieve the nerve pressure in your butt, it will also eventually result in knee pain as your legs are taking more of your weight.  I tried this for a while by stacking two cushions sort of like this  ->  o\  (if that graphic makes any sense).
Another way is to lean back a bit.  Actually, you should be doing this anyway (it helps eliminate back pain as you are less likely to lean forward).  Leaning back helps shift the weight more onto your coccyx.  You are going to feel a little weird at first - almost like you are falling backwards.  I think this is because there is a tendency for your chin to raise.  Just make sure you are keeping your neck straight.
The method that worked for me had to do with how I was setting up on the cushion.  A lot of people plop down right in the middle of the zafu.  This is a bad idea.  You are throwing all of your weight down right on those nerves.  Personally, I set up right at the very edge of the zafu with just my coccyx coming down on the cushion.  Those bothersome nerve centers don't even make contact with the cushion at all.  I also incorporate points 1 & 2.  My cushion is a little higher (maybe about five inches) and I do lean back just a bit to keep my weight coming straight down into the cushion.

Hope this helps!  I know how annoying it can be!!!

thats it!... awesome thanks! (to everyone else as well)

Short answer: try a seiza bench.
Long answer: I have tried many approaches myself. I used to practice zazen long time ago, pushing my body to be able to sit properly -- lotus position was no less than a dream. It was very unpleasant, often painful (It is frustrating to realize that, in a way, I didn't actually do much zazen at all during these years, struggling as I was with my body).
Yeas later I started studying the suttas and it became much easier to learn how to evaluate approaches, build some sense of what was important to preserve and what was worth exploring. One "A-ha" moment was learning about hindrances and realizing it is asking too much to want to overcome them (or nurture concentration to investigate them) while at the same time practicing in a way that makes them deliberately stronger.
After that, I also became thirsty for long periods of meditation.  I kept trying using different supports to sit with legs crossed, but nothing helped: I faced numbness at 20min, too. I heard eating banana was suppose to help, but in any case, at 45-60 min, my back was in pain.
Then I tried a few times laying down -- not easy. At some point I meditated for a month in a chair. There was some effort in parts of my legs to keep my body stable, but these were very focused and not as intense as cross legged. I could sit for 1h before starting to feel tired. However, the experience was pleasant, and I wasn't exhausted as I used to be cross legged, which means I could do many 1h sessions in a single day, with small intervals. This is when I had major progress for the first time in years.
But still I wasn't satisfied: after a while, the small tensions in my leg became an impediment, and I wanted to be able to explore longer "blocks" of sessions. Then, I remembered the seiza benches in a sesshin I participated, got myself one, and became extremely grateful for the existence of such thing. No numbdness, no pain, no great discomfort. Just work to be done.

that is feasible and as a last resort i will try it, thanks. Honoring my lineage if possible seems more appropriate for now.

Attached is a non-exhaustive chart of traditional sitting postures for meditation. (There are others.) In the early Buddhist text suttas, the Buddha recommended meditation while sitting, walking, or lying down.
While various teachers have emphasized or de emphasized the importance of posture (especially spine alignment, or comfortability to maintain for extended periods), the postures of meditation are merely trying to provide the body with what is needed and healthy for the actual work of meditation: concentration and insight.
As described in the early suttas, meditation practice follows (and then accompanies) development in practice in right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness. It's a gradual path of training; for mind but also the body you use. May you act as a kind and patient teacher and friend rather than a bully or torturer for your body, mind, and life!

What I learned at a Vipassana meditation retreat: we were instructed to meditate for at least an hour without moving. The pain does get intense but you simply watch it happen. It ebbs and flows and insight can come from realizing that it is temporary. You can allow it to happen and be with it and it will go away. Seriously. What I was amazed to find out was how much the intensity of the pain was connected to what was bubbling up in my consciousness!

If the numbing becomes intense. Keep looking at the intense pain (dividing and dissecting) for a while also keeping you mind intensely on your breath and the sensations below your nose and above your upper lip (philtrum) or columella or subnasal or nasal base or nasal tip. Philtrum is the most recommended as per experience. (Also see Keep You Mind on the Spot by Webu Sayadaw) This stirs up energy which can help dissolve the pain faster.
Some traditions do not advice to stay in one place for long time but nevertheless if it is unbearable the best way for it to pass fast is to keep your attention at it for longer until the pain dissolves away. Keep in mind that trying to dissolve it away may make subtle attachment / aversion to the pain. Be mindful of this. Also you might create new conditioning / fabrication in the process which will delay your progress. In may be the reason why it is not advisable. You have to within the possibility of creating new conditioning with the set back due to having to move and loose concentration in this case. Since you cannot objectively measure either you should do it only for intense paints which you cannot beare. Also try to develop equanimity towards the pain in the process.
Some related answers:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3328/295

yeah, i can sit through it for a while but it gets to a point where i absolutely have to move and that seems to completely disrupt my focus and i have to get refocused all over again... so ive been wanting to sit for a few hours and go through a super intensive but it seems like having to adjust every 20 minutes is going to prevent me from getting past a certain level of progress.  But, you are right, the super intensive sitting i would like to incorporate on occasion is a special practice... usually i would switch between walking and sitting and this would not be coming up at all.

You would be best answered by your own meditation teacher, with instructions from the style that you practice. Personally I practice Chan, and we are taught that:

Lotus is best, then half-lotus, then any posture
Lotus is best because it enables you to build concentration much faster
Do the best posture possible, and endure the pain. The more you endure, the more concentration you build
Personally I found that the numbness eventually goes away (starts happening later and later then goes away for good). The reason for pain/numbness is that the posture builds a lot of energy that will push your leg blockages, thus causing pain. When the blockage is cleared, no more pain.

It took me a year practicing half-lotus daily to do full-lotus, and another year to do full-lotus reasonably. It's totally worth it. With Chan, the more you endure, the more you understand.

I would suggest attending a 10 day Vipassana course run by SN Goenka.  You can find one in most countries around the world.  It will help you to understand the pain you are experiencing at a very deep level.  Before attending the course I had the same problem with leg numbness and back pain.  In fact I was frightened that I was doing damage to my body.  After the 10 days however, I can sit for periods of 1 hour with no problem.  Even if my legs go to sleep I can observe the sensations objectively rather than attaching to the unpleasantness.  If you have the time I would highly recommend doing it.  Otherwise, I agree with some of the other folks.. try and sit closer to the coccyx on a higher cushion.  Or perhaps try a kneeling aid.  May you be well and happy.

This is a major problem of most of the people practicing meditation.
There are many ways to avoid this problem.
1)using cushion.
2) adjust your sitting posture.
3) adjust your sitting height using additional cushion.
But this is what i feel as assisting yourself.
The solution to it is your mind`s concentration.
when your leg starts to feel numb, your leg sends a signal to your brain about the pain.
but if you increase your concentration, your brain will be busy and focused to feel the sensations of other part.it will not notice the numbness.
This i what i experienced on the last day of my 10 day course.
When i sat for meditating after 20 mins my legs started to become numb. but i concentrated my mind so hard on other part, i never realized and felt the pain.
i sat for 1 hr and after 1 hr i got up without any ticking sensation.
the solution lies in our mind. i mind is so powerful that if we concentrate very hard on one thing it will not notice other things.
This i again experienced during watching a short film at dhammagiri on the last day. i purposely focused my entire concentration on the film. even after 1 hr i didnt realised the numbness of my leg.
To conclude, if you increase your concentration you will overcome this problem.
and this is what we learn in meditation, focused, aware and equanimous mind.

There is an amazing stretch called the Lotus Lunge, sometimes called Pigeon, and it is probably the best stretch for getting deeper into your seated lotus.
http://images.agoramedia.com/everydayhealth/gcms/yoga-poses-for-beginners-07-pg-full.jpg
Kudos on wanting to honor the most excellent way to sit (imho)

The best advice I have ever read about this is in a book by Ngyakpa Chogam called Journey into Vastness. He advises that the sitting should be such that the knees fall below the level of the pelvis. I can sit in this way on a rock in perfect comfort for up to two hours, but one must find the exactly "sweet spot" where one is balanced on the coccyx in order to avoid any numbness in the legs.

Its important to keep your head neck and trunk in a straight line during meditation.The position of you upper extremities and lower extremities is not the Important thing.Once you truly get into meditative state you will not feel the pain and numbness in your body...over a long period of sustained practice, you will learn to be in meditative state for longer hours without knowing any pain....
Doing stretching exercises and other physical exercises will help you to get used to the postures with certain ease.
Lotus posture(Padmasana) and Adept posture(Siddhasana) are the postures used by great yogis, However, all the other postures are equally good as long as the head, neck, and trunk are held in a straight line and if you are doing the meditation right.

I've written a number of articles on the topic here:
http://lucid24.org/misc/qigor/eight-pieces/flt/index.html
includes videos of helpful stretches.
note that this resource helps all sitting postures, not just for full lotus.

This answer violates the site policy on own personal site promotion - please see this Buddhism Meta SE question and its answers, as well as this page to understand the policy. 1) You need to paraphrase, summarize or partially quote the content of the link in the answer. 2) The user need not have to click into the link to benefit from the answer. 3) The link is only there to support the answer. 4) You must disclose yourself as the author of the linked site. Please update this answer.

and how am I going to quote or show part of a video i made of myself demonstrating the move?

Had exact same problem first 3 years of meditation, 20 minutes then leg going numb and it's painful/uncomfortable causing me to stop.
It seemed painful af.
Eventually i just decided to sit through it and see what happens because i figured it's probably not deadly or anything that is going to permanently ruin my leg.
I did satipatthana establishments and took note of my reactions, thoughts, feelings & perceptions as the numbing occurred. It was full panic for some 30 seconds but it subsided.
After that i was able to sit without moving for hours and the leg still always became numb, sometimes 2-3 times during a single sitting but it didn't bother me nearly as much. Id say it's the same sensation but i tolerate it easily and it was mostly mental aversion that was the issue.
Sometimes i barely notice it happening. Overcoming this was definitely a milestone and something that was very important.
Otherwise sitting on a soft cushion more or less solves this for me by prevention.

I'm just shaking my head. Tradition goes too far with this sitting cross legged thing.
Excruciating Sitting Zazen is for people that want to take the long way around to Zen.  Some people have circulatory problems and whine their leg falls asleep its a sign of trouble.  You should not IGNORE it in the sake of aesthetic values lol.
Alan Watts is considered a great man to teach Zen and he said there was no absolute need for sitting lotus. I think Lotus is great because its very easy to forget yourself in that balanced position, however, it isn't for everyone.  Asian people and healthy people take to it easier.
To act like some part of Zen is denied to you because you cant sit lotus or full lotus is stinking of religion.
If you want to meditate, meditate.  If your legs hurt too much, don't ignore them.
I challenge any man to tell me I am not a practitioner of zen because i dont sit for extended periods of time in a certain position.
Watts said when a cat is tired of sitting it gets up and walks away.  And so he did.  And the eastern teachers of Buddhism/Zen have never forgiven him for it.  Saying he failed a koan.
Even buddhism is stinking with pride apparently

Since your answer is largely opinion based the criticism comes off as condescending and hurtful of others. Please consider revising your answer with facts or explanations to make it more constructive. Thank you.

Very well said, JAT.  Lotus is the ideal.  Then there is the real - and for so many people, that's going to involve sitting a different way.  My teacher tells the story of someone who would sit full lotus at sesshin - tears streaming down his face from the agony.  That is not the way to wake up!  We have to do the best that we can.  But perfectionism?  Traditionalism?  Wanting to be the best sitter in the room?  None of that is Buddhism.

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


text:
How is Recollection of peace (upasamānussati) practiced?
Out of the 10 recollections in the 40 Kammaṭṭhāna how is upasamānussati practiced to the level of Jhana?

One should begin by reflecting on the qualities of nibbana, according to the Buddha's words:

“Bhikkhus, in so far as there are dhammas, whether formed or unformed,fading away is pronounced the best of them, that is to say, the disillusionment of
  vanity, the elimination of thirst, the abolition of reliance, the termination of the
  round, the destruction of craving, fading away, cessation, Nibbāna”
A II 34 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Practice most likely involves a mantra for each quality, for example, "madanimmadano" (disillusionment of vanity).
According to the Visuddhimagga, upasamaanussati doesn't lead to aapana samadhi, only upacara samadhi:

As he recollects peace in its special qualities of disillusionment of vanity,etc., in this way, then: “On that occasion his mind is not obsessed by greed or obsessed by hate or obsessed by delusion; his mind has rectitude on that occasion, being inspired by peace” (see VII.65, etc.). So when he has suppressed the hindrances in the way already described under the recollection of the
  Enlightened One, etc., the jhāna factors arise in a single moment. But owing to
  the profundity of the special qualities of peace, or owing to his being occupied
  in recollecting special qualities of various kinds, the jhāna is only access and
  does not reach absorption. And that jhāna itself is known as “recollection of
  peace” too because it arises by means of the special qualities of peace.
Vism VIII.249 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Perhaps you can expand this a bit more from other sources also for benefit of all. (Upvoted and accepted)

A II 34 = AN 4.34, with partial parallel in Iti 90, there's another passage a number of times appearing in the Anguttara Nikaya: etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ - This is peace, this is exquisite—the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Is Sampajañña and Dhamma vicaya related?
Does Sampajañña and Dhamma vicaya have an overlap. What is the relationship between the two? What is the differences? Is Sampajañña a result of dhamma vicaya? Do you need Sampajañña for dhamma vicaya?

In the stock passage defining Sama-Sati, right mindfulness, sampajanna is mentioned:

And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains
  focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself...
  mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is
  called right mindfulness.
Katamā cāvuso sammāsati: idhāvuso bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati
  ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. Vedanāsu
  vedanānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhā
  domanassaṃ. Citte cittānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya
  loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ. Dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī
  sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ. Ayaṃ vuccatāvuso
  sammāsati.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html)
Thus a person who possesses right mindfulness also has Sampajanna. Dhamma Vicaya however, is not so closely related to mindfulness. Dhamma Vicaya is a result of mindfulness, not a part of it. Mindfulness is the first of the seven factors of enlightenment and Dhamma Vicaya is the second, and in the Anapanasati Sutta they are presented in sequence:

"[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of
  itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
  with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is
  steady & without lapse. When his mindfulness is steady & without
  lapse, then mindfulness as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He
  develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its
  development.
"[2] Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to
  a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains
  mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension
  of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a
  factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it
  goes to the culmination of its development.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html)

Great content. Looking forward to more participation and content from your.


text:
Why do Buddhists believe that the Buddha was enlightened, despite that he claimed it himself?
All the answers to the question about the living enlightened people suggest that talking about one's enlightenment is taboo, so if somebody claims to be enlightened, he probably is not.
Why doesn't this reasoning apply to the Buddha? After all, he claimed himself to be englightened (for example, in Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta).

for me personally, i just believe it. i wasnt there or anything, but the practice speaks for itself so its completely irrelevant if the buddha even existed really. But, i happen to believe it, with no concrete evidence... again... practice speaks for itself. Thats beside the point.

I don't believe, but I "think" so. I think that he is philosophically flawless, possibly the greatest phenomenological thinker of all time.

I said "bragging of one's achievements is bad tone" and you turned it into "talking about one's enlightenment is taboo" :) It is very easy to fall into extremes, isn't it?
"If somebody claims to be enlightened, he probably is not" -- here is a simple explanation. Among other things Enlightenment involves shedding the mistaken identification with the illusory "I". So once Enlightenment has been revealed, it seems rather silly to say "I am Enlightened" -- because this "I" is a fiction.
Plus, Enlightenment is self-existing, it does not depend on being attained or not. The metaphor for this is sun above the clouds. Once you remove the clouds, you can see the sun, but the sun is always there, before and after. This is another reason why saying "I have attained Enlightenment" is silly.
As Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche said:

Buddhism says that confusion has to be dispelled and that there should
  be realization beyond confusion. It is based on the idea of
  transcending the highest ideals of the human mind completely, which is
  called enlightenment. Once you dissolve, once your particular
  expectations dissolve, that is liberation or enlightenment. Since
  enlightenment is based on dissolving the ego and its expectations, it
  has been said that you cannot watch your own burial, and you cannot
  congratulate yourself on becoming the first buddha of the age or the
  first buddha of New York.

Buddha claimed Enlightenment solely in order to help his students gain confidence in his teaching. He knew very well the extent to which the statement "I am Enlightened Buddha" can be true.
Then why don't modern teachers claim Enlightenment to help their students gain confidence? As I explained in Is Satori the same as Enlightenment? and Enlightenment vs nibbana/nirvana, most people achieve "sudden insight / gradual cultivation". With gradual cultivation, you can never claim 100% Enlightenment, because in this case Enlightenment is asymptotic. All we can definitely claim is the insight.

Just for clarification: I referred to the answers to the question (which did mention taboo), not to your comment.

I love your answer more than just one upvote!

Nice. Good point about gradual cultivation.

The taboo of talking about or claiming ones own enlightenment is something which has been established by the monastic order.
Talking about ones own attainments to lay-people or even non-buddhist is considered not done.
The only monastic rules I could find that resembles such a rule is these two:

A bhikkhu who pretends to have experienced jhāna attainments or the
  ariyā state without having experienced these, commits the pārājika 4.
  However, if the person whom the bhikkhu is addressing does not know
  the meaning of these words, he commits a thullaccaya.

source: http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/other_faults.htm
and:

Not to announce to a layman a realisation that has been achieved. If a
  bhikkhu announces to a layman or to a sāmaṇera, a realisation
  partaking with a jhāna nature or with a stage of ariyā, and this
  realisation has genuinely been achieved, he commits a pācittiya.
On the other hand, a bhikkhu who makes such a declaration, while
  knowing it to be false, commits the pārājika 4. A bhikkhu must avoid
  making his attainments known, even to other bhikkhus. Apart from four
  exceptions when they can do so, ariyās never unveil their
  realisations:
Under a violent threat.
Undergoing an oppressive and virulent lack of respect.
A t the time of passing away.
To reveal it to his preceptor or to a fellow bhikkhu who does a similar practice.

source: http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227/92pa.htm#ch-----8
The rule only applies if one lies about attaining such, or isn't aware about what he is in fact claiming.
The second rule only applies when spoken to lay people.
Also, in the Buddhist text and stories the disciples of the Buddha also speak freely about their attainments, powers and even if they have achieved enlightenment.
The other monks only seemed to protest if they didn't believe the claimant and asked the Buddha to verify, which in most cases he did.
So the rule that one must never speak of ones own attainments or claim enlightenment seems to be later added and unwritten.

This is merely a matter of the delusory power of words. When the Buddha was teaching, he used the word 'enlightenment' to express an inner state — an attitude towards the world — that he was trying to convey to others. The word had no cachet: no prestige or significance beyond the effort to describe an ineffable experience in language. He and his followers merely used it to discuss progress on the path.
As the philosophy extended and developed, however, the concept of 'enlightenment' shifted away from being a mere description of an attitude, and became more and more a label for a 'thing' that ought to be 'achieved.' Things and achievements have social value in the world. They are commodities to be bought, sold, or exchanged for other things of value; they are firm anchor points for identity and  attachments. Attaching oneself to such a concept runs against the intentions of the practice.
The word 'enlightened' changed over the centuries from being used as an adjective to being used as a noun. To the extent that we can still use it in the adjectival form — as a description of a way to be — it's still a fine word. But using it as label for an attainment, a matter of pride and value, will lead both the teacher and the students astray.

Some people may believe so to warring degrees of confidence, but this confidence only becomes unshakable at stream entry. When practicing the Dhamma you start seeing the milestones in the journey your confidence in reinforced and at stream entry it becomes unshakable.
If Buddha has shown the path to Nirvana and when you follow it you get there then you can be sure that the person knows.

The Buddha was only one of many enlightened beings. What makes it so easy to know that he was enlightened, if it is still so hard (even after the stream entry, as I understand) to find out whether any other person is enlightened or not?

But it's not hard at all! Once you've got "independent of others with regard to the Buddha's message" you see who is at what level, who is enlightened or not.

@Andrei How many such people are there, those you see that they are enlightened?

Hard to say, i have not met them all obviously. Probably thousands, which is not that many, given the population.

The overall idea seems to be that if a being is actually enlightened, then this fact will be apparent without ambiguity to all who interact with that being.
As far as the Buddha himself is concerned, according to the canon, those hostile to him never managed to best him in debates (thus never managed to dent his teaching) and those symphathetic to him always recognized his greatness and at many occasions decided to follow him (thus affirming his extraordinary nature). The canon tells us with this that the Buddha could, so to speak, "talk the talk" but also "walk the walk", and do this in any situation he could encounter. It is the profundity of his teachings that leads Buddhists to place their trust in the Buddha's Enlightened nature.
From this perspective making the claim was like a random person making a banal statement such as "I am a human being" for him.
If there are disciples that attain Enlightenment during their current lives, why shouldn't they also make the same declaration? There might a very simple and pragmatic answer to this. The Buddha was in the process of diffusing the Dhamma to a world that had lost those teachings since a long, long time ago. Talking about his own Enlightenment, he was giving the explanation of why these teachings were worthwhile and why he should be the one listened to among the multitudes of other teachers of the era.
What necessity has there been for practitioners to talk about their own achievements since the Buddha's death? The Dhamma has been thaught to many and codified, and the sangha was structured in a democratic and pretty much egalitarian way. People claiming Enlightenment within reason or not could/can form magnetic poles and attract disciples to themselves and away from each other, effectively sowing completely unnecessary discord within the community. It's completely unnecessary and is something that only a non-Enlightened person seeking self-interest would do.
As for the matter of the Buddha's disciples talking about their own attainments, we must not forget that
a) the Buddha was still alive, which nullified chances of successful false claims and
b) the people they were talking with were familiar with the concepts talked about and the terms used. It was a time where spiritual pursuit was seen as something perfectly real and valid in the eyes of society, and they were familiar with what that pursuit entailed. It isn't so in our modern era and Western/Westernized societies, where spiritual pursuit is not seen as something "normal" and the elements of Buddhism are foreign to the people.

I think the most telling story told about the Buddha saying who he was and what his condition was when he responded to the question: "Who are you."
The Buddha silently contemplated and then stated "I am awake!"
It is unfortunate that we must rely on only oral transmissions (or the texts drawn from oral transmissions) of Shakyamuni Buddha so we cannot definitively quote his words in this story or in other texts with certainty.
If this was a true story of the Buddha, it seems that it would be unlikely for him to claim enlightenment for himself. I don't see evidence that he saw himself as the sole Buddha apart from the people but as one of the people realizing his fullest potential.
Some say his greatest sermon was holding up the flower.
http://kuzanzen.org/2013/02/the-buddha-twirls-a-flower/
Only one student of his knew the significance. This is an example how important silent transmission of the dharma was to Shakyamuni Buddha.

"Destroyed is rebirth for me. Lived is the holy life." -- and "Freed from every bond am I, bondage human and divine." -- and "The Tathagata, brethren who, being Arahant, is fully enlightened..." -- and the second paragraph of http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg17.htm -- It seems to me that scriptures claim repeatedly that he described himself as enlightened: that he was sure of it, and that he told others so.

ChrisW - you are right, the texts probably say that, but my point is that we are faced with an oral tradition for 500 years after the Buddha until it was written down. Such oral traditions could be altered by a monk or an order that had a particular belief structure to justify. I have the same problem with any religious oral tradition. In Judaism they did Midrash  that consciously altered text as conditions changed. Do you think it is possible that Buddhist institutions could succumb to similar pressures?

Yes I think is possible that scriptures/text could have been altered (especially, added to) over time. Here is one example where that might perhaps have happened. But there are many places (not just one place) in the scripture where the Buddha claims to be enlightened. He tells people that he has discovered the Way. Apart from in the Flower Sermon, where else does he seem shy? In the books I read he's not at all shy about telling people that he's right: it's not just one anecdote, it's his personality and his habit.

ChrisW Thank you for bringing out this point. I respect your insights and will entertain them in my practice as I try to take what Shakyamuni Buddha taught and put it into practice. I feel this is the most I can do and respect all other paths to awakening. Whatever works in practice is following the Buddha's example. What he said or any other spiritual leader said 1000's of years ago I am disappointed to say I cannot reliably know what they said. But how part of me wishes I could just spend an afternoon with them!

Truth is unless you can get into a time machine and personally encounter the Buddha you can never know for sure. However, The Buddha was a historical figure his teachings were preserved. Read them and judge for yourself if the Buddha was exactly what he claimed to be or not. Even better, actually do the practice and see if it works for you.

Claiming to be enlightened by itself doesn't mean that it's not true. It's just that even during The Buddha's time when He was alive and teaching there weren't that many arahants in the world (maybe a few thousand or so). Let alone now in modern times, long after the pure dhamma has disappeared. An arahant is rare.
The Buddha had mentioned teachers and beings who falsely claimed to be all-knowing and enlightened.
It is possible for someone to achieve higher states but not the ending of mental fermentations and mistakenly believe themselves to be enlightened. It is also possible for non-arahants to achieve iddhi powers and many feats.
If I were to encounter someone who claims to be an arahant or fully enlightened I would ask them this simple question "How do you distinguish arahantship from achieving higher states without achieving arahantship?".
Although I myself can answer the question I wonder how the arahant claimant would respond.
But I believe The Buddha was who he claimed to be, not simply a paccekabuddha but a Sammāsambuddha, meaning both fully enlightened independently and a supreme teacher because:

No other teacher in all of recorded history ever debated with so many people of different views and explained things in such a fearless, doubtless manner
No other teacher in all of recorded history ever reasoned things in the ingenious way that The Buddha had
No other teacher in all of recorded history ever explained things in the detail that The Buddha had
My personal experiences matched in closely to what The Buddha had said

I've read stuff from other spiritual teachers and those who claim to be enlightened but still they don't compare to Gautama Buddha's teachings. Some may be paccekabuddhas but their teachings are limited and aren't as well-reasoned and thought-out as Gautama Buddha's.
My personal experiences match in closely to what I read from The Buddha. When I concentrate I can accomplish certain things, like healing myself. I believe I've achieved at least something like the first jhana but am not sure if it's exactly what The Buddha described as the first jhana since he describes many different states (see Pancakanga Sutta).
I just know that when I concentrate on destroying painful feelings or fermentations that I feel this strange energy go from my forehead to the top of my head, and if I keep trying to eliminate more fermentations I go higher and higher. What I experience then is a happiness unlike any other.
I feel doubtless, fearless, sorrowless, angerless, full of confidence, calm, unstoppable, full of enjoyment, such an extreme type of enjoyment.
Once I had experienced this type of enjoyment I thought this was the correct path and no other form of happiness, bliss, or enjoyment was worth pursuing.
It is entirely different from the other blissful states I had experienced (like deep relaxation, or the dream-like bliss) which are like blissful states but lacking energy and enjoyment.
Maybe some day I'll find out everything and the whole truth...


text:
What is the significance of Commentaries (Atthakatha) to the Suttas?
In some traditions commentaries are inherent in the daily sermons and books written by monks. But I've noticed that most of the commentaries are not available digitally in English compared to the Suttas and most people don't use commentaries as reference.
Are they not so important or what is the view on commentaries?

In Theravada Buddhism, much of the commentarial literature is merely providing definitions and etymologies of words, so it only makes sense in the original pali. Besides this, it is so voluminous that any attempt at translating it would be a daunting task.
That being said, some of the more accessible and interesting commentaries have indeed been translated into English:

The Dhammapada commentaries (stories only, not verse explanations)
The Jataka commentaries (and the introduction)
The Commentary to Satipatthana Sutta
The Commentary to Sammaditthi Sutta
The Patisambhidamagga and Visuddhimagga
The Therigatha Commentary

I'm sure there are others, but this is a sample.
As to their significance, in Theravada Buddhism, they are what defines the orthodoxy; any interpretation of the canonical texts that deviates significantly from the commentaries is considered to be outside of the fold of Theravada Buddhism. In a word, they are the agreed upon correct interpretation or explanation of the texts.
And they have some funny stories.

Commentaries are just further explanation of meaning and details of the Suttas. Each explanation is subdivided into more details.
E.g. If I ask you to come here. This can be the instruction in the Sutta. The commentaries will go on saying if you are facing another direction to 1st turn towards me, then start taking steps towards me, then when you are at a reasonable distance stop. The reason I might have called you and in which situation I would have called out.
If you can understand and follow the Suttas you need not rely in the commentaries. May find it difficult though. Sometimes certain aspects are explained elsewhere in other Suttas. So doing so might require a scholarly understanding of all related material.
You should take commentaries with a pinch of salt as there can be errors, omissions and miss interpretations like with any other publication / book. Otherwise they can be useful to get and idea of the social customs, background or event leading to the preaching. Also they consolidate from other areas in the Tripitaka too in some cases which can be useful.
When practicing something the final litmus test is to compare with the insight you get at the experiential level. This would help find any inconsistencies. Also some of the later commentaries have correction mentioned about the previous ones. This can be also put to the same test. The errors are very minor though they can be a stumbling block, if you hold on to the belief too strongly. Hence they should be used for additional guidance and information but again being diligent about what you pickup from the source.

Commentaries are very useful when interpreting the Suttas in the Tipitaka. They provide background stories and additional details. It is wrong to assume that when they wrote down the Tipitaka, they included everything the Buddha had preached. The major commentaries were based on earlier ones, which were written down at the same time as the Tipitaka. But even the ones written later shouldn't be treated lightly purely on that basis. It's a bad practice to degrade the commentaries on a whim without solid evidence. But if you have a different opinion on a topic, it is ok to say "this is what the commentary says, but this is what I think". Then it becomes your own commentary. :)

Also, there's another bad trend developing these days. Criticizing the commentaries seems be one of the fastest ways for some to gain recognition as experts of the Dhamma.


text:
What kind of influence did Cārvāka had on Buddha's philosophy
I have sometimes heard that Siddhartha Gautama's philosophy was influenced by Cārvāka system of philosophy. Is this true, and if true, to what extent has Cārvāka system influenced Buddhism?

I would like to put a slightly different view to Suminda
Although the Buddha was undoubtedly a hugely original innovator (to say the least) I think it is fair to say that he was also influenced by the philosophical and spiritual environment of Northern India at the time. He would have been influenced by the Jains, The Brahminical traditions, the Sramanas and by other philosophies such as Cārvāka. However the influence of the philosophies could have been as much reacting against as inspired by. In the case of Cārvāka the influence could have run both ways.
The Cārvāka system might have provided the extreme of nihilism (or annihilationism) that the Buddha was reacting against when he proposed the Middle Way. The other extreme of eternalism would have been more characteristic of the Brahminical traditions.
More positively, the Cārvāka system could have influenced the Buddha in his skeptical stance to questions unrelated to liberation i.e. his refusal to answer questions on the fate of the universe or what happens after death. The sort of skepticism shown by the Buddha would have probably been of the weaker kind though - one of suspension of judgement rather than the absolute impossibility of knowing. Interestingly the Greek skeptics could have been influenced by Eastern philosophy through figures such as Pyrrho. So Cārvāka  might have also influence the Western philosophical tradition either directly or perhaps via transmission through Buddhism.
Just as an aside I've written a bit more on the influence of Buddhism on Western philosophy here. Also this question goes more into the relationship between nihilism and Buddhism though we didn't mention Cārvāka. Maybe we should have.

The Buddha claims that what he is about to teach is previously unheard of. Hence I double that there were any material influences on the core of Buddhism though he did draw from existing customs and techniques which were appropriate. E.g. Sila, some of the Samatha meditation techniques, etc.
The core being the teaching like the Bodhipakkhiyādhammā, the 4 Nobel Truths, the Pratītyasamutpāda, Three marks of existence, Threefold Training, etc. which are original to Buddhism.
Buddha rejected 62 wrong view of his time. Ucchedavada proposed by Ajita Kesakambali, one of the earliest Cārvāka thinkers, was also rejected by Buddha among other. These views arise due to theorising and philosophising without going to the pinnacle of understanding or realisation of the ultimate truth. Hence there cannot be any perceivable influence from this doctrine.