text:
Do buddhists fall in love?
I'm new to the concept of Buddhism, and am failing to understand perhaps something very basic. I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person? How does one become close to another person. As I understand it, a relationship would just consist of two people who aren't that close to one another.
"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad.
I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life. I think of this concept of Buddhism similar to "don't smell the flowers because you may prick yourself on a thorn" thus denying yourself of the delights found in the smell and also the growth / knowledge from the pain of the thorn prick. Both of which you can learn and grow from.
Am I missing something here?

Consider the Nonduality Tag.

It's so difficult to choose one answer to this question!

I am no expert myself, but I believe the point is not to avoid the impermanent, but rather not to cling to it. To recognize its impermanence and be prepared to let it go when the time comes.

I believe the main point here is that you confuse pain with suffering. Buddhism is not about avoiding pain, but more about terminating sufffering, which is kind of trashing around trying to avoid pain, usually making things worse.

I find myself returning to this video by Thich Nhat Hahn on romantic love and true love.  TNH speaks of true love, which is not exclusive, but rather increasingly inclusive as our practice and experience of reality grows.  He also mentions four characteristics of true love, which I believe are similar or commensurate with the four divine abodes/four heavenly homes/brahmaviharas.

It depends which Buddhism we are talking about:
Both Theravada and Mahayana, including Zen, would consider romantic love a disease of the mind, a kind of pathological obsession. Theravada would offer the more universal emotion of metta instead -- the loving-kindness, although in Theravada it is usually applied as an antidote against hatred, for the benefit of one who experiences it. Most schools of Mahayana would sincerely rejoice in the selfless aspect of love. In Mahayana one is supposed to sacrifice one's interests for the benefit of others. Dropping one's ego is Mahayana's path to Enlightenment.
In Vajrayana schools though, emotions, including romantic love, are considered a form of energy that can be put to use, or at least accepted as part of the given. Vajrayana perspective would more likely align with your "pain is part of life" and "might as well enjoy the flower" conjectures. With one caveat though: Vajrayana would still appreciate the inherent fakeness of love, the mechanical nature of which comes from a match of partners' stereotypes and preconceptions. So even if a Vajrayana practitioner could play with the fire both in context of its ego-melting properties as well as for pleasure, they would not take it one-sidedly as an untrained run-of-the-mill person would do.
EDIT: what I meant by "Vajrayana practitioner ... would not take it one-sidedly" -- I meant that Vajrayana view includes both sacred and illusory aspects of love. In Vajrayana we are trained to see things from all the sides at the same time. Love is both sacred and a giant trick, as far as Vajrayana is concerned.
The predominant Buddhist sentiment here is that being disappointed/disenchanted (="sober") is a helluva lot healthier state than the state of intoxication by an object of mind. While Vajrayana is 100% aligned with this most fundamental of Buddhist principles, we do allow ourselves to get drunk, both metaphorically with love, and occasionally even literally - while staying fully accountable for the consequences - a trait of the universal adult.

Apparently, the Romans had over 20 different words for the different types of love, and I think that's where translations fail. Love / respect for everyone is not the same as special partnership types of love felt in a close relationship between say mother and daughter nor the different type of love between husband and wife. I think it's only 'fake' in the sense it isn't concrete, not able to be touched. We make the feelings up. Can't people grow together from the love of a relationship? Or is buddhism just saying, ignore the love because it's only an emotion?

I don't understand the "one-sidedly" reference to an untrained person.

Selfless love can be difficult to comprehend, because romantic love expects a certain degree of selfishness towards one's family. Most people can't stomach partnering with someone who feels even nearly equally for one's family and others. There's a 19th century Indian poet, Bharathi who fed a flock of birds with some grain saved for his starving family by his wife, because he felt the hunger of the birds with their smaller stomachs was greater than the humans'. His family didn't like that at all, his wife left with the kids.

Do buddhists fall in love?

yes, certainly they do.

I'm new to the concept of Buddhism, and am failing to understand perhaps something very basic. I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person?

First, not all buddhists are fully and exclusively devoted to Buddhism, to it's fulfillment. This means that most buddhists live much like any other non-buddhist. They engage in all kinds of affairs of daily life, including work, marriage and so on. Others, like monks, likely renunciate romance in favor of their practice.
With that distinction in mind, we need some care when applying a teaching of the Buddha originally directed to someone fully devoted to the path, to a person who does not have the same commitment, disposition, preparation, etc. Otherwise, this could lead to something like taking a person who does jogging as someone who is (or should be) following a training program of an olympic coach (and worse, criticizing that person's performance on olympic standards).
"Romance" and passion are looked upon with caution, as they manifest quite explicitly strong craving and attachment. These are keywords of things buddhists often try in their mind to dodge. In the west, "romance" is a package of fantasies: find someone who is the source of one's happiness, the idea that the desire for each other is long lasting (or forever lasting), and often an implicit sense of ownership from both sides finds itself in as well....and all other things everyone knows are silly or unrealistic or simply unhealthy (say, from a psychological/therapeutic point of view).
On the other hand, an hypothetical/stereotypical non-monk buddhist may still have a companion and cherish that companionship. And their relationship might as well be called a loving one (the kind that is commonly said to be healthy: actively caring for their well being), even if lacking the aforementioned fantasies and delusions of romance, which are often born from our neurosis and fears.
The attitude this hypothetical buddhist would put an effort to have towards the companionship would be of focusing more on virtuous behaviors (of respect, kindness, faithfulness, honesty, etc) and relinquishing the blameful ones (jealously, dishonesty, disrespect, etc), bringing to peace strong unbalanced feelings. That is a good life, and according to Buddhism, one that may lead to a destination with less suffering.
In many traditions, "destination with less suffering" is what many buddhists look for when they do not set their current lives to shoot for nirvana. It's also how the Buddha "sold" buddha-dhamma in the pali suttas: if you don't feel like you can bear the dedication for nirvana right now, at least become a "good person": abandon most of the bad behaviors tied to greed, hatred and delusion in order to have less suffering in the future (and perhaps, find yourself in a position to finally go for it). That's a gist of his teaching: extinguish suffering, or at least lessen suffering.

"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself

The quote above is a strong statement about our desires and the nature of the objects we desire. It's an ultimate diagnostic of our condition, and an ultimate solution. But the actual method the Buddha proposed is not much building a wall between oneself and everybody/everything else (though a wall analogy can make some sense if it refers to seclusion from unwholesome states). It's about understanding these things in such a deep way that a natural dispassion towards them is developed -- like an adult who does not crave for child toys.

... and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad.

It's not about separating ourselves from potentially "wonderful feelings". It's about having a deep understanding and appreciation for how these things are unable to provide everlasting shelter, and how feeble and really not that "wonderful" these "feelings" are -- when compared to other things, specially.

I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life. I think of this concept of Buddhism similar to "don't smell the flowers because you may prick yourself on a thorn" thus denying yourself of the delights found in the smell and also the growth / knowledge from the pain of the thorn prick. Both of which you can learn and grow from.

Buddhism is reasonably in agreement that "pain is part of life", and never "denies pain" or ignores it: suffering is a prime subject of study in Buddhism and,  among many things, has been put in perspective how it supports the development in the buddhist path (SN 12.23) -- that is, suffering ends up being the reason for looking for an answer.
Pain and pleasure are part of our world. Fully embracing them as some sort of life ideology makes sense if one believes it will lead to either the same things (more pleasure and more pain, and this might be regarded as ok) or it will lead to a better existence -- e.g. one with less suffering.
In that case, if one believes one's life will lead to the same things in the future, and one is fine with it, Buddhism might not be much appealing.
However, if one hopes one's life/death will lead, eventually, to the permanent cessation of suffering, and a higher kind of happiness, then at least one can appreciate what the Buddha and the other ascetics of his time were trying to do. Many of them just did not believe this was the proper method for reaching this goal. Namely, that living a normal life delighting in pleasures of the senses and just trying to take a few lessons from the pain would lead to permanent cessation of suffering after this life (it could be said is somewhat in the direction, but it's not enough). In case of Nirvana as the ultimate destiny, the Buddha had an explanation for why this method is bogus and can't work. In few words: craving, in particular, for impermanent things as expedient for something permanent.
If one accepts all "these things around" as impermanent, than one is forced to accept that they cannot provide everlasting happiness. Thus, the idea that we can reach permanent happiness and escape from suffering by relying on "wonderful feelings" or delighting ourselves on mundane experiences of pleasure can be refuted.
This eagerness to have random experiences to fuel "wonderful feelings" into our senses, ultimately, ends up perceived as a distraction that seem to have no end, even though the feelings and experiences themselves do have an end, either exhausting themselves or becoming stressed by the sudden inability to get satisfied. Thus, any surprise on our part when facing changes around us are an indication of expectations disagreeing with reality -- in essence, delusion.
However, that does not mean buddhists should be cold and void as rocks. There are pleasures that are praised by the Buddha ("wonderful feelings" worthy of being cultivated), but all of them have a much lesser risk for craving (than sensual pleasures), and have a much better potential to help one out on a more sustained, healthier, wiser, pleasing life. So, it really depends what you refer to as "wonderful feelings", since these are scrutinized in detail in buddhism, where some are seeing as helpful, and some are not. Ultimately though (and the aspect you bring of buddhism is about the ultimate condition of things), they are still not the final answer since they are impermanent, even though they might be important to be cultivated  -- to move towards a life with less suffering, or in order to fulfill the path.
Finally, it's worthy to note that there are many subtleties and important distinctions for a range of feelings and emotions in Buddhism, and these are very technical. For example, if one reads a buddhist text with the word "feeling" in it (translating vedanā), without proper background the reader's interpretation is likely to be off.

This answer echoes the sentiment I had, which may not serve as a full answer: Lay Buddhists don't have an obligation to follow the path this much or that much, but the teachings are helpful nonetheless, and moreso when one practises meditation.

All beings "fall in love" as a result of desire (Tanha) and attachment in our mind.  Desire is caused by not transcending the true nature of our experience (Avijja). The Buddhist path is to eradicate Avijja which causes endless mental and physical suffering.

Pemato jayati soko
  pemato jayati bhayam
  pemato vippamuttassa
  natthi soko kuto bhayam.
Endearment begets sorrow,
  endearment begets fear.
  For him who is free from endearment
  there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him?
-- Dhammapada Verse 213:

Therefore the term you use is correct; we "fall" in love blindly because we don't see the true nature of things. So the person who follows the buddha dhamma (a Buddhist) falls in love as long as the right skills are gained to realize the true nature of things we experience (Yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana).

How can we fall in love if there's to be no desire because it is considered bad? And the verse as quoted supports my question, "you can't have endearment because it'd lead to sorrow", therefore sans endearment, sans love?

It's true that a partner in love can make one happy, no doubt. That love can be liberating, deep and precious. The downside, is that, this happiness is not permanent or lasting. It will disappear again and one will experience suffering as a result.
What Buddhism teaches, is that if one would like to achieve a permanent happiness then one should not look for it in conditioned existence (samsara), because it cannot be found in a world that is impermanent.
To achieve lasting and permanent happiness one must realize Nibbana, the unconditioned, unborn and uncaused state.
Nibbana is not subject to incessant arising and falling away, thus it is stable, secure and permanent.

Apparently the Buddha did NOT say "Everything that has a beginning has an ending. Make your peace with that and all will be well." But if he had, it would be just as true. (And we would not have to argue over whether he said it or not.)

I disagree regardless of whether it was said or not, not all things that have a beginning can have an ending and this can be a cause of pain. Some questions will remain answered not creating an ending.

I meant, some questions will remain unanswered

Also, I think, just because it will disappear doesn't mean that it shouldn't be experienced? For example, the death of a loved one doesn't mean the love for that person has to stop, does it?

@user3791372, I think the notion of "shouldn't be experienced" doesn't capture the Buddhist perspective.  Falling in love happens, whether I want it to or not.  Loss of the one I love happens, whether I want it to or not.  Life happens, whether I want it to or not.  So, really, what's up with all this wanting and not-wanting?

@DanBryant: Wanting happens, whether we want it to or not. Shouldn't happen? (I didn't comment on this Answer where he wrote about "permanent happiness". Wow! To me, that is missing the boat entirely. Splash!)

@nocomprende, My understanding is that Nibbana is permanent in the sense that it lacks the quality of impermanence that is associated with all conditioned things.  This is because it is unconditioned (though 'because' is a bit misleading here.)    When a fire truly burns out, there is nothing left behind to rekindle the flame.  Nothing can cause permanent happiness to come about; practice can reveal that it was never something that needed causing.

@DanBryant: what you are saying about a permanent anything is like when people talk about their "true self": kicking the can down the road. What use is it? Throw it away! If the fire has burned out and cannot be rekindled, then the truth is that there is no fire. But what sort of truth is that? There are an infinite number of things that are not. Describing them does not help.

Modern neuroscience is catching up with Buddhism in this department it appears. Scientists have found romantic love activates the same addictive parts of the brain as cocaine. One journalist calls it the "terrifying neuroscience of romance," perhaps because to fault romance in our present culture is heresy, but equally science is the Oracle on the mountain top that no one dares argue with.
Romantic love arises to a great degree  out of fear. There's a sense of loneliness in this world felt by most, that romance attempts to eliminate. Most people call their partners a witness to their life, a shoulder to lean on, a companion on the journey etc. When one perceives life as harsh and lonely, then a partner is a wise investment for success and comfort. However it's only a temporary relief from the perceived solitary nature of existence, which will arise like sobriety, eventually to harsh the mellow.
The old habit of seeing the world as separate from the self will also intrude upon family life and cause disharmony between the couple. It's inevitable, because such lonely attitudes honor the egotic self. Bickering divorces are purely a result of both partners formerly in love, now pulling at each other for their "rights".
Thus, Buddhism likens romantic love to an addiction, an attachment, and a danger.
It's natural to feel intoxicated with cocaine, but it's not wise to seek out the addiction.
However, love isn't solely about addiction. It can also be about selflessness, sacrifice and self-improvement—but in a statistical sampling of love, this would be a minority.  This is the raison d'être for the Vajrayana school's point of view, of romance as a valid path to enlightenment. It's like the medical uses of cocaine, which needs to be administered by experts: it's easy to get it wrong, as the cases of those addicted to oxycodone show.

Very interesting - but what about parental or sibling love which is born into rather than the love in a new relationship which is created? And, maybe slightly off-topic, what about poly relationships involving more than one person where the concept of love may be different to a traditional monogamous relationship?

Blood relations are only different that one is born into it, there is no choice, so the required escape velocity is much higher. Still, parents disown sons and siblings don't talk to each other for decades. It again comes down to perception, since we view blood relations as stronger we don't break them as often. Though in reality legal requirements for divorce are much tougher than cutting someone out of an inheritance, yet divorces are more common. In ancient times when economic and social conditions made it harder to be a single woman, divorces were less common. Nothing to do with love.

Poly relationships are also about seeking comfort from fear and loneliness - albeit in in the arms of many rather than one. It can be about bacchanalian sense pleasures, but it can also be about romantic love of the kind already described. Selfless love is quite different from all of this, it is obviously about wanting nothing out of the relationship for oneself. But that would be too crude a summary - selfless love can be very nuanced and subtle, and may not look like love at all. It's called fierce compassion by some, like a parent kicking out a prodigal son for his own good.

Buddhism is not about ignoring, denying or suppressing any feelings, it's about seeing them objectively- as feelings that have nothing to do with the self, states that simply arise and cease in the mind and nothing more. There is nothing unhealthy about this, in fact I think it is more unhealthy to obsess over strong emotions, crave for them to be returned and become blind with jealousy and rage when they aren't. People commit murder for these reasons. An extreme example, but I would argue that sure, if one wants to indulge in pleasures and are ok with the impermanence and risks, fine, it's your call. But people who are are devoted buddhists can develop into very genuinely selfless and compassionate beings and whether or not you believe in karma and rebirth, the world could use more selflessness and compassion and less craving and entitlement. Just because it's normal and natural doesn't mean it's healthy.

Re: "feelings that have nothing to do with the self..." reminds me of how Einstein explained Radio: "It is like there is this long cat, and when you are pulling his tail in New York, he is meowing in Los Angeles. Radio is just like this, except there is no cat." (my emphasis) Life is like this, except there is no self.

Good point. The OP probably also confuses pain with suffering, which are quite different animals, since one can experience pain without suffering. Suffering is kind of trashing around trying to avoid pain, usually making things worse.

Above all, Buddhists teach not to obstruct one's own emotion... rather to accept and observe it.
So don't let the idea of what an Arhat (a real Buddhist) would do to obstruct your own heart because if one does so... it will create even more karma. The behavior of a Buddha is not merely emulated but is the product of moral discipline, meditation, contemplation, and concentration. Merely copying a Buddha's results will only result in frustration--not being more Buddhist or closer to the goal.
Now, to answer your question: a real Buddhist aka an Arhat on his way to Buddahood, does not fall in love. They simply cannot generate such a tremendous amount of ignorance and greed.
They may still develop an appreciation for someone, a preference for someone but they do not develop the romantic obsession known commonly as love.
As for a practicing Buddhist... depending on what their goal is, be it Enlightenment in this very lifetime or just enough merit to improve their current life and be reborn in a better place, the answer is different.
Obviously, romantic life is frequently a waste of time and a cause of suffering and bad karma. A marriage of purpose and unity is far superior compared to "falling in love."
Anyway, if "falling in love", an unfortunate phenomenon, does happen to oneself, it is best not to repress it or exaggerate it but rather one should go along with it and use it as a metta meditation and eventually integrating upekkha meditation into it, all the while creating as few of The Three Poisons as one can (via naturally avoiding craving), maintaining one's practice.

I hope I am not nit-picking in saying this, but I do not agree with your statement that, "The behavior of a Buddha is not merely emulated but is the product of moral discipline, meditation, contemplation, and concentration." I would say that it is not the result of anything done, but is a different order of comprehension entirely. It would be like saying that the view from the top of a cliff is the result of making a rope ladder. No, the view is there already. The method of getting there is not the point, like the idea of the boat you abandon at the other shore. Too much emphasis on method.

Hmm.. Im not understanding but to use your analogy i am saying that making the rope ladder, anchoring it and using it is what gets one to the top. Visualizing the great view from the top (emulating the result) will not bring one to the top.

OK, I am perhaps pedantic on this point, so I was only saying that the method seems to get ensconced. One could reach the top by walking, or climbing, or using a balloon, or a glider or a helicopter, learning to levitate, etc. The point is the different perspective, not how you get there. Maybe it is just my teaching preference. I can't imagine getting to the perspective of a Buddha by practicing anything. Something has to come like lightning and change one's perspective. It takes a lot of work to build an airplane, thus discipline etc, but those are not the point of the exercise.

Whatever method one uses, whatever process, even if it happens from a non Buddhist practice, i only sought to illustrate that we should not seek to copy cat a static idea of what Awakening is but actually walk on Buddhas road of discovery and experimentation.

My friend, you are mistaken, what is nowadays considered falling in love only causes suffering, people want to feel loved because they think that will make them happy, that naturally creates suffering since they go through life seeking love as they think it will make them happy,
when you are free, you only have love to give, this is what makes us truly happy, you don't just love your partner: you love everyone.

I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person?

Leaving aside "love" for a moment, Buddhism teaches that conditioned things are impermanent and dissatisfactory.
For example you might have a nice evening out with someone, however that evening won't last. You might marry the person hoping for a repeat of the experience but most of life isn't like that. If you become attached to a specific experience you'll be disappointed: because experiences don't last; and because temporary experiences can't be permanently satisfying.
Back to the subject of love, then, there are various types of people and various types of love:

Love someone, get married, don't find that satisfying, get divorced
Love someone, get married, don't find that satisfying, stay married
Love someone, don't get married, don't find that satisfying...

There are other forms of love, other than romantic/sexual love:

The love of parents for their children and vice versa
Loving a teacher
Loving a friend
Loving a neighbour

If you do want to marry, there is some advice on how to choose a marriage partner.

"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad.

I don't think it means "build a wall". It means that when you see someone you should understand that they will change (e.g. they'll go away, become sick, maybe get angry sometimes, die), that whatever you experience now will change, that it would be unskillful (unhappy-making) to become attached to something (or to someone or to some experience) in the expectation or hope that it will never change.

I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life.

Addiction (e.g. addiction to alcohol) is also part of life. It's addictive, a) because it's enjoyable b) the enjoyment isn't permanent, it fades c) therefore if you crave (or thirst for or become attached to) that enjoyment then you'll try to repeat (and drink again or drink continuously, therefore becoming alcoholic). The fact that it's "part of life" doesn't make it "healthy". The same is true for other addictions to apparently-pleasurable-however-impermanent things.

Both of which you can learn and grow from. Am I missing something here?

Well, two things.
The first is that you might be arguing that it's good to burn your hand on the hot stove: because you learn from that, i.e. you learn that it hurts and that it damages your hand and that you shouldn't burn your hand on the hot stove!
Slightly more subtly, you might learn the trick to how to hold a hot coal in your hand without getting burned: you have to hold it lightly without grasping it, without becoming attached to it. Similarly it may be possible to love without becoming attached, without getting burned. This type (these several types) of unselfish love are called the brahma-viharas (see here and here for some further explanation), of which perhaps the most famous is "compassion" a.k.a. "Mettā".

"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful".
There are many ways to look at the same thing in the Buddha's teaching. It can be very hard to keep up a good practice when with another person. I have really struggled with being married and trying to keep a continuous practice but were else would I get so much opportunity to practice so much patience?

In modern society, problems with love are the greatest cause of suffering. The Buddha did not have to deal with this vast form of suffering because his students were seeking Enlightenment. We now know that that greatest suffering comes from having experienced emotional or physical abuse during childhood. All infants fall in love with their parents. If his or her parents do not respond appropriately to this love, then the child will suffer debilitating low self-esteem, depression, or some other mental disorder. When practicing the Brahmavihara, self-love is practiced first. This is the only hint in Theravadin Buddhism that I have found that indicates a lack of self-love might be a problem. If you want to know more about the love of infants and parenting, I suggest the writings of the past Maria Legerstee. Just for the record, I have practiced traditional mindfulness meditation for more than 50 years.

+1 "When practicing the Brahmavihara, self-love is practiced first"

I doubt sottapanna would fall in love in the cliché sense which is just chemical reaction in the brain. I think for a sottapana to be partnered can be constructive this is a possibility but as everything is specific to the individual. If one is used to promiscuousnous before stream entry there is nothing left in promiscuousness to learn from so better to move on to marriage or bdsm or fetish or celibacy or whatever.
If one is celibate before stream entry perhaps that one should be a slut and see what happens. Investigate based on your circumstances. Stream winners still subject to karma so we have family we obviously still love or act like we do whatever you want to say


text:
Is this progress in meditation?
Sometimes during meditation (Vipassana), I've noticed how the mind tends to get back to breathing by itself, without effort. Can I consider this a progress in meditation? I know that it would be a hindrance to like this when it happens or to dislike when it doesn't happen.
The question is: does this say something about the mind? (I've been practicing daily for the last 9 months).

Are you happier in general?  That's the only progress in meditation that matters.

I'm happier, calmer, in general more serene, and I rarely get upset lately. Sometimes I feel a sense of joy when I think that I know what I have to do in every moment. In my question, I was more talking about formal meditation - I don't have anybody to talk to about my practice and maybe I don't have the right books to learn about specific things that I notice. Thank you all for your informative responses!

well the purpose of formal meditation is to improve the quality of your life in general.  As such, I would caution against worrying about "progress" in formal meditation, as it can be counter-productive.  There's a lot of nonsense written about meditation, and often, meditation "attainment" is used as some kind of badge, so these attainments could be more political than anything else.  Then there's also the danger that if you start thinking in terms of "progress" you might lose the "beginner's" mind that keeps you open to phenomena.  Progress is often the back door through which ego enters.

Apropos badges and attainments, read Chogyam Trungpa's book on spiritual materialism.

Returning to the object of noting sounds like Khanika Samadhi

Pure Vipassana yogis can appreciate and understand the power of Khanika concentration. For when their noting gains momentum, they can see for themselves how the noting goes on by itself uninterruptedly without a break. The noting seems to run on its own steam without any need for the yogi to make any concerted or deliberate effort. Thus, it is not unusual for a yogi to be able to sit for an hour, and even several hours, absorbed in noting. During good noting, especially at the insight knowledge of equanimity (sankhara-upekkhañana), the mind just stays put on its objects and refuses to wander. Even if one wants to send the mind out, it refuses to go and it recoils back to whatever Vipassana object it is noting. There have been cases of yogis being able to sit for six or seven hours in a stretch, or even longer. From this, one can deduce that there must be strength in Khanika concentration; otherwise how would yogis be able to sit in rapt concentration for such lengths of time.

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/vip-jhana.html

A way to measure ones overall progress in the practice, is to see if the root defilements of "Greed, Hatred and Delusion" are either increased or decreased.

There are multiple measures of progress:

Fulfilling the 3 trainings: progress on this can be asses from the stage in (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta and related suttas
How diligent (appamāda,vihārī) you are in spiritual development - Pamāda Vihārī Sutta
Development of the 7 factors of enlightenment and the Bodhipakkhiyādhammā out of this I would emphasize awareness and equanimity but there is a lot of overlap with other measures
Level of purification of mind as in Ratha,vinīta Sutta
Overcoming latent tendencies and unwholesome roots Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2, (Akusala,mūla) Añña,titthiya Sutta
Abandoning hindrances - Nīvarana,pahana Vagga
Jhana route to Nirodha
Loosing of fetters and stages of sainthood
etc.

I deemphasize the last two in the list above for average or novice meditators.

Sometimes during meditation (Vipassana), I've noticed how the mind tends to get back to breathing by itself, without effort. Can I consider this a progress in meditation? I know that it would be a hindrance to like this when it happens or to dislike when it doesn't happen.

If you take the Five hindrances one is uddhacca-kukkucca. Uddhacca is restlessness or actively wondering mind. Staying with one object is  abandoning uddhacca-kukkucca. Also it can be viewed as development of concentration which is a factor in many of these measures above.
Also keep in mind when you regularly think or try to measure your progress you regress in your meditation. You should do this very irregularly perhaps one or so in a few months otherwise this will itself lead to uddhacca-kukkucca.

The question is: does this say something about the mind?

You are developing concentration and coming out of restless worry hence some level of purification of the mind is happening.

Notice your mind, now feel your feet, did the quality of your mind change?  Often, this is enough to see something.  Rather than feeling your feet, which you can do, though you generally don't... or feeling your back, similarly, Zen practitioners simply feeling their 2nd chakra.  Through that alone they appear to be able to reach the highest levels.
There is another style which feels the whole body.  Having some awareness of the body allows the subtle-body to begin to form.  This will over time help to release energy-blockages and eventually activate the whole energy system.  The only requirement is to keep from "putting gasoline in the water tank" (aka, over-stimulating your system with non-stop entertainment, just to have to clear out everything put in), and keep from exhausting the energy-body as it builds up (aka, staying up to 3am every night, or non-stop sex, etc...).
As you progress along your experience of existing will, well..., it is tricky without a teacher to tell you that you've fallen back into old habits, or that you are doing well.  But, once you are able to see how you drain yourself & cut that out, and how you "loose your center" so that you can get it back, you can make progress.  The progress is to catch yourself doing something that makes you tired, and stop it, over time your energy increases (sealing up the holes in the water bucket, such as eating heavy meals).
You'll experience your system coming to life, then do something to back up a few steps, and you'll get there again... and avoid the things to pull you back, over time more and more progress towards another kind of existance...

Added line spaces to increase readability. Please roll-back if not agreeable.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Fun teaching techniques for children meditation class
Can someone help ?  i am looking for fun teaching of meditation and Buddhist teaching from age 4 ~ 13 old.
Also help with morality, environmental protection, chanting, Buddhist religion's etiquette and meditation would be appreciated.

Hi. Welcome to Buddhism SE. You might find these question interesting - Buddhist themed crafts and activities also Teaching buddhist concepts to a child and How do you tell a 4 year old who the Buddha was. Good luck with your meditation teaching

Here's a video series on how to meditate for children:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB4C918E1E338A6F1
DVDs are also available.

There are some guided meditations for children on BuddhaNet: "Teaching Meditation in the Classroom".

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


text:
Does Buddhism kill creativity?
My decrease in creativity does most likely not have anything to do with my feeble meditation attempts, because it is natural to have ups and downs, even when it comes to creativity.
But still, meditation deals with ridding oneself of attachments by observing mind states objectively and I think that following through an idea and turning it into a finished piece of work requires quite a lot of attachment and devotion to the project.
I suppose my real question is: is it possible to balance being a practicing Buddhist and a creative artist?

My suspicion is you're going to get a lot of answers that frantically try to defend buddhism. I definitely see the point you make that buddhism can kill creativity.

I don't mean to insult Buddhism, I am sure it is possible to be Buddhist and creative, I just wonder if Buddhist practice discourages creativity more than it encourages it. But it's fine if people want to defend it, I'm interested in all views on the matter.

I can see both things happening.  If one's creativity is a function of one's passion, one's suffering, one's attachment (tortured artist anyone?), then I imagine Buddhist practice would reduce it. OTOH, to the extent that Buddhism gets us out of our ego-bubble and enables us to see beyond our interests, it could foster creativity.

Many working artists are also Buddhists. A number of high profile creative people such as Leonard Cohen, Herbie Hancock and Steve Jobs are Buddhists. See Wikipedia's long list of celebrity Buddhists, many of whom work in creative industries.
Most people report that creativity increased after taking up meditation. At least one scientific study reported that meditation enhances creativity. The Huffington Post has reported much the same news.
Buddhist practice requires not just moment to moment awareness, but also considerable continuity of purpose. If one emphasises only the former then one is unlikely to make much progress. It's a bit like walking downstairs and forgetting why you went down there.
So there seems to be no reason to think that being a practising Buddhist would "kill creativity". And no reason to think you cannot balance being a practising Buddhist and a creative artist. I personally know at least a dozen people who do just this.

I would be skeptical as to how buddhist these people were. It is a well known fact that Apple has abused of cheap labor. I definitely see the case that strict buddhism can kill creativity. How buddhist can a musician be? I've heard some therevada sects warn you against music. Many sensual things are seen in a bad light in strict buddhism.

I'm sure a physicist thinking about some equation while walking through hallways at a university would be considered "not mindful" and instead should've been thinking "walking, walking, breathing breathing"

I'd be careful with quoting studies on meditation, as there seem to be widespread methodological problems with many meditation studies.  In fact, there seem to be few -- if any -- rigorous studies done on meditation.

Attempts to be mindful, ala mindfulness practices, are certainly at odds with "aha" creative experiences as these emerge out of a wandering mind:
See:
Mind wandering “Ahas” versus mindful reasoning: alternative routes to creative solutions
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469818/
So, should one strive to be mindful, or should one allow it to unfold naturally, as a result of meditation, alternated with activity?
As this Soto Zen master says: Stop being mindful!
http://antaiji.org/archives/eng/adult18.shtml
As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said:
The two steps of progress are rest (TM aka dhyana) and activity (everything else found during waking, dreaming and sleeping).
An enlightened person, at least in the beginning stage, is where the qualities of rest (meditation) have spontaneously emerged and become permanent in the middle of all possible activity (waking, dreaming and sleeping).
One doesn't cultivate this by attempting to BE mindful, but simply by allowing the natural cycle of rest and activity to proceed.
And mind-wandering is the essential basis of dyana and the spontaneous ability to switch from paying attention TO something and switching attention (via mind-wandering) to something else IS the creative process. In enlightenment mind-wandering is always present, even when one is fully focused on some thing, and so creativity is always present as well.
Mindfulness, in this situation, merely refers to the ever-present observer, always observing. Such a person is always mindful because it is impossible for the ever-present observer to NOT be mindful.
This confusion is why people worry that BUddhism detracts from creativity. It isn't Buddhism that detracts, but inappropriate attempts to practice what spontaneously emerges from practice: being always mindful.
The "description" that one is always mindful when one is enlightened has become a "method" to use to become enlightened.
This can only take one further away from enlightenment, which is where one is always creative because the mind is always free to wander.

Hi Saijanai and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

Your "description becomes the method" idea is what I am asking about in my question: Are Teachings Developed After the Fact. So, thank you!

Maybe you can use your (new) interest for Buddhism as a new subject of your work - like focusing more on themes like human emotions (compassion), impermanence etc.

Creativity and compassion are by-products of consciousness. Creativity is driven by ego before Nirvana but after that it is an effortless spontaneous process. If you live consciously you will not compete but will start living creatively. In Buddha's time you could be creative in a very restricted sense. An engineer would not go beyond creating a new knife or a plough. Today one can express his creativity in a number of ways and extent that was not possible in earlier times. Buddha was never questioned about creativity.
If you follow Buddha, you will be creative. Buddhism is restrictive in nature because of dos and donts by dont-know-whos. Nature is very creative. There are no copies in Nature. Humans are creative by birth but unfortunately society kills it through dos and donts especially religions. Creativity is synonymous with egoless-ness provided one does not aspire to profit from it.
If you are creative you will be alive and very close to Nirvana. Buddha was so creative with his approach. He was unique. How can his teaching go against creativity which is uniqueness manifested?

Meditation, as I believe, enhances your creativity as it makes you thinking more clear.

I think that following through an idea and turning it into a finished piece of work requires quite a lot of attachment and devotion to the project.

Mahā,nidāna Sutta describes the pursuing of worldly activities. In the light of this, what might be happening here is you have some attachment to the finished work a pleasant feeling arises which triggers the following steps:

dependent upon feeling (vedanā), there is craving;
dependent upon craving (taṇhā), there is seeking;
dependent upon seeking (pariyesanā), there is gain;
dependent upon gain (lābha), there is decision-making;
dependent upon decision-making (vinicchaya), there is desire and lust;
dependent upon desire and lust (chanda,rāga), there is attachment;
dependent upon attachment (ajjhosāna), there is possessiveness;
dependent upon possessiveness (pariggaha), there is avarice;
dependent upon avarice (macchariya), there is safe-guarding;
dependent upon safe-guarding (ārakkha), there arise various evil unwholesome state —
   taking up of the rod, taking up of the sword, conflicts, quarrels, disputes [strife], back-biting, harsh speech, false speech.

Mahā,nidāna Sutta

My decrease in creativity does most likely not have anything to do with my feeble meditation attempts, because it is natural to have ups and downs, even when it comes to creativity.

This seems like you self defence mechanism kicking in creating negative states. You are trying to protect or guard your creativity.
In addition greed and craving may propel you to undertake more work as perhaps a source of income. You can still keep up your motivation without greed through proper intention.
Without meditation you decision making maybe fueled by gains than creativity. Also craving and excessive desire (perhaps at the sub conscious level) to make a living may be having a detrimental effect on your creativity.

I suppose my real question is: is it possible to balance being a practicing Buddhist and a creative artist?

Yes you can. If you are motivated by proper intention than craving hence avoiding the above path. Meditation also clears your mind and makes you more emotionally balanced so your creative juices can run wild.

Buddhism is the Development of creativity, Creativity is human nature, it is the sole reason for the rapid advancement of human kind, and Buddhism grounds our creativity with purpose. It's not easy being an artist, we get "lost in the clouds" sometimes and we give credit to the chaos that we call "the Creativity process" Creativity is not a process Stop assuming it is. If you have to think to hard to use your creativity its because your actually just thinking.
And Apple is not a representative of creativity, they are programmers, the ego is a program, a strategist. creativity is intuitive, it is effortless. I'm 32 years old, i ether, draw, paint, sculpt or write every day, I have never had a creative block, and as a child i assumed that a creative block is just what people who weren't artistic. With a Buddhist understanding Creativity is your true human nature that develops thru the pure mental state that comes from contentment in meditation (natural state of human development free from selfish motives).  Evolution is pushing change but this human form is optimal for the harnessing of creative.  I would recommend doing some intuitive paintings like splatter paintings so you can get a taste of actual pure creative energy, that is meditation for artist and unless it is extracted from enjoyment in the moment and free from egotistical subject matter you are not living an authentic life. Authenticity is opposite of ego, I believe now as an adult that creative block is more of a conflict of what you believe to be important enough to show devotion to. You need to take a long look in the mirror, find the doubt in your practice, have faith that doubt is one of the five hindrance that dissipates with the defining of phenomenon and eradicated with meditation.


text:
What kind of births are recognized in Buddhism?
There are different kinds of birth in Buddhism, depending on what realm one is reborn in.
What are these kinds of birth?

See also the answers to Can one take rebirth as an insect? and Is there any explanation on why only humans and animals do not remember previous life?

To an enlightened Buddha, everything is merely elements (dhatu), sense phenomena (ayatana) & aggregates (khandha). 'Birth' ('jati') means to impute the idea or worldly convention of 'selves', 'persons' or 'beings' ('satta') onto the mere elements, sense spheres & aggregates (refer to SN 12.2; SN 5.10; & SN 23.2). All 'births' ('jati') are mere thought conceptions or sankhara (refer to SN 22.81). Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I,"
  "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed.
  The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical
  birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.
  Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I," the "I" has been born;
  its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind of birth that
  constitutes a problem for us is mental birth. Anyone who fails to
  grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the
  Buddha teaching.
Another Kind of Birth

Jati (Jeat) in Thailand, Cambodia... in South Asia, is always a synonym for Birth, Stand, State also Nation. While it actually means "identification", it's not good to deny all other with a categorical answer (bias). Slave of Buddha and some others, aren't to be suspected to be smarter then generations of wise and use of words for tousands of years by continents. If just meaning that suggested, aside of usual, the Buddha would have told. Look at his definition of jati, birth, you know well, which does not, of course, exclude this focus, as well.

In the Theravada Abhidhamma, four different kinds of birth are recognized1, namely:

egg-born beings (Aṇḍaja), such as birds, fish and reptiles.
womb-born beings (Jalābuja), such as mammals. Egg-born beings are also included in this category.
moisture-born beings (Saṃsedaja), includes certain lowly forms of animals, such as worms.
spontaneously-born beings (Opapatika), such as petas and devas. These beings are generally invisible to the physical eye.

1 Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Ch. 5: "Compendium of Matter", p. 256, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi

The four kinds of birth are also found in the suttas. But they do not appear to be closely related to the realms. Is there a quote which shows that they are in fact related?

There is this quote by Ven. Bhikku Bodhi from the section on births in the sensuous realm: "The present section deals with the manner in which these material groups come into being at the moment of conception, during the course of existence, and in different realms", p. 256.

Also he lists the entire section on different kinds of birth under the chapter: "In the Sensous World", p. 255. There is not much else written about it.

If you have some sutta references to the different kinds of birth, then feel free to add them - post is now community wiki.

This teaching is from MN 12; about the 4 kinds of generation (rather than birth). 32. "Catasso kho imā, sāriputta, yoniyo. Katamā catasso? Aṇḍajā yoni, jalābujā yoni, saṃsedajā yoni, opapātikā yoniSariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation..... What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation.

opapātikā is not invisible.


text:
The needs of the same human being may differ at different stages of life. Can there be one Dharma for all stages?
From infancy till old age, our bodily, psychological and even spiritual change and evolve. Also, their faults or risks differ at each stage of life. For instance, the greatest "fault" of an infant is ignorance of the world, and simultaneously, her greatest need is to physically explore.
The same infant may grow into a youth whose greatest fault is lack of self-knowledge, and his/her greatest need is to explore the word of relationships and seek romance. The same youth may grow into an old person whose greatest fault may be a false sense of power, authority and ownership over other people, and whose deepest need may simply be peace and rest.
So, is there one dharma preaching for all stages of life (or stages of evolution) in Buddhism? or are there many?

Edit: Added line-spacing to increase readability. Please roll-back if not agreeable.

Is there one dharma preaching for all stages of life (or stages of evolution) in Buddhism? or are there many?

There are many dharma preachings relevant to life stages.
Buddhism teaches Five Niyamas
In Kamma Niyama, it says every action has reaction. So don't do to others what you dislike.

Can there be one Dharma for all stages?" No

It would be meaningless to say to an infant, "Don't do to others what you dislike". For instance, the infant does not like to have its nipples sucked... but that is exactly what it must do to its mother to survive.
It would be meaningless to say to an old man, "Don't do to others what you dislike." For instance, a weak old man may not like others to lean on him while he walks, but leaning on others is exactly what he is compelled to do by his old age.
Simplistic answers fail to do justice to the complexity of questions that life throws at you.

There is one Dharma for all, however one may emphasize certain aspects of Dharma to take on certain challenges.  For instance, some Buddhist teachings will prescribe certain types of meditations for certain temperaments.
The problem with trying to have a different Dharma for different life stages is that it assumes that every person faces the same challenge at any given stage in life, and this is simply untrue.  People's challenges are a function of their genetic dispositions, circumstances, stage in life and so on.
Having said that, there very well may be broad themes that come into play in the stage of life.  For instance, in old age, issues of health, impending morality and even irrelevance can come into play. However, it's dangerous to focus exclusively on those themes as how they manifest as challenges is still based on the individual.
Furthermore, even if one were to focus on those broad themes, the Dharma would remain the same, one would simply shift one's energies to different aspects that seem most suited to the theme.  For instance, how does the theme of mortality factor into one's ego-lessness?  Would something like increased death contemplation be appropriate?  What about if one is concerned with physical appearance at a certain age?  Would contemplation on the unattractiveness of the body be appropriate here?
But this comes back to different temperaments; entering a life stage (along with one's other factors) could be "reduced" to a shift in temperament, with the appropriate shift in emphasis on the practices involved.
On an unrelated note, what you ask seems more in line with Hinduism, which acknowledges different practices for different life stages, but that's not relevant here.  I just thought it interesting given the common religious mileu from which both arose.

The needs of the same human being may differ at different stages of life. Can there be one Dharma for all stages?

Yes there can be one Dhamma for all.
The Dhamma taught by the Buddhas is timeless and does not change. These rare beings discover the path for themselves, they discover an ancient path, after which they teach it to other beings.
The Dhamma is always the same. The Four Noble Truths do not change whether one is 5, 30 or 90 years old.
There is though, different approaches to the Dhamma, depending on what age a human being has.
If one is 5 years old, then a more simple and fantastic approach might be used. For example one uses in greater deal the stories from the Jatakas, to illustrate the different path factors such as ethical conduct.
One might also approach it from a school teachers angle as Crab Bucket has done. He used clay to form dhamma wheels and drawings of the Buddha surrounded by animals. Ven. Yuttadhammo has made a video-series on how to do Metta meditation for kids. In the videos he speak very slowly, calmly and simply. It works really well for kids.
So in other words. If one is pretty young in age then the complexity of the Dhamma, such as the technicalities of the Abhidhamma might not be the best approach:)
If one is 30 or 90 years old, there are many different approaches. The best way to explain this, is to look at the different affiliations of Buddhism and then find an affiliation or several affiliations, that fits ones own understanding of the Dhamma. In the end, they all lead to the same goal, Liberation.
Ultimately, to understand the Dhamma, one has to practice meditation. In the meditation one will truly understand that the Dhamma is timeless and always the same for all ages and stages.

You are talking about different teaching methods, to address different ages. But I am pointing out different needs at different ages, or different stages of life. For instance, the infant needs milk, not meat and vegetables. The youth needs meat, bones, vegetables, etc. The aged person whose teeth have fallen out needs soup and gruel, not meat and bones. Analogously, our spiritual needs vary according to stages in life. How can one teaching be applicable to all? That would be a dogmatic approach!


text:
Any instance in the pali canon where a sotāpanna born as a human?
According to the Theravada Buddhism, a sotāpanna can be born in 7 existence in kama-loka which includes human realm.

Yê ariya saccâni vibhâvayanti - gambhira paññnêna sudêsitâni,
  Kincâpi tê honti bhusappamattâ - na te bhavam attamam âdiyanti,
  Idampi sanghê ratanam panîtam - êtêna saccêna suvatthi hôtu.
Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound in wisdom (the Buddha), even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness.
-- Ratana Sutta Verse 9

Is there any such instance in the pali canon, in the commentaries or in any Buddhist culture?

To be born in the human realm, you usually need to keep to the 5 precepts which all Sotapanna beings keep to by default. But living in the time of the Buddha would've given them many opportunities to do great deeds on top of that. So naturally, they would've been born in a places higher than the human realm.  ex: Anathapindika, Visaka etc.

@SankhaKulathantille That is true. My impression of the question was along the lines of, perhaps a being that attained sotapanna during the previous Buddha's dispensation took birth as a human during our Buddha's lifetime, being born as a human sotapanna, and appeared in the pali canon already having attained it. Is this correct, Sajeewa ?

It is hard to comprehend a sotapanna from a past Buddha's dispensation born as a human in recent history. My question was mostly focused on our Buddha's lifetime and after if any.

Why would that be hard to comprehend? Such a being could have easily spent aeons in a heavenly realm and just recently been reborn as a human, yes?

@Ryan it's highly unlikely that a Sothapanna god or a Brahma would be born as human again. Because with each life they keep eliminating their defilements. So the consequent births are usually higher or equal.

If you're only asking about beings reaching sotapanna during or after out Buddhas lifetime, though, Ven. Sariputta and Mogallana both reached sotapanna after only hearing a portion of a teaching.

It specifically says in AN 3.87 that a sotapanna may take births as deva or human, no more than 7 times, as you can see from the passage below.

AN 3.87 didn't provide any specific instance but in this sutta, the Buddha talked about 3 grades of stream enterers from low to high:

...Having undertaken the training rules, he trains in them. With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-times-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering;
With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering;
With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end of suffering.

I have never seen these classifications before. The first one looks to me like what I understand to be Sotapanna. the second one I haven't seen before. The third seems to be Sakadagami. Do you have any more insight into this?

Also, where did you find reference to AN 3.87? I'm not finding an English translation anywhere. Thanks!

There're lots of suttas not available on the net. Your best bet is to get Ven. Bodhi's "Numerical Discourses". The third one mentioned is not Sakadagami. The Pali name for this level is Ekabiji, the highest grade of Sotapanna. The other 2 more sluggish grades are Sattakkhattuparama and Kolamkola (from Ven. Bodhi's AN 3.87 note in his "Numerical Discourses")

What then would be the distinction between Sakadagami and Ekabiji? The hindrances done away with?

Ekabiji is still a Sotapanna. Sotapanna and Sakadagami have both abandoned the first three fetters. But Sakadagami's also significantly weakened the 4th and 5th fetters. By the time one becomes an Anagami, all lower 5 fetters would've been abandoned.

Thanks to SuttaCentral, you can find it here: AN 3.87.


text:
Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?
The question says it all.
I'm not much familiar with either. I've read the book of Tao a few times and have read a few Buddhist scriptures.
To me they seem so different and so alike at the same time, but I barely have any surface knowledge to draw any conclusions.

You will receive varying answers since opinions vary. Mine would be that it is extremely easy to see them as being the same doctrine in different guises. This only becomes apparent when we delve beneath the surface into what both have to say about Nature, Reality and Self. Anyone who studies themselves eventually arrives at the same place, whether they start in China or India.   .

See also Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism? -- some of the answers to that question would be answers to this one.

There are many different kinds of Daoism and many different kinds of Buddhism. All with different views on important issues. Generally speaking Chinese Daoism and Indian Buddhism are different in their worldview, aims, and methods. However, Chinese Buddhism is massively influenced by Taoism and vice versa, over the entire history of Buddhism in China, so they can sometimes seem related.
The most salient different might be with respect to nature. Daoists aim to be in harmony with nature, through balancing out opposites, and through this to attain physical immortality. Indian Buddhists saw nature as the problem and escaping from rebirth in the world as the answer to this problem. On the other Buddhist these days are quite interested in environmental issues as an extension of Green politics and notions of compassion and are thus also quite interested in nature these days.
Daoists believe in a soul that survives death; Indian Buddhists believed that nothing like a soul can exist. Though arguably Buddhists capitulated to a soul when they invented "Buddha nature".
The methods of Daoism aim to bring about balance of the elements. The methods of Buddhism aim to help us see that our views about the elements are wrong and through seeing them correctly we can be free from being composed of them.
And so on.
However the massive influence of Daoism on Chinese Buddhism means that an understanding of Daoism is very relevant for understanding East Asian forms of Buddhism. The influence began at least with the earliest translations of Buddhist texts into Chinese. For example the character 道 was used to translate dharma and marga (way); and the character 神 is a term from Daoism that generally means “spirit”, “soul”, (sometimes translated as ‘divinity’). It is also used to translate Sanskrit ṛddhi “supernatural power”, anubhava “power, majesty”, or deva.
Later Daoism was profoundly influential on Zen Buddhism, and Zen has been one of the most influential forms of Buddhism in America (less so in Europe). According to one source Daoim introduced "elements like the concept of naturalness, distrust of scripture and text, and emphasis on embracing 'this life' and living in the 'every-moment'." Dumoulin, Heisig, & Knitter. Zen Buddhism: A History (2005).
Re spelling: "Daoism" uses the modern Pinyin system of transliteration for the Chinese character 道 i.e. dào; whereas the older and largely deprecated Wade-Giles system transcribes it tao. Apparently there is much discussion over which is "correct". I prefer Pinyin, but one can argue that Taoism is an existing Anglicisation that ought not to be affected by fashions in transcription.
The question has some crossover with others questions:

Why is Zen/Chan thought to be more related to Buddhism than to Taoism?
Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma.
Was the influence of Taoism on Buddhism responsible for the development of Mahayana?

There are enough schools/interpretations of both that any answer would have to be highly qualified. Furthermore, there's a crossover that confuses things further.  For instance, Zen is widely seen as a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism, so you may find great similarities between that branch of Buddhism and Taoism.
An overview is that Buddhism seeks to transcend suffering while Taoism seeks unity with nature.  However, consider this...

Buddhism transcends suffering by transcending the self.
Does Taoism's unity with nature require transcending the self?
Is Taoism's goal of unity with nature motivated by seeking happiness/eliminating suffering?

Depending on how you answer the above, you may find great similarities, but it may require a fair bit of inference.

+1 for "Buddhism seeks to transcend suffering while Taoism seeks unity with nature"


text:
Is the skeleton meditation of Buddhist origin?
I came across a skeleton meditation mentioned in this answer on this site, and I was interested because it supposedly grants interesting special abilities.
Googling it, I just found pages about something called white skeleton meditation, which I assume is the same thing (although according to guesswork on other forums it is either a Tibetan Buddhist type of meditation or a Taoist meditation but apparently NOT zen). Most sites that describe WSM talk of qi (because it "nourishes ones qi"), something I've never heard mentioned in a Buddhist context but I've heard very little.
Wikipedia seems to have nothing on the subject, so what is the origin of skeleton meditation? Is it a Buddhist meditation? A skeleton meditation is mentioned in this little book by Pa Auk Sayadaw (which I suppose is the same as the meditation mentioned in the answer referenced above).
Did Buddha ever talk of/teach this meditation?

I'm asking about the skeleton meditation mentioned in the link, I think it must be the same as the meditation on page 65 in the PDF. I wonder if it is of Buddhist origin, if it was taught by the Buddha.

I wrote that answer and here is a link to a more esoteric discussion of the Skeleton meditation (and how it can help you generate diagnostic doctor gong-fu).

Yes it's a Buddhist teaching. Contemplation on a skeleton is called atthika-sanna in Pali. Buddha's teaching of this is in Atthikamahapphala sutta (SN 46.57), however, there's no English translation of this .This technique is commonly used by forest monks to overcome sensual desires. You can practice it with a real skeleton, a picture of it or visualizing a skeleton in mind.


text:
Providing a prayer for others
As someone that is actively seeking to be a Buddhist, how does one show emotional support for others in time of need?
Christians offer to pray for them if someone or some person is going through a difficult situation.
For example, during 9/11 often leaders would pray for people and their nation who are going through loss.
Is there something in Buddhism that is similar? Is there something similar that Buddhists can offer to show that they are offering emotional or spiritual support.

Your question is on how to show that one is offering help or support. But I'm assuming that what you really meant is how to actually help or support and not just show that one is helping or supporting.
Since Buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of a God or Supreme Being to whom one can pray, prayer in the sense practised in other religions may not be applicable in Buddhism. This therefore, eliminates the need for any rites, rituals, ceremonies or prayer to any particular entity for the well being of others.
But, one can help or support others by practising Metta meditation. The effectiveness of Metta meditation depends on both the level of purity of your mind and that of the receiver. Therefore, practise of Vipassana meditation to purify one's mind may be considered to be a pre-requisite for effective Metta meditation. Metta meditation is essentially about sharing the good vibrations and energy that one generates by purifying one's own mind with others for their well being.
Wikipedia has an overview of Mettā:

The cultivation of benevolence (mettā bhāvanā) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism. In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, this practice begins with the meditator cultivating benevolence towards themselves, then one's loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers, enemies, and finally towards all sentient beings. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, this practice is associated with tonglen (cf.), whereby one breathes out ("sends") happiness and breathes in ("receives") suffering. Tibetan Buddhists also practice contemplation of the Brahmavihāras, also called the four immeasurables, which is sometimes called 'compassion meditation'.

To this I would add that some commentators on the canonical tradition (such as Thanissaro Bikkhu) argue that the effectiveness of Metta comes from the acts that derive from skillful intentions, rather than from some form of magic.

I guess the question a Buddhist (one like me, anyway) would ask is, what the heck good does it do to pray for someone? Even if there is a God and even if they do listen to prayers? But most especially if there isn't or they aren't listening.
Many types of Buddhism do promote what is called "determination" or "aspiration", in the sense of wishing for something to come true, e.g. "Through the power of X may Y occur." "Y" may be any good result one hopes for, but "X" is generally some wholesome quality of mind or wholesome deed one has performed. There is a sense that wholesomeness has an inherent power that can lead to positive consequences.
A common example in the commentaries is of "truth" - where the power of a statement of truth is acknowledged, especially when it describes a difficult accomplishment, or is the admission of something difficult to admit. E.g. in the Jatakas:

On hearing his words, she said: "My lord, though you do not believe me, by virtue of the truth I speak, I will heal you." So, filling a pot of water and performing an Act of Truth, she poured the water on his head and spoke this stanza:
May Truth for aye my shelter be,
  As I love no man more than thee,
  And by this Act of Truth, I pray,
  May thy disease be healed to-day.
When she had thus performed an Act of Truth, no sooner was the water sprinkled over Sotthisena than the leprosy straightway left him, as it were copper rust washed in some acid.
-- Jāt. 519 (Cowell, trans)

But the positive result is usually physical, because Buddhism doesn't recognize the power of others to bring us emotional well-being. In fact, reliance on others is generally seen as a crutch that leads to further emotional instability. One must be an island unto oneself:

Oneself is one's own refuge; who else could a refuge be?
  Indeed, with a self well-tamed, one obtains a refuge difficult to obtain.
-- Dhp. 160

Buddhism is about empowerment, not dependence; an enlightened being is said to live independent, not clinging to anything in the world (MN 10).
As it was attributed to the Dalai Lama in Kundun, "You cannot liberate me... I can only liberate myself."

Many Tibetan Buddhist practices are for the benefit of both oneself and others. In the book, How to Meditate: A Practical Guide, by Kathleen McDonald is such a practice, using the enlightened figure Tara, who is particularly dedicated to health and long life. It is composed by Lama Zopa Rinpoche, co-founder and head of the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT).
Below is the crucial part of this practice. You might acquire the book to see the full practice. It's a lovely, widely used book, with much practical advice on meditation in the Tibetan forms, plus many actual meditations in a variety of styles: on mind, analytical meditations on important topics such as impermanence, visualizations, prayers and devotional practices (like this one).

Now recall any special request you want to make—success in your
  spiritual or worldly activities, the health and long life of your
  relatives, friends, or yourself, or anything at all that you want.
  With these needs in mind, recite the short prayer to Tara as many
  times as you can, while either remaining seated or making
  prostrations.
    Om I prostrate to the goddess foe destroyer, liberating lady Tara,
      Homage to tare, savioress, heroine,
      With tuttare dispelling all fears,
      Granting all benefits with ture,
      To her with sound svaha, I bow.
As you recite the prayer visualize rays of light with nectar running
  down them (like raindrops running down a wire) emanating from the
  point where Tara’s left thumb and ring finger touch. The rays and
  nectar flow continuously, reaching you and all the beings surrounding
  you, purifying your hindrances to Dharma practice and the obscurations
  to liberation and enlightenment.
Remember the problems of all the people you are praying for. Think
  also of the sufferings and troubles being experienced by the sentient
  beings surrounding you: people fighting wars, feeling ill or lonely;
  those full of anger, pride, or jealousy. As the rays and nectar enter
  their bodies and minds, their suffering and the causes of their
  suffering are completely extinguished. All sentient beings become
  totally liberated.
Think with deep conviction that Tara has accepted your requests and
  answered your prayers. During the first half of your recitation you
  can visualize the purification described above, and during the second
  half you can visualize that you and all beings become one with Tara:
  with each prayer an identical Tara emanates from the Tara visualized
  in front of you and dissolves into you and everyone else. You all
  become completely one with Tara’s holy body, speech, and mind.

Addendum -- Sept 7
To the very valid observation that one must liberate oneself we can add that, like all things, liberation is the result of countless causes and conditions, including the kindness of others. The kindness of the teacher is particularly important, but so are the material conditions that provide the leisures and endowments needed to practice Buddhadharma: adequate food and shelter, good health, the support of the sangha, the availability of texts and teachings, and so on. So the idea that one liberates oneself does not exclude the fact that that we must help each other.
Thus we can view lesser goals such as recovery from illness, pain or deprivation as the causes and conditions for liberation. The crucial factor is motivation -- all acts, prayers and practices done with the motivation of liberation for oneself and others are positive and help create wholesome karma that impels us toward that goal. That is why the above practice weaves together lesser goals with the motivation for enlightenment, and is therefore a legitimate, effective Buddhist practice.

Wishing well for others is in itself a prayer. In the earliest form of Buddhism, this is called metta practice.
However, this practice can be combined with various mantras to enhance the effect.
Nichiren Buddhism, the most popular sect within Mahayana Buddhism and maybe all of Buddhism in general, has the Lotus Sutra mantra which goes "Nam Myo Renge Kyo."
This mantra is associated to myriad different Buddhas, bodhisattvas, deities, mystic forces, including the Buddha nature within us all.
One can chant this but there are many other mantras that are indeed powerful.
I won't go into which ones but here are the ones that have had a strong positive impact on my own life and others: zhunti mantra (recommended by Master Huai-Chin Nan), Amitofo mantra, Kuan yin mantra, surangama mantra, and many more.
All of them have a beautiful vibratory effect within your heart after you have reached a level of affinity with them. :)
The important thing is the metta practice itself (as well as the other brahmaviharas) because no chanting will have any effect without the heart behind it.

To me prayers and meditation are of the same tree but different branches.
This is what works best for me.
I usually start my meditation by concentrating of the breath for 10 minutes, and then I move onto releasing all parts of the body for 10 minutes. Then I move onto prayers in which I start with people I know (and know their current issues) and pray in my mind for their mind to realize the reason of their individual problems, after people I know I move onto different categories – children, animals, world leaders will get the thoughts to their minds of correct actions they should take etc. – another 15 minutes.  After that I move back to the breadth and focus on the breath for 30 - 90 minutes until I focus on nothing my mind is empty. This usually happens after 1 hour from when I begin. At the end I say a prayer of gratitude to be able to meditate and pray for all sentient beings to be free from suffering and imagine and feel my hearth giving out warm love to all.
If someone is ill, let’s say gets knocked down and is young and in a coma and prayers could help their condition I will imagine each breath I exhale is giving them love and each breath I inhale I take all their negative karma/energy and I could continue this for 60 minutes for a single person. I have seen and heard a Thai a monk on TV say this at a temple.
If someone is dying or has just died I will pray for them in my thoughts I will recall all their good points and hope their mind recalls these too and for them not to be afraid and I will do the inhale/exhale step similar to above paragraph.
If you read the Buddhism texts you will come across lots of stories where the Buddha told monks specific prayers for certain scenarios and they were recited for the ill and some were healed and others death was eased.
But always go with your hearth if in doubt – do not blindly follow anyone or what you read. The Buddha said be an island onto thy self, you are not a robot, you are not a child anymore, go with your feelings and if you feel good praying for someone (and I believe prayers work and they have worked for me in past) and you have the free time then go ahead worst case scenario is that you feel good and best outcome is that they actually work. Some monks spend their entire lives locked away on prayers/meditation for all.

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. "And how,
Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself,
seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma
as his refuge, seeking no other refuge? "When he dwells contemplating
the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully,
after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when
he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind,
and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly
comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow
in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a
refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as
his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge.
DN 16

In Buddhism one can do a 'dedication of merit'.
In the Sutta, as far as i can tell, one can share merit with any living being and also dead relatives in a 'possible place' which sutta explain to be the realm of hungry ghosts, any other dead relative not in a possible place can not be shared merit with.
I think this is the most beneficial thing one can do. Afaik there is no procedure other than a determination being made for merit to be shared ie :'may the merit of this good deed be shared with my dead relatives in a possible place'.

Many Westerners wish to remove the spiritual aspects of Buddhism. That is inconsistent with the practices common in Asia. Having spent time in both Hong Kong and Thailand I have participated in ceremonies that were highly aspirational. In the Tibetan tradition truly emptying the mind has the potential to achieve something that differs from Metta, something powerful.

Welcome to the site. If you'd like to expand on that answer, a "good answer" is based on something, perhaps either a reference or personal experience. You wrote "yes,  I have participated in ceremonies that were highly aspirational" -- perhaps that isn't quite enough of a description or detail, explanation, for a reader (or for the OP) to really get what you were talking about!

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


text:
Are there situations where it is wise to remove oneself from parents? My philosophy is to set an example to others though the path of a bodhisattva.
What would the buddha advise to someone considering reducing or eliminating visting a parent that causes emotional distress and fear after one has tried to practice patience, acceptance, acknowledement that this behavior is coming from their own suffeirng, metta practice, meditation, along with trying different ways to communicate so as to not arouse negative statements to an adult child? Also, a reference text, if any could be appreciated. Would distancing onself not be in accordance with the path of a bodhisattva?
These dynamics have always existed and it has become worse. Recently the sibling of this parent that distanced herself years ago from this parent and validated the narcissistic behavior of this parent.
In this specific situation and which is a factor in the level of difficulty dealing with this parent is that the other parent requires 24 hour nursing care at home and is unable to care for herself (including the inability to communicate).  The other parent/caretaker has refused to disginate the next of kin (adult child) living in a reasonable distance from their home in the event that something unforeseen happens to the caretaker.  Even a short hospitalization would require someone to step in immediately.  The rationale has to do with the fear of not being in control with money. After trying to assure this parent that this is not about money, rather the other parents coordination of outside care, in different ways and at different times, it is met with cruel, untruthful statements about the adult child that is willing to step in. The response also included a statement that if something did happen he didn't care if the estate all went to the State. Again, money and control of money was not mentioned to this parent.  This parent was told by the adult child that the statements were hurtful and not true. The response from the parent was that it was not his responsibility how this adult child felt and would not take any responsibility.
The fear and emotional distress mentioned above mainly is the result not having an emergency plan in place and second the acknowledgment of the diffence in character, values and feelings of loss of both parents. Exposure to this parent tends to water the unwholesome seeds of unsatifactory feelings of this adult child.

Hi Suzanne and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

When offers of help are denied, one has done what they can.
I'd say a temporary distance is acceptable in this situation.
For the adult child of the sick one, maintain the intent to help and the compassion and bodhicitta for both parents.
This is a rough time for all involved, in times like these emotions tend to cause conflicts that might seem to be about one thing,  but are actually about the emotions caused by the looming death of the loved one.
To the adult child my advice would be as follows :
Try not to take things personally here.
Drop off care packages for both parents.
Make sure to let it be known (in a positive way, text or short polite letter) that if you are needed you are a phone call away.
Do not worry about or mention next of kin.
Remember that others actions and words are not an excuse to "Water unwholesome seeds"
Do not hold a grudge, and give yourself as much distance as you need.
After the parent dies, if the remaining parent needs it, be there to comfort and ease the grieving process.
Reread all the branch and root Bodhisattva vows, one by one, and ask yourself where you are doing well for each vow, and how you could improve on each vow.
Remember that the vows apply to all beings, not just family. Treat yourself to some ice cream and some activities you enjoy. Spend time with friends.
This kind of situation is an incredibly difficult one. For everyone involved.
It can be trying and emotionally draining.
I do not know the full situation, only what is in the question. I've tried to keep this advice in line with the Buddhist tradition and Bodhisattva tradition to the best of my abilities. If there is some error please comment and I will edit accordingly.
I hope this helps.


text:
Should a beginner try to educate others about the benefits of Vipassana?
As a practitioner (but a beginner) of Anapana and Vipassana meditation, I have realized and experienced the immense benefits of the technique and the immense potential of Dhamma to bring change and goodness in whoever applies it in life. As is natural, when one samples something as beneficial as the Dhamma, one cannot contain the benefits to oneself and is always tempted to suggest the practise of Vipassana to those around us, so that they may also start coming out of their misery. This is what I understand is one of the qualities of Dhamma, "Ehipassiko".
But, the question really is, should a beginner like me even talk about it to others? Because, I still have my share of mental defilements and as a result I'm still prone to wrong thoughts, words and deeds. Therefore, although I genuinely feel like recommending the practise of Vipassana to others out of compassion, I'm apprehensive that I may not be the best example to show others what practitioners of Vipassana really are and that may as a result corrupt the idea of the Buddha's teachings in the minds of someone who may be listening to Dhamma for the first time.
So, should one really talk about the Dhamma and Vipassana to others and if yes, when (at what minimum level of advancement or personal progress on the path, so that one inspires others as a personal living example)?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Well, if you take your own case as a guideline, most people really just need a point or nudge in the right direction.  Depending on how interested people are, you might share the benefits you've discovered.
If it's a teacher or another great being who is putting practice into their daily life, talking and discussing can be great.  Especially view these people as pure guides so you can benefit as much as possible.
On the whole, the practice should transform your life and pysche, so if you are talking about practice without letting the transformation happen first, it's no good.  We must transform, then let our lives-as-examples embody the truth we wish to speak.
Writing is also very important, so if you have a friend with whom you can write back and forth about Dharma, so much the better.  To journal your own notes and gather your thoughts is prime.
In general, if you are really interested in bettering someone else's life, a master would spend a decent amount of their effort trying to understand what that person needed and how they could present it in a gradual and follow-able way that would lead to fruition for the person, but also the knowledge that it is effort which carries you.

Vipassana is a very simple thing to talk about:

observe "yourself" (a collection of factors)
accept yourself
do not get caught up in yourself

That being said, vipassana is surprisingly simple and most people will not try it even if they understand the above facts and even if they understand the tremendous benefits.
I myself need to practice much much more even though I understand all the benefits, I do not do pure vipassana often enough (although I integrate vipassana within other activities and meditations).
Go ahead and try sharing it to anyone in an unobtrusive, gentle manner. You may need to call "vipassana" self-observation for those of a close-minded religious background such as Islam or Catholics.
Give instruction and explanation if they are curious but do not speak (or be very conservative) about your personal experiences though, that will have negative psychic effects on your own practice if revealed to non-Buddhists and may also have a negative impact on them unless you are giving them a guided meditation.

We are all always beginners; so one could say that it is only beginners who give instruction. However, if you've only just started on your path not long ago, I would agree with the gist of the above posts: Give them the information you have found, give them your experiences, and explain what you know. With this, if they are interested, they will be able to learn more about it and exercise in their own way.
The real big thing here is that Vipassana doesn't require Dhamma to practice. You can walk a person to the waters of Vipassana, but you can't make them drink. Similarly, you can bring someone the Dhamma, but you can't make them know. The best way to share the Dhamma is through action. Cultivate Metta in your daily life, practice Dana, and exercise the refrain suggested in the 5 precepts. If a person wants to learn of course share what you know, but don't try to force the information on anyone. They will follow the path if it is right for them.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.


text:
What are Ekabiji?
As per the answer given to this question, AN 3.87 was cited as such:

...Having undertaken the training rules, he trains in them. With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-times-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering;
With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering;
With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end of suffering.

I'm not able to find an English translation of this sutta online, but the individual who posted this said that the third individual described, a "one-seeder", is actually not a Sakadagami, but an Ekabiji, the highest degree of Sotapanna? And the first two are lower degrees of Sotapanna. Does anyone have any insight into this? I was unaware that there were varying degrees of stream-winners. Thank you.

It's not a classification I've heard either, but the Theravada canon is mostly untranslated and therefore inaccessible to me. Since I'm not a theorist or representative of any tradition, I find the Zen attitude of no labels, total acceptance of whatever is in the now, a more useful approach for my practice, else, I run the danger of intellectualizing my understanding by reading theory I may never have full access too. When even arhats are shown to have vastly different qualities, like in the rhinoceros sutta versus bodhisatta attitudes found elsewhere, I suspect srotapannas differ much too.

This is indeed the standard categorization of sotāpanna in the Theravada. The Puggala-paññatti gives definitions for ekabījī and sakadāgāmī:

katamo ca puggalo ekabījī? idhekacco puggalo tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sotāpanno hoti avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyano. so ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti — ayaṃ vuccati puggalo “ekabījī”.

katamo ca puggalo sakadāgāmī? idhekacco puggalo tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā rāgadosamohānaṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti — ayaṃ vuccati puggalo “sakadāgāmī”.

The ostensible difference is twofold:

ekabījī have not reduced rāga, dosa, or moha beyond breaking the first three fetters. sakadāgāmī have reduced the defilements beyond simply breaking the first three fetters. I guess the meaning is that whereas some sotāpanna will indeed only be born one more time, the reason for it isn't due to their lack of defilements that would allow them to be born a second time. Other circumstances will lead them to enlightenment in the next life, I think is the meaning.

ekabījī are said to be born again (only?) as humans, which seems a bit strange; sakadāgāmī are just "come again to this world", which means maybe as an angel, maybe as a human, maybe as a god, I guess.

I'm not able to find an English translation of this sutta online

It's referenced as (or, at least, that list is also quoted in) AN 3.86 Sekhin Sutta on access to insight.
A few other reference numbers (which I can't chase but which you may be able to) are given in the PTS dictionary definition for Eka says,

bījin having only one (more) seed, i. e. destined to be reborn only once S v.205; A i.233; iv.380; Nett 189.

In my understanding, so-called "stages of enlightenment" indicate likelihood of someone attaining Nirvana in this very life -- based on their rate of progress abandoning fetters so far.
The following is according to Satyasiddhisastra:
Kulankula ("family-to-family attainer") is an intermediate stage prior to Sakadagami. This is someone who has abandoned a couple of fetters, and will abandon a couple more in this life. Even though kulankula may in theory attain Nirvana in this life, with this rate they would need 2-3 more lives ;)
Sakadagamin (once-returner) is one who has abandoned/attenuated a good chunk of fetters and therefore in theory may abandon them all and attain Nirvana in this very life, but who still has enough fetters that will most likely not be abandoned in this life yet.
Ekabijin (one-seed one) is a highest intermediate degree between Sakadagami and Anagami, not a kind of Sotapanna. Ekabijin is one who has only one empirical-world-level fetter left -- hence the name. This last fetter is the only remaining tie that keeps them attached to the empirical world. Therefore it becomes very likely that they will actually abandon this last fetter and attain Nirvana in this life.
Anagamin (never-returner) is one who has abandoned all empirical-world-level fetters and is therefore pretty much guaranteed to attain Nirvana in this life, or right after death.
Arahant (accomplished one) is one who has abandoned the abstract fetters as well -- meaning the form- and formless-level fetters.

Extended discussion, further to this answer, has been moved to chat.


text:
What are Kusala roots?
What are Kusala roots, how are they determined, what effects do they have? And where in the Buddha's teaching are they mentioned? Thank you.

The 'three poisons', or three 'unwholesome roots' (akusala-mūla), are named as ignorance, attachment, and aversion — and the "wholesome roots" are their opposites:

Opposite wholesome qualities
The three wholesome mental factors that are identified as the opposites of the three poisons are:

amoha (non-bewilderment); prajna (wisdom)
alobha (non-attachment)
adveṣa (non-aggression, lack of hatred); mettā (loving-kindness)

The principal aim of the Buddhist path is to cultivate these and related positive qualities.

They're mentioned in for example, the Sammaditthi Sutta:

"And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.


text:
Is it possible to abandon desire by means of desire
Regarding previous Question Desire without attachment.
If desire without the attachment still lead to suffering then how abandon desire without desire?
As shown by Unnabha the Brahman
it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."

The sutta you referenced ends with Unnabha conceding to Ven. Ananda that it is, in fact, a path with an end.

This question is also a duplicate of Stopping Tanha or craving

It's kinda simple. First we abandon desires. Only then we abandon the desire to give up desires. As per the traditional metaphor, you should not leave "the raft" until you are safely "on the other shore".
Sure, the desire to abandon desires also causes suffering. But that's the price we pay. It is like with the surgeon inflicting more pain short-term to end the pain long-term.
My point is, it is only a paradox in theory, once we get to real kitchen-level practice, to action -- there is no paradox.