text:
What is the proper understanding of "taking refuge" in Buddhism?
Many years ago, a Zen Roshi said in a class that "nobody else is your boss except for you.  Only you can make the decision and apply yourself to practice, nobody else can."  So, I've heard this many times from various Buddhist traditions.  However, Buddhism also has this idea of "taking refuge" in various things.  If you are responsible for yourself what is the point of "taking refuge?"  What is the proper understanding of "taking refuge" in Buddhism?

Traditional refuge formula goes like this:

Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
  Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
  Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
To Buddha for refuge I go.
  To Dhamma for refuge I go.
  To Sangha for refuge I go.

According to dictionary, "sarana" means den or lair, but also more broadly, shelter or refuge. Apparently, at the time of Buddha, "sarana" meant being under political protection of someone. For example, when a peasant acknowledged becoming a subject of, say, king Bimbisara, he would say "Maharajam Bimbisaram saranam gachami" -- literally, "To great king Bimbisara for refuge I go". This would serve to indicate that A) the peasant accepts no other lord and won't pay taxes to anyone else and B) the peasant now expects the king to provide military protection from bandits and other neighboring lords.
The same way, when beginner Buddhist goes for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, he or she A) promises to accept no other religious or philosophical authority as higher than Buddhism and B) expects to find protection from worldly troubles in Buddhist practice.
In Tibetan Buddhism, this idea of taking up a "provisional boss" (my play on your words, not theirs) is said to be a temporary measure employed for the duration of training, until one gets to the ultimate protection, the luminous mind of Bodhicitta.
The above is my own understanding, at the same time I really like explanation given by Chogyam Trungpa, which directly dismisses your dilemma about the notion of refuge contradicting Buddha's imperative of one being one's own island:

By taking refuge, in some sense we become homeless refugees. The point
  of becoming a refugee is to give up our attachment to basic security.
  We have to give up our sense of home ground, which is illusory anyway.
  We are suspended in a no-man's land in which the only thing to do is
  to relate with the teachings and with ourselves.
The refuge ceremony represents a final decision. The ceremony cuts the
  line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of
  an odyssey of loneliness. Still, it also includes the inspiration of
  the preceptor and the lineage. Acknowledging that the only real
  working basis is oneself and that there is no way around that, one
  takes refuge in the Buddha as an example, in the dharma as the path,
  and in the sangha as companionship.

-- basically, he defines taking refuge as becoming a (metaphorical) mendicant, which refers to letting go of one's stereotypes about oneself and reality, and the false sense of security they provide. As one thus becomes truly placeless (radically open-minded), the extent to which one takes comfort in Buddha is only as inspiration of predecessor having made the same path.

At that particular point, the energy, the power, and the blessing of
  basic sanity that has existed in the lineage for twenty-five hundred
  years, in an unbroken tradition and discipline from the time of
  Buddha, enters your system, and you finally become a full-fledged
  follower of buddhadharma. You are a living future buddha at that
  point.

Taking refuge is not about taking on a boss, far from it. The Buddha says many times in the Pali suttas that only you can put in the work to free yourself. Taking refuge can be seen in the same way as when someone may take refuge from a storm, looking for help and protection. The Triple Gem can be that refuge in the storm of life
As Andrei rightly pointed out in the other answer traditionally you take refuge by reciting the words "I go to the (buddha/dhamma/sangha) for refuge". This is often put together with the precepts for the ceremony to "become" a Buddhist. There is much more to it though, as seen in this wonderful treatise on going for refuge by Bhikkhu Bodhi:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html

But what is the going for refuge? At first glance it would seem to be the formal commitment to the Triple Gem expressed by reciting the formula of refuge, for it is this act which marks the embracing of the Buddha's teaching. Such an understanding, however, would be superficial. The treatises make it clear that the true going for refuge involves much more than the reciting of a pre-established formula. They indicate that beneath the verbal profession of taking refuge there runs concurrently another process that is essentially inward and spiritual. This other process is the mental commitment to the taking of refuge.

I will say that in my own experience I took the ceremony of refuge a few years before I had advanced in my practice and confidence of the triple gem to really mentally take refuge. The Refuge of the Triple Gem becomes powerful when you understand the reality of things enough to see how important the practice is and how full of truth the dhamma is.I view the triple gem as follows:
The Buddha: The Buddha is the "awesome dude" whom I often call "Sid". I take refuge in him because he was just a regular guy like myself who did an amazing thing, found a way out of samsara and endless suffering to show us how to make our lives better. He became awakened, and that is something I'd like to work on myself so I take refuge in him and all the awakened ones of past and future who are the embodiment of dhamma.
The Dhamma: Straight up truth, the reality of life, the way things actually are, not how we perceive or want them to be. Of all the triple gem, Dhamma is the most important, this is why the Buddha called what he taught " dhamma-vinaya" and said the Dhamma should be our master. How can you not take refuge in truth?
The Sangha: Specifically the Aryan(awakened) Sangha and the to a lesser extent the rightly practicing monastic sangha. These men and women are the keepers of dhamma. They have been making sure the Dhamma found by Sid 2600+ years ago survives today for us to practice. Rightly practicing monastics are the heart of the teaching and in supporting them you not only get a refuge, but you ensure the triple gem itself survives to provide refuge to all beings.
With confidence in your own practice you have confidence in the triple gem, which leads to more confidence in your own practice as you begin to prove right what the Buddha taught. At first it is just something you say because "thats what buddhists do" but it becomes so much more than that. Then there is no real point to taking refuge in anything else, because anything else you can take refuge in cannot bring you lasting happiness, it is a shoddy refuge at best, prone to fall apart in the weakest of storms, but when you protect the dhamma, and are protected by the dhamma, that is a refuge not even death can penetrate.

By taking refuge you are aspiring to build the qualities of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha in your self.

Hi Suminda. For those who may not be familiar with the qualities of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, can you expand on that qualities you are aspiring to build when taking refuge?

This is in the Dhajagga Sutta. Detail explanation you might need to refer to a book.

Before talking about Buddhist refuge, it is useful to recognize that all people everyday are taking refuge in various things. Let me explain.
Everyone wants to be happy and avoid suffering. People engage in various activities because they hope it will give them some sort of happiness and security. They go to universities to gain knowledge, they work in companies to earn a lot of money, they find partners and set up families or they spend most of their time pursuing some hobby. They do it because they believe this is what will give them happiness and this is something they can rely on. So in other words they take refuge in it.
All those things are great and can give lots of happiness indeed but the problem is that they are not permanent. One can easily lose a job or a partner and even if one has a seemingly perfect life, illness and death will inevitably come one day.
Gautama Buddha deeply understood impermanence - that everything conditioned would eventually fall apart so he persistently searched for something unconditioned, permanent and unbreakable, something that can give lasting happiness. And this unconditioned thing is Buddhahood - enlightened state of mind or one can say - true nature of our mind.
Taking refuge in Buddha means opening up to impermanent and perfect qualities of our mind. Buddhahood is our goal. The methods which will bring us there is the Dharma and friends, our helpers on the way, is the Sangha.
Taking refuge in Buddha is actually a great responsibility - we stop hoping that others will make us happy or thinking that the source of our suffering is current political situation or neighbours. We admit that the only lasting happiness is to understand the nature of our mind and it will depend only on us whether we succeed in it or not. Dharma and Sangha are there to assist us but it is entirely up to us whether we use it or not. After all, we are the bosses and everyday we are free to decide what we want to take refuge in.


text:
How compatible are the beliefs of atheists and Buddhism?
I looked around and found a couple of questions and answers on the site that discuss atheism in Buddhism, What is the difference between learning the Buddhist way and simply learning from life? & Do Buddhists believe in gods? it looks like belief in a supreme being may not be a requirement for being a Buddhist.  Strictly speaking it is possible for a person to identify as an agnostic or atheist and also identify with any mono or polytheistic church.  Though most (all?) of those actual religions do not support disbelief in their God(s), so they are not actually compatible.
Are the concepts of agnostic or atheist believers compatible with Buddhism? Does the entire belief system or specific sects require the belief in any or a specific supreme being?

Your question implies that Buddhism is in some way theistic (or at least deistic) in the first place; can you provide some background for why you might think it is so?

@yuttadhammo it is not so much what I think, but the perception of the English speaking world. Theist and deistic are generally considered in connection with religions, and most people (in my contact range) consider Buddhism to be a religion.

To the best of my knowledge, it's an atheistic religion. I guess I just find it hard to answer this question; it's like the proverbial question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" asked of a man who has never hurt his spouse.

@yuttadhammo Completely understand; a few years ago I met someone who believed one of the proofs of their monotheistic deity's existence was that men have one less rib than women. Have you ever looked for references that explicitly state men and women have the same number of ribs?  This Wikipedia article kind of speaks around the subject, but does not really define deity's in Buddhism from the perspective if my question.  Maybe that can give you some incite for an answer?

Okay, granted that some Mahayana schools might be somewhat theistic; not really my area of expertise.

your question implies atheism is a belief. Isn't atheism rather a lack of belief as theism is concerned? "atheist believer" sounds also quite irritating

I would say compatible. There is a significant Secular Buddhism movement based on agnostic, humanist and skeptical values. Stephen Batchelor is a notable proponent of this school for instance in his book Buddhism without Beliefs.
I don't think you need to go the whole way to Secular Buddhism though to appreciate the Buddha's pragmatic approach to the Dharma. In the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta he refuses to answer a whole list of metaphysical questions regarding them as a distraction for instance

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, '[...] that 'The cosmos is
  eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,'
  or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or
  'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a
  Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or
  'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After
  death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"
"No, lord."

Also in the arrow sutta he insists that the thing to do is engage in the practice and not to be put off by useless questioning. To paraphase if you are struck by an arrow don't concern yourself about who made it, where it came from, what direction it was fired from - just pull it out. So if you are experiencing suffering, don't worry about rebirth, the gods, ritual etc.. just pull the arrow of suffering out. Engage with the Dharma as soon as you can.

Sam Harris' "Waking Up / Guide to Spirituality without Religion" is quite good resource for Buddhism without unverifiable beliefs; he's very explicit about that.

Buddhism is compatible as there is no notion of an almighty.
Buddhism revolves around the practice of Morality, Control over the Mind and Wisdom. So it is compatible regardless of what you call your self. May it be a Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc.

I think at least some of the Mahayana writers were self conscious atheists.
This is from the Fudo-Myo Sutra and is one of my favorite quotes:

He is the markless Dharmakaya, identical with [all-encompassing] space
  itself, thus he has no dwelling. His only dwelling is in the minds and
  thoughts of living beings.

ref: http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=The_Sutra_Spoken_by_the_Buddha_on_Arya-Acalanatha
So even in a system of Bodhisattvas, there is a subset of people who are skeptical about all the supernatural and see the Bodhisattvas (and all the other being unsubstantiated by evidence) as role models, pedagogical tools, rhetorical devices and so on.
This does not change the fact that there is a huge group of lay followers and historical monastics who clearly took the celestial Buddhas, Pure Lands, the realms, a semi-sentient Karma and a permanent, rebirthing soul as literal truths and true on account of faith.
In Basic Teachings of the Buddha, by Glenn Wallis (his old work that predates his current project), the author at points argues that the historical Buddha was an atheist and a nihilist that had no choice but to speak in the theological terms of the culture around him.
My own analogy is this-- it's like if you wanted to explain how evolution worked to a theist Christian, but didn't really care if the audience was atheist or not. Such a hypothetical teacher might teach about evolution as designed by God. In the same way the historical Buddha used the language of Karma, Dharma, Rebirth, Brahma to discuss a program of morality, restraint as part of a program to end suffering.

From my perspective as a Soto Zen follower, Buddhism is extremely logical.  The only faith required is that Buddhism as a system has merit and is worth investigating.  Most of the "supernatural" elements are artistic embroideries to help shake people out of a common way of thinking, or are inherited from other religions that were more supernaturally focused.
For example, Buddhist texts talk of "hell" and "nirvana", which people in a theist society equate to the Christian heaven and hell.  But that isn't the intent of what the Buddhists are saying.  Both hell and nirvana are mental states, and are not externally imposed.  If you say something you regret to your spouse, you'll likely enter a hell state (regret, shame) for a little while until you burn off that karma (action). If you are coding something awesome and you lose all track of time and your surrounding to where only you and the code exist... no mind, no thoughts of the past, no thoughts of the future, just connection with the code - that's nirvana.  Like a hell state, it's temporary.  You spill coffee on your computer, and boom, you're now in a different state.
In a single day, you'll live millions of lives in millions of states.  Thus reincarnation can be considered the act of dying and starting over, or it can be interpreted within the course of a single life.  I'm not the person I used to be, and in the future, I'll be someone else.  That is a form of reincarnation.
So in short, I think Buddhism can be very compatible with Atheism.  It's just a matter of overcoming all of the mystical sounding labels and getting to the true essence of the teaching - which I am over-simplifying, btw.

In my opinion most forms of atheism and agnosticism are incompatible with Buddhism.
In Buddhism the supreme beings are Buddhas.
The Buddha did indeed believe in superhuman powers (iddhis) and performed many miracles (like walking on water as if land). He also believed that a Creator of the universe really did exist, he just believed that the Creator mistakenly believed himself to be Supreme and was not worth worshipping, but certainly really does exist and had many good qualities.
The Creator (the Great Brahma) can be influenced by the Evil One (Mara, Satan) and is still under the cycle of birth and rebirth, but is a higher being with a stronger karmic influence, so the Creator is not Supreme like how Buddhas are Supreme.
In Buddhism Buddhas are superior to the Creator and other higher beings, are boundless, are all-knowing, and have superior superhuman abilities to even the highest beings in the universe (the Brahmas, Pajapatis, etc...).
As The Buddha said to a Brahma-being:

Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could
  I be inferior? I am actually superior to you. - Brahma-nimantanika
  Sutta

In Buddhism, the Creator of the Universe (the Great Brahma or Maha Brahma) encourages people to follow the Buddha's teachings and praises the Buddha, it is the Evil One (Mara, the Buddhist equivalent of Satan) that tells people not to or distorts things away from the Buddha's teachings.
The Buddha had much more of an issue with atheists and skeptics of the time than Theists and believers of the time.
Wrong views, highlighted in many suttas seem to closely resemble the views of most atheists:

He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' - Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta, (repeated in many suttas that this is a wrong view)
"Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The
  recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in
  knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama
  teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own
  line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that
  assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as
  (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up
  in hell." - Maha-sihanada Sutta

Secularism Buddhism would be viewed as a wrong view.
In the Payasi Sutta, an arahant disciple Kumara debated with someone who has views resembling most modern day atheists:

Once everyone was seated, Prince Payasi said, "Reverend Kumara, I
  maintain that kamma does not have effects. I believe that there is no
  life after death, no world beyond our own. I think that angels and
  demons are things from a child’s dream." - Payasi Sutta

Kumara came up with all types of arguments against the atheist Prince Payasi.
The view that there is no afterlife is opposed in Buddhism numerous times, including in the Brahmajala Sutta:

Wrong view 51: "Here a certain ascetic or Brahmin declares and holds the view:  ‘Since this self is material, composed of the four great elements, the product of mother and  father, at the breaking up of the body is annihilated and  perishes, and does not exist after death.  This is the way in which this self is annihilated.’  That is how some proclaim the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of beings." - Brahmajala Sutta

So based on my research Theistic beliefs are more compatible with Buddhism. In Buddhism some Theistic beliefs are viewed as slightly wrong, but nearly as wrong as atheistic and materialistic beliefs.
So realistically the Buddha would view most Abrahamic religions as better or higher than most other religions but with slight errors. The story of Moses kind of reminds me of the story of the Great Steward in the Maha Govinda Sutta.
A lot of people often cite the Kalama Sutta but this is taken out of context as the Kalamas were non-Buddhists and The Buddha was addressing non-Buddhists, when The Buddha spoke to his own disciples he encouraged faith and right views.
Some believe that "Secular Buddhism" and other forms of Buddhism match into the prediction in the Ani Sutta:

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

Thus we see many people (specifically outsiders) out to replace Buddhism with flowery attractive elegant words rather than the Buddha's words, matching in nearly exactly to the prediction.
In the future Buddhism will probably be eliminated by people replacing the Buddha's original teachings with different newer forms.

No, Buddhas are not gods.

Buddhas are not devas, they are above devas and asuras (above angels and demons), they are the Supreme Beings, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful. The portrayal on TV and the Western media is inaccurate.

Referencing MischievousSage's answer I agree that the Buddha taught Buddhism in a way that's compatible with belief in the supernatural (and maybe taught it to people who had such beliefs a priori).
I think that Buddhism is also compatible (or that there are forms or versions of Buddhism compatible) with atheist beliefs.
In particular most of the central core of Buddhism, e.g. ...

four noble truths
noble eightfold part
three-fold training
harmlessness
non-attachment
three marks of existence
see e.g. Dhamma Lists for more

... don't require belief in God.
In fact in contrast to some theistic religions I think that Buddhism teaches that your salvation depends on your own efforts ... it's not enough, in most forms of Buddhism, to pray for a divine intervention that will save you (there is Taking Refuge, but that's maybe not quite the same thing).
Though I agree with MischievousSage's answer I hope you don't mind if I also disagree with it e.g. to say that Buddhism is compatible with atheist or agnostic beliefs.

The central doctrines of Buddhism (see e.g. the lists above) don't mention God etc.
Saying that "the supreme beings are Buddhas" is I think true, but doesn't mean that Buddhas need to be viewed as gods (whatever that means), though they can be: e.g. you can admire (or reverence) your (earthly) teacher (or doctor) without viewing them as a god; and you might see the Buddha as "perfect" (e.g. in the "completed" sense of the word "perfect") without seeing the Buddha as "divine" (whatever that word is supposed to mean).
There are definitions which don't involve God -- e.g. the Dhamma Lists, referenced above, describes "Buddha" as "both the historical Buddha and one's own innate potential for Awakening".
Yes there are stories of supernatural powers. I think it's possible to be agnostic ("without knowledge") about such subjects: to suspend belief or disbelief, or to treat it as an article of faith. Some people say that acquiring supernatural/psychic powers is possible via Buddhist practice, but is not the goal. Psychic powers aren't apparently routinely demonstrated to lay people, and the principles and practice of Buddhist may be important whether with or without them.
I think there are forms of Buddhism which do expect or require or assume a belief in miracles (e.g., in Theravada, the ability of arahants to fly), that doesn't seem to be true of all schools of Buddhism; a story like The Real Miracle seems to me to downplay the importance of miracles.
Also, believing that some people demonstrate supernatural (psychic) abilities, and belief in God, are two different topics.
Many of the suttas referenced in MischievousSage's answer aren't exactly arguing that God exists: instead I think they're arguing that kamma exists, and that a nihilist view like "it doesn't matter what we do, there are no consequences" would be a 'wrong view'.
I think there's a (at least one) sutta in which the Buddha does explicitly talk about (and refute the story of there being) a "creator God". If I recall/paraphrase that sutta correctly, I think he says, "Imagine an empty world, then a god comes along and finds himself alone and thinks 'I must have created all this', and then there are more Gods and eventually the Gods' time in heaven comes to an end." When I read that story I didn't take it as teaching that those events and personages literally happened in that way. Instead I took it as a story intended for people who are predisposed to believe that there is a creator God (perhaps because they've previously been taught that), and the story is telling them that even if there were such a God, that God would be subject to ignorance/delusion and to impermanence.

I checked the answers to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? -- and I think those answers confirm that "God" is not an important part of Buddhism (one of them says, "Whether Theravada or Mahayana, we do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will").
In all those answers there was (only) one line-item which someone identified as controversial, i.e. the Four Bases of Supernatural Powers.
According to Wikipedia's Iddhipada article, "a major source of information on the iddhipāda is in the Samyutta Nikaya, ch. 51" -- or see e.g. here for further details about that, but I guess I'm going to end this answer here.
FYI belief in miracles and/or God[s] isn't the only belief that some people (non-believers) find difficult. Even so perhaps you needn't reject the whole of Buddhism, for having a doubt about one aspect of it.

Right View is part of the Noble Eightfold path and the majority of atheists seem to have Wrong Views. Believing that the Creator exists, but isn't Supreme and exists in a temporary world is different from believing that there is no Creator and no heavenly worlds that exist at all. If you believe that there is no afterlife what is the point of attempting to achieve enlightenment? How does anything matter at all? If someone steals, kills, lies, etc...how does it matter if after death it's just the same as sleeping in just the same as another person who avoided stealing, killing, lying, etc...

@MischievousSage I think that atheists may find it easy to  agree that breaking the moral precepts causes an increase in suffering (and/or that enlightenment might end or alleviate suffering) even without positing an "afterlife" ... it's sufficient to believe that intentional/moral actions have a consequence, for good or bad, in "this life" (or this world).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Buddhism a fear-based religion?
My general observation about religions is that they have this fundamental assumption of fear of something. For example, fear of punishment or getting into hell is present in many religions. Buddhism too has this fear of rebirth in lower realms, but also a fear of getting into sadness (dukkha?)
These days people of modern outlook tend to discount such fears as childish and practically useless. While a philosophy that distinguishes between harmful and beneficial will still be valid to a general society even after religions disappear.
How can Buddhism be helpful to a secular society that does not have any irrational fear of hell or getting into sadness? Additionally, how can Buddhism be useful to a practical society concerned with real harm and benefit?

Maybe you could say it's an aversion-to-suffering-based religion.

Do you go to Disneyland because you fear not having fun? I think this question makes some incorrect assumptions about motivation.

I didn't make any assumptions. I had a discussion today with few Chinese ppl and Indians with different views.  This question was based on the way they think about Buddhism.

It's one of the skillful means. I just read a sutra that mentioned that when teaching, a Bodhisattva will use fear, reason, etc, as is appropriate for each person. I'll try to track down the exact quote.

According to Theravada Buddhism, fear is based on anger. As per the Visuddhimagga-Tika:

na bhāyati ñāṇassa bhāyanākārena appavattanato. paṭighacittuppādavasena hi bhāyanaṃ, ñāṇaṃ pana bhāyitabbavatthuṃ bhāyitabbanti yāthāvato jānāti.
It doesn't fear - because of the non-occurrence of the condition of fearing in this knowledge [knowledge of fearsomeness]. For, fearing is through the influence of a mind of aversion, but this knowledge knows, of a thing to be feared, merely: "it is to be feared".
Vism-Tika 21.3

The Visuddhimagga itself (quoted above in bold) provides a good explanation of the difference between knowledge and fear:

But does the knowledge of appearance as terror [itself] fear or does it not
  fear? It does not fear. For it is simply the mere judgment that past formations have
  ceased, present ones are ceasing, and future ones will cease. Just as a man with
  eyes looking at three charcoal pits at a city gate is not himself afraid, since he
  only forms the mere judgment that all who fall into them will suffer no little
  pain;—or just as when a man with eyes looks at three spikes set in a row, an
  acacia spike, an iron spike, and a gold spike, he is not himself afraid, since he
  only forms the mere judgment that all who fall on these spikes will suffer no
  little pain;—so too the knowledge of appearance as terror does not itself fear; it
  only forms the mere judgment that in the three kinds of becoming, which resemble
  the three charcoal pits and the three spikes, past formations have ceased, present
  ones are ceasing, and future ones will cease.
Path of Purification, XXI.32

The important distinction here is that fear itself is unwholesome, so Buddhist practice is for becoming free from fear. Unfortunately, apart from never being subject to that which is fearsome, the only way to become completely free from fear is to practice so that one is no longer afraid of that which is fearsome (i.e. by freeing oneself from attachment to the objects about which one is afraid).
So, rather than practicing religious practices to avoid situations of which one is afraid, the point of Buddhism is to practice in a way that allows one to remove one's fear of such situations. The premise is the same; namely that one is afraid of certain situations. The difference is in how one relates to this fact. In regards to bhayañāṇa (knowledge of fearsomeness), the expectation is that the knowledge will help one to let go of one's fears, once one realizes that there is no real, lasting escape for one with fear.
The claim that non-religious people can somehow be free from fear without such practice depends in a large part on whether there is indeed life after death; still, it is most certain that those who scoff at the fears of hell and the afterlife would still experience great fear in this life if they were to meet with what is truly fearsome (disaster, danger, etc.) and so they have not really accomplished the goal by simply discarding fear of that which they don't believe to exist.
Update:
As for the criticism that Buddhism uses fear as a means of encouraging proper practice, I suppose this might be true conventionally; a person who does something not knowing the consequences of that act ought to be reminded of the danger. In a conventional sense, that may bring fear to the individual. But the individual need not be afraid, they should simply avoid the activity.
As to your additional questions, fear of hell is only irrational if there is no hell. Fear is always detrimental, though, and in fact a prime reason for being reborn in hell; only those with minds inclining towards anger will suffer from fear. Buddhism helps one become free from anger and thus fear; whether there is an afterlife or not, this is surely a beneficial thing to modern society.

Bhante, can you please explain further the connection between fear and anger? I will ask a new question if that is more appropriate.

@Adamokkha it's a curious subject - I got in an argument about this with a lay man who insisted that fear had nothing to do with anger, until I found the Vism Tika reference. There's not much to say except that fear is based on aversion. You can't fear something you like or are indifferent towards. The fear is an aversion towards something, probably accompanied by anxiety. The problem, I suppose, is that they are just words - the abhidhamma admits no state of "fear", since it is a conglomerate of ultimate states.

You will be surprised, but Buddhism is that very same "philosophy that distinguishes between harmful and beneficial". The notions of kusala (good, skilfull, healthy, conducive to comfort) and akusala (bad, incompetent, unwholesome, conducive to trouble) are central to Buddhism:

"Abandon what is unskillful (akusala), monks. It is possible to abandon what is
  unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I
  would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is
  possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is
  unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive
  to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is
  unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is
  conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is
  unskillful.'
"Develop what is skillful (kusala), monks. It is possible to develop what is
  skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would
  not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible
  to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'
  If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and
  pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because
  this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and
  pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" -- Kusala Sutta AN 2.19

In fact, Buddhism is so radically practical (much more radically than other philosophies) that it does not shy away from using tricks, like the fear of hell etc. because they too are kusala, conducive to benefit. Such tricks are called upaya ("skilfull means"). This is similar to how parents use tricks to protect their very young children who don't yet understand reason.
But just like upbringing the children is not limited to tricks, there is a lot more to Buddhism than upaya. What do we teach children? Proper behavior, Deep knowledge, and Hard work. Why do we teach them this? Because it will help them in their life.
Similarly, in Buddhism, we don't just scare people with hell. We teach them how to control their mind. Why? Because it helps them with their life! When mind is untrained, it gets easily obsessed by ideas. When mind is obsessed by ideas, it gets inflamed with emotions. Getting inflamed with emotions, one does not know what's good / what's bad. Then one starts acting based on this confused understanding of good and bad. And then one hurts oneself and others!
And vice versa, when mind is trained, it is not easily obsessed ==> not blinded with emotions ==> it clearly sees what's good / what's bad ==> and therefore it can act well. Very practical.
That's why they say Buddhism is good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end. When naive people follow it as religion, without understanding why, it protects them from harm -- this is good in the beginning. When people practice it seriously, taming their mind, it helps them handle all kind of life problems and increases social harmony -- this is good in the middle. Finally, when they solve the problem of Life-and-Death and achieve Completion -- this is good in the end.
And how do you tame the mind? First, by watching it continuously, every second of every minute of every hour, and identifying any sign of pathological clinging. Clinging to material possession, clinging to relationships and respect, clinging to comfort, well-being, stability, clinging to principles and ideals, clinging to fairness, clinging to skills, talents, intellect, success, control, clinging to plans for the future, clinging to spirituality, clinging to Buddhism, and even clinging to not-clinging! When you make anything all-important, you lose it and get very upset -- that's pathological clinging. As soon as you notice clinging, you must let go ASAP, otherwise it will get you in trouble. The feeling when you let go of clinging is like you are sobering up from liquor.
Second, mind is tamed by watching it for any signs of ego-motivated behavior. Whenever you notice yourself doing something seemingly right, but secretly (even from yourself) showing off, or defending your fault, or retaliating -- this is ego-motivated behavior. As soon as you notice even a little flavor of that, you need to surrender your ego to the world, which is acting as your teacher at that moment. This feels scary, similar to skydiving.
As you train like this very carefully, stalking yourself and keeping your mind free from even the smallest clinging or ego-motivated thought, within 5-10 years you will notice a huge positive difference in your life. This is basic training, this is how my teachers taught me -- as you see, it is very practical.
Now, to address the last part of your question, about "fear of getting into sadness" -- yes, Buddhism very much depends on the fact that people don't want to be sad, that people are afraid of suffering. This is how Buddhism defines good and bad, or kusala and akusala: good is what leads to happiness, and bad is what leads to suffering. This basic difference serves as the gasoline for the engine of Buddha-Yana (vehicle of awakening). One thing that Buddha was strongly against is nihilistic philosophy that denies distinction between good and bad.
So yes, Buddhism can be very useful to a modern practical society, but we need to go deeper, beyond the tricks of upaya and into the real practice of liberating the mind from pathological clinging and egoistic neuroses, and train it to not get obsessed with ideas and blinded with emotions, so it can clearly see what's good / what's bad for oneself and for everybody.

Well said, well said. I like the last paragraph as a one-sentence description.

I am very new to Buddhism, but the way I understand it thus far is as follows. I dont think there is a fear within Buddhism of hell or being sad, rather its recognizing the reality of this sadness and misery forming part of our daily lives. What Buddhism provides are various methods to cope with this fear and to rather see the truth behind the sadness, fear or whatever emotion it is. When you see the true nature of a situation, you realize that there is no need for fear or sadness.
At least, that is how I understand it, as I said, I am a complete novice, and this is my first post :)

I hope I understand your question properly, as I try to answer it.
Buddhism is about the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path of that cessation. So it's useful to those that do not want to suffer in the Buddhist sense of the word, and believe that the path of Buddhism can relieve them of that.
Fear is not a requirement, one does not have to fear suffering, hell or bad karma, one simply has to see that it is suffering and decide that is not the way life is best lived.
In the same way one does not have to fear prison to not commit a crime, but simply to understand the crime is wrong and decide that is better not to live like that, to use a simile.
Other than that Buddhism can offer specific practices that are useful without having to be Buddhist to profit from it:

Secular Meditation (http://www.news-medical.net/health/Meditation-Secular-Practices.aspx)
Focus on empathy (http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/11/21/what-is-metta/)
-

Your first answer tells me that Buddhism is a solution to understand fear and suffering. Your usage of simile is understandable.  However,  I still can't clearly relate the second and third paragraphs.

Hmm, I'll think about a better way to get my point across.

Something that doesn't seem to have been covered so far.
There is a perfectly legitimate fear or terror that comes right out of a practice that has made some progress in the development of mindfulness.  It is the result of developing clarity into the transient nature of phenomena and thus an encouraging result.
The deluded mind is a mind that identifies with whatever is currently running through it: "I think, therefore I am".  As clarity develops, this fundamental assumption is seriously undermined - an identity crisis - and the result is pure terror.
However, the good news is that as clarity develops further, this terror gives way to a kind of extreme excitement, something akin to rock climbing or sky diving etc.  As clarity develops furthermore, it becomes simply good fun, and further still becomes nothing special: just the way things are, in and of themselves.

I'm relatively certain any Zen master or Buddhist monk you might talk to would say "No".  In Buddhism, hell is [generally] not thought of as a physical place - it a condition caused by ignorance, hatred and attachment.
Take the concept: "If you kick a puppy, you'll go to hell."  From a Christian perspective, God will send you to hell for kicking the puppy.  From a Buddhist perspective, the action (karma) of you kicking the puppy will trigger a social backlash, guilt, and a chain of other negative events that may put your mind in a hell state.  Because of your hatred (at the puppy), ignorance (that kicking a puppy will have consequences) or attachment (to the rug the puppy peed on), you may end up suffering because of this action.
So how can a society behave with no concept of going to hell or external judgment?  In short, any attempt to answer that question will fail.  Humans are imperfect.  They will always be imperfect, under an all-seeing god or under a Buddhist philosophy.  The difference, I think, is that theistic religions rely on faith for cause and effect to be dealt, while Buddhism says that cause and effect is directly observable at all times.  Through discipline, you can gain some level of freedom from the suffering that comes from it.  But if you choose not to, then that's ok too - good luck!  (Though, we'd prefer if you at least didn't do harm)

To look at it simply....Fear based religion usually serves someone behind it that gains from your fear.  Buddhism only serves you because you are the only one that can be your salvation.  You are responsible for your own suffering.  You are the only one with the power to end your own suffering.

(Note: I'm not a Buddhist but I do study religions out an interest in evolutionary psychology as it applies to human culture. I know rather a bit about the evolution of different religion across time and throughout the world.)
All religions are based on the premise some sort of supernatural consequence for moral choices which no human can escape. Buddhism is no exception.
All religions have a stick of inescapable supernatural punishment for selfish behavioral choices and most provide a counterbalancing carrot of guaranteed supernatural reward for unselfish behavioral choices. The supernatural consequences provide a governing system on human behavior that functions independent of the individuals belief in their ability to gain materially or to escape the material consequences of their moral choices. Beggars and Kings alike face the same supernatural consequences. Worldly power will not protect one.
In Buddhism, the primary mechanism of consequence is Karma, a sort of automatic moral physics in which every moral action is reflected back on the individual in their next incarnation. Any harm that one causes in this life, is automatically inflicted in ones next life. Conversely, the good that one does in this life automatically improves one's fate in the next incarnation. Karma is clearly a carrot and stick moral enforcement mechanism.
In addition, Buddhism employs the ideas of reward in post-death supernatural states.
Nirvana, the state of eternal existence without self-awareness and thus desire and suffering, is the ultimate goal of all Buddhist. If one is faithful to Buddhist practices, one will eventually obtain enlightenment, understand the illusion of existence and escape, permanently, the wheel of reincarnation and suffering.
One makes Nirvana harder/further to obtain by acts of selfishness, the stick, and makes Nirvana easier/closer to obtain by acts of unselfishness.
In addition Buddhism since the earliest days, has held the concept of Naraka, which in the West is usually interpreted as a Buddhist hell or purgatory. It is an after life in which one is tortured for a vaguely long time, usually thousands of years, as a consequence of one's actions in material life. Clearly a stick. Pure Land Buddhism the predominate sect of Buddhism in the Far East, is so named because of its belief in heaven-like afterlife. Clearly a carrot.
In the contemporary West, the Buddhist heaven and hell analogs are downplayed or dismissed altogether even though they have ancient roots in the religion, and have concentrated almost exclusively on Karma.  Even so, a sincere contemporary Buddhist will still moderate their negative impulses out of a fear of inescapable Karmic consequence.
If you were describing the emotions of a contemporary Western Buddhist making a moral decision, it would be far to say the Buddhist makes unselfish decisions because he fears the Karmic consequences of making a selfish decisions. This is functionally identical to Christian making a decision out of a hope for heaven or a fear of hell.

"Nirvana, the state of eternal existence without self-awareness and thus desire and suffering"?

Which Buddhism? As an unqualified description of all the Buddhisms, this answer falls short.

I don't think it is. I'm not one for religions anyway as they sect based and that's not what the Buddha taught. His techniques of meditation are "practised" to overcome fear and other defilements. If we don't overcome them then the other option is be unaware of things happening around. Why sleep when you can be awakened to inner reality and hence find complete peace and develop compassion. Just my opinion from personal practice. So no it's not based on fear but yes does use fear as a tool to liberate oneself amongst other defilements.

Fear is to be overcome in Buddhism, though IIRC there's a point made in the abdhidharma that lacking good fear is a bad thing, an obstacle to practice.
So, internally speaking, Buddhist philosophy and religion is motivated by fear. If we cross the road to avoid traffic, then that it motivated by the traffic.
I have even, I think, seen it suggested that it's only fear of suffering which the Buddha conquered.
However, the idea of practicing Buddhism out of fear of bad karma is I think a fairly coarse understanding of the philosophy and religion.

no references here, which i can track down i hope if prompted !!! cheers :)

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


text:
Is there a way to help us remember our previous life?
There have been claims that some people can remember their previous life, their life before they are reborn. I can't say these are true or not.
Is it possible to remember our previous life?
If so, is there any method to help us remember our previous life through meditation or any other means?

We hardly remember our current life...

The Visuddhimagga provides a pretty comprehensive explanation of how one obtains this and all the other psychic powers mentioned by the Buddha. Briefly, the method is as follows:

Obtain the four rūpa-jhānas
Exit the fourth jhāna and remember the last thing one did before one sat down.
remember the last thing before the thing remembered in the last step. If at any time, one is unable to remember a given experience, one should revert to step one, and after leaving the fourth jhāna attempt to continue where one left off.
repeat step 3 until one is able to remember the first moment of conception.
Attempt to remember the last moment before conception (i.e. the death moment).

At this point, the Visuddhimagga says:

25. But the mentality-materiality in the previous existence has ceased without
  remainder and another has arisen, and consequently that instance is, as it were,
  shut away in darkness, and it is hard for one of little understanding to see it. Still
  he should not give up the task, thinking, “I am unable to remove the rebirth-linking and make the mentality-materiality that occurred at the death moment
  my object.” On the contrary, he should again and again attain that same basic
  jhāna, and each time he emerges he should advert to that instance.
26. Just as when a strong man is felling a big tree for the purpose of making
  the peak of a gable, but is unable to fell the big tree with an axe blade blunted by
  lopping the branches and foliage, still he does not give up the task; on the
  contrary, he goes to a smithy and has his axe sharpened, after which he returns
  and continues chopping the tree; and when the axe again gets blunt, he does as
  before and continues chopping it; and as he goes on chopping it in this way, the
  tree falls at length, because each time there is no need to chop again what has
  already been chopped and what has not yet been chopped gets chopped; so too,
  when he emerges from the basic jhāna, instead of adverting to what he has
  already adverted to, he should advert only to the rebirth-linking, and at length
  he removes the rebirth-linking and makes the mentality-materiality that occurred
  at the death moment his object. And this meaning should also be illustrated by
  means of the wood cutter and the hair-cutter as well.
Path of Purification (XIII.25-26)

I know a man who undertook this practice without really mastering the four jhānas, and he claims to have remembered bits and pieces of what he thinks was a past life. Not really reliable, but interesting nonetheless. Maybe you can let us know how it goes!

From the book: Being Nobody Going Nowhere by Ayya Khema

Chapter 7 - Kamma and Rebirth:
We also may get the idea to use each day to its fullest advantage. That means growth - spiritual, mental, emotional growth. It doesn´t mean rushing about and doing as many things as one can.
This is a far more important aspect of rebirth than thinking about one´s next life. What will happen next time is completely dependent upon what we are doing now, therefore only ´now´is important. ´Now´ is the cause, next life is the result. It´s also much more imprtant than trying to figure out what happened in one´s former birth. That is all over. That most of us can´t remember past lives has a good reason. We experience enough dissatisfaction in this life without having to resurrect the sufferings from earlier lives. A mind still battling with its present defilements is incapable of dealing with such double suffering.
Our rebirth this very morning can bring us that feeling of urgency which is an important ingredient of the spiritual life. Urgency arises when one knows true suffering, the urgency to do it now and not to wait.

Can I try a scientific approach?
It is clear for me that this is not a simple task and it must change one's life, one thing that would borrow me in the moment is: How can I know if this is a past life memory or just my unconscious mind playing a movie with some hidden stuff that I heard or read many years ago?
The unconscious mind is extremelly powerful and it knows much more than we think, including blocked memories from this life. I guess the key here is probably checking this past life, do some detective work, if you are able to find who you were it can significantly increase the chances of being a real memory from a past life

What if you could remember how you died? Would that still be some hidden memories from this life or at best, some forgotten dreams?

very hard to tell, that is exactly why I said we must investigate, the more evidence you gather the better, my point is: our unconscious mind can play tricks on us, so we must be careful :)

Yeah. Our eyes and mind can really play tricks on us. They say "You are the prisoner of your mind".

an excellent book I can recommend is the "interpretation of dreams" by Freud, he explains how the unconscious mind works when we sleep and he gives incredible details about how and why we dream the way we do, it is an amazing book if you wish to get insights on the unconscious mind.

I have read whereby people meditating on the 12-nidanas (12 links of dependent origination) have remembered their previous lives.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. A good way to increase the quality of an answer is to add references to other sources, preferable the buddhists texts. We have also a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.


text:
Why is the Buddha described as trackless?
In the Dhammapada, within the Buddhavagga section, the Buddha is described as being trackless.

By what track can you trace that trackless Buddha of limitless range,
  whose victory nothing can undo, whom none of the vanquished
  defilements can ever pursue?
By what track can you trace that trackless Buddha of limitless range,
  in whom exists no longer, the entangling and embroiling craving that
  perpetuates becoming?

I find the notion of the Buddha being trackless very evocative. But at the same time I'm not sure exactly what it points to. Can someone help me unpack that a little. What qualities of the Buddha does trackless point to?

I've updated my answer to this question - and referenced the essay I published this morning on the source of the epithet "trackless".

This is actually a mistranslation of the verse; Buddhist Legends by Burlingame is a bit better:

The Buddha, unlimited in power, the trackless.
By what track can you lead him?

In order to understand this verse, it might help to see the context; the Buddha is using poetry and imagery. Here's the Pali leading up to the verses in the commentary (it's about Mara's daughters):

puna māradhītaro “uccāvacā kho purisānaṃ adhippāyā, kesañci kumārikāsu pemaṃ hoti, kesañci paṭhamavaye ṭhitāsu, kesañci majjhimavaye ṭhitāsu, kesañci pacchimavaye ṭhitāsu, nānappakārehi taṃ palobhessāmā”ti ekekā kumārikavaṇṇādivasena sataṃ sataṃ attabhāve abhinimminitvā kumāriyo, avijātā, sakiṃ vijātā, duvijātā, majjhimitthiyo, mahallakitthiyo ca hutvā chakkhattuṃ bhagavantaṃ upasaṅkamitvā “pāde te, samaṇa, paricāremā”ti āhaṃsu.
tampi bhagavā na manasākāsi yathā taṃ anuttare upadhisaṅkhaye vimuttoti. atha satthā ettakenapi tā anugacchantiyo “apetha, kiṃ disvā evaṃ vāyamatha, evarūpaṃ nāma vītarāgānaṃ purato kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. tathāgatassa pana rāgādayo pahīnā. kena taṃ kāraṇena attano vasaṃ nessathā”ti vatvā imā gāthā abhāsi —

Burlingame translates this as follows:

Said the daughters of Māra again, “Many and various are the tastes of men. Some like maidens, others like women in the prime of life, others like women who have reached middle life, while still others like women who have passed middle life. We will tempt him in various forms.” So one after another, they assumed the forms of women of various ages, creating by supernatural power each a hundred female forms. And in the guise of maidens, women who had not yet given birth to a child, women who had given birth to one child, women who had given birth to two children, women who had reached middle life, and women who had reached old age, they approached the Exalted One six times and said to him, “Monk, we would be your humble slaves.”
But neither did the Exalted One pay any attention to that, but remained free, even as though the elements of being had been utterly destroyed. [197] But when, after that, they did not retire, the Teacher said to them, “Depart; what do you see, that you strive thus? Such actions as these should be performed before those who have not rid themselves of the lusts and other evil passions. The Tathāgata, however, has rid himself of the lusts and other evil passions. Why will ye try to bring me into your control?” So saying, he pronounced the following Stanzas,

The Buddha's answer in the verses includes the following statement:

taṃ buddhamanantagocaraṃ,
apadaṃ kena padena nessatha.

The actual literal translation is:

That Buddha whose pasture is limitless;
pathless, by which path will you lead?

The line is in regards to the imagery of a creature not limited by fences, thus with unlimited gocara (lit. pasture). Such a creature cannot be led anywhere, since it is not possible to contain them.
So, the mistranslations are as follows:
gocara should be "pasture", not "range" (it loses the imagery, if nothing else) and certainly not "power"
nessatha should be "lead", not "trace"

So, what is the actual meaning?
The commentary says:

kena padenāti yassa hi rāgapadādīsu ekapadampi atthi, taṃ tumhe tena padena nessatha. buddhassa pana ekapadampi natthi, taṃ apadaṃ buddhaṃ tumhe kena padena nessatha.
By what path - whereas those for whom there is even one path out of [all path] starting with the path of lust, them you may lead by that path. But for the Buddha there is not even one path; that pathless Buddha - by what path will you lead?

The meaning is clear; while it is possible to lead ordinary worldlings on by means of the carrot or the stick of defilements, there is no leading on of enlightened beings who have no such defilements.
A creature with a defined pasture can be led because of fences and ropes. A creature with a limitless pasture (like the Buddha) cannot be so led. The idea is then of not being drawn by defilements and thus with no definable path that mara can limit or goad one down.
Ultimately, it's just poetry (ancient poetry at that), and should not be taken literally. A proper understanding of the use of the word pada might require a knowledge of Maghadese colloquialisms 2500 years ago.

That's a tremendous answer. Thank you. Can i ask - what is the commentary that you are talking about. Is there one canonical commentary for the dhammapada or is it one in particular?

@CrabBucket The Dhammapada has one official Pali commentary, the Dhammapada Atthakatha. It and the vast majority of official Pali commentaries were written by the Sri Lankan monk Buddhagosa in the 5th century.
See A Field Guide to Post Canonical Pali Literature.

^^ the Buddhist Legends translation doesn't actually contain the word commentaries, just the stories.

Oh, I made a big mistake in my answer - I confused pada with pāda :P There isn't likely the wordplay I suggested. Answer edited.

What qualities of the Buddha does trackless point to?
The answer to this question seems to require extrapolation, so here goes my take on it.
I would say that, as the second verse mentions, the quality is the absence of craving. The full absence of craving implies the absence of the conceit "I am". With this in mind, if the Buddha himself doesn't identify with anything ("I am this, that, better, worse, equal, etc."), how can one find him? One can't, hence he is trackless. If something isn't there, then it's impossible to find it or it's tracks.

In this case apada ("stationless") means the same thing as animitta ("groundless", "unconditioned", "motiveless") and aniketa ("homeless"). This refers to what some modern practitioners like your faithful call "losing the form".
What it means exactly is that Buddha has no footing in any single standpoint or position. So you can't pinpoint Buddha and Buddha's realization, nor can Buddha ever get stuck. This is because anuttara-samyak-sambodhi involves going beyond the belief in silver bullet.

Trackless is a translation of apada. It's an adjective for the Buddha, but literally means "foot, foot-print" and thus a "sign" or "word" and by association "a path or track". A verse like Dhp 179 is said to consist of four feet (catu padāni) which is to say four measures of 9 or 11 syllables in a particular rhythmic pattern - I label the four a,b,c, & d.
The verbs used with it here are from the root √nī which does mean "lead" but also "take away".
However in verse 180 we see the following

yassa jālinī visattikā taṇhā n'atthi kuhiñci netave |180ab|
  He has no lust, clinging, or craving to take [him] anywhere.

Hence:

jitaṃ yassa no yāti koci loke |179b|
  "his victory does not go anywhere in the world"

And the verses ask:

kena padena nessatha? |179d = 180d|
  By what pada could he be taken?

The upshot is that taken together the verses seem to equate pada with craving for sense experience. An the Buddha is someone who does not have craving so he is apada. Craving is the agent that does the leading or taking away. The agent is not the path itself, though of course we have the English idiom of a path "leading" somewhere.
In these two verses, pada refers to the presence and apada to the absence of craving for sense experience. The Buddha is characterised by a lack of craving, he is apada.
And thus "trackless" as a translation obscures the connection between pada and craving. It's a rather obscure metaphor, but when the two verses are taken together it's clear enough what it means.
Update 4 Sept. I've now completed and published the essay I was working on for my blog when I wrote this answer. The Trackless One?
In this essay I show that "trackless" is probably not the correct translation of apada in this context. I establish this by examining every occurrence of the word in the Pāḷi suttas. It is used in precisely three contexts:

This is a very difficult idiom to understand. The idea that it is explained by "tracks" or "leaving  tracks" seems a bit far-fetched. There are three apparently unrelated uses:

When an animal has no feet, it is apada.
When the Buddha is without craving he is apada.
When Māra is without sight, blinded, he is also apada.

I think all three are in fact connected by an obscure metaphor which relies not on the "track" sense of pada, but on "foot". The arising of craving is what propels people towards the object of desire. If craving is the "foot" that propels people around, then the Buddha is "footless".

So I suggest the following reading:

The range of that awakened one is limitless
    By what footpath could you lead the footless?

I think this is a superior reading. It nicely exploits the ambiguity of pada in a play on words. We get something of the flavour of it by using "footpath" to juxtapose with "footless".

Yuttadhammo's explanation of this text, though extensive and highly rated, is wrong on many counts. He has not understood the metaphors at work in this text, nor clocked the word play involved.

I hope you don't mind, but I replaced some of your answer with a direct/block quote from the article you referenced (I thought this part of the article which I quoted explained the import of apada more clearly, for example without mentioning a snake). Please feel free to roll back (or improve on) this edit if you think it made the answer less clear.


text:
Problem concentrating during Vipassana meditation
I am having trouble maintaining concentration for long periods of time.
I make my breath slightly hard and then pull my mind back to it and then carry on as normal. But it's quite hard to have a long sustained period of breath observation.
Once maintained I try to move from head to feet taking large body parts such as head, abdomen, arms and legs. Do this for a while and then the mind wanders away again and come back to breath.
At times the mind wanders for long periods of time until I realise it's wandered away. I haven't been able to penetrate and observe smaller, subtler sensations since a year now.
I know it's harder to do this at home than at a retreat but I am wondering if this has something to do with my Silas.
Although they are not the most perfect I do try my best to maintain them.
Anyone stuck in similar phases and overcame it? Suggestions are welcome.
Ps. I am a Goenka student and very faithful towards it and have never tried anything else and don't intend to as I am very happy with the results this technique has brought me.

You're happy with the results of Goenka body-scanning, but you're having concentration trouble. It may be you should augment your Goenka work with something else, to helpyour  concentration. See @Eric.Void's answer on having a look at Alan Wallace's books; maybe try shamatha for a while. Consider that Jack Kornfield, a strong Vipassana practitioner, reports he suffered from poor concentration and it was pursuing some metta-based meditation that he overcame that. You may need to get some variety into your practice -- Goenka bodyscanning is only one of several quite respectable approaches.

When you breath be mindful of the start to end of the in and out breath. For each breath in and out breath be mindful of whether your mind wandered away during this time. Also note the length of the breath in and out breath.
When scanning the body keep your concentration anchored on the breath and sensation on the base of the nose as well. If your mind wanders away bring it back to Anapana and then continue the scanning. For each in and out breath see if your mind has wondered away for that period. Also note the sensations that arise when your mind wanders to an alternative object and the sensation when it is with the chosen object.
In some parts stay for a while (but not too long) also focusing on the breath. Sometimes this helps sharpen the mind to see clearly the sensation arising and passing away in the particular section of your body.

Is this samatha?

Firstly to my understanding Sila is very important part of a meditation practice. It purify the morality and ready your for the meditation.
If you have troubles with the meditation, I think the fist step is to start with Sila. Try to keep five precepts or the ten precepts. Without Sila, you cannot success with your meditation practice as it is the first step of the threefold training.
Secondly I think it is not a good idea to force yourself to keep the mind from wandering, if you try this you will find that over and over again the mind will wander. Be kind to the mind and let it to settle down. When you found it is wondered, just notice it accept it and bring it back to the meditation object.
Hope this helps.

Read Alan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind".
For short, practice shamata. Practice to focus your attention on the breath, and practice to keep your focus on it as long as you can. Even if you can't sustain it for more than a few seconds, keep practicing. If you can sustain your focus on the breath, you can sustain it in any other meditations.
If you want a more didactic explanation from someone trustworthy, read Wallace's book.


text:
Overwhelming states of being reached through meditation
I'm wondering what the Buddhist tradition might say about the following state of being. Firstly a bit of background, explaining how I got there and how it felt:
I practiced (what I understood to be) mindfulness meditation for six months through a simple book that came with a CD of guided meditations. It improved my life immeasurably. I got everything everyone says they do from the practice: More control of my life, less stress, more happiness, better resilience to the bad things that happen to us all. Even though I don't practice it anymore, I have taken this knowledge and understanding with me, and continue to apply it as best I can, without the aid of meditation itself.
The reason I stopped meditating is because of a series of events that pretty much left me temporarily unable to work (I'm absolutely fine now!). I experienced an incredibly intense emotional explosion in my chest during one meditation, and in my daily meditations after that I experienced what can only be described as immediate and overwhelming bliss. My meditations were shorter, but extremely powerful (and actually became the highlights of my day).
Unfortunately after a meditation of such power, I also found myself in a state of mind that was unable to work. I felt as if my ego wasn't quite ready to deal with the complexities of modern life, and rather than help my daily existence, this new state of mind became a hindrance. Talking to my clients on the phone, fielding their complicated questions, suddenly became a daunting task. And the part of my brain that allowed me to program websites (which is what I do for a living) was struggling to focus.
It was worrying. I didn't feel as though I was in control of these feelings, or sometimes, even myself (I remember one time talking to a friend about these new experiences, and being unable to stop myself from talking -- I literally kept interrupting him with my "insights", very unlike me).
Despite beginning as bliss, it quickly became a worrying experience.
I reluctantly stopped meditating and, after a few weeks, thankfully returned to my normal self (perhaps even better than I was before).
My question:
Does this experience have a name in Buddhist tradition? I have read about "Spiritual Crises", and indeed it appears that what I experienced matches the symptoms of that, but what IS that? I'm guessing in thousands of years of Buddhist study that there are answers? (Although, I must ask that if you're just guessing loosely, that you don't attempt to answer. Thanks.)
For example: This answer mentions the differences between two types of meditation: Calm abiding (Tib.: Shine, Skr.: Shamata) and insight meditation (Tib.: Lhaktong, Skr.: Vipassana), stating that the first is "safe" for everyone, while the latter could be damaging to certain individuals in certain situations.
And finally, as a side question, can someone who has experienced such a thing learn how to avoid re-experiencing it in the future and continue meditating? Or is that, as my girlfriend asserts, just playing with fire?

Yeah, sorry it's a bit meandering. I don't know how else to describe a state of being :-/

Can you maybe separate out the state and the question?

Sure, I'll give it a shot!

Ok, I've removed the self-helpy stuff and shortened the whole question down. Any better? I'd love to talk to a guru about my experience, but it's so hard to find one :(

Yeah, it's actually a pretty good question I think; hopefully you'll get some answers :)

This is seeking personal consulting, rather than asking a question. Even if one of us could provide some guidance I don't think it would be appropriate in this format.

@AndreiVolkov I agree that it's quite specific. I've updated it again. If I knew the correct terminology I'm guessing I could probably reduce the question into something very simple and broad. Unfortunately I don't, so I'm left with having to explain things in specific detail :-/ There's very clearly a question here, but maybe it's not appropriate for this SE?

I may have thought was my "normal self" when I wrote this, and maybe the initial intensity had worn off, but it actually took me 3/4 years to fully recover. Just reading this message would have spun me out for days (it's why I disconnected this account), it's only now that I truly feel back to normal.

First of all, I think your question has gotten worse at explaining your condition through your edits (sorry!).
In Theravada Buddhism, and really I think I speak for all of Buddhism when I say, the object is to understand reality as it is. This means you actually have to understand the experience before you can "fix" it. Actually, it means once you understand the experience, there will be no need to fix it.

Saddhāya tarati oghaṃ appamādena aṇṇavaṃ,
Viriyena dukkhaṃ acceti paññāya parisujjhatīti.
With confidence one crosses the flood, with vigilance the ocean;
With effort one overcomes suffering, with wisdom one is purified.
SN 10.12

So, first you need to purify your understanding. What is it you are exactly experiencing? What is really happening? The Buddha reminded us that understanding reality means breaking experience up into its constituent parts and seeing them just as they are (called Yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana). For example, in the Bahiya Sutta (Ud 6):

"diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissatī"ti. Evaṃ hi te bāhiya, sikkhitabbaṃ.
"In what is seen, there will be only what is seen; in what is heard, there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed, there will be only what is sensed, in what is thought, there will be only what is thought." Just so indeed should you train, Bahiya.

The Buddha explained that to the extent that Bahiya could train himself in this simple teaching, "tato tvaṃ, bāhiya, na tena" - "therefore, Bahiya, there will arise no 'you' because of that," which means that there would be no misinterpretation of the experience as "me", "mine", etc.
"To the extent," the Buddha continued, "that there arises no self," "tato tvaṃ, bāhiya, na tattha" - "to that extent, Bahiya, there will arise no 'you' in regards to that object." "To that extent," the Buddha concluded, "nevidha na huraṃ na ubhayamantarena. esevanto dukkhassa." - "there will be neither here nor there or anything in between. This indeed is the end of suffering."
So, let's examine what exactly you experienced, based on your words, in order to try and see it for what it is:

I experienced an incredibly intense emotional explosion in my chest

First of all, emotions are not in your chest, they are mental. What you experience in your chest is a physical symptom, maybe accompanying emotion, maybe not. It should be understood as it is (in our tradition, this means reminding yourself "feeling, feeling..." until it goes away).
Second, "incredibly intense" is a judgement - not bad in itself, but indicative of some emotional reaction to the experience. That too should be seen as it is ("disliking" or "upset", for example).

I experienced what can only be described as immediate and overwhelming bliss.

Bliss is either mental or physical (or both); either way, it is a feeling (vedana) and should be understood as it is ("happy, happy" or even "feeling, feeling")

My meditations were shorter, but extremely powerful (and actually became the highlights of my day).

This indicates some degree of attachment, which is a cause for addiction and should be understood as it is to stop it from escalating ("liking, liking").

I felt as if my ego wasn't quite ready to deal with the complexities of modern life, and rather than help my daily existence, this new state of mind became a hindrance.

This as well is a judgement, probably indicative of aversion. Even though a state may be objectively "bad", disliking just aggravates the condition. This should understood as it is ("disliking, disliking").

Talking to my clients on the phone, fielding their complicated questions, suddenly became a daunting task. And the part of my brain that allowed me to program websites (which is what I do for a living) was struggling to focus.

Sometimes struggling to focus on worldly things simply means you are unable to care about what has no intrinsic benefit; you may have to in that case force yourself to stop practicing in order to carry out the worldly duties as you see fit. In this case, though, it sounds like you probably have too much concentration and not enough effort. If the mind is unwieldy, inflexible, it will have trouble keeping up with reality and thus interacting with daily life. Insight meditation that focuses on mundane reality should help. If you truly are distracted (in the sense of the mind flitting to many different objects at once), then it probably has less to do with the meditation practice and more to do with your reactions to it that have led to anxiety, etc.

It was worrying.

States can't be worrying, you can just worry about them. Which is unwholesome and should be understood as it is to avoid escalating it ("worried, worried").

I didn't feel as though I was in control of these feelings, or sometimes, even myself (I remember one time talking to a friend about these new experiences, and being unable to stop myself from talking -- I literally kept interrupting him with my "insights", very unlike me).

Welcome to the world of non-self :) The Buddha said that aspects of experience are non-self, including nibbana. We simply fool ourselves into thinking we are in control, when in fact the most we can do is react (or not react, which would be better).
Interrupting your friend, on the other hand, is a sign of too much energy - probably accompanied by faith, and, as you say, insight. Energy, faith and insight can all become hindrances or imperfections of insight (vipassanupakkilesa) if you follow them without being self-aware and letting them go. It is important not to cling to any positive states that may arise; as you have learned, they can lead to problems in your daily life.
Hopefully this at least gives you some guide as to how you can better pinpoint what exactly you experienced; if you want help, you will need to be able to express what is happening on a momentary experiential basis; the present moment is just one moment, and it is the only moment that is of true importance:

Let one not go back to the past, nor worry about the future, for the
past is gone and the future unreached; but which phenomena arise here
and now, let one see clearly into them all.
This is unconquerable, this is unshakeable; knowing thus, let one so
devote oneself. Today, indeed, should one strive at the task; who
knows whether death comes tomorrow? There is no bargain to be made
with him, Death with his great army, But one who dwells thus ardently,
day and night untiringly, is said by the peaceful sage to have had a
blessed night.
-- The Buddha (MN 131)

Wow, I have a lot to learn. Thanks for sharing this. I will digest and consider what you've written. (Some quick notes: I meant "intense" as in "strong", just to help clarify -- there was nothing negative about the experience, aside from slight pain, and indeed I was very happy for having it -- but that it probably just as bad as being unhappy about having it. Lol! Also: After the experience during meditation, when I couldn't problem solve as well, I was in a different mental state. Something akin to how one might feel the day after an LSD experience -- if that's a useful point of reference.)

Additional note: Although I mentioned LSD, I only experienced this a three times in my life, when I was a teenager. It had nothing to do with the experience above.

I love the technique of drilling down to reality in the way you did in this answer.  It doesn't always handle things but it almost always reduces or eliminates suffering.

"First of all, emotions are not in your chest, they are mental."
Comments like this are incredibly unhelpful. I know I was polite when I first answered (I'm user446), but I thought this at the time, too. In my question I was simply describing my experience, not making statements about physiology.

I'm not equipped to answer this, but I can maybe give you some pointers to people who can, and maybe allay your fears.
Effects such as you are describing have been described in quite some detail by Daniel Ingram, Willoughby Britton (from both a practice and academic/clinical point of view), and others. If you don't get a good answer here (and even if you do), I recommend dharmaoverground.org, especially this sub-forum, where people are willing to offer guidance. Try to get answers specifically from Dan himself, and also Nikolai (there are several on there who seem to know this stuff, but those two do seem to be especially experienced).
Also look for Willoughby's stuff at Cheetah House (she specifically mentions the work difficulties you describe). And look for Dan's podcast interviews on Buddhist Geeks (several years ago now). Willoughby also speaks there. Here's the first of her two part interview.
The bottom line is, from what I read, what you've experienced seems to be not uncommon (some of the dharmaoverground folks seem to think it is inevitable if following a particular practice path, but I can't find broader support for that view), is almost always able to be worked through, but your best bet is to find a good teacher who either has experience of this kind of thing, or has been trained by someone who has.
See also the answer I gave here.
CAVEAT: Don't trust the internet any further than you can kick it -- and that includes dharmaoverground, this SE site, and indeed this post. Always cross reference, triangulate, and always always keep your common sense switched on.

Thanks Tommy. Some interesting reading (and sound advice). I've seen so much random nonsense when it comes to meditation online, and agree that you should always cross-reference whatever you read, and keep your own common sense turned on.

You may have experienced the first Jhana.

Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

If you master it you will be able to enter and exit it at will. Getting stuck in it is not uncommon. The same goes for choosing to stay in it because it is pleasant, which is seen as a hindrance to final liberation.
Speaking the dhamma or keeping 'noble silence' is also part of the Jhanic experience. This sounds similar to what you described. You struggled to talk about work but once you were able to share your experience you could not stop talking.
Fighting against our lifelong programming, like you described, can make this experience seem negative. If you want to keep trying to master Jhana, while still continuing to work and continuing to fit in nicely with society, I recommend finding a teacher. Otherwise you might continue to experience this state for extended periods while attempting to master it.

One thing to say right off is,  this experience you describe is not a head trip and no amount of impressive intellectual bs is likely to help convert this to the fertilizer it can be.  It is about mastery of the emotions.  Something big is emerging from your own mind and it aint going to be intellectualized away.  Ever.
The very well trained and experienced buddhism teacher Alan Wallace addresses "meditative experience" ie "nyam" at length. Sounds to me that is what you are encountering.   My own experiences are possibly very relevent too, they are consistent with Alans teaching.  Since they can be quite frightening and end up as fragmenting instead of powerfully beneficial it pays to get great guidance to be sure they end up as the unimaginably positive influence they can be.
One important point would be to get qualified guidance from a qualified teacher.  Meditation,  shamatha practice,  when it is working right, will "dredge up the rotting corpses from the mud of the psyche."  In fact when it does so it is a sign the practice is working.  However its so powerful and fragmenting its necessary to have guidance.  Otherwise we can be thrown off,  put off,  and even have our well being damaged.
I had prior experience from years of training in psychology ,  psychotherapy and seeking out the most challenging experiences possible for the sake of rapid efficient  personal growth.  Still I was knocked off my feet by the power and sense of "loss of control",  emotionally,  when I got the meditation practice working for me.
It takes an intrepid attitude and competent external support to get thru such experiences.  My finding was that the "gold",   beyond what I was capable if hoping or dreaming of followed immediately that fragmenting moments ....
don't know if its possible to contact posters thru this site ... feel free to if you would like more discussion

You experienced first two jhanas. Being accompanied with happiness. Yes it feels like explosion.
And you also experienced the third Jhana which is disturbing.
I recommend you to study Jhana meditation
This will help you to develop further

It so happened in progressing to higher stage of knowledge. Out of sixteen stage of knowledge regarding insight meditation, in the third stage it used to happen in somebody depending on the past merit. "intense emotional explosion in my chest"  and "overwhelming bliss" if you note "know it" repeatedly or if you cannot concentrate any more just remember Arahan (one of the qualities of Buddha) until you can concentrate again. By doing so you can attain higher stage of knowledge. If you dare not do by yourself alone, go to one of the retreat and in front of the meditation master you can try again. Surely there will be no problem.


text:
How long does it take for one to remember a previous life in a sitting?
I have always wondered how long does it take for one to remember a past life in a sitting, an immediate previous life for example, does it take just a few minutes, or hours or maybe days?
This answer briefed the following way to remember past lives:

Obtain the four rūpa-jhānas.
Exit the fourth jhāna and remember the last thing one did before one sat down.
Remember the last thing before the thing remembered in the last step. If at any time, one is unable to remember a given experience, one should revert to step one, and after leaving the fourth jhāna attempt to continue where one left off.
Repeat step 3 until one is able to remember the first moment of conception.
Attempt to remember the last moment before conception (i.e. the death moment).

Look at step 3, you have to remember the previous thing, and previous, and previous... Wow, how long would it take? Do we need to skip some huge steps (maybe 10 years of one's childhood) ? Or maybe the mind work lightningly faster when you are in that recollecting mode?

Personally I do not have any experience (I also like to have it though). Anyway according to my understanding the most difficult part is not step 3, it is step 1. Obtain the four rūpa-jhānas. If you can do it, I think the 3rd step is relatively easy compared to the 1st one.
If you somehow managed to go back to your previous life, then going backward from there is considered as relatively easy. Moving this life to previous one is the difficult task (As I have heard).
I heard several "Dhamma" talks around this topic and according to them if you are a good meditator and if you can practice the meditation most of the time, it is suggested a couple of years (it pretty much depends on you and your past Kamma).
Further, generally Buddhist meditators do not practice meditation focusing on getting these abilities.


text:
Afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism
Where does the ideology of afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism come from and why are they different?

Hinduism teaches about a permanent soul that goes from life to life until it reunites with the universal soul called the Mahabrahma.
Buddhism says there's no soul going even from this moment to the next, let alone from life to life. Both mind and body are processes of causes and effects. There's nothing permanent within you that can qualify as a soul. Read about Paticca Samuppada. Buddhism also rejects the belief of a universal soul.

Where does the ideology of afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism come from...

In Hinduism it comes from Vedas and Upanishadas and belief in that. Buddhism is way of life. It is not much about 'what after life?' It shows us better way to live. Nothing in Buddhism comes from blind faith on scriptures.

...why are they different?

They are different because both the religions are basically different. Buddhism is not just different from Hinduism but is essentially against Caste based discrimination which is core of Hinduism. Rebirth and after life are the central concepts in Hinduism. It is Brahminical religion which believes not on deeds but on birth.
I think I have tried to answer the question. Would like to know if I am wrong.

In Buddhism rebirth comes from the concept of mind.  The mind is a formless continuum.  Each moment of mind arises from the previous moment then subsides to give rise to the next.  Mind has a connection to the body but is separate.  It does not arise from the body.  Death is when the mind and the body's connection is severed.  At that point the mind does not cease but rather gives rise to other appearances.  First the bardo, the intermediate state, and then rebirth in a new life.
This can be understood by analogy to dreams.  When we sleep the appearance of our waking life dissolves.  Latter in the night a dream world appears.  That lasts for some time then dissolves and another dream world may arise.  Each appears real and we relate to them.  Then we wake and our waking life appears.  Going from life to life is much like going from dream to dream.

Mind arises because of the body most of the time. If you don't have eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body you will have very few thoughts in your mind.
The mind cannot stay separate from the body unless you are born in one of the four Arupa realms.